Rate The Last Movie You Watched - Page 64

DeToxRox · 05-04-2009, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Yeah, I think that's exactly why people think this movie is anything but overlong and boring: because Tarantino did it.

I'm a big fan of the guy, but this movie just doesn't work. Where the inane conversations about "Big Macs" in Amsterdam or about foot massages in "Pulp Fiction" were funny and interesting, and all the dialogue in the diner scene at the begining of "Reservoir Dogs" was fantastic, whatever the hell the people were talking about in "Death Proof" was just dull, boring, over acted and went on far too long.

The only reason I kept watching it was becuase I was mildly interested to see how it ended (very poorly) and I really don't get tired of watching Rosario Dawson.

I also don't see the need to make an homage film of what were, originally, quite shitty films.

Death Proof was a letdown for me as well. I saw Grindhouse in the theater, and Planet Terror was just awesome. Non stop action. Then you had the excellent trailers they did, and then Death Proof was on last. We were at the Midnight show so it was pushing 2 or 2:30 AM when Death Proof started. It was just too slow. The action scenes were great, but there weren't that many. I think Tarantino's idea was to make a movie that slowed everything down so people didn't get burnt out after PT, but all it did was make people fall asleep.

There was some clever dialogue at times, but nothing worth mentioning. Just not a very good movie.

Thankfully Inglorious Bastards looks amazing.

larrymcg421 · 05-04-2009, 02:37 PM

I actually liked Death Proof more than Planet Terror. Rodriguez kinda cheated by not really doing an honest Grindhouse movie. It was more of a spoof, as the whole thing played like a joke throughout. There was alot of action, but none of it was really exciting. Tarantino actually made a grindhouse film, filled with lingering shots of hot chicks and an exciting car chase conclusion that double backed on itself.

Lorena · 05-04-2009, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Add me to the choir. "Death Proof" was horrible beyond words.

+1 a billion times over

Whoa, did we just agree on another movie? What's goin' on here?

chinaski · 05-04-2009, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorena

Timecrimes - 8.5/10

Was a little slow at first, but once the naked chick shows up, the movie gets better. I recommend watching it with subtitles as the voice over actors were baaaaaaaaaad.

EDIT: Watched it a second time w/ subtitles and it was much more enjoyable. The amount of detail is just awesome, they didn't overlook anything.

Just saw it today, good stuff. Im going a little lower with it though, Timecrimes - 7/10.

I had a hard time with the time traveling, cant wrap my overly literal mind around the concept I guess.

Lorena · 05-04-2009, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaski

Just saw it today, good stuff. Im going a little lower with it though, Timecrimes - 7/10.

I had a hard time with the time traveling, cant wrap my overly literal mind around the concept I guess.

Yeah neither could I. I originally rated it a 6.5 but after a second viewing, a lot of stuff made more sense. If you watch it a second time, you'll notice little details here and there that were missed the first time around.

Spoiler

ISiddiqui · 05-07-2009, 12:12 AM

X-Men Origins: Wolverine: 4/10 - Not very good at all. The plot was a mess. Introduced a number of characters, didn't develop them at all, and then dumped them. The biggest new character, Gambit, while played fairly well by Riggins (he's always Riggins), was basically there to blow some shit up and that's it.

Some great unintentional humor as this movie has some of the most obvious scene-chewing parts ever. If it was a parody, it'd be perfect. But I think they were playing it straight. Oh well.

Explosions are always fun. But, all in all, not that good at all.

RainMaker · 05-07-2009, 06:12 AM

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (7 out of 10) - This is one of the toughest movies to review because there are such contrasting elements to it. The movie automatically gets a decent score simply because just about every technical aspect of it is fantastic. The music, scenery, and makeup. They match each era perfectly and have amazing attention to detail. I thought Brad Pitt was real good as well as the entire supporting cast. My only gripe on the casting side is Cate Blanchett. Just never really dug her role. Actually think Kate Beckinsale or someone would have been better in that role.

Now for the bad, I'll say the whole script. I found out afterwards that the screenplay writer and director never read the short story. They missed one of the most important aspects of it. The fact that Benjamin was wise when he was born. The movie runs long and has a lot of unnecessary scenes (the lightning guy, the guy who asks him to mail his wife the money, etc). The love story also came across kind of weak and I never really felt the strong attraction there (not to mention the creepiness of the child and old man having that connection). The narrative behind it with the dying Mother with her daughter has been played out before (and what was the point of the hurricane?).

It's one of those movies that the studios probably sat down, got a great cast, got great everything else, and just had a shitty screenplay. It felt like a movie that was done just to win an Oscar. Sadly, it could have been good enough to do so with a halfway decent script. I give it a 7 for it's uniqueness and technical brilliance. But this was a huge disappointment for me.

rowech · 05-08-2009, 10:22 PM

Star Trek (10/10) -- simply fantastic.

LoneStarGirl · 05-09-2009, 11:48 AM

Seven Pounds 6/10 I had heard great reviews of this movie so I went in with great expectations, but when the movie ended, I thought, really, is that it? The movie was extremely predictable, within the first 2 minutes I told GoldenEagle exactly what happened to make Will Smith act the way he did.
I love Woody Harrelson and Will Smith is pretty cute, but those were the only upsides to the movie.

LoneStarGirl · 05-09-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by path12

Marley and Me (incomplete) I couldn't finish the last 10 minutes or so of the movie because I was busy sobbing uncontrollably and hugging my dog. Cute up to then.

Why the fuck anyone would OWN and watch this more than once is beyond me.

I felt the exact same way during I AM LEGEND. I'll never watch Marley & Me or I am Legend again

ISiddiqui · 05-12-2009, 10:11 AM

Star Trek - 8/10: I'm not a trekkie. I only know a bit about the backstory. I know the players, but that's about it really. I really enjoyed this movie. I know it is more of an action movie than most Trek stuff, but for a newbie to the series, it was pretty cool. The acting was really good from Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto and the supporting staff did a decent job as well (Simon Pegg as Scotty was absolutely hilarious). I liked the plot and the time travel seemed to work well, as well as give a bit of leeway to Abrams in writing the Starfleet he wanted to rather than being trapped in by Roddenberry's vision.

Neon_Chaos · 05-15-2009, 12:36 PM

CRAP.

3 malls and 10 cinemas SOLD OUT for Angels and Demons here in Manila.

Even the 12:30 AM last full show was sold out. THE MOVIE IS AROUND 2:45... people will go home at around 4am just to watch it!

larrymcg421 · 05-15-2009, 12:46 PM

Star Trek (7/10) - I really liked the casting (particularly inspired choice for Scotty) and think they will make a terrific new ensemble. It was good fast paced action and some really funny moments. However, this one didn't quite work for me as much as it did others. Some of the humor was a bit too silly, and I thought the machinations they went through to justify Kirk taking over as captain were a little too contrived. Still enjoyed it, and look forward to the next one.

Slumdog Millionaire (7/10) - Once again, this is a movie I didn't like nearly as much as the reputation it gets. Sure, it's stylish, well acted, and is a great underdog story. Where I think it is less successful is the romance, which I think wouldn't be very compelling at all if not for the structure that Boyle uses. The chemistry just didn't seem to be there either, mainly because the reserved nature of the main character made it seem mor elike he was solving a crime than finding a long lost love.

ISiddiqui · 05-15-2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

The chemistry just didn't seem to be there either

This is more amusing due to the fact that the main leads are now dating apparently

larrymcg421 · 05-15-2009, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is more amusing due to the fact that the main leads are now dating apparently

Sure, but chemistry in real life doesn't necessarily translate to chemistry on screen.

Lorena · 05-15-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

CRAP.

3 malls and 10 cinemas SOLD OUT for Angels and Demons here in Manila.

Even the 12:30 AM last full show was sold out. THE MOVIE IS AROUND 2:45... people will go home at around 4am just to watch it!

I was really, really looking forward to this movie but Rotten Tomatoes has rated it at 38% (!!!). Sorta sucks the book was pretty damn awesome, doesn't seem like they did it justice.

ISiddiqui · 05-15-2009, 03:57 PM

Was it "pretty damn awesome" like 'Da Vinci Code'?

Lorena · 05-15-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Was it "pretty damn awesome" like 'Da Vinci Code'?

As good as UHF.

In all seriousness, The Da Vinci Code book was very mediocre (the movie was even more) compared to Angels and Demons.

rowech · 05-15-2009, 04:31 PM

Zach and Miri Make a Porno (6/10) -- Thought it was fairly blah. Very predictable and many of the jokes just didn't bring laughs even though I recognized they were supposed to be jokes.

Swaggs · 05-15-2009, 06:17 PM

I still can't believe how poor Hanks was in the DaVinci Code. You never expect for him to be the weak link in a movie, but he really drug that one down.

ISiddiqui · 05-15-2009, 06:44 PM

Doubt - 8/10: Didn't see the play before hand, so it was all new to me. Really well done, with some strong, strong acting from Philip Seymour Hoffman, Merryl Streep, and Amy Adams. It'll really make you think about assumptions you make and whether or not you've been too harsh in making them.

UHF - 4/10: Was alright I guess, but slapstick that seemed to fail. Mel Brooks just does it so much better. But Victoria Jackson was HOT back then, wow!

RainMaker · 05-16-2009, 05:16 AM

The Wrestler (9 out of 10) - Lived up to the hype in my book. Rourke was brilliant and the film did the little things so well. Enjoyed how they made it realistic and portrayed this odd world of older wrestlers so well. As someone who has seen this and Milk now, I think the Oscar should have gone to Rourke. Both were amazing in their roles, but there was something about Rourke playing that character that just grabbed me. He is that whole movie.

Slumdog Millionaire (8 out of 10) - I really liked the movie. With that said, I don't think it's Oscar quality. It seems 2008 was filled with a lot of really great movies, but none that stood out as an Oscar winning film. It was a little out there at times but had great acting and directing. Just an all around good movie that any audience would enjoy. I guess the one thing that annoyed me was the "feel good" nature of it. Tried too hard to appease people and could have gone a different direction at the end that would have made it a better movie.

Chief Rum · 05-16-2009, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorena

I was really, really looking forward to this movie but Rotten Tomatoes has rated it at 38% (!!!). Sorta sucks the book was pretty damn awesome, doesn't seem like they did it justice.

Lorena, if you loved the book, I recommend ignoring the rating and go check it out. I loved the book, too, a lot more than The Da Vinci Code, and this movie does a much better job of sticking to the book.

The one notable thing they changed that I can recall was a move that improved the movie from the book version, too, strangely enough.

The movie isn't as good as the book, of course (what movie is as good as its source book), but it's fairly good fun, and telling a story you already know you like.

Logan · 05-16-2009, 06:42 PM

Angels & Demons - 7/10

I thought it was actually well done. We all knew going in that this would make a better movie than DVC due to the fast pacing of the story and it delivered. Agree with CR in that much of the story did stay true, but I think a couple of the deviations went too far. I'll spoiler them for anyone who wants to read the book:

Spoiler

Chief Rum · 05-16-2009, 06:47 PM

Yup, Logan, the last part of your spoiler text is exactly what I was referring to for what they actually improved on from the book.

Alan T · 05-16-2009, 06:51 PM

Went to see Angels and Demons last night as well. I loved it. Of course I loved Davinci Code too, which you all just got done talking bad about.. so maybe I am not a good judge for you

Chief Rum · 05-16-2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan T

Went to see Angels and Demons last night as well. I loved it. Of course I loved Davinci Code too, which you all just got done talking bad about.. so maybe I am not a good judge for you

I liked The Da Vinci Code, both movie and book, to a point, too, Alan. But that story was always just okay with me. A & D was always the premier Brown book, IMO, in terms of excitement and quality story telling.

Lorena · 05-17-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I liked The Da Vinci Code, both movie and book, to a point, too, Alan. But that story was always just okay with me. A & D was always the premier Brown book, IMO, in terms of excitement and quality story telling.

Yup, same here. The Da Vinci Code was ok, but Angels and Demons was so fast paced and I couldn't put the book down. Before The Da Vinci Code movie came out, I thought Angels and Demons would make a much better movie because of the pacing.

Anyway, I'll probably end up waiting for it on DVD, gives me a chance to re-read the book.

Lorena · 05-23-2009, 02:02 PM

The Birds - 5.5/10

I thought it was very slow with not much happening. I thought it'd get better as it went on but was proven wrong.

Lorena · 05-23-2009, 02:14 PM

Not sure if I rated these but:

Night Watch 7/10 - Russian vampire movie involving a battle between the light and dark. Awesome visual effects, nothing like we've seen here in the states. I think some stuff was lost in translation though, but it's still a pretty decent movie.

Day Watch 8.5/10 - Sequel to Night Watch. I felt this was a much better story. Had the same impressive visual effects, can't wait for the final film in this trilogy!

Star Trek - 8.5/10 - Wow, non-stop action! As a non Trekkie, I really enjoyed this film, but thought I would have enjoyed it more if I knew more about the characters.

ISiddiqui · 05-23-2009, 02:30 PM

Appaloosa - 8/10: A very well done Western. Blending in pre-"Unforgiven" and after-"Unforgiven" characters (Viggo Mortenson's character appears to be the only pre-"Unforgiven" type though). Nicely plotted (I expect my Westerns to be a bit slower) and very well acted. Harris, Mortenson, Irons and Zellweger all played their parts absolutely perfectly. Harris is just amazing in his role and Irons is always fun as a villian.

JonInMiddleGA · 05-23-2009, 06:33 PM

Night at the Museum: Battle for the Smithsonian - 7/10

Scoring it based on what it set out to do, it's fine. It doesn't have the fun factor of the original to me, I think that's mostly a function of us already being in on the gimmick. The jokes are good enough, the pacing is quite good (rare that I say a movie seemed shorter than it was), but they really seemed to have too many characters packed into not enough time. Zero character development really. Almost like watching Airplane for the brief appearances, longer than cameos sometimes but nowhere near long enough for anything more than a quick "hey, isn't that ..."

And can I be the next to say that the camera just really really like Amy Adams? Kind of the epitomy of cute on screen or something.

Like I said, nothing wrong with it standing alone as a Saturday afternoon family comedy, but it ain't the original. And any part 3 might be closer to straight to DVD than blockbuster.

ISiddiqui · 05-23-2009, 11:57 PM

Terminator: Salvation - 6/10: It wasn't a good movie, but it didn't suck either. Maybe that's low expectations when walking into the theater talking, but I kind of like the redemption storyline. And there were plenty of explosions. I liked some of the call backs to earlier movies as well. Though the story was simplistic and not all that great.

On a side note, Anton Yelchin is making some $$ this summer. First as Chekov on Star Trek and then Kyle Reese in Terminator.

rowech · 05-24-2009, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorena

The Birds - 5.5/10

I thought it was very slow with not much happening. I thought it'd get better as it went on but was proven wrong.

I always liked this movie but have always felt it wasn't quite the movie folks think it is. If you want the best Hitchcock movie, pick up "North by Northwest"

Lorena · 05-24-2009, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korme

Just watched The Birds (63) for the first time, didn't like the ending. Anyone care to elaborate with spoiler tags why it ended the way it did?

Spoiler

Lorena · 05-24-2009, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech

I always liked this movie but have always felt it wasn't quite the movie folks think it is. If you want the best Hitchcock movie, pick up "North by Northwest"

Thanks, definitely gonna check it out.

panerd · 05-24-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai

The Strangers 5/10

It's also hilarious when you look up the "true story" that inspired the film. They'll reach for anything just so that can throw "true story" on the screen. I should penalize it a few more points for that.
.

Yeah, so the director had neighboring empty homes broken into and burglarized in his neighborhood as a kid and that is the inspiration for a story about murderers who terrorize a couple?

DataKing · 05-24-2009, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech

I always liked this movie but have always felt it wasn't quite the movie folks think it is. If you want the best Hitchcock movie, pick up "North by Northwest"

I personally find Vertigo slightly preferable to North by Northwest, but both are excellent.

Julio Riddols · 05-25-2009, 12:35 AM

Star Trek (9.0/10)- I didn't think I'd see a movie that would make me feel as happy as the G.I. Joe trailer made me feel sad..

But then the feature played.

All I could think afterwards is that J.J. Abrams should have done both films.

If anyone has yet to see the previews of the G.I. Joe flick, its the most awful looking shit I have ever seen. Doesn't even remind me of G.I. Joe. I could not believe my eyes how retarded it looked, considering the fans of that show are now firmly entrenched in their 20's and 30's and their use of over the top special effects to make the movie seem "cool" was just annoying.

As for my favorite thing about Star Trek? Bones. So well played.

rowech · 05-25-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Star Trek (9.0/10)- I didn't think I'd see a movie that would make me feel as happy as the G.I. Joe trailer made me feel sad..

But then the feature played.

All I could think afterwards is that J.J. Abrams should have done both films.

If anyone has yet to see the previews of the G.I. Joe flick, its the most awful looking shit I have ever seen. Doesn't even remind me of G.I. Joe. I could not believe my eyes how retarded it looked, considering the fans of that show are now firmly entrenched in their 20's and 30's and their use of over the top special effects to make the movie seem "cool" was just annoying.

As for my favorite thing about Star Trek? Bones. So well played.

Agreed...it looks like they decided to make GI Joe a bunch of superheroes.

Neon_Chaos · 05-25-2009, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech

Agreed...it looks like they decided to make GI Joe a bunch of superheroes.

But... they were.

Well, immortal at least.

Honolulu_Blue · 05-25-2009, 09:15 AM

Star Trek - 8/10

A very entertaining movie. The new cast was excellent, in particular, Bones and Kirk. They just nailed it. A great "re-boot" of the franchise. There were somethings that didn't work. The whole "Scotty in the water tubes" thing was pretty stupid, especially since they just had a similar frantic type scene with Kirk being chased by the various snow monsters.

The one thing I found very silly was the set-up for everything. Perhaps I will discuss that in the Star Trek movie thread with appropriate spoilers tabs and such.

Sublime 2 · 05-25-2009, 09:59 AM

Quantum of Solace - 6.5/10

I watched it over two nights, which may have had something to do with the rating. I was entertained enough. But overall it was a good movie that I probably won't re-watch.

Atocep · 05-29-2009, 07:39 PM

Up - 8/10

Very good, but not great movie. It moves at a good pace and the characters are well done. Quite a bit of action. Good humor, although I think there's more humor that falls flat with adults in this movie than their other films. It's definitely on par with Pixar's best but after reading some of the reviews I was expecting something amazing so my expectations were probably too high. Still a movie I'd recommend if you're a fan of Pixar's other movies.

Sublime 2 · 05-29-2009, 09:08 PM

Star Trek - 8.5/10

I brought my pops to see this, as he is a big ST fan, and he walked away happy. My only real ST experience is with The Next Generation and I was VERY entertained by this movie. The Spock/Kirk relationship was fun to see, and I liked the Bones & Scotty castings.

sabotai · 05-29-2009, 10:36 PM

Der Untergang (Downfall) 8.5/10

A great movie about the last days of Hitler and those around him. Read some comments from some critics about how they made Hitler into a bit of a sympathetic character, but I didn't see that at all. The Hitler in the movie is simply a realistic portrayal. He was nice to his followers (including his secretaries). He loved dogs. He was also an unbelievable monster and maniac, and the film captures that very well. (Bruno Ganz is incredible as Hitler) The Hitler in this film is in no way a sympathetic character. The rest of the cast also does a great job. An absolute must see movie, especially for those interested in WWII.

Tigercat · 05-29-2009, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai

[b]Read some comments from some critics about how they made Hitler into a bit of a sympathetic character, but I didn't see that at all.

They made him out to be human, which as far as we know he was. Just because they didn't put horns on his head and have him yell out "kill, kill, KILL!" every 5 seconds, doesn't mean he is a sympathetic character...

Downfall is one of my top movies of the last 5 years, great film. It makes the horrors and existence of Nazi Germany seem more understandable. But there is little sympathy to be had for Hitler or his strongest followers in the film. I think the icing on the cake for showing the Nazi's as villainous was the murder of little children in their sleep. Don't know how any viewer can see an attempt at sympathy around those types of actions.

Groundhog · 05-30-2009, 01:02 AM

Three Kings - 8/10

Had never seen this before last night. The bottle of Chivas we all polished off while watching it has made my memory a little foggy, but really enjoyed this film.

stevew · 05-30-2009, 12:57 PM

Killshot-4/10
A total mess, no wonder it didn't release for like 3 years after it was done. As a bit of an Elmore Leonard fan I was somewhat interested. Basically no reason to watch this movie, but if it was on it's just interesting enough to keep you watching.

stevew · 05-30-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai

Der Untergang (Downfall) 8.5/10

A great movie about the last days of Hitler and those around him. Read some comments from some critics about how they made Hitler into a bit of a sympathetic character, but I didn't see that at all. The Hitler in the movie is simply a realistic portrayal. He was nice to his followers (including his secretaries). He loved dogs. He was also an unbelievable monster and maniac, and the film captures that very well. (Bruno Ganz is incredible as Hitler) The Hitler in this film is in no way a sympathetic character. The rest of the cast also does a great job. An absolute must see movie, especially for those interested in WWII.

This is the one that they use to do the various "Hitler is pissed off about X" youtube clips, right?

05-04-2009, 02:37 PM	#3152
larrymcg421 Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Georgia	I actually liked Death Proof more than Planet Terror. Rodriguez kinda cheated by not really doing an honest Grindhouse movie. It was more of a spoof, as the whole thing played like a joke throughout. There was alot of action, but none of it was really exciting. Tarantino actually made a grindhouse film, filled with lingering shots of hot chicks and an exciting car chase conclusion that double backed on itself. __________________ Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner

05-07-2009, 12:12 AM	#3156
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	X-Men Origins: Wolverine: 4/10 - Not very good at all. The plot was a mess. Introduced a number of characters, didn't develop them at all, and then dumped them. The biggest new character, Gambit, while played fairly well by Riggins (he's always Riggins), was basically there to blow some shit up and that's it. Some great unintentional humor as this movie has some of the most obvious scene-chewing parts ever. If it was a parody, it'd be perfect. But I think they were playing it straight. Oh well. Explosions are always fun. But, all in all, not that good at all. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

05-12-2009, 10:11 AM	#3161
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Star Trek - 8/10: I'm not a trekkie. I only know a bit about the backstory. I know the players, but that's about it really. I really enjoyed this movie. I know it is more of an action movie than most Trek stuff, but for a newbie to the series, it was pretty cool. The acting was really good from Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto and the supporting staff did a decent job as well (Simon Pegg as Scotty was absolutely hilarious). I liked the plot and the time travel seemed to work well, as well as give a bit of leeway to Abrams in writing the Starfleet he wanted to rather than being trapped in by Roddenberry's vision. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

05-15-2009, 12:36 PM	#3162
Neon_Chaos Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Parañaque, Philippines	CRAP. 3 malls and 10 cinemas SOLD OUT for Angels and Demons here in Manila. Even the 12:30 AM last full show was sold out. THE MOVIE IS AROUND 2:45... people will go home at around 4am just to watch it! __________________ Come and see.

05-15-2009, 12:46 PM	#3163
larrymcg421 Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Georgia	Star Trek (7/10) - I really liked the casting (particularly inspired choice for Scotty) and think they will make a terrific new ensemble. It was good fast paced action and some really funny moments. However, this one didn't quite work for me as much as it did others. Some of the humor was a bit too silly, and I thought the machinations they went through to justify Kirk taking over as captain were a little too contrived. Still enjoyed it, and look forward to the next one. Slumdog Millionaire (7/10) - Once again, this is a movie I didn't like nearly as much as the reputation it gets. Sure, it's stylish, well acted, and is a great underdog story. Where I think it is less successful is the romance, which I think wouldn't be very compelling at all if not for the structure that Boyle uses. The chemistry just didn't seem to be there either, mainly because the reserved nature of the main character made it seem mor elike he was solving a crime than finding a long lost love. __________________ Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner Last edited by larrymcg421 : 05-15-2009 at 12:47 PM.

05-07-2009, 06:12 AM	#3157
RainMaker Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Chicago, IL	The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (7 out of 10) - This is one of the toughest movies to review because there are such contrasting elements to it. The movie automatically gets a decent score simply because just about every technical aspect of it is fantastic. The music, scenery, and makeup. They match each era perfectly and have amazing attention to detail. I thought Brad Pitt was real good as well as the entire supporting cast. My only gripe on the casting side is Cate Blanchett. Just never really dug her role. Actually think Kate Beckinsale or someone would have been better in that role. Now for the bad, I'll say the whole script. I found out afterwards that the screenplay writer and director never read the short story. They missed one of the most important aspects of it. The fact that Benjamin was wise when he was born. The movie runs long and has a lot of unnecessary scenes (the lightning guy, the guy who asks him to mail his wife the money, etc). The love story also came across kind of weak and I never really felt the strong attraction there (not to mention the creepiness of the child and old man having that connection). The narrative behind it with the dying Mother with her daughter has been played out before (and what was the point of the hurricane?). It's one of those movies that the studios probably sat down, got a great cast, got great everything else, and just had a shitty screenplay. It felt like a movie that was done just to win an Oscar. Sadly, it could have been good enough to do so with a halfway decent script. I give it a 7 for it's uniqueness and technical brilliance. But this was a huge disappointment for me.

05-08-2009, 10:22 PM	#3158
rowech Pro Starter Join Date: Feb 2006	Star Trek (10/10) -- simply fantastic.

05-09-2009, 11:48 AM	#3159
LoneStarGirl College Starter Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Little Rock, AR	Seven Pounds 6/10 I had heard great reviews of this movie so I went in with great expectations, but when the movie ended, I thought, really, is that it? The movie was extremely predictable, within the first 2 minutes I told GoldenEagle exactly what happened to make Will Smith act the way he did. I love Woody Harrelson and Will Smith is pretty cute, but those were the only upsides to the movie.

05-15-2009, 03:57 PM	#3167
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Was it "pretty damn awesome" like 'Da Vinci Code'? __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

05-15-2009, 04:31 PM	#3169
rowech Pro Starter Join Date: Feb 2006	Zach and Miri Make a Porno (6/10) -- Thought it was fairly blah. Very predictable and many of the jokes just didn't bring laughs even though I recognized they were supposed to be jokes.

05-15-2009, 06:17 PM	#3170
Swaggs Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	I still can't believe how poor Hanks was in the DaVinci Code. You never expect for him to be the weak link in a movie, but he really drug that one down. __________________ DOWN WITH HATTRICK!!! The RWBL Are you reading In The Bleachers?

05-15-2009, 06:44 PM	#3171
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Doubt - 8/10: Didn't see the play before hand, so it was all new to me. Really well done, with some strong, strong acting from Philip Seymour Hoffman, Merryl Streep, and Amy Adams. It'll really make you think about assumptions you make and whether or not you've been too harsh in making them. UHF - 4/10: Was alright I guess, but slapstick that seemed to fail. Mel Brooks just does it so much better. But Victoria Jackson was HOT back then, wow! __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

05-16-2009, 05:16 AM	#3172
RainMaker Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Chicago, IL	The Wrestler (9 out of 10) - Lived up to the hype in my book. Rourke was brilliant and the film did the little things so well. Enjoyed how they made it realistic and portrayed this odd world of older wrestlers so well. As someone who has seen this and Milk now, I think the Oscar should have gone to Rourke. Both were amazing in their roles, but there was something about Rourke playing that character that just grabbed me. He is that whole movie. Slumdog Millionaire (8 out of 10) - I really liked the movie. With that said, I don't think it's Oscar quality. It seems 2008 was filled with a lot of really great movies, but none that stood out as an Oscar winning film. It was a little out there at times but had great acting and directing. Just an all around good movie that any audience would enjoy. I guess the one thing that annoyed me was the "feel good" nature of it. Tried too hard to appease people and could have gone a different direction at the end that would have made it a better movie. Last edited by RainMaker : 05-16-2009 at 05:21 AM.

05-16-2009, 06:42 PM	#3174
Logan Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: NYC	Angels & Demons - 7/10 I thought it was actually well done. We all knew going in that this would make a better movie than DVC due to the fast pacing of the story and it delivered. Agree with CR in that much of the story did stay true, but I think a couple of the deviations went too far. I'll spoiler them for anyone who wants to read the book: Spoiler - The biggest, by far, being that they eliminated the reveal that the Camerlengo was the Pope's real son. Yeah it was kind of a stretch in the book that the Pope would have a child through artificial insemination, but it made sense in the context of his appreciation of science and his desire to unite it with religion. More importantly, the Camerlengo's realization that he killed his real father was one of the best parts of the book in my opinion. - The 4th Cardinal living. Not sure why they went this route...to have a more happy ending? - I was fine with them making the other scientist not be Vittoria's father, and the antimatter not being a secret between them two. But why make the Illuminati ambigram appear just as a page sent to the Vatican instead of being branded on whatever movie Leonardo was called? - Speaking of ambigram, not sure why they eliminated the Illuminati diamond. That thing was just friggin cool. - The best deviation, of course, was not having Langdon plummeting out of that helicopter. Weakest part of the book, and it seemed like something they would add into a movie instead of taking it away. Good job.

05-16-2009, 06:47 PM	#3175
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	Yup, Logan, the last part of your spoiler text is exactly what I was referring to for what they actually improved on from the book. __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

05-16-2009, 06:51 PM	#3176
Alan T Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mass.	Went to see Angels and Demons last night as well. I loved it. Of course I loved Davinci Code too, which you all just got done talking bad about.. so maybe I am not a good judge for you __________________ Couch to ??k - From the couch to a Marathon in roughly 18 months.

05-23-2009, 02:02 PM	#3179
Lorena Unregistered Join Date: May 2004	The Birds - 5.5/10 I thought it was very slow with not much happening. I thought it'd get better as it went on but was proven wrong.

05-23-2009, 02:14 PM	#3180
Lorena Unregistered Join Date: May 2004	Not sure if I rated these but: Night Watch 7/10 - Russian vampire movie involving a battle between the light and dark. Awesome visual effects, nothing like we've seen here in the states. I think some stuff was lost in translation though, but it's still a pretty decent movie. Day Watch 8.5/10 - Sequel to Night Watch. I felt this was a much better story. Had the same impressive visual effects, can't wait for the final film in this trilogy! Star Trek - 8.5/10 - Wow, non-stop action! As a non Trekkie, I really enjoyed this film, but thought I would have enjoyed it more if I knew more about the characters.

05-23-2009, 02:30 PM	#3181
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Appaloosa - 8/10: A very well done Western. Blending in pre-"Unforgiven" and after-"Unforgiven" characters (Viggo Mortenson's character appears to be the only pre-"Unforgiven" type though). Nicely plotted (I expect my Westerns to be a bit slower) and very well acted. Harris, Mortenson, Irons and Zellweger all played their parts absolutely perfectly. Harris is just amazing in his role and Irons is always fun as a villian. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

05-23-2009, 06:33 PM	#3182
JonInMiddleGA Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA	Night at the Museum: Battle for the Smithsonian - 7/10 Scoring it based on what it set out to do, it's fine. It doesn't have the fun factor of the original to me, I think that's mostly a function of us already being in on the gimmick. The jokes are good enough, the pacing is quite good (rare that I say a movie seemed shorter than it was), but they really seemed to have too many characters packed into not enough time. Zero character development really. Almost like watching Airplane for the brief appearances, longer than cameos sometimes but nowhere near long enough for anything more than a quick "hey, isn't that ..." And can I be the next to say that the camera just really really like Amy Adams? Kind of the epitomy of cute on screen or something. Like I said, nothing wrong with it standing alone as a Saturday afternoon family comedy, but it ain't the original. And any part 3 might be closer to straight to DVD than blockbuster. __________________ "I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis

05-23-2009, 11:57 PM	#3183
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Terminator: Salvation - 6/10: It wasn't a good movie, but it didn't suck either. Maybe that's low expectations when walking into the theater talking, but I kind of like the redemption storyline. And there were plenty of explosions. I liked some of the call backs to earlier movies as well. Though the story was simplistic and not all that great. On a side note, Anton Yelchin is making some $$ this summer. First as Chekov on Star Trek and then Kyle Reese in Terminator. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

05-25-2009, 12:35 AM	#3189
Julio Riddols College Prospect Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Bryson Shitty, NC	Star Trek (9.0/10)- I didn't think I'd see a movie that would make me feel as happy as the G.I. Joe trailer made me feel sad.. But then the feature played. All I could think afterwards is that J.J. Abrams should have done both films. If anyone has yet to see the previews of the G.I. Joe flick, its the most awful looking shit I have ever seen. Doesn't even remind me of G.I. Joe. I could not believe my eyes how retarded it looked, considering the fans of that show are now firmly entrenched in their 20's and 30's and their use of over the top special effects to make the movie seem "cool" was just annoying. As for my favorite thing about Star Trek? Bones. So well played. __________________ Recklessly enthused, stubbornly amused. FUCK EA Last edited by Julio Riddols : 05-25-2009 at 12:35 AM.

05-25-2009, 09:15 AM	#3192
Honolulu_Blue Hockey Boy Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Royal Oak, MI	Star Trek - 8/10 A very entertaining movie. The new cast was excellent, in particular, Bones and Kirk. They just nailed it. A great "re-boot" of the franchise. There were somethings that didn't work. The whole "Scotty in the water tubes" thing was pretty stupid, especially since they just had a similar frantic type scene with Kirk being chased by the various snow monsters. The one thing I found very silly was the set-up for everything. Perhaps I will discuss that in the Star Trek movie thread with appropriate spoilers tabs and such. __________________ *Steve Yzerman*: 1,755 points in 1,514 regular season games. 185 points in 196 postseason games. A First-Team All-Star, Conn Smythe Trophy winner, Selke Trophy winner, Masterton Trophy winner, member of the Hockey Hall of Fame, Olympic gold medallist, and a three-time Stanley Cup Champion. Longest serving captain of one team in the history of the NHL (19 seasons).

05-25-2009, 09:59 AM	#3193
Sublime 2 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: New Hampshire	Quantum of Solace - 6.5/10 I watched it over two nights, which may have had something to do with the rating. I was entertained enough. But overall it was a good movie that I probably won't re-watch.

05-29-2009, 07:39 PM	#3194
Atocep Coordinator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Puyallup, WA	Up - 8/10 Very good, but not great movie. It moves at a good pace and the characters are well done. Quite a bit of action. Good humor, although I think there's more humor that falls flat with adults in this movie than their other films. It's definitely on par with Pixar's best but after reading some of the reviews I was expecting something amazing so my expectations were probably too high. Still a movie I'd recommend if you're a fan of Pixar's other movies.

05-29-2009, 09:08 PM	#3195
Sublime 2 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: New Hampshire	Star Trek - 8.5/10 I brought my pops to see this, as he is a big ST fan, and he walked away happy. My only real ST experience is with The Next Generation and I was VERY entertained by this movie. The Spock/Kirk relationship was fun to see, and I liked the Bones & Scotty castings.

05-29-2009, 10:36 PM	#3196
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	Der Untergang (Downfall) 8.5/10 A great movie about the last days of Hitler and those around him. Read some comments from some critics about how they made Hitler into a bit of a sympathetic character, but I didn't see that at all. The Hitler in the movie is simply a realistic portrayal. He was nice to his followers (including his secretaries). He loved dogs. He was also an unbelievable monster and maniac, and the film captures that very well. (Bruno Ganz is incredible as Hitler) The Hitler in this film is in no way a sympathetic character. The rest of the cast also does a great job. An absolute must see movie, especially for those interested in WWII.

05-30-2009, 01:02 AM	#3198
Groundhog Coordinator Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Sydney, Australia	Three Kings - 8/10 Had never seen this before last night. The bottle of Chivas we all polished off while watching it has made my memory a little foggy, but really enjoyed this film. __________________ Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. --Ambrose Bierce

05-30-2009, 12:57 PM	#3199
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	Killshot-4/10 A total mess, no wonder it didn't release for like 3 years after it was done. As a bit of an Elmore Leonard fan I was somewhat interested. Basically no reason to watch this movie, but if it was on it's just interesting enough to keep you watching.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)