Kass9

Rate The Last Movie You Saw - 2

Recommended Posts

Django Unchained: 10/10, faith in moviemaking restored. Tarantino is a genius

Wow. It was good, but 10/10? Perfect? I don't think I've ever given a movie a perfect score, because I don't think there is a perfect movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Django Unchained was a lot like his last movie, if not his last few; Blah, blah, blah... Bloodbath. Blah, blah, blah... Bloodbath. Except excessive use of the n-word.

Still good though. And it's always nice to see Tarantino die violently again. 8.1/10

Life of Pi was beautifully done. It really deserves watching on the biggest screen possible so you can see how beautiful it is. However, the main point of the story, 'getting you to believe in God', i found to be weak. If you already strongly believe, then anything that you survive will only strengthen that belief even further. So? The other point was that beautiful untruths are better than ugly truths. True again. But so? Anyway, it's still awesome to watch and appreciate as a movie, once thought an unfilmable book. 8.3/10

Cloud Atlas was 3 hours of convoluted garbage. Classic example of how a book should NOT be translated to a movie. It's one thing to jump around between multiple timelines, but another to build a pretentious wall of bs to defend the connections between the timelines, propped up by an over-the-top dramatic soundtrack that didn't apply to the scene and actors who should've made a decision on the script, not the book.

I like Hugo Weaving. But him as a woman, Spock, and a leprechaun in the same movie was too much to take.

And the slaughterhouse of the future; Why the frack was that so hard to expose? Hello? It's the future! Secrets are already pretty difficult to keep secret in present day. What? Did the smartphone de-evolve like the fishlike people of the future?

Oh. And too much Hugh Grant. Get outta here and go make Bridget Jones 3 or something!

This movie reminded me of A.I. Looked good, after watching it you want to stab your screen. 3(hrs? wtf?)/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw an advance screening of 'Gangster Squad' on Wednesday night. I really enjoyed it.

I'm seeing a lot of negative reviews on it though and the main theme is, "too much violence".

It's a gangster movie, but I promise you that movies like 'War' and 'Inglorious Basterds' had more violence than 'Gangster Squad'.

Just look at Rotten Tomatoes audience percentage and that will give you a better indicator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw an advance screening of 'Gangster Squad' on Wednesday night. I really enjoyed it.

I'm seeing a lot of negative reviews on it though and the main theme is, "too much violence".

It's a gangster movie, but I promise you that movies like 'War' and 'Inglorious Basterds' had more violence than 'Gangster Squad'.

Just look at Rotten Tomatoes audience percentage and that will give you a better indicator.

Not trying to be a film snob in anyway, but ever since I saw the first preview for this at Skyfall, I was less than impressed. From the trailers alone it looks like it is trying so hard to be a mob movie, if you know what I mean. Definitely doesn't look like a parody, but it looks like it is trying to do everything right to nail down the genre. Couldn't be more turned off by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Netflix for allowing me the opportunity to watch movies I would have never watched in the past.

The Babymakers - 1/10. I don't know why I decided to watch this, probably to see whether Olivia Munn could transfer some of what made her successful on AOTS over to the "big" screen. This movie was terrible and in no way is worth your time. If you were thinking about watching it, which I don't know why you would be, consider yourself warned.

Lockout - 5/10. I'm being a lot more generous than I should be, but I have always enjoyed Guy Pierce, regardless of what piece of trash film he may be in (see: The Time Machine). The dialogue is absolutely atrocious and Maggie Grace seems determined to prove that she has no talent. Again, I really enjoy Guy Pierce, his charisma alone carries the film. I can only imagine how bad this would have been had they got The Rock, Channing Tatum, or any other terrible actor to play his role. Guy Pierce is a terrific talent who has been incredibly choosey with the films he takes on. It would be nice to see him given the chance to be in bigger budget films. This was definitely a film he could have stayed away from. However, then I wouldn't have had the opportunity to watch one of my favourite actors carry an otherwise forgettable film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life of Pi - 9/10

Not sure how I can put into words how I felt about this film. Great storytelling and absolutely phenomenal special effects. Not since Avatar have I felt that 3D made the movie a true escape into the world on screen. Beautiful film.

Get the Gringo - 7.5/10

I think I'm in minority these days where I'm actually excited about hearing that Mel Gibson is in a film. Whatever your thoughts are towards Mel Gibson the man, Mel Gibson the actor has a specific role that he plays very well. Get the Gringo is a welcomed return to the flawed character that Gibson plays incredibly well. Really enjoyed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Grey - 7.5/10

The writer/director who brought you Smokin' Aces and The A-Team presents... a good movie?

Zero Dark Thirty - 9/10

Even if it isn't always completely accurate, it's a very well-directed, well-acted movie.

Cloud Atlas - 5/10

Cloud Atlas was 3 hours of convoluted garbage. Classic example of how a book should NOT be translated to a movie. It's one thing to jump around between multiple timelines, but another to build a pretentious wall of bs to defend the connections between the timelines, propped up by an over-the-top dramatic soundtrack that didn't apply to the scene and actors who should've made a decision on the script, not the book.

Yup. Another piece of over-acted, over-stylised crap from the Wachowskis. It has no substance, but much like last year's Tree of Life it is full of really pretty pictures and some really pretentious, preachy and hollow dialogue, which explains any acclaim it received. Every single beat is repeated six different times for six different stories, which makes for the longest denouement ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw an advance screening of 'Gangster Squad' on Wednesday night. I really enjoyed it.

I'm seeing a lot of negative reviews on it though and the main theme is, "too much violence".

It's a gangster movie, but I promise you that movies like 'War' and 'Inglorious Basterds' had more violence than 'Gangster Squad'.

Just look at Rotten Tomatoes audience percentage and that will give you a better indicator.

I have no problem with violence - I do have problems with badly scripted movies.

Gangster Squad is a B-picture with a A-List cast.

Sean Penn chewed up the scenery as Mickey Cohen (fun to watch but not really the scary guy that Cohen was reputed to be) and Ryan Gosling was quite good. Josh Brolin? He can act so what the heck happened to him? And Emma Stone as Grace??? - well she is no Kim Basinger (LA Confidential) or Jennifer Connelly/Melanie Griffiths (Mulholland Falls) or Virginia Mayo in 1949's White Heat.

However the dialogue and pacing, just not there. It looked good but was not substantial in other ways. The cinematography was great but then that was to be expected given it was filmed by cinematographer Dion Beebe, who earned an Oscar for his work on "Memoirs of a Geisha" and was nominated for "Chicago". He knows how to do period pieces.

Basically an action picture with only sporadic action and without much of a story. And it cannot seem to decide if it is to be heavy weight drama or less weighty with some comedy (director Ruben Fleischer's forte - think Zombieland). With the right director it could have been a classic gangster movie but as it stands... not so much.

A generous 6 out of 10 - because it looked great.

Apparently the scene of a machine gun battle in a movie theatre were cut after the Aurora Colorado shootings and that necessitated re-writing, re-shooting and re-editing.

The latter also resulted in a postponed release: A scene involving machine guns in a movie theater was cut after last year's tragic "Dark Knight Rises" multiplex killings in Aurora, Colorado, and other scenes were rewritten and re-shot to fill gaps in the narrative.

LA Confidential and Mulholland Falls did the time period in LA way better and I recommend them highly. Gangster Squad is but a pale imitation and it could have been so much more.

As one reviewer wrote "Bottom of the barrel, Ma" in a riff on the classic James Cagney line in White Heat where he proclaims defiantly "Made it, Ma . Top of the world" as gangster Cody Jarrett goes out in a blaze of glory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Les Misrables: 7/10: By far the best musical I have ever seen. This is saying a lot since I do not like musicals. Being a married man I have been forced to watch my fair share including sound of music, mama Mia, evita, rent, Chicago and Sweeney Todd.

Django Unchained: 8.5/10: typical Tarentino. I thought Christophe Waltz, Jamie Foxx and Sameul L Jackson had great performances.

Lincoln: 9.5/10: One of the best movies I have seen. I didn't think Daniel Day Lewis could top his Gangs Of New York performance but this did. It will be a tragedy if he doesn't win best actor at the academy awards it will be a tragedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to need someone to explain Life of Pi to me. I mean it's certainly gorgeous (and for once the 3D actually adds something to the movie) but it seems like you spend huge chunks of the movie just staring at pretty scenes with pretty music playing in the background. What I mean is it feels like the movie relies on being pretty. Don't get me wrong, I love a beautiful movie as much as the next person, but all I heard going into it was how amazing and deep and meaningful it all was and I think I missed the "deep and meaningful" part. Maybe you need to read the book to "get it", or maybe my expectations were too high going in and as such I was underwhelmed. I might need to watch it again on the small screen so I'm less distracted by the visuals and I can concentrate on what little story there is.

I still give it a solid 7.5/10. *edit* I've got to raise this to an 8.5 otherwise it's going to screw over all my future ratings. It's still probably my favourite movie of 2012 so it deserves higher.

Edited by cj_coolcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to need someone to explain Life of Pi to me. I mean it's certainly gorgeous (and for once the 3D actually adds something to the movie) but it seems like you spend huge chunks of the movie just staring at pretty scenes with pretty music playing in the background. What I mean is it feels like the movie relies on being pretty. Don't get me wrong, I love a beautiful movie as much as the next person, but all I heard going into it was how amazing and deep and meaningful it all was and I think I missed the "deep and meaningful" part. Maybe you need to read the book to "get it", or maybe my expectations were too high going in and as such I was underwhelmed. I might need to watch it again on the small screen so I'm less distracted by the visuals and I can concentrate on what little story there is.

I still give it a solid 7.5/10.

This will sound super condescending or pretentious, I'm sure, so please don't take this the wrong way, but did you pay attention to the final 15 minutes? I mean "close" attention? Because whatever non-nautical depth there is to the movie, it's in the conclusion. Personally, I wouldn't even really say it's "deep," except in so much as the film forces (or at least encourages) the viewer to consider the role of faith in life, especially during hardship. That's pretty much it. Faith and what you believe, and why you believe it.

The novel was considered "unfilmable" by most who tried, and if you look at the film's wikipedia, you can see how it stuck in production limbo for years and years, probably because people didn't know how to shoot the large stretch of seafaring in the middle of the novel. I haven't read it in years, but I'm pretty sure there's a large stretch that isn't filled with conflict or direct rumination on morality or religiosity that is any way film-able, but instead the stretch is full of fantastic imagery and implication. How do you film that? Well, people couldn't, and they gave up, time and time and time again. But that's where the "pretty" comes in. And that's why I think the movie is an absolute masterpiece. I'm sure the CGI will look dated as all hell in 3 or 4 years, but the visuals (camera shots, colours, etc.) are absolutely stunning, and, I think, kind of "heavenly" (think of all the sky/clouds/"heaven" shots!). Now put that "heavenly" imagery into proper context when the film's conclusion offers the divergence in "options" and I think the pretty stuff makes a lot more narrative sense, but isn't necessarily "deep" in itself.

Edited by GLASSJAW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gumballthechewy

^^^^^^

That's a very good explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will sound super condescending or pretentious, I'm sure, so please don't take this the wrong way, but did you pay attention to the final 15 minutes? I mean "close" attention? Because whatever non-nautical depth there is to the movie, it's in the conclusion. Personally, I wouldn't even really say it's "deep," except in so much as the film forces (or at least encourages) the viewer to consider the role of faith in life, especially during hardship. That's pretty much it. Faith and what you believe, and why you believe it.

The novel was considered "unfilmable" by most who tried, and if you look at the film's wikipedia, you can see how it stuck in production limbo for years and years, probably because people didn't know how to shoot the large stretch of seafaring in the middle of the novel. I haven't read it in years, but I'm pretty sure there's a large stretch that isn't filled with conflict or direct rumination on morality or religiosity that is any way film-able, but instead the stretch is full of fantastic imagery and implication. How do you film that? Well, people couldn't, and they gave up, time and time and time again. But that's where the "pretty" comes in. And that's why I think the movie is an absolute masterpiece. I'm sure the CGI will look dated as all hell in 3 or 4 years, but the visuals (camera shots, colours, etc.) are absolutely stunning, and, I think, kind of "heavenly" (think of all the sky/clouds/"heaven" shots!). Now put that "heavenly" imagery into proper context when the film's conclusion offers the divergence in "options" and I think the pretty stuff makes a lot more narrative sense, but isn't necessarily "deep" in itself.

Yes, I did pay attention at the end and I get what you're saying about the divergence of options, it just didn't quite resonate with me as much as I expected it to. BTW, I don't think your reply to me is pretentious at all because I absolutely agree I probably missed something. I'm curious though, have you read the book? I've heard from a couple of my friends that you really need to have read the book to fully appreciate the movie. I'm thinking that might be my problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the book, but I think it only added to my viewing of the movie because of the sentimentality I already had established with the characters/story. I don't know if that added to my appreciation of the movie, but I hope not, because that means I completely failed to view it objectively and as an isolated work

Maybe the movie just didn't hit you. I wasn't in tears or anything, but I just saw it a few days ago, and I remember most of the people surrounding us were sniffling and crying. I wasn't (which is odd, because I cry at movies all the time), so maybe it just has a strong impact on some people for some other intangible reason, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had also read the book so I was able to watch it from the start knowing about the "twist". To be honest though, most of the enjoyment I had while watching was merely the imagery. Beautiful, beautiful movie.

The first few minutes of the rescue boat were tough to watch, but as he moved into calmer waters, some of the shots (jellyfish, whale) just blew my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't understand the 'deal' with Life of Pi, I'll try to explain it as best as I can

Life of Pi presents itself as two distinct stories. The first one, the one you're presented with from the beginning, is that Pi is trapped on a lifeboat with an Orangutan, Hyena, injured Zebra, and Tiger. They don't know the tiger is actually hidden under the tarp(beneath Pi).The Hyena kills the Zebra, and tries to attack the Orangutan. The Orangutan smacks the Hyena, but is eventually overpowered and killed. This causes the Tiger, Richard Parker, to emerge from under the tarp and kill the Hyena. As the story progresses, Pi learns to co-exist with Richard Parker.

In the hospital, the insurance workers tell Pi his story is unbelievable, and ask him for the truth. So he tells them another story. Pi is trapped on a lifeboat with an injured sailor, his mother, and the cook. The cook kills the injured sailor to cannibalize and use as fish bait. Pi and his mother are disgusted with this. Eventually, the cook turns on Pi and his mother, causing them to fight. She defends herself initially, but the cook kills her anyway. This causes Pi to lose it and kill the cook. Pi had to resort to cannibalism himself in order to survive.

You'll notice that these two stories are in essence very similar. The sailor is the zebra, the hyena is the cook, and the orangutan is Pi's mother. Pi is the tiger himself. This is where the whole religious aspect of the story comes along. On one hand, you have a story about a boy and a tiger braving the pacific together. On the other, a horrifying story of murder and cannibalism. Pi asks the reporter and insurance agents which story they liked better. They all say the one with the tiger. The one he invented to help cope with the unnerving reality of what he had to deal with. It 'makes you believe in god' because it shows you two ways of looking at life. You can take the cold, unpleasant, hardline truth, or take the 'more interesting story' with religion. He's not advocating for a particular belief, he's saying its better to go through life with an embellished, interesting story than no meaning whatsoever.

Hope that helped.

Edited by CAPSLOCK

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


  • Recently Browsing   1 member