Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Rate The Last Movie You Saw - 2


  • Please log in to reply
4683 replies to this topic

#91 Fanuck

Fanuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,778 posts
  • Joined: 09-September 04

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:00 PM

Zero Dark Thirty 8.6/10 I knew going in that it was based on fact but also that the director had to take several 'liberties' because no one knows all the facts regarding this subject.

Django Unchained 8/10 Tarantino movies are entertaining, if not somewhat predictable now. He goes so far out of his way to make things 'unique' that he's fallen into his own streotype in that his characters will do what you expect least, therfore making them predictable. Best part of all Tarantino movies for me is the soundtrack - this one is incredible.
  • 0

#92 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 15 January 2013 - 02:33 AM

BRAVE-5/10

I don't know whats up with Pixar lately. They made Cars 2, their first genuinely bad movie, and they followed up with this. Brave isn't bad, but its extremely, explicitly average. It lacks the subtlety and deeper storytelling that Pixar is known for. While most of Pixar's movies are made in a way that people of all ages can appreciate, I feel like this was just an all-out kid's movie. The story was basic, predictable, and it just sort've felt manufactured, as if it were saying things like "The protagonist's parents nag at her. Don't you identify with this kids?" While I give Pixar props for having their first female protagonist, a lot of the time it felt like the movie was shoving "GIRL POWER!" down my throat. The characters were very stock. You pretty much get everything you need to know about them within 5 minutes, no real complexity to be found here. The pacing was well-done, and the voice acting was good as well. I will say that from a visual standpoint this is a really, really good movie, but as technology improves, so should the animation. The music was also done well, it fit the Scottish background.
  • 1

BO KNOWS


#93 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,005 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:36 AM

Argo - 7.5 -- good, but hardly a masterpiece of direction or narrative. surprised to see it win so heavily at the globes.

Hitchcock - 8 -- under-appreciated movie made for fans of movies. not a masterpiece by any means, but if you're a fan of the process of film just as much as the films themselves, this movie is definitely an interesting look at Hitchcock's life during the Psycho years.

Seven Psychopaths - 7.5 -- unfortunately not half as good as the brilliant In Bruges, but still fun, despite Sam Rockwell's best attempts to ruin the movie

Zero Dark Thirty - 8.5 -- great movie. nearly 3 hours long, yet i didn't feel bored once. shocked that Bigelow wasn't nominated at the Oscars. I don't know about the historical or factual accuracy of the movie, but man was it entertaining.

Les Miserables - 6.5 -- wanted to like this, as i've never seen a production of it before, but i found myself looking at the time over and over and over again. visually impressive, but the non-stop singing was just too much. some good spots though. edit: really tempted to pick up the book this summer when i have free reading time. anyone read it? i loved the story, just not how it was presented

Lincoln - 6 -- vastly overrated by those who want a masterpiece from a former master, like Scorsese's The Departed, as far as i'm concerned. more of the same from modern day Spielberg.

Edited by GLASSJAW, 16 January 2013 - 03:45 AM.

  • 0

212e8lw.jpg
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#94 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,005 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:41 AM

django unchained - 8 -- not Tarantino's best, not even close. but i thought it was good. definitely one i want to re-watch

life of pi - 9 -- visually stunning. CGI probably won't age well, but i like the story, and ang lee's approach to the difficult material. my pick for Oscar night.

Coffy - 6 -- a blaxploitation film from the '73, which comes strongly recommended by Tarantino himself. some really gnarly scenes of violence, a lot of breasts, and some really cheap dialogue all add up to some really shallow entertainment. pam grier, in her prime, was one of the most attractive women i've ever seen.
  • 0

212e8lw.jpg
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#95 mcgillnuck

mcgillnuck

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,508 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 06

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:20 PM

Zero Dark Thirty - 8.5/10

I've heard this movie referred to as the most flagrant piece of film propaganda since "Triumph of the Will." It's not.

While it's gorgeously shot and never boring, it's also extremely cold and analytical. Even the one scene that you assume would be extremely patriotic and emotional, the assault on Bin Laden's compound, isn't played that way at all. It's filmed more like a horror movie from the viewpoint of the home invaders.

The major controversy surrounding this film, the torture, is portrayed as dehumanizing for both the torturers and the tortured, and in the end not really all that helpful in finding Bin Laden. It's just something that happened. It's not glossed over, but it's not glorified or vilified either.


  • 0

Props to canuckbuddy for the sig

#96 Scottish⑦Canuck

Scottish⑦Canuck

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,943 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:23 PM

Silver Linings Playbook - 8.5/10
  • 0

#97 cj_coolcat

cj_coolcat

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,168 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:15 AM

I think I have to raise my rating for Life of Pi since despite my issues with it it's still far and away the best movie I've seen all year and giving it a 7.5 is going to screw over all my other ratings! So I'm going to upgrade it to an 8.5 (hope that's okay with you movie experts!)

Anna Karenina: This is one of my favourite books so I was kind of scared going into this movie but I was actually pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it. It's certainly not a masterpiece and definitely not a faithful reproduction of the book by any means but it gets to the spirit of it very well. To be honest I'm glad they didn't try to reproduce the book because there's obviously no way you could fit it into a 2 hour movie. I liked the concept of the stage production, it allowed for some cool and creative scene changes. Also, if not for Life of Pi, it might be considered one of the most visually stunning movies of 2012. It should definitely win for best costumes imho. That being said, it was definitely a bit too melodramatic and overacted for my taste, but I kind of expected that so it didn't bother me too much. I give it a solid 7/10.

Looper: I really wanted to like it. Really. It gets points for a cool and unique concept but the execution wasn't there. It kind of felt like they couldn't decide what kind of movie they wanted to make. And yes I get that they were trying to not follow a formula but it ended up feeling like they made two movies and then tried to merge them unsuccessfully. What I mean is instead of making an action movie that also confronts a moral dilemma and is deep and thoughtful throughout they ended up making a movie that starts as an action movie, then decides to be deep and thoughtful through the middle portion of the movie while he's hanging out on the farm then says "screw it, this is boring" and brings out Bruce Willis with the dual machine guns at the end. Not to mention they throw in a completely unbelievable and disjointed romance angle because...why? There has to be sex scene? Just cause? I also found the ending to be disappointingly convenient and predictable. It just wraps up way too easily. That being said, the acting is top-knotch and the action sequences are pretty entertaining (who doesn't love Bruce Willis with a machine gun?) so it was still enjoyable. 6/10.

Les Miserables - 6.5 -- wanted to like this, as i've never seen a production of it before, but i found myself looking at the time over and over and over again. visually impressive, but the non-stop singing was just too much. some good spots though. edit: really tempted to pick up the book this summer when i have free reading time. anyone read it? i loved the story, just not how it was presented.


I've read it. I haven't seen the movie but I have seen the stage production of Les Miserables. If you like the story you should like the book. The musical obviously leaves stuff out (it has to, it's a long book!) but overall it's quite true to the general storyline. The only thing I would say is the book is a lot grittier and less romantic. Still, you might like the musical better after reading the book because it really does a masterful job of translating some pretty tough subject matter (because really, who in their right mind would read that and think "gee this would make a great musical!") On the other hand, if you don't like musicals, then you don't like musicals and will probably never like them regardless. Not that I'm questioning your objectivity, I'm just saying most people either love musicals or they hate them and you usually can't do much to sway their opinion either way.

Edited by cj_coolcat, 17 January 2013 - 02:18 AM.

  • 0
QUOTE (kanadahockey @ Aug 20 2009, 08:48 AM) ah yes, comparing Natives to stray dogs wasn't critical of the Natives, it was actually critical of the Whites. How very White Man's Burden of you. Pip, pip and all that - let's retire to the library for cucumber sandwiches.

#98 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,004 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:26 AM

Looper: I really wanted to like it. Really. It gets points for a cool and unique concept but the execution wasn't there. It kind of felt like they couldn't decide what kind of movie they wanted to make. And yes I get that they were trying to not follow a formula but it ended up feeling like they made two movies and then tried to merge them unsuccessfully. What I mean is instead of making an action movie that also confronts a moral dilemma and is deep and thoughtful throughout they ended up making a movie that starts as an action movie, then decides to be deep and thoughtful through the middle portion of the movie while he's hanging out on the farm then says "screw it, this is boring" and brings out Bruce Willis with the dual machine guns at the end. Not to mention they throw in a completely unbelievable and disjointed romance angle because...why? There has to be sex scene? Just cause? I also found the ending to be disappointingly convenient and predictable. It just wraps up way too easily. That being said, the acting is top-knotch and the action sequences are pretty entertaining (who doesn't love Bruce Willis with a machine gun?) so it was still enjoyable. 6/10.


I feel like I enjoyed Looper more than you did but still I get where you're coming from. One thing to note is that it's the first big budget film from directore Ryan Johnson, who's probably only really known previously for directing two episodes of Breaking Bad (although his first indie film, Brick, is excellent). He was interviewed on CBC's Q just a few days before I saw it in theatre and that helped me see what he talked about - that he was overly micro-managed during post production, as though the studio heads didn't have full faith in him. Consequently I think the tone of the movie really wound up messy.

In retrospect I wish it was the kind of movie I saw with no expectations, because it would have impressed me much more, and then I would have gone out hunting down everything else he had made.
  • 0

#99 cj_coolcat

cj_coolcat

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,168 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:41 AM

He was interviewed on CBC's Q just a few days before I saw it in theatre and that helped me see what he talked about - that he was overly micro-managed during post production, as though the studio heads didn't have full faith in him. Consequently I think the tone of the movie really wound up messy.


I can definitely see that. You can tell there's certain aspects and scenes in the movie that were added in after the fact because they are really out of joint with the overall tone. It's not cohesive. And then the ending is like "oh crap, this movie is too long already we better wrap it up quickly." There really needed to be more discussion and back-story about the kid and the mob boss in the future to make that ending more believable and less convenient.
  • 0
QUOTE (kanadahockey @ Aug 20 2009, 08:48 AM) ah yes, comparing Natives to stray dogs wasn't critical of the Natives, it was actually critical of the Whites. How very White Man's Burden of you. Pip, pip and all that - let's retire to the library for cucumber sandwiches.

#100 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,005 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:34 AM

Brick was really good

I'm getting a bit sick of seeing Joseph Gordon Levitt in every other movie, though. He takes good roles, sure... but over-exposure is a dangerous game in hollywood.

speaking of which, Jessica Chastain currently has a monopoly on all the interesting 'young-ish female' leads. Including her 2 slated for 2013 releases, Chastain's resume includes _13_ movies between 2011 and 2013.
  • 0

212e8lw.jpg
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#101 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,005 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:40 AM

speaking of Chastain, if you lot haven't seen Take Shelter, SEE IT. got totally overlooked in 2011, because everyone was busy drooling over Drive. but Take Shelter, for me, is the movie of the decade thus far
  • 0

212e8lw.jpg
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#102 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:00 AM

Quick ratings for several films we saw over the past few weeks:

Zero Dark Thirty -- 9/10

Silver Linings Playbook -- 9/10

The Guilt Trip -- 5/10

Jack Reacher -- 8/10

This is 40 -- 6/10
  • 0

#103 Monty

Monty

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:23 AM

Friends With Kids - 5/10

The first half hour or so was very, very slow. It's not a terrible movie by any means. In fact, if it weren't for the casting choices, I may have given it a higher score. Jennifer Westfeldt (also known as Jon Hamm's partner), wrote directed, and starred in this film about two best friends who decide to have a child, without the mess of having a romantic relationship; after seeing what children has done to the marriage of their 4 friends.

I have no problem with Jennifer Westfeldt's performance. Adam Scott seemed a little out of his element, but it is nice to see him in a more dramatic performance. Maya Rudolph, who I normally cannot stand, played the role of a burnt out mother perfectly. Chris O'Dowd tries his hand at a more dramatic role, and I feel played it fairly well. These were the two best written and performed performances in the film. They weren't a couple who hated each other, just people who were absolutely tired and exhausted from raising kids. The stereotypical married couple who have no time for each other and dedicate everything to their children.

That leaves Kristin Wiig and Jon Hamm. Like most people, I enjoy both. In fact, Jon Hamm played the role of the d*ck husband perfectly. However, you never got to see him that much of him. Wiig was the biggest miscast of them all, though. She doesn't need to be wacky, cooky Wiig in every role she's in; however, her role in itself seemed completely useless, wasting her time in this film. In total, she may have honestly had 5 or 6 lines. I wasn't expecting to see the comedic Wiig, but because she was in the film, I did expect her to be used. She was more a set piece than anything else. In which case, they should have cast someone else in the role. Honestly, Westfedlt probably would have been better off casting Wiig in the title role, rather than herself. However, then the budget for the film would have been significantly more; not only that, but perhaps Wiig's schedule wouldn't have allowed her to even work on the film in a more significant role.

Long story short. Maya Rudolph and Chris O'Dowd were the only perfectly cast people in their respective roles. Everyone else was wasted or, like Adam Scott, a little out of their element.
  • 0

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#104 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,005 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 12:43 PM

confused by the silver lining playbook praise

6.5 at most, imo
  • 0

212e8lw.jpg
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#105 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,010 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 18 January 2013 - 12:58 PM

I agree with Monty about Friends With Kids. It was pretty dull though, until Hamm's character started letting loose at the end. Both of his speeches were the highlights of the movie.

Wiig was TERRIBLY miscast. Most of the time she just sat there trying to look mopey. Westfeldt's character was endearing, but the trainwreck of plastic surgury on her face was kind of distracting.

But Monty forgot the most surprising perfect casting of the movie: Megan Fox. She played the shallow, immature, heartless character whose only redeeming quality was her looks. She nailed it - SURPRISE!
  • 0

PBF131-Lord_Gloom.jpg?1361362669


#106 Monty

Monty

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:23 PM

I agree with Monty about Friends With Kids. It was pretty dull though, until Hamm's character started letting loose at the end. Both of his speeches were the highlights of the movie.

Wiig was TERRIBLY miscast. Most of the time she just sat there trying to look mopey. Westfeldt's character was endearing, but the trainwreck of plastic surgury on her face was kind of distracting.

But Monty forgot the most surprising perfect casting of the movie: Megan Fox. She played the shallow, immature, heartless character whose only redeeming quality was her looks. She nailed it - SURPRISE!


I haven't seen much of Megan Fox in the past, but like you said, she did nail her part perfectly. I didn't dislike her, as she played her role to a tee.The highlights were Hamm's speeches, which left me thinking, "Why in the hell could Westfeldt not have utilized her partner's talent more?" As for Wiig, mopey is the right word. Punching bag would be another description. Or, like I said earlier, a set piece. The role was written this way, which makes me question why she bothered with this role. Yes, I know she is friends with Hamm and Westfeldt, so she's doing them a solid. But as this was a dramatic film, I was interested to see how Wiig would be able to pull off a dramatic performance. The answer to this? She didn't have a chance to. Her role was non-existant. Therefore, miscast.And yes, Westfeldt's plastic surgury was a major distraction. Probably why I'm giving her performance the benefit of the doubt.
  • 0

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#107 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,010 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:40 PM

The Other Guys - 8/10

Saw this in the theatre, but I forgot how hilarious some parts were. In fact, I enjoyed it a lot more the second time, and I'll probably watch it many more times.

I love how Mark Wahlberg's character always thinks everything has to lead back to drugs.

Also, in tears when the rival cops were doing a presentation in a school classroom, and said:
"Got a couple of tips... help you guys stay out of jail. One: try your hardest to not be Black or Hispanic."
  • 0

PBF131-Lord_Gloom.jpg?1361362669


#108 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,516 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:58 PM

Seven Psychopaths - 4/10

Dark comedy? Alright. Wasn't that dark. Wasn't that comedic. First hint at a flop here should've been that Colin Farrell stars in it. Second hint was Sam Rockwell is his backup. Neither of those guys are in any way funny. This meant the load had to be carried by Christopher Walken. Lately, Walken is put in comedies when it's determined that the main actors just aren't funny enough. He did alright, but at his age (69), his ability to come up with movie-saving performances has waned. Woody Harrelson also appears in the movie in a forgettable role.

Reminded me of other failed dark comedies 8 Heads in a Dufflebag and The Way of the Gun. Not enough happens to make you want to care in any way except that you really want the protagonist(s) to die swiftly.
  • 0
Posted Image

#109 Monty

Monty

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:04 PM

Seven Psychopaths - 4/10

Dark comedy?  Alright.  Wasn't that dark.  Wasn't that comedic.  First hint at a flop here should've been that Colin Farrell stars in it.  Second hint was Sam Rockwell is his backup.  Neither of those guys are in any way funny.  This meant the load had to be carried by Christopher Walken. Lately, Walken is put in comedies when it's determined that the main actors just aren't funny enough.   He did alright, but at his age (69), his ability to come up with movie-saving performances has waned. Woody Harrelson also appears in the movie in a forgettable role.

Reminded me of other failed dark comedies 8 Heads in a Dufflebag and The Way of the Gun.  Not enough happens to make you want to care in any way except that you really want the protagonist(s) to die swiftly.


Haven't seen it yet, so can't comment. But I'm going to have to disagree with you about Colin Farrell, and definitely disagree about Sam Rockwell.Colin Farrell has some talent. He definitely hasn't made the best choices, but he has shown some flashes (In Bruges, Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus).Sam Rockwell has saved many of the films he has been in (ie: Ironman 2, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy), great supporting roles in Matchstick Men, The Green Mile, and Galaxy Quest, and a terrific starring roles in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Moon.

Edited by Monty, 18 January 2013 - 02:08 PM.

  • 0

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#110 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,516 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:24 PM

To each their own. Haven't seen Moon, but Confessions i have. It might have been a great performance by him as the whack Gong Show host, but to me Sam Rockwell is just not 'star' material, nor is he funny. He gets into funny situations, but that's different. In Seven Psychopaths he tries a bit too hard, imho. While Farrell coasts through the movie.
  • 0
Posted Image

#111 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,010 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:47 PM

To each their own.  Haven't seen Moon, but Confessions i have.  It might have been a great performance by him as the whack Gong Show host, but to me Sam Rockwell is just not 'star' material, nor is he funny.  He gets into funny situations, but that's different.  In Seven Psychopaths he tries a bit too hard, imho.  While Farrell coasts through the movie.


Although it certainly doesn't prove anything comedically, Moon is the shiznit. Fantastic movie - definitely recommend.
  • 0

PBF131-Lord_Gloom.jpg?1361362669


#112 Monty

Monty

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:50 PM

Although it certainly doesn't prove anything comedically, Moon is the shiznit. Fantastic movie - definitely recommend.


Agreed. I usually don't give out too many 10/10 scores, but for the type of film it was, Moon was an all around terrific film.
  • 0

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#113 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,010 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:13 PM

Agreed. I usually don't give out too many 10/10 scores, but for the type of film it was, Moon was an all around terrific film.


Yeah, it would be a 9/10 for me.

I love it when a movie can limit itself within a scene/concept, and surprise you with how much depth it can pull out of it. Buried and Pi are two other movies like that - but Moon is probably the best I've seen in years.

Hitchcock was the master at this.
  • 0

PBF131-Lord_Gloom.jpg?1361362669


#114 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,417 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:24 PM

Moon was great for Sam Rockwell. In Bruges was a very funny movie that I thought Colin Farrell was great in, and I am not a fan of his. In Bruges also has Brendan Gleason though and that usually means the movie will be entertaining.
  • 0
Posted Image

#115 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,005 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:17 PM

Seven Psychopaths - 4/10

Dark comedy? Alright. Wasn't that dark. Wasn't that comedic. First hint at a flop here should've been that Colin Farrell stars in it. Second hint was Sam Rockwell is his backup. Neither of those guys are in any way funny. This meant the load had to be carried by Christopher Walken. Lately, Walken is put in comedies when it's determined that the main actors just aren't funny enough. He did alright, but at his age (69), his ability to come up with movie-saving performances has waned. Woody Harrelson also appears in the movie in a forgettable role.

Reminded me of other failed dark comedies 8 Heads in a Dufflebag and The Way of the Gun. Not enough happens to make you want to care in any way except that you really want the protagonist(s) to die swiftly.


brutal

Martin mcDonagh is one of the best writers in the film world, as far as I'm concerned. Seven Pscyhopaths was just dumbed down too much, I think. Especially Sam Rockwell's character. The fact that you'd compare it to "8 Heads in a Duffle bag" is a bit shocking, and maybe a sign that it's just not your style. Did you like In Bruges? Phenomenal movie, both funny and brilliant, and stars Colin Farrell.

I was disappointed by Seven Psychopaths, but thought the movie had a lot of strengths.
  • 0

212e8lw.jpg
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#116 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,516 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:34 PM

Haven't seen In Bruges, or at least i don't remember it.


End of Watch - 6/10

Getting a bit tired of Jake Gyllenhaal trying to be a tough guy, but this ho-hum LA cop movie was worth a watch, even if it offers nothing that Training Day and other recent LA cops vs. Mexicans movies already have shown.

Harsh Times was certainly twisted, but it was far more interesting than End of Watch.

Spoiler

  • 0
Posted Image

#117 cj_coolcat

cj_coolcat

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,168 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 03

Posted 19 January 2013 - 02:03 PM

Finally bit the bullet and went to see Les Miserables. I was avoiding it because I was worried I was going to hate it. Well, I didn't hate it. But I didn't love it either. I really don't know what they were thinking casting Russell Crowe as Javert. The guy can't sing. To his credit you can tell he really tried, but it struck me he was concentrating so much on his singing that he forgot about acting. He was just so....blank. It's too bad because I bet if he didn't have to sing he'd make an awesome Javert. On the other end of the spectrum it felt like Hugh Jackman was concentrating so much on acting he forgot about singing. I mean, he was okay, but there's several points where you really want him to belt it out from his gut and he just doesn't get there.

I'm thinking the biggest hindrance to the singing and my biggest problem with the movie overall was all the awkward close-ups. Why did every single ballad have to be filmed with the camera up the actor's nose?? It reminded me of Blair Witch Project, but with singing. I think it made a lot of the actors (Hugh Jackman in particular) sing from the throat like the audience was right in their face rather than sing from the gut like they're trying to project to a concert hall, which I guess is maybe what they were going for but I didn't like it.

On the plus side, I'm pretty sure I'm in love with Eddie Redmayne now and I was pleasantly surprised by Anne Hathaway and Amanda Sigfried. Hathaway's "I dreamed a dream" achieved a good balance between beautiful and uncomfortable to watch (which Hooper then tried to replicate with every other song in the movie to its detriment). Also in the rare moment when the camera isn't up somebody's nose the cinematography is quite beautiful. Finally of course Colm Wilkinson as the bishop = pure awesomeness. It's too bad he's too old to play Valjean again.

Overall, 6/10.
  • 0
QUOTE (kanadahockey @ Aug 20 2009, 08:48 AM) ah yes, comparing Natives to stray dogs wasn't critical of the Natives, it was actually critical of the Whites. How very White Man's Burden of you. Pip, pip and all that - let's retire to the library for cucumber sandwiches.

#118 flapjacks

flapjacks

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,987 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 10

Posted 20 January 2013 - 01:14 AM

Pulp Fiction. 9/10. Quite brilliant when it all comes together.
  • 0

#119 Monty

Monty

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:14 AM

The Big Year - 4.5/10

Synopsis: Jack Black, Steve Martin, and Owen Wilson are bird watchers. That's it.

Here's the main problem with The Big Year, it's not a comedy. And I'm not saying that there were jokes in it, but none of them hit. It's actually not a comedy. It's also not a drama. In fact, it's more a documentary than anything else.

If this were a comedy, it would have been far worse. For what it is, a love letter to bird watchers, it's fine. But was there huge demand for this? I didn't think so.

Here's a list of some of the actors I remember in the film:

Jack Black
Steve Martin
Owen Wilson
Rashida Jones
Joel McHale
Kevin Pollack
Brian Dennehy
Angelica Huston
Jim Parsons
Anthony Anderson
Dianne Wiest
Steven Weber

And yet, not a comedy.
  • 0

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#120 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,010 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:50 PM

My wife enjoyed The Big Year. And as time-killing, squeaky-clean family entertainment, it wasn't dreadful.

But yeah, don't remember laughing even once.
  • 0

PBF131-Lord_Gloom.jpg?1361362669





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.