Rate The Last Movie You Saw - 2

[:D]

It's a great story and I'm glad the movie did the book justice.

[Five For Fighting]

Silver Lining Playbook: 4.5/10: I can't believe this movie is up for an award. It is nothing more than a glorified chick flick. Bradley Cooper reminded me of a young Ben Afleck which is not a good thing. That said Jennifer Lawerence played her role very well.

[D-Money]

A friend and his wife recently saw Les Miserables. On the way out of the theatre, his wife said:

"Well, now that it's over, it's less miserable."

[Humble Rodent]

Killing Them Softly - 7.5/10

A bit heavy handed at times, but some super great performances and nicely shot. Definitely has some issues, but overall a good movie that I already want to re-watch.

Can't believe people are rating it so low or walking out on it. Lmao.

saw this a couple nights ago, pretty much agree although s'd rate it a little higher. considering the praise jesse james gets it bizarre how bad the reception has been. i mean, i understand the people who thought it would be the same as lawless or whatever, but the critical reception has been pretty bad too.

[GLASSJAW]

Is Jesse James good? I've always wanted to see that, but I keep forgetting. I love Pitt, these days, and I don't care who knows it.

[Humble Rodent]

its probably the only 3 hour movie i've ever seen that i thought wasn't long enough. brad pitt is amazing and casey affleck is as well. roger deakins does the cinematography so that's amazing. nick cave does the soundtrack so that's amazing. so yeah one of my favourite films overall.

[MC Fatigue]

seven psychopaths 4/10 (this movie has a 7.7/10 on imdb....really?)

[D-Money]

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.

I agree with your assessment. Pearce was absolutely fantastic, and the lead villains were done well too - but everything else about the movie was TERRIBLE. I have never seen a movie where there was such a wide chasm between the quality of the lead and the movie he was in. The first couple minutes are absolute gold...and then there's the motorcycle chase.

Pearce was so good in LA Confidential, Memento, and Count of Monte Cristo. And he has done a number of excellent supporting rolls in highly rated movies, most recently in The King's Speech. (Some of his supporting rolls were so small, he was basically a cameo: Hurt Locker, The Road). But he has had little success as a lead actor for the last decade. It doesn't make much sense to me either.

[Armada]

seven psychopaths 4/10 (this movie has a 7.7/10 on imdb....really?)

The first place you went wrong was looking at imbd for a rating.

I myself would give it a 6.5/10

[Wetcoaster]

The first place you went wrong was looking at imbd for a rating.

I myself would give it a 6.5/10

As a general rule I find my ratings are usually pretty close to what Roger Ebert has to say (not all the time of course) and in this case he gives Seven Psychopaths 3.5 out of 4 stars. (8.75/10)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121010/REVIEWS/121019997/0/wikipedia

[Fanuck]

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.

[McBackup]

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.

[GLASSJAW]

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 January 16, 2013 by GLASSJAW

[GLASSJAW]

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.

[mcgillnuck]

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.

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

Silver Linings Playbook - 8.5/10

[cj_coolcat]

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 January 17, 2013 by cj_coolcat

[The Bookie]

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.

[cj_coolcat]

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.

[GLASSJAW]

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.