Rate The Last Movie You Saw - 2

[Monty]

by the way, Interstellar only has 30 reviews on RT so far, but it's "only" at about 72% -- kinda surprised. lots of comments on its story, too.

USA Today snippet reads:

"The story is ever-ambitious, sometimes riveting and thought-provoking, but also plodding and hokey and not as visionary as its cutting-edge special effects"

TheWrap (whatever that is) said:

"May represent an apotheosis of sorts, as it illustrates the very best and the very worst of Nolan as a writer-director."

humm.

The 72% doesn't surprise me, to be honest. I really like Nolan and think he is a terrific director creatively. However, sci-fi films are generally a hit or miss with film reviewers. Aside from Gravity, which was absolutely adored by the majority of critics, what was the last film set in space (not Star Trek), so an original idea, that scored well with critics?

Oh, and I just now realized that this is McConaughey's second space picture, the first being "Contact". Ugh!

[FramingDragon]

My parents must be terrible then. The Terminator and Alien were two of my favorite live action movies when I was about five. Halloween for me was a rotation between dressing up as Sarah Connor or Ellen Ripley or a xenomorph until I stopped caring to dress up.

Those two are still probably my favorite female characters in any movie

Re: Space movies and critics to Monty. Moon by Duncan Jones was very highly regarded, and even though it was flawed I think it deserved more hoopla than Gravity

Edited October 29, 2014 by FramingDragon

[Monty]

I'll watch anything with giant waves.

Well good news, "Sharknado 3" is on its way!

[D-Money]

by the way, Interstellar only has 30 reviews on RT so far, but it's "only" at about 72% -- kinda surprised. lots of comments on its story, too.

USA Today snippet reads:

"The story is ever-ambitious, sometimes riveting and thought-provoking, but also plodding and hokey and not as visionary as its cutting-edge special effects"

TheWrap (whatever that is) said:

"May represent an apotheosis of sorts, as it illustrates the very best and the very worst of Nolan as a writer-director."

humm.

There are some reviewers gushing over it too. Here's an excerpt from Variety:

An enormous undertaking that, like all the director’s best work, manages to feel handcrafted and intensely personal, “Interstellar” reaffirms Nolan as the premier big-canvas storyteller of his generation, more than earning its place alongside “The Wizard of Oz,” “2001,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “Gravity” in the canon of Hollywood’s visionary sci-fi head trips.

I think that after Dark Knight Rises, Nolan is going to be a target for some exaggerated negative reviews. Critics taking a shot at the once infallible director to get attention for themselves.

[Monty]

My parents must be terrible then. The Terminator and Alien were two of my favorite live action movies when I was about five. Halloween for me was a rotation between dressing up as Sarah Connor or Ellen Ripley or a xenomorph until I stopped caring to dress up.

Those two are still probably my favorite female characters in any movie

As I got older, my parents started to care less because they knew what I could and could not tolerate. I remember seeing Temple of Doom when I was 4 and absolutely losing my sh*t when the guy had his heart ripped out of his chest and then burned alive. My mom leaned over to me and said, "Don't worry, it's not real. That man is actually at home safe with his wife and kids."

My parents just didn't want to make a habit out of us watching things, they felt, were not appropriate for kids. And really, now that I'm into my 30s and planning for a child in the near future, I don't want my kids watching things that they would be too young to handle. They have their whole lives to grow up and watch Troll 2.

[riffraff]

I'll watch anything with giant waves.

Whats your favourute big wave?

Also....watch the movie "McConkey"....no waves but lots of other crazy outdoor shit.

Anyway last movie I watched was "twenty feet from stardom"

Ill give it an 8

[GLASSJAW]

The 72% doesn't surprise me, to be honest. I really like Nolan and think he is a terrific director creatively. However, sci-fi films are generally a hit or miss with film reviewers. Aside from Gravity, which was absolutely adored by the majority of critics, what was the last film set in space (not Star Trek), so an original idea, that scored well with critics?

Oh, and I just now realized that this is McConaughey's second space picture, the first being "Contact". Ugh!

yeah that's true, but i think it also depends on how strict you are with genre definitions. does Inception count as sci fi? All those rotten comic book movies?

Godzilla did well, Her. Gravity as you said, Looper. i dunno, seems like there's a few out there with 80+ on RT. very few of which I enjoyed, as sci fi is probably my least favourite straight up genre-genre. but i do think when it's at its best, they can be great great great.

so maybe that's why I had/have high hopes for this one. i have the sneaking suspicion it's going to be Armageddon (UGH) meets 2001 (in my top 3, easily). i know it can go either way. i'm quite eager to see where it lands

There are some reviewers gushing over it too. Here's an excerpt from Variety:

An enormous undertaking that, like all the director’s best work, manages to feel handcrafted and intensely personal, “Interstellar” reaffirms Nolan as the premier big-canvas storyteller of his generation, more than earning its place alongside “The Wizard of Oz,” “2001,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “Gravity” in the canon of Hollywood’s visionary sci-fi head trips.

I think that after Dark Knight Rises, Nolan is going to be a target for some exaggerated negative reviews. Critics taking a shot at the once infallible director to get attention for themselves.

yeah i saw that as well. and i agree with your last comment, but i don't know of many legitimate critics who do that, which is why i sorta questioned who or what TheWrap is. but I also think this is a two way street. there is a lot of pressure on some film critics to follow up with the positive hype train, so as to not draw negative attention to themselves, even if the movie is weak. if a popular/fanboy movie draws a negative criticism (Village Voice's piece on Avengers, for example), there seems to be loads upon loads of complaints. this, surely, is both good for the Voice (brings in hits), but negative too (questions their quality from fanboy readership)

i duuuunno

Edited October 29, 2014 by GLASSJAW

[Monty]

yeah that's true, but i think it also depends on how strict you are with genre definitions. does Inception count as sci fi? All those rotten comic book movies?

Godzilla did well, Her. Gravity as you said, Looper. i dunno, seems like there's a few out there with 80+ on RT. very few of which I enjoyed, as sci fi is probably my least favourite straight up genre-genre. but i do think when it's at its best, they can be great great great.

Sorry, I meant to be more specific with my sci-fi, and single out "Space Sci-Fi" in particular. Generally, those films seem to get more criticism than most.

[Monty]

I think that after Dark Knight Rises, Nolan is going to be a target for some exaggerated negative reviews. Critics taking a shot at the once infallible director to get attention for themselves.

I agree 100%, and have felt this for some time. I feel as though this is the case with James Cameron as well. People love to crap on him after the fact.

While you may not find someone that hates TDKR more than I do, I still think Nolan's critics crap on him a little too much.

[Ghostsof1915]

i don't really get the Blair Witch hate. i think it's a good little movie.

i had a conversation about this with my mom the other day. i asked her why she let me watch Dawn of the Dead when I was a kid, but not Child's Play. she said "you have toys. didn't want you to be afraid of them or them give you nightmares" and I said "but zombies wouldn't give me nightmares?" and she responded "they are just stupid fake monsters, why would they have?"

not sure that would fly for modern parenting, but it sorta worked for me. staying up late watching godawful movies like GNAW: FOOD OF THE GODS 2 didn't really do anything to me, except provide some fun(ny) family memories and a lifelong tolerance for bad horror movies

not sure how i would handle this same issue if or when i have children

I don't hate Blair Witch like some. But watching it again, I found it really tough to get sympathetic when they seem to be constantly bickering. I think the best scares are things you can't see. Sort of like the episode "Blink" in Doctor Who.

Another underrated movie is the original Poltergiest.

[D-Money]

Did GJ really just compare a Nolan movie to Armageddon?

...Now who's just writing things for attention?

[FramingDragon]

As I got older, my parents started to care less because they knew what I could and could not tolerate. I remember seeing Temple of Doom when I was 4 and absolutely losing my sh*t when the guy had his heart ripped out of his chest and then burned alive. My mom leaned over to me and said, "Don't worry, it's not real. That man is actually at home safe with his wife and kids."

My parents just didn't want to make a habit out of us watching things, they felt, were not appropriate for kids. And really, now that I'm into my 30s and planning for a child in the near future, I don't want my kids watching things that they would be too young to handle. They have their whole lives to grow up and watch Troll 2.

I was an oddball I think because they were much stricter with my younger siblings. I started reading much too early and my perception of knowing to draw the line between what's real and what's fiction was very strong.

Despite having seen things at 7 or 8 you probably waited till 18 to see, I don't remember ever being emotionally scarred by any of it. Violence and action didn't carry any novelty for me because it was never hidden from me. I noticed most kids that had strict guidelines on what they can and can't watch go on binges appreciating mindless violence and action once they get older and have the freedom to do so because their grasp of it is still so superficial and immature.

That being said, the violence I was exposed to as a child on TV and movies were exaggerated in how fantastical they were. I don't deem extended scenes of domestic violence appropriate for children but most parents do coddle their kids too much.

[Monty]

I was an oddball I think because they were much stricter with my younger siblings. I started reading much too early and my perception of knowing to draw the line between what's real and what's fiction was very strong.

Despite having seen things at 7 or 8 you probably waited till 18 to see, I don't remember ever being emotionally scarred by any of it. Violence and action didn't carry any novelty for me because it was never hidden from me. I noticed most kids that had strict guidelines on what they can and can't watch go on binges appreciating mindless violence and action once they get older and have the freedom to do so because their grasp of it is still so superficial and immature.

That being said, the violence I was exposed to as a child on TV and movies were exaggerated in how fantastical they were. I don't deem extended scenes of domestic violence appropriate for children but most parents do coddle their kids too much.

For the most part I don't think my parents coddled me. More then anything, I don't think they wanted us to waste too much time on entertainment. I was the youngest in the family, but I was able to handle majority of things I saw, which is why I did watch T2 at 9 and Pulp Fiction at 13. I wasn't scarred by it in any way, I felt that I was emotionally mature for it. My parents, to their credit, were just trying to be responsible parents. I would/will do the same things with my kids, for the most part.

My wife didn't grow up watching movies/tv at all. However, she read a boatload of books, which have given her a very deep and twisted imagination. One could argue (and she would at times) that if you are allowing your children to read more graphic in nature books, then they MAY be able to handle what you see on film.

It also depends, at least to me, what you are allowing your children to see. For instance, my wife and I have already spoke about this particular issue, even though we don't have a child yet. However, we do feel that we would allow a younger teen (say 12/13) to watch Saving Private Ryan/The Thin Red Line/Band of Brothers, due to the subject matter and my family history during WW2. Again, this also depends on the emotional intelligence of the child. Some 13 year olds can handle more adult oriented subject matter and actually see the message past it; however, there are definitely some 13 year olds than cannot handle it, for one reason or another. For instance, my 23 year old sister in-law would not be able to handle much, due to a number of reasons.

[aliboy]

Whats your favourute big wave?

Also....watch the movie "McConkey"....no waves but lots of other crazy outdoor crap.

Anyway last movie I watched was "twenty feet from stardom"

Ill give it an 8

2012 with the tsunami rolling over the mountains was hella cool. Also Deep Impact and The Day After Tomorrow. Tsunamis show up in my dreams all the time, it's a regular occurance.

[Monty]

2012 with the tsunami rolling over the mountains was hella cool. Also Deep Impact and The Day After Tomorrow. Tsunamis show up in my dreams all the time, it's a regular occurance.

Two Roland Emmerich films and a Tea Leoni film? I would call those dreams, "nightmares."

[aliboy]

Two Roland Emmerich films and a Tea Leoni film? I would call those dreams, "nightmares."

I also loved Godzilla, which had a monster caused tsunami. We each have our own taste in films.

[GLASSJAW]

Did GJ really just compare a Nolan movie to Armageddon?

...Now who's just writing things for attention?

well, i mean i don't want it to have some stupid "man vs. asteroid" plotline mixed with some tossed in existential crisis or borrowed metaphor (a la Gravity) for depth -- i'm hoping for more. obviously it will be better than Armageddon (i hope), but i'm just skeptical about how Armageddon-y it will be. the batman movies and inception all lost me by the end, the action just gets far too schlocky for me

[g_bassi13]

The original Friday the 13th was good.

It wasn't really. But I enjoyed it all the same. Can watch any up until the 4th one, after which it starts to get really, really, bad. 3rd one was probably my favourite of the bunch, but none of them are "good", lol.

Halloween, which it tried to cash in on, was a far better movie, and to continue something that was said by me a few weeks ago in this thread, still holds up very well. It doesn't feel like a relic of its time, like most all of these other slasher movies do. Though I guess that's a big part of the charm those movies hold nowadays.

i really liked that one

I didn't really know what to expect with Philomena, so I'd say at the least it was a pleasant surprise. Like I said, it gets better the more I think about it. It's a pretty subtle movie that's making what can be interpreted as a large political statement.

[FramingDragon]

I'm tired of screaming about Moon but no one else here is mentioning it. Seriously it's great

[D-Money]

well, i mean i don't want it to have some stupid "man vs. asteroid" plotline mixed with some tossed in existential crisis or borrowed metaphor (a la Gravity) for depth -- i'm hoping for more. obviously it will be better than Armageddon (i hope), but i'm just skeptical about how Armageddon-y it will be. the batman movies and inception all lost me by the end, the action just gets far too schlocky for me

Armageddon is probably my most-hated movie of all time. So yeah...I hope Interstellar is better too.

I know what you mean about schlocky though. The constant shootouts in Inception were annoying, and certainly unnecessary. But I still really enjoyed the movie.