Rate The Last Movie You Saw - 2

[Monty]

5 minutes ago, J.R. said:

My wife is constantly rolling her eyes at me or giving me an disapproving glare. Get used to it Monty 

It's been a strange 4 months. I've known this woman for 13 years, and she has always been predictable, even keel, and largely easy to deal with. But now? Yikes. And this is going to be the case for the remainder of my life

 

Now I know why so many men play golf.

[Monty]

The Program - 5/10

 

Unfortunately, the reviews are accurate. Stephen Frears' films usually are made very well, and the amount of material they had to use to make a "tell all" about Lance Armstrong is well documented. Which is why it feels like such a massive missed opportunity that this is just a "meh" film. 

 

Ben Foster is very well cast as Armstrong, and Jesse Plemons is probably the best in the film as Floyd Landis. However, it's clear they weren't quite sure where to go with the script. Do they focus more on the investigation and the reporting of David Walsh (Chris O'Dowd), or more on Armstrong and Co.? Unfortunately, they couldn't really decide, so the beginning was more on Walsh, and then they abandoned him altogether and focused more on the doping. Now, it's not that the doping angle with Armstrong was boring, but it just made the film a bit of a mess in its narrative, as it seemed like Frears didn't know what kind of film he wanted to make. Was it an investigative film, or a biographical film? Not deciding which to do made it suffer.

[g_bassi13]

Dog Day Afternoon - 8.5/10

 

I was at the Art Gallery yesterday, and their new exhibit had a set up dedicated to the movie. I hadn't seen it before, and it made me wonder why I never had. 

 

Can see the influence it's had on other movies. As a movie about a hostage situation it lost its sense of tension part way through the movie. But it became about something else. The themes and the ideas of the movie still have a challenging element to them today, so I could only imagine what kind of punch it would have had 40 years ago.

 

Characterization was the movie's strongest point. With "true story" types, this is typically the biggest issue, as you know they just dramatize the hell out of the situation. Particularly with the people involved and their motivations. Always bothers me. Though it's pretty easy to watch a movie from old events that I hadn't heard of before, in a vacuum. And it works well as a drama.

[g_bassi13]

On 29/03/2016 at 6:32 PM, soshified said:

Batman was fine imo.

 

This Batman have probably been doing this sort of job for years now and throughout those years, he has seen a lot. Yes, his ideals are not to kill people, but i understand that he lost so much that he's on the verge of insanity and doesn't care for criminals anymore. The quotes of "You let your family die" or "You seen good people turn bad" speaks loudly to that. Do you remember the scene where Bruce look at his costume and then looks at another costume with Joker's writing on it? That was most likely Jason Todd's Robin suit who was "killed". That's why i believe that he simply doesn't care anymore because he's tired of losing his closed ones.

 

As for wanting Superman dead, he witnessed one of his business tower collapsing and killing many of his employees. That's why i'm not surprised that Batman wanted Superman dead, he saw what Superman did to his people and what he's able to do; he's simply afraid of the power of Superman. Also, Superman being framed for killing innocents and causing casualties played a huge role in shifting Batman.

 

Jesse Eisenberg played his role fine. But that was not Lex Luthor.

 

Gal Gadot definitely have the visuals and can pull off action scenes perfectly as Wonder Woman, but she whenever she speaks, it hurts.

 

I have no faith in Aquaman. Possibly Flash as well. Cyborg seems to look good.

If that was some sort of evolution of Batman, feels like they skipped about 50 important steps along the way. He just jumps straight into the killing. It's just weak, and it made a Batman/Superman ideology crash seem that much weaker.

 

I think they did a marginally decent job in getting him interested in killing Superman, but that one they made it look harder than it did. I can get Batman killing Superman, but again, it's another thing I don't think was handled to smoothly. Not nearly as poorly as the above, in that I actually felt they addressed it, as they had to. Just that they didn't address it well.

 

Everything about that Eisenberg performance was wrong in my book. Seems like they just blended together a bunch of villains and just called him Lex Luthor. On top of just not being a performance of the name sake, whoever it actually was that appeared on screen did nothing but grate nerves. He was everywhere, and nowhere.

 

Gal Gadot is attractive for sure, but neither her appearance nor anything about her performance carried any sort of screen presence. In what small amount I've seen her at all, she continues to carry the screen presence of a plank of wood. It hurt her even more here when she's playing what was scripted to be a stoic hero.

 

I still think it was a decent movie, but like all these other DC ones that keep coming out, the more I think about, the worse it becomes in my mind. I despise the term, but I feel like I have to shut my brain off and forget that I watched them. More so than in the Marvel movies that keep coming out, and there's already nothing going on in them.

[Svengali]

6 hours ago, g_bassi13 said:

Dog Day Afternoon - 8.5/10

 

I was at the Art Gallery yesterday, and their new exhibit had a set up dedicated to the movie. I hadn't seen it before, and it made me wonder why I never had. 

 

Can see the influence it's had on other movies. As a movie about a hostage situation it lost its sense of tension part way through the movie. But it became about something else. The themes and the ideas of the movie still have a challenging element to them today, so I could only imagine what kind of punch it would have had 40 years ago.

 

Characterization was the movie's strongest point. With "true story" types, this is typically the biggest issue, as you know they just dramatize the hell out of the situation. Particularly with the people involved and their motivations. Always bothers me. Though it's pretty easy to watch a movie from old events that I hadn't heard of before, in a vacuum. And it works well as a drama.

It's a great movie, I like it a lot. And yeah the punch it had must have been massive back then.
There's a short documentary about the actor that played his accomplice in the film (the guy with the big forehead and weird hairline that is in some of the biggest movies of all time) called I Knew It Was You: Rediscovering John Cazale. An odd little bit of movie history if you're into it.

Also I just goggled the exhibit at the VAG (that can't be the right acronym) and the whole thing looks really neat.

 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Svengali

[GLASSJAW]

i love a good trip to the VAG.

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, GLASSJAW said:

i love a good trip to the VAG.

I like just poking my  head in a bit for a while before I really dive in to the exhibits... 

[GLASSJAW]

Just now, J.R. said:

I like just poking my  head in a bit for a while before I really dive in to the exhibits... 

Yah, it's good to just have a peak first, you never know what paintings have been on those walls and whether the price of admission is worth the uh... orgasm?

[Flume]

BvS: martha/10

 

 

[GLASSJAW]

deadpool: 6.7/10

 

certainly not bad, but nothing special either. some funny lines, a lot of really lame jokes too. not much of the action was very interesting or unique at all. just because Deadpool is self-aware about how trite some of the action sh-t is doesn't make it interesting. I have no idea how saying "uh oh, lets count down my last 6 bullets!" makes the trope somehow exciting? Or that stupid "super hero drop" thing.

 

It definitely wins points for being slightly suggestive and using 'bad words' and stuff, though. lightyears ahead of The Avengers and all that, but still just decent.

 

 

[Monty]

10 Cloverfield Lane - 6.5/10

 

No spoilers, but I'll just say that I really enjoyed it. Very well acted and an interesting concept. All in all, worth watching.

[g_bassi13]

10 Cloverfield Lane - 8.5/10

 

I really liked it. Hard movie to talk about without spoiling, so I won't. It's one of those movies you should go into not really even knowing what it's about. And you should totally watch it.

Edited April 3, 2016 by g_bassi13

[Ghostsof1915]

So I broke down and took a gamble on The Force Awakens. It's not as bad as the prequels but it basically redid Star Wars for the 21st Century. The actors are fine. I found it odd that from the original trilogy Luke actually took some time to improve his abilities. 

Rey had them with no training, and seemed to be angry attacking Ren, tisk, tisk, dark side!

 

I did find it funny that Daniel Craig played a Stormtrooper. JJ Abrams just doesn't know how to write though. Sadly Lawrence Kasdan obviously didn't have a heck of a lot of input. I still don't think I've recovered from the last half of ROTJ, and The Phantom Menace. 

[Monty]

12 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

So I broke down and took a gamble on The Force Awakens. It's not as bad as the prequels but it basically redid Star Wars for the 21st Century. The actors are fine. I found it odd that from the original trilogy Luke actually took some time to improve his abilities. 

Rey had them with no training, and seemed to be angry attacking Ren, tisk, tisk, dark side!

 

I did find it funny that Daniel Craig played a Stormtrooper. JJ Abrams just doesn't know how to write though. Sadly Lawrence Kasdan obviously didn't have a heck of a lot of input. I still don't think I've recovered from the last half of ROTJ, and The Phantom Menace. 

Wife and I watched it for a second time a few days ago. We took two days to finish it, as I walked out after about an hour. It's just not that good. Certainly some good ideas and good parts; but overall, incredibly safe effort by all involved. Which also equates to a completely forgettable film. 

 

As as bad as the prequels were, at least the weren't forgettable, mainly because they were so bad. But Force Awakens was played incredibly safe.

[Ghostsof1915]

1 minute ago, Monty said:

Wife and I watched it for a second time a few days ago. We took two days to finish it, as I walked out after about an hour. It's just not that good. Certainly some good ideas and good parts; but overall, incredibly safe effort by all involved. Which also equates to a completely forgettable film. 

 

As as bad as the prequels were, at least the weren't forgettable, mainly because they were so bad. But Force Awakens was played incredibly safe.

Well Teddy Bears, divine conception, Jar-Jar, midi-chlorians, pretty much ruined speeder bikes, Qui-Gon, and Darth Maul. Yup ROTJ and The Phantom Menace, was not forgettable, but I wanted to forget the Prequels and Indy 4. 

[Monty]

15 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Well Teddy Bears, divine conception, Jar-Jar, midi-chlorians, pretty much ruined speeder bikes, Qui-Gon, and Darth Maul. Yup ROTJ and The Phantom Menace, was not forgettable, but I wanted to forget the Prequels and Indy 4. 

Ugh, Indy 4. To me, that is the biggest disappointment. I mean, I was never a Star Wars kid, just was never my fav. So when the prequels ended up sucking nuts, I was laughing during the showings.

 

However, I love Indiana Jones. The first 3 are so good. Even Temple of Doom, as different as it is, works in its own strange way. Kind of how the second Mario Bro's game works, as messed up and weird as it is. So when Indy 4 came out, I couldn't have been more let down. Just an absolute train wreck of a film. Really, really, really, really, really bad.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Monty

[Ghostsof1915]

3 minutes ago, Monty said:

Ugh, Indy 4. To me, that is the biggest disappointment. I mean, I was never a Star Wars kid, just was never my fav. So when the prequels ended up sucking nuts, I was laughing during the showings.

 

However, I love Indiana Jones. The first 3 are so good. Even a Temple of Doom, as different as it is, works in its own strange way. Kind of how the second Mario Bro's game works, as messed up and weird as it is. So when Indy 4 came out, I couldn't have been more let down. Just an absolute train wreck of a film. Really, really, really, really, really bad.

 

[Monty]

It's just so stupid. Yes, it's a film about an adventuring archeologist, I get it. But the first 3, as unbelievable as they were, weren't stupid. But the forth one is not in the "so bad it's good" territory. Just a "I wish films didn't exist so this never got made" type of bad.

 

- Aliens

- Crystal Skulls

- Swinging with dozens of monkeys

- Old Karen Allen

- Useless character Karen Allen

- Mutt Williams

- Cate Blanchett acting brutally. Something I didn't know was possible.

- CGI. Really terrible CGI.

[Spoderman]

Why do so many people dislike Temple of Doom, anyway? 

[Monty]

17 minutes ago, Spoderman said:

Why do so many people dislike Temple of Doom, anyway? 

Because they're dumb sh*ts.

 

Temple of Doom is terrific. So many great parts of that film, but none greater than the entire dinner scene at the palace. Monkey brains, life snakes INSIDE a giant dead snake, and eyeball soup! Love it!

 

If you go to www.firebox.com, you can actually buy a Monkey Brain replica bowl. If I were not trying to continually find ways for my wife to not leave me, I'd pick it up in a second.