1155 replies to this topic

[Chaosmaster8753]

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock: B

[randomizer]

Knowing: Started off a B, ended with a WTF.

[salamander]

Futurama:Into the Wild Green Yonder (that counts as a movie, right?)
My least favorite of the Futurama movies- not that anything stood out as bad, but it was kinda flat and boring. Fry's mind-reading was the most interesting aspect, but it didn't really amount to much. The ending was especially underwhelming-for a series with some very powerful emotional moments, I wanted a really strong climax to the whole Fry-Leela thing, but it was disappointing. The old last episode, "The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings", was a far superior conclusion. What happens in this movie is just superfluous. C.
Bender's Big Score was my favorite of the movies-the complicated time-hopping is a little confusing, but I thought it wrapped up brilliantly. The emotions were spot-on, and the ending was very satisfying. It was still a mixed bag, though. I could have done without the naked aliens, who were annoying and unfunny. A-.
The Beast with a Billion Backs was the funniest, at least in the first half. I really, really hate Yivo, though. It was just a generic joke about relationships that wasn't funny, and the character itself was just plain annoying. B.
Bender's Game was mediocre, but more fun than the other movies. I liked the ending, but it didn't really amount to anything, unless they do more with it in future movies/episodes/whatever. B-.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Knowing: Started off a B, ended with a WTF.

I was dragged into seeing that one too. I never really liked Nicholas Cage before that movie, and Knowing just further confirmed my dislike for him. It wasn't any better that they put him with child actors, either. I think Spielberg is the only one to consistently direct children in a believable manner. The rest of the directors, such as the one for Knowing, should just stay away from them.

And the special effects in that movie were terrible. And the script degraded as the film continued. And the lighting was off all the time.

I would also put down Twilight, but the topic told us to rate "movies", not... whatever Twilight was.

[randomizer]

I liked National Treasure, which was a Cage film, but this was... ugh. Luckily my movie ticket was free this time. I think the movie had something going for it at the start, the concept was ok. But the last 30-45 minutes were so full of unexplained things that I couldn't follow it. Like the angels/aliens/benevolent overlords/creepy white people and their black rocks and flying icicles.

[Dakota Bob]

The Replacement Killers: B

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Just the other night I saw a Christian/sci-fi film called "Unidentified". It's just like all the other Christian movies out there: poorly written, and the one or two lead actors are the only ones tolerable. The rest make you cringe. And strangely enough, Christians were never portrayed believably in any movie. Even in Christian films. It upsets me, not only because I am a Christian, but because if you're gonna write a script about any ethnic group, religion, or even occupation, you need to do your research.
Overall: D
**---

I liked National Treasure, which was a Cage film, but this was... ugh. Luckily my movie ticket was free this time. I think the movie had something going for it at the start, the concept was ok. But the last 30-45 minutes were so full of unexplained things that I couldn't follow it. Like the angels/aliens/benevolent overlords/creepy white people and their black rocks and flying icicles.

I enjoyed National Treasure, but not because of Cage. My Knowing ticket was free for me too, so I had that going for me. I was able to understand everything in that movie except for the black rocks. I don't remember if that was ever explained.

National Treasure: -B
***--
Knowing: -C
**---

[salamander]

I couldn't say he's exceptionally good or bad as an actor, but boy does Nicolas Cage pick a lot of crappy movies. I remember watching The Wicker Man on TV with my Mom, who insisted on watching it all the way to the end. When it was over we were both laughing our asses off at how frigging stupid it was, and my mom actually apologised for not letting me change the channel. (The original Wicker Man from the 70's was actually good, though. Don't let the remake turn you off.)
I mean geez, Nicolas Cage running around in a bear suit, karate kicking women, wearing a helmet full of bees.. and this is supposed to be a SERIOUS DRAMA.
"Killing me won't bring back your GOD DAMN HONEY!!"

[Vlad Yvhv]

Robocop. I snagged the trilogy DVD in a bargin bin while I was buying dogfood. A-

[randomizer]

I was able to understand everything in that movie except for the black rocks. I don't remember if that was ever explained.

I understand that there were many Biblical allusions, but if you have never read the Bible you probably wouldn't get much of them. The rocks seemed to be a fairly pointless plot device that signified where the "whisper people" had been. Another useless plot device was the kid's hearing aid, which was only there to make his hearing of the whispers different to other peoples' hearing. Funny thing was, he had good conversations with his dad even when it was out of his ear. I know he wasn't deaf, but clearly the words didn't get "muddled up" either.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Another useless plot device was the kid's hearing aid, which was only there to make his hearing of the whispers different to other peoples' hearing. Funny thing was, he had good conversations with his dad even when it was out of his ear. I know he wasn't deaf, but clearly the words didn't get "muddled up" either.

Yeah, unless Nicholas Cage didn't bother to tell the audience that his son gets "muddled", I wouldn't have known.

I couldn't say he's exceptionally good or bad as an actor, but boy does Nicolas Cage pick a lot of crappy movies.

Maybe that's why I'm not a fan. The movies he (or his agent) picks don't give him room to grow as an actor.

My brother wanted to watch Equilibrium, which I have in my DVD library but today was the first in a long time that I've seen it. You can see the director's influences in making the movie, like The Matrix, but the movie didn't look too much like The Matrix. Not even it's gun fights were the same. So, I don't think it knocks off of The Matrix it just gleamed some of it's techniques in a way that didn't seem like they were making carbon copies if them (unlike more recent films).

But after saying all that, I think the script still could have been executed better. The first half was rather dull, mainly because the characters in the film were on a drug issued by the government that made the mind incapable of feeling emotions. Whereas that's understandable and necessary for the plot, it caused the first half of the film to drag. Maybe if there was some emotional music counteracting the emotionless performances, it would have been less dull. But the second half picks up the pace, and everything else in the film is executed very well. The gun fights are clever and amazing to watch.

Overall: B
***--

[Vlad Yvhv]

War Wolves. C+

[Ratty Randnums]

Two most recent (not counting a couple I've seen several times and watched since, as I saw once dragonslayer years ago but only half remembered it)

DragonSlayer B-
A decent for it's time (1981) paramount/disney fantasy flop. Something about it just leaves you feeling "empty" the heart of the movie I guess, since the writing is ok as well as the acting as there's only one really insufferably bad actor (which is good for an 80s fantasy flick) she's unfortunately the female lead/love interest. The effects hold up ok, but to a modern audience they're a little sparse. And it's ostensibly got a pro-christian message which I find annoying and tacked on, though I think the writers did slip in some criticism of it with a scene where a priest (played by the man who would go on to be immortalized as the Emperor/Palpatine in the Star Wars films) refuses to see that the dragon is in fact a dragon and not the devil, so he gets burned alive. Decent, but far faaar from a must see.

Land of the Dead A-
Romero barely hides the politics in this film, and while I can't attack his filmaking in it (most of the actors are actually good and of course the cinematography and effects are nice) there's one scene where I disagree with his politics (if that's what he's trying to say, if it's not it's like the only scene in the movie were the message isn't crystal) and for a lot of people who just want to see a movie it'd probably be too preachy in general.

[spoiler:fdldgayv]Though I think everyone from our generation would probably enjoy it, if only for the scene where the (zombified) actor who played Luigi in the Mario Bros. movie attacks the actor who played Koopa in same.[/spoiler]

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Gojira (1954):
I was able to obtain a copy of the original Japanese masterpiece. Before that I only saw the Americanized version Godzilla: King of the Monsters with Raymond Burr cut into it. The Japanese tend to explore genres to a fuller extent than Americans do. Sometimes it leads to a better product, other times it's just weird and confusing.

In this case, it lead to one of the greatest monster films ever made. The movie automatically looks more real compared to the American sci-fi films because the destruction scenes were shot with a very strong documentary style. The performances and the effects are better than you'd find in any 50's monster flick at the time. Just compare them to the mellow dramatic screams and choppy stop-motion animation in 20,000 Fathoms Under the Sea or King Kong. I mean, they're good movies for their time. But Gojira hit upon special effect techniques and serious performances that had the potential to work better for sci-fi films. Those techniques were just butchered in the following Godzilla films of the 60's. Story is very well written, and the music that accompanies the movie is amazing.

50's Rating: A
Modern Rating: B -

****-

Cloverfield:
It's hard for me to say "it's a good movie" or "this film sucked", since it doesn't follow any structure a film traditionally uses. This would make sense because Cloverfield is not supposed to look like a movie at all. Instead, it was to appear to be "found footage" of a monster attack. It takes the documentary style of disaster scenes that Gojira only slightly tapped into, and takes it to a whole new level. And the special effect scenes are amazing.

If you're coming to this movie expecting a well built story with lovable character, you will be immensely disappointed. But if you just come looking for more of the "found footage" that the trailer promised, it's an exciting... um... ride. But I still can't call it a movie.

C
***--

[Chaosmaster8753]

Dragonball Evolution: D+

[Kain Blackwood]

"To Kill A Mockingbird": better than just about anything else on this or any other list

[Vlad Yvhv]

"To Kill A Mockingbird": better than just about anything else on this or any other list

I think you've got the scale backwards. It's kinda like golf: the higher the letter, the worse the movie.

[randomizer]

I hate "To Kill a Mockingbird" with a passion. The movie was grinding on my sanity as I watched it. Too bad I had to for an assignment.

[Vlad Yvhv]

I hate "To Kill a Mockingbird" with a passion. The movie was grinding on my sanity as I watched it. Too bad I had to for an assignment.

Likewise... HS english class at its worst... It was almost as bad as the Shakespear stuff...
To Kill A Mockingbird: Z- (edited to remove comical overreaction).

[Anaesthesia]

I hate "To Kill a Mockingbird" with a passion. The movie was grinding on my sanity as I watched it. Too bad I had to for an assignment.

Likewise... HS english class at its worst... It was almost as bad as the Shakespear stuff...
To Kill A Mockingbird: Z-------------, -56 quadrillion *s.

What. The. Hell.

You people are dead to me.


The last movie I've seen in whole was Australia, which I had been itching to see after I read some good reviews... and I wasn't all that impressed with it. It was definitely pretty to look at — I definitely don't mind Baz Luhrman's visuals when he's not leaning on the Moulin Rouge! ADD camera approach, which he thankfully avoided in this movie. And the story at its core isn't all that bad, with its commentary on the strained relationship between the Aboriginals and the white Australian culture.

But ugh, the script. It's a raging whirlwind of clichés, from the cloying narration by the precious native Australian kid to a montage via floating newspaper headlines that no self-respecting movie's played straight since... what, the '70s? They just seemed so trite, and it made most of the potential sentimentality in the movie seem phony (which is the same problem I had with the universally overrated Moulin Rouge), oddly enough). It didn't help that the plot was dragging liek woah at about 2.5 hours.

Not horrible, but I'd give it a solid C.