Last movie seen — Page 238

Ryan McAvoy said:

 Is it? I can't remember. What made it hurt for me, was that you could still detect trace elements of the first superior comic book...

...buried in the setup/script beneath a billion rewrites and watered down budget based revisions. That ^ comic is even drawn like a film, almost storyboard like with Alien-movie like dialogue. Kinda like Dances-with-Predators meets a John Ford Western, produced by Ridley Scott. The tech design was first class, from the spaceships to the upgraded Predator armour, it all had that classic Syd Mead/Moebius feel. Would be awesome if they adapted that one day. I really wanted to see Machiko and Broken-Tusk go back to back against some Aliens on the big screen,

It would've been an expensive film though, I'm guessing. This was the same story novelised...

I read the novelization a number of years back. Beyond the basic plot, I can't remember much of the story; the only specific detail I can recall is that the facehuggers were referred to as "mobile penises" or something like that. 

The Elephant Man (1980) - 7/10

Jason and the Argonauts (1963) - 7/10

Taste of Fear (1961) - 7/10

13 Ghosts (1960) - 6/10

Since when is a 7 out of 10 mediocre?

I guess I should reiterate how I rate films.

Since September, I've taken to evaluating the movies I watch by two seperate criteria: the overall quality of the movie, and the overall entertainment I get out of it. Therefore, I use two seperate ratings for any given movie

One possible 5/5 rating for quality

One possible 5/5 rating for entertainability

So, for example, if I find a movie only moderately entertaining, it gets 3/5 for overall entertainability. At the same time, though, if I think the movie was made very well in spite of its lack of entertainability, I'll give it a 4 or a 5/5 for overall quality. Combining the two ratings, I end up with a 7 or an 8/10.

In the case of all the movies I've been rating 7/10, I've rated them that way because I found them very well made if not particularily entertaining, or vice-versa.   

Gravity

I'm a little bit lost with this one.

8 outta 10 space moons

NeverarGreat said:

Attack of the Ridiculousness

The dialogue was top notch, but action scenes do suffer because of the few visual jokes. The musical numbers can go on too long as well.

A vast improvement over Attack of the Clones.

7 Tommy Wiseau clones out of an increasing number of Tommy Wiseau clones.

 Why thank you for watching and reviewing.  If I might ask, which action scenes specifically?

Inception (2010)

I loved this movie. I enjoy the concept and I thought the execution was good too.

Life of Pi (2013)

Also a very good movie. It probably has the best CGI I've ever seen. The acting is very good, especially when one considers the fact that the tiger, with which the main character (Pi) interacts with a lot throughout the movie, is CG.

The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Despite the many criticisms of the movie, I thought it was very good and enjoyed it more than the first one. I don't mind the length at all and though I am a fan of the book, I didn't mind that it was treated like a prequel to the LOTR. I hated the subplot with Tauriel and Kilii (I think that's his name) and I also found the invincibility of the dwarves a bit tiresome. I would have enjoyed the scenes with the dwarves fighting and running from Smaug were it not for the unrealistic behaviour of the fire and Smaug's apparent inability to use his flame-belching abilities at the right times.

The Desolation of Smaug (2013). Fire balls.

Like the previous film I can't see the problems people have had with these films. Professional critics seem to tidally influenced. There is nothing wrong with this film or the previous one which isn't wrong with the last two Lord of the Rings films.

Tonally it suffers from the same problems as the previous film. Jackson wants to make a prequel series to his already existing adaptations. The backbone of the plot is a children's story so unless Jackson is brave enough to make significant changes (like killing dwarfs) there's a tonal mismatch. Violent aggressive Orcs (and Trolls in the previous film) are chopped to minced meat while only one of the party gets an injury which proves to be curable.

Smaug is sold as a potential weapon in the coming war and yet he can't land a successful hit a single dwarf or hobbit in this film.

In Star Wars we have a smaller troop of heroes so it's less noticeably implausible when only one of them is sort of killed, even so it hasn't gone unnoticed.

Grafted onto this backbone are supplementary materials that have the same dark tone as the Lord of the Rings books or are totally unique and designed to appeal to a general audience.

There is nothing wrong with this. The last two Lord of the Rings were similarly adjusted and were popular and critically well received, ergo my confusion RE the reception of these films.

For me Casino Royale (2006) is practically identical to Quantum of Solace and Skyfall and not that different from Die Another Day.

For me Star Trek (2009) is practically identical to Star Trek into Darkness and not that different from Star Trek : Nemesis or Enterprise.

For me Prometheus is almost exactly the same film as Alien Vs Predator (2004).

And yet critically and in terms of popular opinion the reaction is wildly different.

My only conclusion is that trends are not set by quality but by some market led opinion swing. I highly expect the Star Wars sequels will be as bad as ROTS but as popular as Skyfall, just because the markets have decided Star Wars is to rise again.

Watch this space.

Bingowings said:

The Desolation of Smaug (2013). Fire balls.

Like the previous film I can't see the problems people have had with these films. Professional critics seem to tidally influenced. There is nothing wrong with this film or the previous one which isn't wrong with the last two Lord of the Rings films.

Tonally it suffers from the same problems as the previous film. Jackson wants to make a prequel series to his already existing adaptations. The backbone of the plot is a children's story so unless Jackson is brave enough to make significant changes (like killing dwarfs) there's a tonal mismatch. Violent aggressive Orcs (and Trolls in the previous film) are chopped to minced meat while only one of the party gets an injury which proves to be curable.

Some dwarves will die of course, if the next movie remains true to the book. The invincibility of the dwarves was probably the biggest problem I had with this movie as well.

My only conclusion is that trends are not set by quality but by some market led opinion swing. I highly expect the Star Wars prequels will be as bad as ROTS but as popular as Skyfall, just because the markets have decided Star  Wars is to rise again.

Watch this space.

 I believe you meant sequels, but yes I bet they will be very popular with not a lot of quality. I think they'll be better than the prequels were, but definitely not as good as the OT.

I actually like Star Trek Nemesis alot, unlike apparently the rest of the world.

Possessed said:

I actually like Star Trek Nemesis alot, unlike apparently the rest of the world.

It wasn't as bad as people made out but it was a shameless remake of TWOK.

So being ripped to shreds by the Trekkers and the critics who loved the 2009 re-remake and the 2013 re-re-remake confuses me a bit.

I really enjoyed the dark tone of it, and the atmospheric (at times) soundtrack.  And I loved the green tinted space/starfields used during the ship battles.  Totally drew me into the atmosphere.

I would have liked Nemesis better had Shinzon had an actual reason for wanting to destroy Earth and Data been treated with a semblance of respect.

Possessed said:

I actually like Star Trek Nemesis alot

DuracellEnergizer said:

I would have liked Nemesis better had Shinzon had an actual reason for wanting to destroy Earth and Data been treated with a semblance of respect.

It was no more daft than Khan's vendetta against Kirk.

If it wasn't for the Federation Shinzon would not have been born to a life of slavery, sickness and perpetual darkness.

If it wasn't for Kirk, Khan would be still frozen or executed for hijacking and would never have met his wife.

Agreed, I always took shinzon wanting to destroy earth as the result of him being twisted by a life of slavery and in his warped mind thinking earth was ruining the galaxy.

Agreed, but I think those are minor quibbles, and actually next to First Contact I would go so far as to say Nemesis is the best TNG movie.  Not that that's really saying ALL that much...