Rate the last film you watched out of 100 Page 2049

  • Page

    of 2601 First / Last

  • Khanivor 31 Dec 2012 03:35:21 39,907 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Total Recall - 7/10

    I loved the original but it really is a hammy relic of the 80s. The new version plays it all much straighter and more serious in tone and will stand the test of time better, imo. The production design gets the film at least one point all by itself. I thought it was fun and would have been even more fun if it didn't class itself as a remake; it certainly suffered more then it gained.

    If it had been made by someone other than 'Here's another shot of my wife's arse' Lensman-the-hack then it could have really been something special.

    Kinda surprised at the hate it gets on this forum as this is easily the best and most faithful portrayal of a video game that has ever been seen as a movie. Tempted to dock a point for the rather naked catering to the teenage boy market but shit, it's an action movie. It also doesn't rely on someone doing something utterly retarded to move the plot along, so it's miles better than Prometheus - and 70% of all Hollywood blockbusters - in that regard.
  • -cerberus- 31 Dec 2012 04:14:20 2,103 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Alice in Wonderland

    Forgot all about this one and now that I've seen it again I remember why. What a soulless mess of a movie. The sad thing is that the first five or ten minutes are great! Alice has got a great personality and I'm sure Mia Wasikowska is a decent actress, but as soon as she ends up in Wonderland she's got nothing interesting to say and puts on her frowny face all the way through to the end of the film. What a waste.

    I don't often complain about CGI but for a two year old film that relies so heavily on it, it's bloody terrible.

    I'm a big Burton fan, but this? No. Just no. Fekkin' awful.

    2.5/10

    Edited by -cerberus- at 04:17:05 31-12-2012

    "You see it too? For me, it's always like this..."
    (Angela Orosco - Silent Hill 2)

  • Khanivor 31 Dec 2012 04:22:03 39,907 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Tim Burton should have been taken away from directing duties after Batman and put to work in the art department. That's where his skills lie. Well, that and keeping Johnny Depp and HBC off the dole.

    This assumes we would have got the wicked Martians from Mars Attacks in a good film, at some point. If not, he can keep directing till that then fuck off to the bothie with ya.

    Edited by Khanivor at 04:24:06 31-12-2012
  • -cerberus- 31 Dec 2012 04:54:55 2,103 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Disagree. Edward Scissorhands, Batman Returns (unpopular opinion: I personally think Returns is better than the original), Sleepy Hollow, Sweeney Todd, Big Fish, Ed Wood, Mars Attacks! and Corpse Bride are great movies. The rest of his newer work is, admittedly, mediocre or even complete bollocks.

    "You see it too? For me, it's always like this..."
    (Angela Orosco - Silent Hill 2)

  • NEW-AHN 31 Dec 2012 05:05:43 8 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    Kung fu panda 6
    8/10

    War ... War Never Changes

  • Deleted user 31 December 2012 08:06:20
    The Hobbit 3/10

    I wanted to like it but other than it looking nice it had nothing else going for it. It was too long by 1.5 hours, every scene dragged on, the fighting wasn't very interesting and there is no climax to the film at all making the entire 3 hours feel a bit of a waste.

    The trilogy should have been 1 long film or 2 shorter films, but not this.
  • Deleted user 31 December 2012 08:07:31
    Jack Reacher 7/10

    Bit too Tom Cruisey but otherwise a decent blockbuster mystery with a slightly unpleasant main character.
  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 08:19:26 6,281 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    The Hobbit 3/10

    I wanted to like it but other than it looking nice it had nothing else going for it. It was too long by 1.5 hours, every scene dragged on, the fighting wasn't very interesting and there is no climax to the film at all making the entire 3 hours feel a bit of a waste.

    The trilogy should have been 1 long film or 2 shorter films, but not this.
    What climax would you like? It's part one of a trilogy, it sets up plot lines that will be explored in the next films, it brings some inter-character plots to their conclusion, and it ends on a "cliffhanger" I guess (though an easily guessable one).

    It ended in a much more satisfactory way than Fellowship.

    Get bent.

  • beastmaster 31 Dec 2012 08:25:48 10,207 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I kind of agree with Aargh. It really did drag. I didn't mind the climax though.

    I'm going to give this a second chance. Again going to see it at HFR on the 3D IMAX. I have it a "generous" 7/10 when I last saw it.

    Somehow, I think I'll hate it more, but I my be wrong.

    The Resident Evil films. I'm one of the reasons they keep making them.

  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 08:36:13 41,903 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Star Wars ANH managed a pretty solid climax and was the first of a trilogy. So did Phantom Menace. So did Godfather. So did The Matrix. So did Batman Begins.

    If you go down the 'this had to follow the book and therefore any grand climax here would have to be new' then you're just underlining the point that this isn't three films, just one film with 2/3 being filler.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 31 December 2012 08:43:01
    GuiltySpark wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    The Hobbit 3/10

    I wanted to like it but other than it looking nice it had nothing else going for it. It was too long by 1.5 hours, every scene dragged on, the fighting wasn't very interesting and there is no climax to the film at all making the entire 3 hours feel a bit of a waste.

    The trilogy should have been 1 long film or 2 shorter films, but not this.
    What climax would you like? It's part one of a trilogy, it sets up plot lines that will be explored in the next films, it brings some inter-character plots to their conclusion, and it ends on a "cliffhanger" I guess (though an easily guessable one).

    It ended in a much more satisfactory way than Fellowship.
    What kind of climax? Any climax, I'm not watching a tv mini series. Not one single thing was resolved in that film, not one, other than Bilbo being accepted. Yippee.

    Any film should be able to stand on its own and make some sense. This wasn't a film, it was the first 3 hours of a nine hour film that was so boring I know I'll never see the rest.
  • Deleted user 31 December 2012 08:44:46
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Star Wars ANH managed a pretty solid climax and was the first of a trilogy. So did Phantom Menace. So did Godfather. So did The Matrix. So did Batman Begins.

    If you go down the 'this had to follow the book and therefore any grand climax here would have to be new' then you're just underlining the point that this isn't three films, just one film with 2/3 being filler.
    Exactly this. Back to the Future (amongst many others) also applies - conclusion but with a set up for more.
  • Deleted user 31 December 2012 08:47:17
    Incidentally the Star Trek preview was ok, the 3D was horrible though. Far too shaky to be nice to watch for 2 hours.
  • shamblemonkee 31 Dec 2012 08:57:22 14,042 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    there's kind of a difference between expressly planning a story to be told over three movies compared to telling a story in one movie and then hoping it's successful enough to get sequels greenlit.
  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 08:59:26 6,281 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Star Wars ANH managed a pretty solid climax and was the first of a trilogy. So did Phantom Menace. So did Godfather. So did The Matrix. So did Batman Begins.

    If you go down the 'this had to follow the book and therefore any grand climax here would have to be new' then you're just underlining the point that this isn't three films, just one film with 2/3 being filler.
    Arguing that it is one long narrative rather than three separate narratives isn't my point, it's the point. That's why the climax is the way it is, there's absolutely no point moaning about it.

    The Matrix had such a solid climax that the sequels were completely pointless. Would that have been preferable?

    Get bent.

  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 09:02:40 41,903 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yes.

    Also justifying the first film of the Hobbit having no ending by saying it is one long narrative is kind of like saying the Hobbit should be one long film. Or preferably one shorter film.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 09:03:37 6,281 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It should be one long film. It isn't my fault spackers have short attention spans.

    Get bent.

  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 09:14:28 41,903 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It should be one normal film. I wonder why instead it's three long films. It certainly isn't justified from a narrative beats perspective, and there isn't enough material for three films. A complete mystery. I tried to contact Peter Jackson to find out but he was unavailable as he was counting his planet of money.

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 09:14:48 31-12-2012

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 31 December 2012 09:15:47
    Yeah, anyone unwilling to sit and watch one 9 hour film that moves at that pace is a spacker.
  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 09:20:55 6,281 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    It should be one normal film. I wonder why instead it's three long films. It certainly isn't justified from a narrative beats perspective, and there isn't enough material for three films. A complete mystery. I tried to contact Peter Jackson to find out but he was unavailable as he was counting his planet of money.
    Nah, whether it should or should not be three films isn't really what I mean. It is three films, and that is why the first film ends the way it does.

    That's all, really. I didn't get far enough into the book to know if it warrants three films, but I watched it twice in three days and I wasn't bored, even during the start which is what most people have major gripes with. You'd think that the film was one long kitchen scene from how people talk about it.

    Get bent.

  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 09:21:33 6,281 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    Yeah, anyone unwilling to sit and watch one 9 hour film that moves at that pace is a spacker.
    I agree.

    Get bent.

  • Deleted user 31 December 2012 09:25:34
    beastmaster wrote:
    I kind of agree with Aargh. It really did drag. I didn't mind the climax though.

    I'm going to give this a second chance. Again going to see it at HFR on the 3D IMAX. I have it a "generous" 7/10 when I last saw it.

    Somehow, I think I'll hate it more, but I my be wrong.
    Yeah, same here. On exiting the cinema my 9yo turned to me and said that the whole film should have been 45mins long which I could only agree with.

    I enjoyed it to a certain extent but you know something's amiss when you are checking your watch periodically for the last 2hrs.
  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 09:25:53 41,903 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    GuiltySpark wrote:

    Nah, whether it should or should not be three films isn't really what I mean. It is three films, and that is why the first film ends the way it does.
    Awesome. So the film has a weak ending because the overall narrative doesn't fit into the structure of a trilogy... and that is why it's OK?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 09:35:23 6,281 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    GuiltySpark wrote:

    Nah, whether it should or should not be three films isn't really what I mean. It is three films, and that is why the first film ends the way it does.
    Awesome. So the film has a weak ending because the overall narrative doesn't fit into the structure of a trilogy... and that is why it's OK?
    No, I am saying that it is one long narrative and therefore doesn't have two natural climaxes (like a normal film would at the end) apart from the end of the damn film, which in this case is part three.

    Are any of the other films you mentioned earlier one long narrative? No time jumps? No, they aren't (as far as I remember, I'm on the quote screen and can't see which films you said), which is why they aren't applicable.

    Does that make sense? Alls I'm saying is that it's a trait that goes with the territory, you don't walk in there expecting a climax of a complete narrative.

    And if you do, then that's your own fault I guess.

    Get bent.

  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 09:38:37 41,903 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    None of the other trilogies are one long narrative. That's what makes them a trilogy.

    Hobbit needs to be a trilogy because it has three natural beats and therefore we can justify the additional material?

    No.

    Hobbit needs to be a trilogy because of the volume of material and therefore we can overlook the lack of natural breaks on the narrative?

    No.

    Hobbit doesn't need to be a trilogy at all.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 09:38:54 41,903 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I expect you to read the above in the voice of Smeagol.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Benno 31 Dec 2012 09:44:02 9,403 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I really enjoyed the Hobbit. I understand what people are saying about the ending being a bit anti-climatic, but it wasn't for me. I left the cinema looking forward to the next chapter.

    I disagree that it went at a snails pace. I think the first half was noticeably slower, but I just relaxed and enjoyed it. I found the pacing in Prometheus and Rises to be worse.

    I think your wasting your energy arguing whether it should or shouldn't be a trilogy, or two films, or one - I don't know who the benefactors are of your time and effort?
  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 09:48:55 6,281 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I have no idea if it's meant to be a trilogy or not, I haven't read the book. It wasn't what I was saying : )

    But nah you're right.

    Get bent.

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife 31 Dec 2012 09:52:06 6,999 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Life Of Pi

    10/10

    A remarkable, audacious, spectacular and moving film brilliantly realised from the source material.

    If you can see it in 3D then do - it utterly delivers on the potential of the format to do things 2D couldn't.
  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 09:52:15 41,903 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Benno wrote:
    I really enjoyed the Hobbit. I understand what people are saying about the ending being a bit anti-climatic, but it wasn't for me. I left the cinema looking forward to the next chapter.

    I disagree that it went at a snails pace. I think the first half was noticeably slower, but I just relaxed and enjoyed it. I found the pacing in Prometheus and Rises to be worse.

    I think your wasting your energy arguing whether it should or shouldn't be a trilogy, or two films, or one - I don't know who the benefactors are of your time and effort?
    Same as the people who care what you thought about the Hobbit in your first two paragraphs, I'd guess.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Page

    of 2601 First / Last

Log in or register to reply