Rate the last film you watched out of 100 Page 2284

  • Page

    of 2705 First / Last

  • wobbly_Bob 26 Jul 2013 17:54:11 1,617 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Gangster Squad - Watched it with the 99p offer on PSN. Brilliant movie. Sean Penn is fantastic as the gangster villain. In fact, everybody is cast really well and play their parts with aplomb. The characters are all easy to care about.

    The 50's LA setting is wonderfully evoked, layering on the smokey dive bars and gangster torn city of angles thickly with deft brush strokes. The film is shot with flair, style, and beauty. The action is very well done and special effects/stunts are excellent. This movie is basically "The Untouchables" with pretty much the same plot/theme but, to me, at least, that's not in any way a bad point.

    10/10

    Edited by wobbly_Bob at 17:54:41 26-07-2013
  • Deleted user 26 July 2013 18:01:22
    ProfessorLesser wrote:
    I also think film trailers should, by agreement, not feature footage from outside of, say, the first thirty minutes of any film.
    I think film trailers should go back to the 50s/60s/70s aesthetic of basically showing the entire film and that the strength of them comes from the acting and narrative you don't see, rather than the plot and spectacle.

    I saw a trailer the other day for the new Carrie film. That pretty much tells the entire story for you, pigblood and all. It actually made me want to see it more than a shitty teaser that vaguely hints at things, because it's not hiding any pretensions. It is what it is, see it based on that alone.
  • ProfessorLesser 26 Jul 2013 18:10:30 19,352 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    That seems a bit of a straw-man, you're suggesting I don't value acting and narrative now? Great moments of those can equally be exposed in a trailer.

    Whatever the qualities of the film, I'd rather see them all in one place at the same time, as far as possible, for a complete experience. I don't want stand-out moments of the film (whatever they may be, and they can be anything) potentially ruined for me by over-indulgent film trailers.
  • graysonavich 26 Jul 2013 18:18:52 7,309 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I really liked Pandorum :(
  • Deleted user 26 July 2013 18:31:42
    Kings of the Road (1976) 8/10

    169mins and quite slow going. It’s entertaining all the same, but not for everyone. Probably a bit overrated, but maybe more cutting edge at the time of release.

    Part 3 of what they call a ‘loose’ trilogy. Still black and white, Kings of the Road has superior picture quality compared to Alice in the Cities (Part 1 of the trilogy) which looks raw. I passed on Part 2 of the trilogy, Wrong Move, as the reviews aren’t all that favourable.



    Edited by blacksea at 18:32:25 26-07-2013
  • nickthegun 26 Jul 2013 18:32:42 58,784 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yeah, I thought it was pretty good. It dragged on a bit and the twist was pretty obvious, but it was decent enough.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Deleted user 26 July 2013 18:33:04
    I'm suggesting you're very passive in your viewing if you want something to pin down. Great moments of acting and narrative can be exposed in a trailer, sure, but unlike raw plot and spectacle, only reinforce the rest of it. I'd want to see On The Waterfront based on the trailer having the "I COULDA BEEN A CONTENDER" speech or In The Heat Of The Night based on "They call me Mister Tibbs", even though they're the standout, memorable moments. They reinforce because of context - more or less everyone knows the beginning of Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech, but you don't appreciate what it means until you see the entire play, and certainly nothing is ruined by knowing it in advance. By default they require you to be an active viewer.

    Which kind of leads us back to the twist debacle - good twists, solid twists, they reinforce the rest of the film, rather than hinging entirely on it. Which also means that good twists should inherently be slightly predictable, like in films like Fight Club or (to a lesser extent) Sixth Sense, and work with the narrative rather than being the entire point of it.

    The only films that can really be "spoiled" are those which are all about the destination, rather than the journey, and by default they're passive, and also the extreme majority of media of any kind. Shitty brainless crap should be the exception, not the norm. We're becoming a beige society of non-action, letting everyone else do the thinking for us, and it somewhat enrages me when I see someone justifying it as something like "I just want to switch off and enjoy something" when that's literally all they ever do. Not that you've done that or said that, but I'm going off on a tangent now whether anyone likes it or not.

    tl;dr - people are stupid.
  • Deleted user 26 July 2013 18:58:31
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    blacksea wrote:
    beastmaster wrote:
    Two of the best for me (and probably a lot of other people) are Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me. They get the balance just right.

    Whilst I've enjoyed the Graig films (Royale is magnificent, QoS seems to depend on what mood I'm in), I would like to see how he does 'playful'. The ending kind of suggests it could go down that route a little bit more. If not, it doesn't really matter.
    The Spy Who Loves Me is my fav 007 film. Best theme tune, best Bond girl, best Bond car, best opening sequence. That said, it has aged a little. I find Moonraker very watchable also.
    Moonraker is one of the worst films ever made.
    Sure it's not the greatest film ever made, or the greatest Bond film ever made, but it's a long way off being one of the worst films ever made.
  • Steve_Perry 26 Jul 2013 19:27:30 3,578 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    I dunno..

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • BinaryBob101 26 Jul 2013 19:47:13 22,294 posts
    Seen 42 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    It was never a good film when first released.

    Beautiful tender beings.

  • craigy Staff 26 Jul 2013 22:27:46 7,525 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Falling in Love (1984): 6/10
  • Mr_Sleep 26 Jul 2013 22:45:31 16,846 posts
    Seen 4 seconds ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I am currently being subjected to Pierce Brosnan singing, it makes me sad.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Deckard1 26 Jul 2013 22:46:09 27,160 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    meme wrote:
    I'm suggesting you're very passive in your viewing if you want something to pin down. Great moments of acting and narrative can be exposed in a trailer, sure, but unlike raw plot and spectacle, only reinforce the rest of it. I'd want to see On The Waterfront based on the trailer having the "I COULDA BEEN A CONTENDER" speech or In The Heat Of The Night based on "They call me Mister Tibbs", even though they're the standout, memorable moments. They reinforce because of context - more or less everyone knows the beginning of Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech, but you don't appreciate what it means until you see the entire play, and certainly nothing is ruined by knowing it in advance. By default they require you to be an active viewer.

    Which kind of leads us back to the twist debacle - good twists, solid twists, they reinforce the rest of the film, rather than hinging entirely on it. Which also means that good twists should inherently be slightly predictable, like in films like Fight Club or (to a lesser extent) Sixth Sense, and work with the narrative rather than being the entire point of it.

    The only films that can really be "spoiled" are those which are all about the destination, rather than the journey, and by default they're passive, and also the extreme majority of media of any kind. Shitty brainless crap should be the exception, not the norm. We're becoming a beige society of non-action, letting everyone else do the thinking for us, and it somewhat enrages me when I see someone justifying it as something like "I just want to switch off and enjoy something" when that's literally all they ever do. Not that you've done that or said that, but I'm going off on a tangent now whether anyone likes it or not.

    tl;dr - people are stupid.
    I see what you're getting at but.... nah.




    As a side note, is Midnight Express any good. Looking for a slightly pissed in bed film and this is top of the list on Sky Go at the minute.
  • Deckard1 26 Jul 2013 22:46:22 27,160 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    meme wrote:
    I'm suggesting you're very passive in your viewing if you want something to pin down. Great moments of acting and narrative can be exposed in a trailer, sure, but unlike raw plot and spectacle, only reinforce the rest of it. I'd want to see On The Waterfront based on the trailer having the "I COULDA BEEN A CONTENDER" speech or In The Heat Of The Night based on "They call me Mister Tibbs", even though they're the standout, memorable moments. They reinforce because of context - more or less everyone knows the beginning of Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech, but you don't appreciate what it means until you see the entire play, and certainly nothing is ruined by knowing it in advance. By default they require you to be an active viewer.

    Which kind of leads us back to the twist debacle - good twists, solid twists, they reinforce the rest of the film, rather than hinging entirely on it. Which also means that good twists should inherently be slightly predictable, like in films like Fight Club or (to a lesser extent) Sixth Sense, and work with the narrative rather than being the entire point of it.

    The only films that can really be "spoiled" are those which are all about the destination, rather than the journey, and by default they're passive, and also the extreme majority of media of any kind. Shitty brainless crap should be the exception, not the norm. We're becoming a beige society of non-action, letting everyone else do the thinking for us, and it somewhat enrages me when I see someone justifying it as something like "I just want to switch off and enjoy something" when that's literally all they ever do. Not that you've done that or said that, but I'm going off on a tangent now whether anyone likes it or not.

    tl;dr - people are stupid.
    I see what you're getting at but.... nah.




    As a side note, is Midnight Express any good. Looking for a slightly pissed in bed film and this is top of the list on Sky Go at the minute.
  • Deckard1 26 Jul 2013 22:47:14 27,160 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I'll just go get the papers get the papers
  • Mr_Sleep 26 Jul 2013 22:50:16 16,846 posts
    Seen 4 seconds ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I completely agree that people are stupid.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Deckard1 26 Jul 2013 22:52:59 27,160 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Oh yeah that bit wad fine.
  • HarryPalmer 26 Jul 2013 23:24:33 3,107 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    A field in England - 10/10

    Finally got round to watching this. It's bloody brilliant. Ben Wheatley is a genius. They don't make them like this anymore, except they just did. Funny, striking, powerful, and fucking creepy at times. One moment in particular is hellish.
  • Deleted user 27 July 2013 00:33:12
    Evil Dead 2013 - 7/10

    Fucking hell that was grim.
  • RightBean 27 Jul 2013 01:35:28 636 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    I wanna see a film with Will Smith shootin' up 'saurs. Is there one??
  • Deleted user 27 July 2013 02:22:04
    Red Dawn - 5/10

    Pointless remake with a cheesy ending.
  • CharlieStCloud 27 Jul 2013 08:10:28 5,060 posts
    Seen 28 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @wobbly_Bob

    If you give Gangster Squad a 10/10, what the heck does The Untouchables, which is a million miles better film, receive out of ten?

    Saw that at the cinema earlier this year and I believe I wrote this back then:

    Gangster Squad is to the great tradition of the Scarface genre what plastic is to cutlery - tiny, imitative, disposable.

    In other words, I thought it was quite poor to be honest and I was REALLY looking forward to it.

    : (
  • spindle9988 27 Jul 2013 08:20:31 3,492 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    iHAZaCHEEZ3burger wrote:
    Red Dawn - 5/10

    Pointless remake with a cheesy ending.
    Awful film
  • Megapocalypse 27 Jul 2013 08:52:06 5,312 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    In Bruges - 10/10

    Loved every aspect of it from start to finish.
  • killersrquiet 27 Jul 2013 09:11:58 1,844 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Oblivion

    Excellent visuals, not everything is explained but still a good story. Had a 80s retro vibe feel to the film, especially with the soundtrack.

    One of the best films I've seen in a long time

    9.5/10

    Edited by killersrquiet at 09:12:19 27-07-2013
  • wobbly_Bob 27 Jul 2013 09:23:08 1,617 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    CharlieStCloud wrote:
    @wobbly_Bob

    If you give Gangster Squad a 10/10, what the heck does The Untouchables, which is a million miles better film, receive out of ten?

    Saw that at the cinema earlier this year and I believe I wrote this back then:

    Gangster Squad is to the great tradition of the Scarface genre what plastic is to cutlery - tiny, imitative, disposable.

    In other words, I thought it was quite poor to be honest and I was REALLY looking forward to it.

    : (
    Haha, ok, yes, Untouchables is better I agree :) the but that's the problem with attaching arbitrary scores, isn't it? If we follow that logic then every game/movie I think is the best in its genre I would give 10/10 and then everything else 9 and downwards which of course doesn't work and of course in that logic 10 is perfect which of corse is again impossible. And what happens If something beats the original 10 is that now a 9? I don't agree with attaching numbers to things but rather it's better to articulate why we like or dislike something but I'm happy to play along so 10/10 it is.

    Regarding your disappointment with Gangster Squad, maybe it's because you had your expectations really high? Dunno, I enjoyed the hell out of it but then I was the opposite of you and wasn't expecting all that much from it so maybe that's a factor.
  • snowbored 27 Jul 2013 09:29:38 426 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    King of Kong 7.5/10 great but not as good as searching for sugar man.
  • boo 27 Jul 2013 09:45:52 11,703 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I'm tempted by RED2, as I thought the original was good fun.
    One thing baffles me though - Helen Mirren's in it, looking as drop dead gorgeous as ever. But I'm fairly sure she got plugged at the end of the first one, with the implication being that she died.

    I presume there was enough ambiguity there to bring her back.

    Just Another Lego Blog

  • dominalien 27 Jul 2013 09:49:07 6,835 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I just watched RED a couple of days ago and I couldn't tell you what happened to her. That's how bland I thought the film was. :-( I'm still looking forward to the 2nd one.

    PSN: DonOsito

  • Page

    of 2705 First / Last

Log in or register to reply