or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Rate The Last Movie You Watched
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rate The Last Movie You Watched - Page 1042

post #15616 of 19979

Believe it or not I had not seen this till now

 

Black Hawk Down 5/10

 

Ok, so we have a very renowned war movie, with a big reputation about it. Personally I found there to be too much action in this flick, and I found myself exhausted from it by the end, which would be the desired effect it would have on someone - as it did seem like being in the middle of a battle. I became desensitized by the violence by the end. I think the problem I have with the movie, is the lack of explanation of the lead up to the mission, lead up to why they were there, why the people of Somali were so against the US involvement. I also did not enjoy the fact that while the Soldiers got some characterization and were shown as being honorable, the Somalians were shown as a faceless and uncharacteristic enemy that never got any development throughout the film. They were portrayed as mere savages being killed like flies, while the US troop get their deaths drawn out and with them getting final moments to think of home. It seemed a bit more clear cut good and bad/evil, than the real event would have been. The characters were wafer thin, despite the acting being fine for what it was. I did not find myself caring about the names being called out after a soldier died and thought to myself "who was that?", unfortunately I didn't remember many characters names at all. 

 

I guess the film may be a bit polarizing depending on who watches it, for an action junkie it is a holy grail of amazing combat scenes. For someone wanting a bit more information and characterization on the side it might not be so great. Just my 2c

post #15617 of 19979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loretta View Post
 

Believe it or not I had not seen this till now

 

Black Hawk Down 5/10

 

Ok, so we have a very renowned war movie, with a big reputation about it. Personally I found there to be too much action in this flick, and I found myself exhausted from it by the end, which would be the desired effect it would have on someone - as it did seem like being in the middle of a battle. I became desensitized by the violence by the end. I think the problem I have with the movie, is the lack of explanation of the lead up to the mission, lead up to why they were there, why the people of Somali were so against the US involvement. I also did not enjoy the fact that while the Soldiers got some characterization and were shown as being honorable, the Somalians were shown as a faceless and uncharacteristic enemy that never got any development throughout the film. They were portrayed as mere savages being killed like flies, while the US troop get their deaths drawn out and with them getting final moments to think of home. It seemed a bit more clear cut good and bad/evil, than the real event would have been. The characters were wafer thin, despite the acting being fine for what it was. I did not find myself caring about the names being called out after a soldier died and thought to myself "who was that?", unfortunately I didn't remember many characters names at all. 

 

I guess the film may be a bit polarizing depending on who watches it, for an action junkie it is a holy grail of amazing combat scenes. For someone wanting a bit more information and characterization on the side it might not be so great. Just my 2c


I wouldn't totally disagree with that assessment. Much like "The Perfect Storm" you really need to have read the book first to piece together the wheres and whats. That said. Scott merged multiple characters in the book into single persons for expedience and the result is, as you say less than stellar development.

 

 It seems film adaptations of war accounts are getting far more divergent than is healthy. I really have an issue with this as for some folk the film will be their only account of history and it is in error in so many ways.

 

Lone Survivor is another prime example of this in that it relates to the actual account so sparsely it really should have been classed as a fiction film.

 

OTOH Zero Dark Thirty did a quite accurate account, and came off as boring to some theatre goers.

post #15618 of 19979

Book Thief - 5.5/10

 

Designed only to extract tears from your face. Annoying. Just tell the story dang it. Some directors can't seem to do this well.

It's also kind of dull/tedious. Best thing about it though is it's characters.

Overall it's pretty phony. Watch the TV version of "Anne Frank" instead. It's better than the B&W version.

If there is a book of it i'm sure it's much better.

I know I probably come across as a heartless b*stard but I have to be honest.

 

BTW "Winter in Wartime" is another movie that annoyed me too.

Even worse yet was "Boy in the Striped Pajamas". That seemed to want to pound it's message into your skull.

post #15619 of 19979

"Prisoners" [8.2/10]: An unexpected good movie on HBO Saturday night. An intense story about the kidnapping of two little girls, and a father's increasingly dark obsession to discover the truth of what happened to them. It reminded me of the film, "A Simple Plan" (one of my favorite all-time movies...). The acting was better than passable. Unusual role, in my opinion, for Hugh Jackman. It might have been a little too long, but even though I DVR'd it and watched it late, I had to finish the movie to see how the story ended. Recommended...


Edited by DLeeWebb - 5/11/14 at 4:35am
post #15620 of 19979
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLeeWebb View Post
 

"Prisoners" [8.2/10]: An unexpected good movie on HBO Saturday night. An intense story about the kidnapping of two little girls, and a father's increasingly dark obsession to discover the truth of what happened to them. It reminded me of the film, "A Simple Plan" (one of my favorite all-time movies...). The acting was better than passable. Unusual role, in my opinion, for Hugh Jackman. It might have been a little too long, but even though I DVR'd it and watched it late, I had to finish the movie to see how the story ended. Recommended...

 

You need to see Enemy (2013), by the same director, Denis Villeneuve.

post #15621 of 19979
Quote:
Originally Posted by fractus2 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLeeWebb View Post
 

"Prisoners" [8.2/10]: An unexpected good movie on HBO Saturday night. An intense story about the kidnapping of two little girls, and a father's increasingly dark obsession to discover the truth of what happened to them. It reminded me of the film, "A Simple Plan" (one of my favorite all-time movies...). The acting was better than passable. Unusual role, in my opinion, for Hugh Jackman. It might have been a little too long, but even though I DVR'd it and watched it late, I had to finish the movie to see how the story ended. Recommended...

You need to see Enemy (2013), by the same director, Denis Villeneuve.

I will check it out...

post #15622 of 19979

Wolf Children (2012): 8/10

 

One of those exceedingly rare films that overcomes its enormous flaws by sheer force of will. As a fairy tale about the strength of mothers and the (PG) frank grossness of children it succeeds powerfully. Try to treat it as anything more than a fairy-tale and it falls apart almost ridiculously easily--there's very little meaningful character development, the very few twists and turns engineered to move the plot forward feel forced at best and are generally resolved all too easily, and those audience members who are allergic to sentimentality will likely be moved to nauseousness at more than a few moments. However, it's also incredibly charming, frequently gorgeous (outside of some.... questionable character designs), seriously engaging (in spite of its minimalist approach to story-telling and relatively weighty length), and, yes, quite moving. I don't think it'll do anything for cynics, but for everyone else it's well worth checking out--you just need to approach the film on its own playing field, and do your best to leave your baggage at the door.

 

New World (2013): 6/10

 

A solid South Korean crime thriller with one near-fatal flaw: zero characters worth rooting for. Which is a shame, because almost everything else about it is top-notch: slick directing, good pacing, amazing action set-pieces, etc. Sure, the plot is recycled from dozens of other films, but this wouldn't have mattered if the characters had at all been worth engaging with: instead they are crime opera stereotypes, and the actors are too prone to over-acting for the principal players to come across as anything other than caricatures. But if you have a taste for sleek, violent, expansive crime stories there will probably be just enough for you to relish here.

post #15623 of 19979

"The Railway Man" [9.6/10]: I was extremely impressed with this film. Colin Firth's performance was totally Oscar worthy. I'm going through some issues in my life, that are trivial compared to Eric Lomax's ordeal in World War II, but I could relate to his torment and to the ultimate resolution of it. When the viewer sincerely empathizes with a performance in a movie, I think that that movie has accomplished its highest possible purpose. I thought that the flashback scenes were masterfully done. The costumes and cinematography were equally well done. It is my tradition that when I really respect a film to stay in the theater until the very end of the credits to honor those who made it. I stayed until they turned the lights up in the theater for "The Railway Man." I will definitely purchase this film when it becomes available on blu-ray. I highly recommend this film to those that cringe as we enter the "Marvel Comics" summer season. It's not a published poem, but it plays an important role in the ordeal of Eric Lomax. According to Wikipedia, he said that he thought it up in a moment of delirium. "At the beginning of time the clock struck one; Then dropped the dew and the clock struck two; From the dew grew a tree and the clock struck three; The tree made a door and the clock struck four; Man came alive and the clock struck five; count not, waste not the years on the clock, behold I stand at the door and knock."


Edited by DLeeWebb - 5/11/14 at 2:41pm
post #15624 of 19979
Recently watched the new Spider-Man movie. I'd give it a 9/10.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
BUT DID YOU REALLY HAVE TO KILL EMMA STONE ?!
post #15625 of 19979

Blade Runner (1982) - 8,5

 

Final Cut version. Ridley Scott discourses on the human replica hot topic in this iconic Sci-Fi movie. At first glance this might seem like the typical detective story with a bit of clandestine love affair mixed in, a cat and mouse game where whatever happens goes without asking why. But this is just a pretext to forge an allegorical treatment for the real substance hidden under the surface. It seems to me that the major responsibility in this department lies in the paths of Roy Batty and Rick Deckard characters. Even the most perfect replicant is doomed to a short-lived slavery existence, so "it" is even more anguished when facing some of the fundamental questions we have in our minds about what we really are, the whys of Death, the legitimacy of our conjectures towards life, love and liberty, etc. Questions common to any being sharing human intellect. When does our ambition to play God go too far? What's the limit to what we can and should do with our technological prowess? Besides alerting us to the dangers and ethical issues raised by the alluring technological capabilities we could reach, Blade Runner also reminds us that human experience is conditioned by our mortal nature, we are slaves of our limits. Thematic substance shared up to certain degree with Tarkovsky's Solaris. The Russian film is more ambitious as it puts a question mark on our whole perception of reality and human knowledge, but Blade Runner is more accomplished as a proper Sci-Fi movie and a more entertaining cinematic experience.

 

The characters are more interesting to follow, there are no dragging moments despite the leisurely pace of the narrative and the aesthetic exercise in which Ridley Scott indulges is visually stunning. This is one of the main qualities of Ridley Scott Cinema, the engrossing scenic spaces forged with great technical competence and the creative mastery latent in the way that the camera work and cinematography carve the picture visual identity. The casual and sober style of the acting is ideal in this context, it enriches the world portrayed with realism and adds to the immersion factor. There's no impetus to doubt about the logic of that world because it looks so visually perfect and natural. An attribute for the authenticity and immersion of the cinematic experience. This is a major asset in the Sci-Fi genre and this is where Blade Runner is deservedly iconic with its full-fledged and gorgeous dystopian world. The only thing that distracts me and limits the quality of the cinematic experience is the acting. It's not as casual and natural as would be ideal, at times there are apparent limitations that make the characters look slightly ludicrous. In this department, Blade Runner doesn't quite follow the excellence of Alien in my opinion. Yes, many of the characters are replicants with obvious psycho-emotional issues, but there was still room left to improvement and make them (and the humans as well) more interesting. Someone else might not take this movie as seriously as it deserves just because of this limitation. This is what prevents me from seeing this work as a masterpiece. All in all, Blade Runner is a well-crafted cinematic work with appreciable conceptual substance. Above all, it's a gorgeous movie to watch, highly recommended!

 

Revaluating Alien to 9.

post #15626 of 19979
The acting I decided to accept on the detective story basis as being a bit... forced feeling, but fits well within the genre. The movie itself is kind of a hodgepodge I think, and gets a lot of leeway from all sides as being unique while being familiar all the same. Which is fine and clever. I think Alien is the through and through the more focused effort, but at the same time is more narrow in scope so it's almost a more natural result and quite possibly less impressive for the accomplishment. But that's a very critical viewpoint and one I don't personally take.

Totally agreed on the visual identity created. A deserved nod to Syd Mead for his impact on the aesthetic is in order IMO.
post #15627 of 19979

I do agree with everything you say right there, with some reservations about the acting. :)

I see Alien as the more accomplished work but less impressive because it's more narrow than Blade Runner.

I see Blade Runner as "an exploration of surfaces", as one critic has said.


Edited by kkl10 - 5/11/14 at 4:23pm
post #15628 of 19979
Grudge Match. Stallone-De Niro
8.5/10
Lots of laughs from a couple great old timers.
Can't believe how hot Kim Basinger still looks at 60!
post #15629 of 19979
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkl10 View Post

I do agree with everything you say right there, with some reservations about the acting. smily_headphones1.gif
I see Alien as the more accomplished work but less impressive because it's more narrow than Blade Runner.
I see Blade Runner as "an exploration of surfaces", as one critic has said.

Absolutely.

"An exploration of surfaces"
Very well said.
post #15630 of 19979

Invictus: 9.13/10

 

Morgan Freeman is ******* JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Rate The Last Movie You Watched