Rate the Last Movie You Watched
- Thread starter Manticore
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I'm going to push back on this a bit. The point of adaptation is not to produce a replica of something. We do not expect that a painting of an apple will not taste like one, so why do we insist that a film must "taste" like the book? Sherlock Holmes, for all of its cachet and inventiveness, was still simply a commercial endeavor, a writer who wrote them quickly and with many errors for the sake of simply making some money and disregarded as having much literary value. They were written for the time and meant to resonate with the readers thereof. It is especially fitting, therefore, that a film adaptation should bend the stories to the viewers of the time with the purpose of making money. Hence the new Sherlock is man of modern violence, whose deductive reasoning manifests itself in terms of immediate action--and while you may bristle at the Neo-like slo-mo, it is a fitting representation of the mind functioning faster than the body in an action setting.
Do I think this is a work of art? No, but then again, neither were the original Sherlock stories. Do I feel that it was an accurate representation of Sherlock's time period? No, but that is because it is being made today, and it IS an accurate representation of the period as seen through modern viewers' eyes. It taps into modern viewers thoughts and opinions and prejudices just as the books did and presents a sort of ideal (if flawed) man of intellect according to the opinion of its day (this being the time of production, not of setting) in a way that no other real adaptation really has (though, in fairness, I haven't seen the currently running Sherlock series as of yet).
I would say that it is only worthy of a B grade, as a film, but then again, I feel the same way about the books, because as important as they are, they are simply mass appeal novels written quickly and with little regard. That's right, as much of an abomination of the MTV generation that it is, I am arguing that it is the best and most faithful adaptation (and by this I mean in terms of spirit, not in terms of slavering reproduction--if you want that, just freaking read the book, damnit) of Sherlock Holmes yet produced.
~Jason
I respectfully disagree. There's nothing wrong with changing things in an adaption to some degree, but in the case of Sherlock Holmes, the characters should be left intact, because they are what "made" the novels (which I agree were the pop literature of a hundred years ago). There's plenty of violence and wit to be found in the original, I feel there's no need to replace both with frantic violence and one-liners.
IRON MAN 2
3 out of 10
This is a pretty bad movie. Pretty darn slow and way too predictable. What a waste of time.
3 out of 10
This is a pretty bad movie. Pretty darn slow and way too predictable. What a waste of time.
But I think you're missing the point. The original Sherlock was a man of the times, the ultimate "modern" man, who relied on scientific reasoning and logic to see past the feints of deception. His partner, Watson, was an less analytical-thus making him less of an effective detective, but blessed with warmth and humanity. The new version has a Sherlock that is no less brilliant in his deductions, but is less of an analytic person who's anarchic side is what keeps him from humanity, while the new Watson is more of the "modern" man of old, more calculating and scientific and conservative. The Watson of the new film is essentially the character of the Sherlock of old, putting the idealizations of old now in second place and positing a new type of genius of our times, one who is reckless and wild because just analytical isn't quite enough. It is still about the characters, but the characters are stand-ins for a certain type of thought and thus they have shifted. These are the character that "make" the movie (Downey's Sherlock and Law's Watson are by far the best part of the film).
~Jason
You have rated this movie way too high. I wouldn't watch this movie a second time if I was paid (ok, but only if you pay me in cash)
The A-Team (Extended Version). 8/10 I liked it in the theater, and I like this version also. Good action, good for the family and had it's funny moments, and I think the acting was good enough also.
Tremors: 8/10
Good ol' monsters fun. Good acting, decent story (doesn't really need to be explained where the monsters come from). I dread watching the sequels, though. Honestly, I'd rather not.
Good ol' monsters fun. Good acting, decent story (doesn't really need to be explained where the monsters come from). I dread watching the sequels, though. Honestly, I'd rather not.
I love that movie! The part when the monster crashes into the gun nut's basement and the camera pans to the wall of weapons still makes me crack up every time I watch it.
I'm just sayin bro, what kind of payment did you expect from someone other than cash for seeing this movie again?
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo 6/10.
OK-ish version of an OK-ish novel. Despite the many truncations required to meet the runtime, the film successfully captures the slow pace of the original. Unfortunately, it manages to miss the labyrinthine relationships and nuances of character detailed in the book in the rush to the end credits.
It could have been worse and the novel is really in the category of "unfilmable" so an OK-ish result can be considered something of a triumph.
OK-ish version of an OK-ish novel. Despite the many truncations required to meet the runtime, the film successfully captures the slow pace of the original. Unfortunately, it manages to miss the labyrinthine relationships and nuances of character detailed in the book in the rush to the end credits.
It could have been worse and the novel is really in the category of "unfilmable" so an OK-ish result can be considered something of a triumph.
Last edited:
Funny how Michael gross was the right kind of guy for that part. Tremors is just great fun.
Full metal jacket: Kubrick at his best. I don't know which part of the movie makes the heaviest impression. The bootcamp bit is steadily building up to an unavoidable tragedy, and the missions in vietnam well...(f.e. that bastard in the heli mowing down everyone in view, the questions soldiers had why they were actually there etc. the way the locals reacted to their presence, the resentment...)
Probably one of if not the best nam movie. Imho.
I had completely forgotten cowboy would end up dead. That's an extra plus, really. He's one of the lead characters, and he bites it. I figured he would, somehow, have made it through just like joker etc.
I thought the first half was far superior. Second half has some great scenery, but it's just slow and... well... average.
It's very confronting. For a moment you'd think pvt. laurence does actually shape up, might get a break but it just gets worse. And then his madness sets in. And worst of all, the drill sergeant completely fails at communicating with him, when the need for communication is at its highest. It's always one way of rigid thinking.
The second darkest scene was the midnight beating. Especially the aftermath and joker listening to every bit of it.
evolution: This has to be one of the weakest movies I've seen in quite some time.
It's supposed to be a sci-fi comedy. Ok, the sci-fi bit is right. But the type of humor, guess it's just not my thing. The ehhh aliens look decent enough. Julianne moore is terrible. Same for Duchovny. He can do better than that, and he did in "californication". But this is from 2001.
What ruins this movie most of all is the use of music. The constant silly tunes become progressively worse, pretty much ever scene suffers from it.
It's supposed to be a sci-fi comedy. Ok, the sci-fi bit is right. But the type of humor, guess it's just not my thing. The ehhh aliens look decent enough. Julianne moore is terrible. Same for Duchovny. He can do better than that, and he did in "californication". But this is from 2001.
What ruins this movie most of all is the use of music. The constant silly tunes become progressively worse, pretty much ever scene suffers from it.
Last edited:
Resident Evil: Afterlife (3D)-7/10
In my opinion the use of 3D in this film is excellent, some of the best I've seen. I believe this film was shot in 3D for 3D and Anderson has made it work great.
As for the story I was expecting yet another franchise to be really weak over the course of a number of films (think Saw). It was o.k. but not fantastic. I did think it would be a good way of ending the whole Resident Evil franchise by putting a 3D film out.
Mila is getting on in years but still looks great.
All in all not a bad effort and entertaining for what it was....
In my opinion the use of 3D in this film is excellent, some of the best I've seen. I believe this film was shot in 3D for 3D and Anderson has made it work great.
If the Matrix films had been shot in 3D they would have been a lot like this flick.
As for the story I was expecting yet another franchise to be really weak over the course of a number of films (think Saw). It was o.k. but not fantastic. I did think it would be a good way of ending the whole Resident Evil franchise by putting a 3D film out.
By the end of the film you realise that it has been left way open for a sequel so I hope this doesn't end up being a flogging the dead horse scenario.
Mila is getting on in years but still looks great.
All in all not a bad effort and entertaining for what it was....
In Bruges - 7/10
A pretty solid performance from the cast as a whole and a good story. Stars: Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson
A pretty solid performance from the cast as a whole and a good story. Stars: Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson