Rate the Last Movie You Watched

[Mozi]

Inception: 10/10! Freaking Amazing.

2012: 0/10 Such utter bull****. Some of the events were so far fetched that I was actually laughing out loud. This movie should have been a comedy based on the retarded Mayan theory.

 

[SirYawnalot]

The lost world: 7.5/10

The Dinos are back, and still look good. But I don't think this movie is so memorable. I preferred reading the book (where is levine? He's an interesting character...) Some of the characters got ditched for less interesting ones imho. But the action is good, especially the T-rex vs. the trailer bit. And the downtown ravage.

I've got my own little theory on that. I think Crichton based Levine mainly on Jack Horner, but for the films that very man is employed as the main advisor. Maybe they wrote the character out of the script to avoid acrimony. Maybe.

What really pisses me off about that film is that they wrote out or changed pretty much everything in the book except the one element I didn't like: the changes to Malcolm's character. He goes from being the unique and quirky scene-stealer of Jurassic Park to a dour and uninspired straight-man role in The Lost World, and I didn't think it worked in the book or the film. It's certainly a tragic waste of Jeff Goldblum; the only really good thing they did with him was his introductory shot...
There are a million other things that pissed me off in The Lost World, but I think I've posted about it here before.

As for the first film, it's still a favourite of mine. Sure, the book is better, but could they really have done a better job fitting the story into a two-hour cinematic format? I don't think so.
That film set new standards in production quality, and although I must have seen it at least a dozen times I still find it a hugely enjoyable watch.

 

[Festering Anus]

Ocean's Trilogy

7/10

Not bad.

Spoiler

The ending of every movie seemed pretty outrageous. Also Clooney should never have got the girl at the end of the first one. "I HATE YOU FOR BEING A THIEF AND NEVER WANT TO SEE YOU AGAIN" *an hour later* "Hey babe i just stole a bunch of ****" "u sexy, lets bang"

 

[IronMonkey]

Lifeforce: 5-6/10

Adding around +5 for the gratuitous nudity? Or should the score be read as (5 minus 6)/10?

 

[NeoNite]

Adding around +5 for the gratuitous nudity? Or should the score be read as (5 minus 6)/10?

You've got a . orrr...

 

[Manticore]

Lifeforce: 5-6/10

A sci-fi vampire from the mid 80s. Another take on the theme. No bloodsucking or crosses and garlic this time. A shuttle detects a derelict vessel hiding in halleys comet, explores and stumbles upon vampires. Guess what happens next.
The vampires feed on the life force energy of the person, and whoever is touched by them turns into a fast zombie. Every two hours they need that same energy, or they crumble up and wither away.
Oh well, two reasons for watching this movie:
- The beautiful mathilda may
- Captain picard possessed by a space vampire and bleeding excessively.

Otherwise, it really isn't worth watching. The movie takes a while to start up, and when things do become interesting it finished off too fast. And the ending wasn't really satisfying.

Heck, maybe I should've watched this 20 years ago or so...

I've been meaning to see this again but have never been able to locate it on DVD.

The Butterfly Effect is a pretty clever film.

16 Blocks-6.5/10

This manages to be an above average cop movie for this type of premise.

Spoiler

In a lot of ways it really reminds me of Clint Eastwood's "The Gauntlet" from about a million years ago..... and not just because it has a bus in it.

The characters are quite well done. In my opinion Willis plays it well in this film and it is one of his best roles.

Mos Def's character just ends up being totally annoying. He talks non-stop through the whole flick in one of the mostly irritating voices imaginable.

There is enough in this film to make it an above average piece of storytelling... in my opinion.

 

[dotnetbeast]

16 Blocks-6.5/10

.

Mos Def's character just ends up being totally annoying. He talks non-stop through the whole flick in one of the mostly irritating voices imaginable.

That should be the disclaimer for that film. BTW did you see the alternate ending?

 

[Dark Pulse]

Kara no Kyoukai ~The Garden of Sinners~: 9/10

An incredible set of 7 OAVs from the work of Kinoko Nasu. Originally starting as a Light Novel in 1998, they were republished in Manga form a few years later, and then in a set of OAVs from 2008-2009.

[screenshot]http://a.imageshack.us/img6/336/sinners1shikilg.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://blog.seiha.org/images/knk1/knk1_23.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://animelucid.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/snapshot20090730032054.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff264/E_N_P/Kara%20no%20Kyoukai/Gekijouban_Kara_no_Kyoukai_Dai_Nish.png[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7885/sinners1suicidelg.jpg[/screenshot]

Only reason it's not a 10/10? Might be WAY too deep and complex for some. Each episode is a bit of a mindscrew, but Episode 5 REALLY turns it into an all-night mindrape. If you don't like deep, complex stories that require you to think about what's going on, this isn't a series for you. On the other hand, if you enjoy that challenge, or like supernatural/horror stuff, absolutely set about in seeking this one down.

Episodes are about an hour long generally, but Episodes 5 and 7 are two hours apiece, so all in all you're looking at about 9 hours for the entire series. Still a damn good investment, and a hell of a ride.

 

[SleepyHe4d]

Kara no Kyoukai ~The Garden of Sinners~: 9/10

An incredible set of 7 OAVs from the work of Kinoko Nasu. Originally starting as a Light Novel in 1998, they were republished in Manga form a few years later, and then in a set of OAVs from 2008-2009.

Only reason it's not a 10/10? Might be WAY too deep and complex for some. Each episode is a bit of a mindscrew, but Episode 5 REALLY turns it into an all-night mindrape. If you don't like deep, complex stories that require you to think about what's going on, this isn't a series for you. On the other hand, if you enjoy that challenge, or like supernatural/horror stuff, absolutely set about in seeking this one down.

Episodes are about an hour long generally, but Episodes 5 and 7 are two hours apiece, so all in all you're looking at about 9 hours for the entire series. Still a damn good investment, and a hell of a ride.

Is this another one of those crappy artificially deep horror animes like Higurashi?

 

[Festering Anus]

The Aviator: 9/10

Really good movie. Really cool that it's a true story too.

 

[IronMonkey]

Star Trek Generations 6/10

Quite watchable but essentially a remake of No. V (madman seeks God/Paradise and goes to any length to achieve that goal).

If you enjoy the characters from the STNG TV show then there is probably more in this for you. I found the whole Data sub-plot merely annoying.

One does not normally watch Star Trek for the quality of the acting (it's not bad but it's nothing special) but Patrick Stewart was very good in a number of scenes. One believed the character and the emotions that the character was expressing.

Project A 7/10

With one exception, on a technical level just about everything in Star Trek Generations was done better than in Project A but Project A gets the higher rating. That exception being the stunts, which were exceptional.

The script was clunky, anachronistic and stereotyping but I didn't care; for the whole enterprise was suffused with a sense of fun. The humour was broad, slapstick in places, but it worked. Some of the set pieces were very inventive (e.g. the whole sequence using bicycle down a warren of narrow alleyways) and the playing was never less than enthusiastic.

Just a fun film. Enjoy it!

 

[xMurphyx]

Star Trek Generations
*SPOILER ALERT*

The way they brought back Kirk wasn't worth it, imo. If they just wanted to show how old the bad-guy was and how long he was already struggling with his project, then sure, fine, let him run into Kirk first. Up to that point the idea was pretty cool, I think. But why go on to kill Kirk in an accident when he had no business being there in the first place. And why bring him back later, by basically ripping him out of his wacky paradise, when he is needed for nothing but to beat someone up?
And why kill him off again by squashing him under a bridge? And why bury him in a shallow grave on some god forsaken planet?

I guess this wouldn't bother me as much if it felt less clunky. Kirk just arriving in the Nexus was really strange, for example. Why doesn't he wonder where he is and why isn't he trying to get out? In every third episode of the original series some super-being sucked them into some pseudo paradise and Kirk always wanted to get back. Why not this time? And why can Picard just get out of the Nexus by wishing it? Wouldn't he still be in the Nexus with the Nexus just faking where he wanted to be?

I think the beginning was very fun to watch up to the accident that killed Kirk and the new crew did well in the character moments. MacDowell was a cool villain. But the plot wasn't very good.

6/10

 

[IronMonkey]

It's a TV movie but...

I can recommend (especially for those not based in the UK and who didn't have a chance to catch the PR for it) digging out "Sherlock" (first broadcast last Sunday on the BBC).

A modern day take on Sherlock Holmes, the central mystery was no great shakes but it more than made up for that in the playing and characterisation. Often very, very funny (the scriptwriter is the guy who wrote the original episodes of Coupling and is currently the showrunner on Doctor Who), the take on the characters is fresh but true to the books.

There are another two "episodes" to be shown (tonight and next week).

 

[IronMonkey]

**SPOILERS BELOW**

Star Trek Generations
*SPOILER ALERT*

And why bring him back later, by basically ripping him out of his wacky paradise, when he is needed for nothing but to beat someone up?

It was needed to show that for all Kirk is a bit of a wide boy (not sure that translates - chancer, rogue) that at his core he was about his duty. He did his duty once more for all that meant abandoning Paradise. He preferred to make a real difference rather than enjoy the false pleasures of the Nexus. I thought that one of the better moments in the film

MacDowell was a cool villain.

Does he do any other kind?

 

[xMurphyx]

*MORE GENERATIONS SPOILERS AHEAD*

I understand his reasons for wanting to leave the Nexus in the movie, but I don't understand why he didn't try to get out before Picard even arrived like he would in any Star Trek episode.
And I don't understand why Picard didn't just recruit some random thug from the Nexus when all he needed was someone to beat up Soran.
Like Woopie said, time has no meaning in the Nexus, so he could have just picked anyone who had "just arrived" and persuaded them to follow him. Why not pick some alien dude with Dhalsim-arms or at least a Klingon?
What did he need Kirk for?
And how could he get out again? When he wished to have a family he didn't get a family, he got a fake Nexus family. Just like Kirk's gap-jumping-challenge and his wife were fake and "didn't matter". Why and how then was his wish to go back to the planet fulfilled for real?
And if the Nexus just provides you with everything you want and wraps you up in joy, how can other people just stroll into your perfect dream and potentially ruin it? I.e. how did Picard get to Kirk?
Or did he never get to Kirk and the Kirk he saw was just his Nexus-version of Kirk? It would make sense that he only threw a couple of rocks on him then but I highly doubt that's how the plot is supposed to work.

The way I see it it only makes sense to assume that everything Picard did from the point on from where he got into the Nexus was in the Nexus. He never left it, he never met Kirk. It's all his personal Nexus-fabrication. But the movie doesn't treat it like that. We are to believe final struggle against Soran is real again.

But if it's real, what was the shallow grave about? If it was to keep the involvement of Kirk a secret, what would Picard have done if Kirk survived? Shoot him in the back? And if it wasn't, why not give the guy a proper space burial?

It's all more inconsistent than it needed to be, imo. Maybe the desperate attempt to get Kirk back in somehow because they didn't trust the new crew to draw in a big enough audience on their own is what broke it. I don't know. I just know that my suspension of disbelief ripped too often, even compared to other Star Trek movies.

First Contact was much better.

Does he do any other kind?

Good point.

 

[IronMonkey]

I suspect that at some point one has to accept that not all is explained and just go with the flow. I don't disagree with the some of the points that you make but the problem is that we can both be "right". There is, to coin a phrase, "insufficient data" regarding the nature of the Nexus to be definitive on the matter.

But if it's real, what was the shallow grave about? If it was to keep the involvement of Kirk a secret, what would Picard have done if Kirk survived? Shoot him in the back? And if it wasn't, why not give the guy a proper space burial?

My explanation of that is that Picard dug the grave at a point where he did not know if he would be rescued. It would seem the least that he could do for one who had given so much.

It's all more inconsistent than it needed to be,

I speak with authority when I say that you will go mad if you worry about consistency in Star Trek. Lack of consistency is a signature trait of STNG. One of the reasons that I was never a great fan of it.

First Contact was much better.

I'll let you know next week when Channel 4 broadcasts the next one in the sequence.

 

[JaFO]

Movie : Inception
6 / 10

I seriously can't believe this movie is rated so high by critics.

It is a very average predictable plot and given that we're supposed to believe that it are dream-worlds there's very little weird stuff happening (except the parts in Limbo and the middle where he explains what it is they do to an outsider).
The initial scenes are really confusing, but once stuff clicks it becomes so utterly boring it's not even funny.
And the ending ? Did I say predictable ?

The best part in the movie is the zero gravity fight-scene simply because it is one of the few moments we are reminded that nothing is real.

Spoiler

the concept of the 'token' is utterly flawed.
It would only indicate that you aren't in someone else's dream. It won't tell you if you are awake or dreaming.

And given that he's using someone else's token, which is something we're told would destroy its value, makes it crystal clear he won't ever be able to tell he's dreaming or not.

I'd rather watch Existenz or Thirteenth Floor.

//
'Sherlock' indeed had a good first episode.
It's really nice to see Holmes and Watson in a modern setting yet still able to apply the same kind of logic.
I can't wait to see the next one today.

 

[das_ben]

Sunshine Cleaning. Too American. Amy Adams' character is a major nuisance, as is her and Emily Blunt's acting. The idea behind the movie is great, and could have made for a very dark comedy, but instead it was turned into a family tale that's been told too many times before. The occasional laugh and Alan Arkin can't save it from being a predictable and boring disappointment. 4/10

China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears Of Sichuan Province. I'm not very much into this kind of documentary, where cameras for the most part simply capture people's opinions, complaints and accusations in order to make a point, without there being some kind of development. This particular one is interesting nevertheless for delivering a better insight into the political realities of China - and I'm not talking about the corruption that can be witnessed everywhere, but about the double-speak that is practiced by everybody shown: the people are upset with the government, party and administration and protest against their fuck-ups, but in every minute they also stress the point that they in no way intend to criticize party and government. 7/10

La Strada. A great piece of cinema. Fellini created two unique characters and Giulietta Masina and Anthony Quinn brought them to life in a way probably no one else could have done. Richard Basehart's "Il Matto" is "Zampano's" antagonist, but at heart they're both alike, searching for somebody to end their loneliness. "Gelsomina's" facial expressions and her way of moving are reminiscent of Charlie Chaplin, while "Zampano", at once unrelenting and demanding the viewer's sympathy, reminds me of Marlon Brando. 10/10

Frantic. The French seem to like to hang up their phones and need to be bribed at every opportunity. How rude. Uncertainty is the biggest factor for most of the movie, shadowing the romance/desire subplot (which doesn't work), some of the suspense pleasantly reminded me of Hitchcock. The roof scene comes to mind, which is also one example of the excellent camera work that can be witnessed throughout the film's length. Ennio Morricone contributed a great soundtrack. 8/10

Ben X. This movie is toying with mixing media to an unusually large degree and in this case it works perfectly for the theme. The mockumentary style does an excellent job of showing the transparency of phrases that follow once an occurrence like this becomes public. Bonus points for a good soundtrack, and a wag of the finger for a bit of a too happy ending. 8/10

 

[Staward]

Predators: 6.5/10

Ah, it was far from being an interesting movie to me, really...It starts nowhere, ends nowhere, there's nowhere scattered all around.

The Hangover: 9/10

Now that was a good movie, laughed my ass off watching this

Spoiler

We are not leaving the baby in the closet, there is a ****ing tiger in the bathroom!! LOL

Babel: 8.5/10

Good movie, well put together. Though it has a very slow pace, and i felt it could have had a better ending, like Richard getting back home or something, it was good overall.

 

[xMurphyx]

I suspect that at some point one has to accept that not all is explained and just go with the flow. I don't disagree with the some of the points that you make but the problem is that we can both be "right". There is, to coin a phrase, "insufficient data" regarding the nature of the Nexus to be definitive on the matter.

Certainly true, for this and for a lot of other Star Trek phenomena.

My explanation of that is that Picard dug the grave at a point where he did not know if he would be rescued. It would seem the least that he could do for one who had given so much.

That's a good point.