Rate the Last Movie You Watched

  • 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.

ambershee

Nimbusfish Rawks
Apr 18, 2006
4,519
7
38
36
Nomad
sheelabs.gamemod.net
Brave - 6/10

A strong opening twenty minutes quickly fades into a tepid and uninspiring Disney-princess tale with a largely vacuous plot that simply fails to deliver the intelligence and complexity you'd expect from a Pixar film. Early promises of strong, conflicting characters are quickly forgotten in favour of a caricature of a well-worn conceit and a moralising tale about listening to your parents. Heavy-handed mashes of gaelic culture fail to create something authentic, and generic fantasy tropes quickly grate. A surprising and frequent disparity in rendering styles show us photorealistic celtic landscapes, but a lead character whose face contains an unusual jellyfish like softness makes it wholly more difficult to graps.

This is not the Pixar film you have been waiting for.
 

BillyBadAss

Strong Cock of The North
May 25, 1999
8,879
60
48
48
Tokyo, JP
flickr.com
The Avengers 8/10

I know I am late to the game on this one, but The Avengers just started showing here this weekend. Sadly, the only 2D showing was at 2pm and we missed it. We ended up watching the 3D version which seems to be getting better since the shitty movie Avatar, but I still don't like it as they spend too much time with shitty conceived 3D shots only for the effect and the technology still isn't there. I am there to watch a movie, not for an amusement park ride.

Anyway, the movie was overall cool and Iron Man and The Hulk were the best parts. It did feel like it could of been a bit shorter and been a better experience, but meh it wasn't that bad. Good stuff overall. Would of been 8/10 if they put the time into better cinematography and not gimmicky 3D shots.
 

Twisted Metal

Anfractuous Aluminum
Jul 28, 2001
7,122
3
38
39
Long Island, NY
The Avengers 8/10

We ended up watching the 3D version which seems to be getting better since the shitty movie Avatar


I know you hate Avatar, but I think most would agree that it's one of the best, if not the best use of 3D in recent cinema.

I don't recall anything standing out (no pun) in the 3D version of the Avengers. I hate the 3D gimmick in general, but I won't deny that Avatar got it right.
 

ambershee

Nimbusfish Rawks
Apr 18, 2006
4,519
7
38
36
Nomad
sheelabs.gamemod.net
I was under the impression an 'average movie goer' worked on a scale of 8-10.

Pirates! Band of Misfits - 5/10

Wtf did I just watch? Some amusing small touches and faint traces of humour in an otherwise completely forgettable animated adventure.
 

Capt.Toilet

Good news everyone!
Feb 16, 2004
5,826
3
38
41
Ottawa, KS
I was under the impression an 'average movie goer' worked on a scale of 8-10.

Pirates! Band of Misfits - 5/10

Wtf did I just watch? Some amusing small touches and faint traces of humour in an otherwise completely forgettable animated adventure.

Nah I consider myself an average movie goer and usually work on a 6-10 scale, unless the movie just outright pisses me off then I will tear it a new one.
 

Lruce Bee

Transcending to another level
May 3, 2001
1,644
3
38
Sherwood Forest
The scale I work on is simple.

0/10 = The worst movie ever made - literally.
5/10 = Average/watchable - just
10/10 = Best movie ever made - period.

And everything in between explains itself really.

My review scores aren't that crazy.
 

shadow_dragon

is ironing his panties!
I know you hate Avatar, but I think most would agree that it's one of the best, if not the best use of 3D in recent cinema.

I don't recall anything standing out (no pun) in the 3D version of the Avengers. I hate the 3D gimmick in general, but I won't deny that Avatar got it right.

Avatar just (re)started a trend I couldn't name another movie that actually tried to do it properly. Just applying the effect in post to a moderate, as opposed to an effective, degree is what most movies do simply so they can rake in a few more coins for very minimal effort.

3D imo works best in cgi heavy movies or full-blown cgi rendered animations(like toy story or something) for fairly self-explanatory reasons. Anything else I'll save the money on myself.
 

Manticore

Official BUF Angel of Death (also Birthdays)
Staff member
Nov 5, 2003
6,374
230
63
Optimum Trajectory-Circus of Values
Not surprising that 3D works best in full or near-full CGI movies as it costs nothing to tack a second "camera" into the scene
Real life 3D capable cameras cost a small fortune

The last two major films I have seen have been CGI heavy and only released in 2D. Perhaps the 3D thing is a fad, or the money is better spent in a production budget by getting more great CGI. One of those films was The Dark Knight Rises. The other film is:

Total Recall (2012)-6/10

Basically the film stuck to the premise of the original Arnie movie.

I think the movie did a pretty good job at visualising a future earth....

... sections of this were totally Blade Runner inspired.....

... with excellent CGI.

The action in the film was good.

However certain other premises they brought into the film were pretty lame in my opinion........

... particularly the whole deal about an earth divided into Europe and Australasia.

The whole Fall deal of having a rapid transit system going through the centre of the earth? Gravity swapping and having people crawling around the outside of the Fall during the final part of the movie. That thing would have had to be travelling at 60,000 miles and hour to make the journey in 17 minutes. C'mon really? What about the g-forces involved in acceleration/deceleration; everyone would have been pulped.

Also creating distance by having the colony on one side of the planet instead of on Mars. Hmmmmmm..... seemed weak to me.

And when they went into the toxic wasteland city sections there was no explanation as to whether or how the habitable sections of the new cites were protected/divided from the toxic stuff.

And as for the Rekall organisation:

Massive advertising planet-wide for a service which seemed to be some Blade Runner type of ghetto business in the Colony run by one guy. Or was it supposed to be a McDonald's type franchise? That just didn't read well.

Apart from the great visuals and action there was a bit of mind/reality philosophy that was brushed over and those subtexts seemed to be confused when you look at those elements in the context of that stuff in the original film.

I just couldn't get my head around a really good reason for this reboot other than to create some stunning futuristic settings that would have been at home in an original sci-fi flick rather than a reboot.

The credits said it was inspired by the Philip K Dick story but so was the original. I can't remember the short story well enough to make a decision there........ this flick palyed on the fact that everyone knows the original movie really well and then tried to be clever about what they changed.
 
Last edited: