Rate the last movie you watched out of 10

Status
Not open for further replies.
Men In Black 3

While it was an enjoyable film, there were so many opportunities to develop the story and characters, I felt that there were some sub plots in there that could've been fleshed out but weren't and they don't really bother with explaining how K became the man we know him as.

6/10
 
Ark said:
Genkina Hito said:
Flash-forward 30-some-odd years and he gets back to the project, still intrigued by Space Jockey but adding more grandiose themes - the origins of humanity - to differentiate it from the films that have gone before. Okay, the themes don't match up to Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 or 2010 but the main draw for fans of the Alien franchise and for Ridley Scott was that we got to see who Space Jockey was and how the Xenomorphs tie in and the film more than adequately does this.
We keep coming back to this problem. The film's writers don't seem to know or agree about what this film is. Is it a prequal or is it an original story? If it's a prequel, then there's really no justification for the "Origins of Humanity" stuff and especially no justification for Scott selling this as the guiding theme. If it's an original story then there's no need for the Face huggers, chest bursters and Xenos.
Why not? Like 2001, it's a work of science fiction which speculates on theories about the origin of humanity. The origins of the Sand People of Tatooine might not be that interesting a concept (except to particularly big Star Wars fans) but the Alien universe is our universe, fictionalised, like the universe of 2001. Surely there's no reason an established fictional setting can't be used to explore multiple themes?
 
Genkina Hito said:
Ridley Scott has done a lot for sci-fi by helping create and shape the visual aesthetic for Blade Runner and Alien and he has spent 30+ years talking about Space Jockey. If he wants to make Prometheus which reuses ideas and themes he helped create he's more than welcome to because he has earned the right to do that by establishing so much. Although I'm not convinced about the need for a Blade Runner sequel he has earned the right to make it. That may not wash with you but it works for me.

I don't want to take this on a complete tangent but I think you're overstating Scott's contribution to science fiction. In terms of visuals I agree. In terms of themes, like we said Alien is really just a horror film, and Blade Runner is based off a book that he didn't write. To be honest I think GitS and Sky Crawlers handle the themes of Blade Runner better than Blade Runner.



Genkina Hito said:
The Engineers have created Xenomorphs and housed them at the WMD factory. One of the planets on their projector that David activates is Earth which must mean that humanity was the target. Are they worse than humanity? Maybe not. Just like us they create vile weapons and they care not for what they create as the interactions between David and the other humans show.

I know it's from the original film(s), but I have to say, I never bought the whole "Xeno as bio weapon" idea. It never made sense to me even when I was younger. The Xenos deadliness is largely dependent on the surrounding humans being either in small isolated groups or unarmed or stupid or having technology that's worse than existing technology or having a traitorous android in their midst. Compared with existing WMDs, it's hard to see what the selling point is.
 
Ark said:
Genkina Hito said:
Ridley Scott has done a lot for sci-fi by helping create and shape the visual aesthetic for Blade Runner and Alien and he has spent 30+ years talking about Space Jockey. If he wants to make Prometheus which reuses ideas and themes he helped create he's more than welcome to because he has earned the right to do that by establishing so much. Although I'm not convinced about the need for a Blade Runner sequel he has earned the right to make it. That may not wash with you but it works for me.

I don't want to take this on a complete tangent but I think you're overstating Scott's contribution to science fiction. In terms of visuals I agree. In terms of themes, like we said Alien is really just a horror film, and Blade Runner is based off a book that he didn't write. To be honest I think GitS and Sky Crawlers handle the themes of Blade Runner better than Blade Runner.

The visuals have been so influential. Before Ridley Scott most films looked like Forbidden Planet, Lost in Space. Star Wars and Star Trek. Ridley added that neo-noir/realistic aspect and that has influenced films, video games and books. Furthermore, the aesthetics of the movie add brilliantly to the themes so he may not have written the stories but he has added immensely to them.


Ark said:
Genkina Hito said:
The Engineers have created Xenomorphs and housed them at the WMD factory. One of the planets on their projector that David activates is Earth which must mean that humanity was the target. Are they worse than humanity? Maybe not. Just like us they create vile weapons and they care not for what they create as the interactions between David and the other humans show.

I know it's from the original film(s), but I have to say, I never bought the whole "Xeno as bio weapon" idea. It never made sense to me even when I was younger. The Xenos deadliness is largely dependent on the surrounding humans being either in small isolated groups or unarmed or stupid or having technology that's worse than existing technology or having a traitorous android in their midst. Compared with existing WMDs, it's hard to see what the selling point is.

What makes the Xenomorphs so terrifying as a weapon is their ability to spread and their unrelenting nature. These things are as tough as hell with hardened carapaces and acid for blood and they can survive in all sorts of conditions. Sure, they're worse to handle than most WMD's but they are just as deadly. The Engineers clearly liked messing around with biological organisms only this one turned around and bit them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ayase said:
Why not? Like 2001, it's a work of science fiction which speculates on theories about the origin of humanity. The origins of the Sand People of Tatooine might not be that interesting a concept (except to particularly big Star Wars fans) but the Alien universe is our universe, fictionalised, like the universe of 2001. Surely there's no reason an established fictional setting can't be used to explore multiple themes?

If it had just been a matter of "Fleshy Androids", "Weyland Corp" and "Hypersleep" there would be no problem. Those things aren't especially out of place in a story about The Origins of Humanity. When you start forcing in proto-face huggers and proto-Xenomorphs and the Space Jockeys, you're not really telling a story or exploring a theme anymore. It just becomes a gimmick.
 
Ark said:
I know it's from the original film(s), but I have to say, I never bought the whole "Xeno as bio weapon" idea. It never made sense to me even when I was younger. The Xenos deadliness is largely dependent on the surrounding humans being either in small isolated groups or unarmed or stupid or having technology that's worse than existing technology or having a traitorous android in their midst. Compared with existing WMDs, it's hard to see what the selling point is.

I don't have a problem with it because it's a pretty well-establish trope that people (in this case aliens) are stupid and like to play God. I mean living weapons is essentially the entire plot of many zombie films and games (Resident Evil revolves entirely around this, as to many out of control super soldier tales)

It may be a dumb weapon due to the inherent uncontrollable nature, but humanity has often dabbled with the idea of bioweapons and weaponising smallpox or whatever, so it's not too farfetched.
 
Men in Black 3 7.5/10

I hate to repeat the general consensus but MiB3 is surprisingly good. I’ll admit that the beginning had me very concerned that we were heading into the uber-silliness that plagued the second film, but once the time travel stuff starts happening it got really good. The reviewers who commented on the surprising emotional heft of the film were not wrong either. I was pleased at how warm the film was and how it really built on the relationship between J and K, as well as what makes K himself tick. The unrecognisable Jemaine Clement also makes a compelling villain as Boris the Animal and certainly is menacing enough, if a little underexposed. Admittedly the ending plays on something that is exclusively revealed and referred to within MiB 3, but that in no way reduces it as a moment.

The humour may not be quite as dry as it was in the first film, but MiB3 is still the sleeper hit of the summer as far as I’m concerned; the threequel no one asked for or knew they wanted that turned out to be something pretty great.
 
The 5 Year Engagment I liked it. It's funny with some charm to it, mainly thanks to Jason Segel, who is quickly becoming my latest man crush thanks to his excellent performances (eg. This, The Muppets, Jeff Who Lives At Home, Bad Teacher- which was poor apart from him). Emily Blunt is good too, playing it aptly quirky. Though I felt it was extremely cliched and made her seem a total bitch when she kissed Rhys Ifans. The dialogue from her there she is totally asking for him to do it, it's a horrible moment from the character, though I suppose it does fit, I still didn't like it if only because it means hurting Segel.

Wasn't so keen on the psych grad supporting characters, they came off as a bit too forced wacky at times, but still got the odd laugh out of them. Alison Brie's speech at the initial engagement party was probably the funniest moment, also liked the Elmo/Cookie Monster voices later on with her and Blunt. The super fast pick-a-wedding end was fun and a nice different approach to a wedding

6.5 out of 10
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chernobyl Diaries 5 out of 10

After some very poor horror so far this year (Silent House, The Pact the latter of which is clear front runner for worst film of the year in my mind) I thought this film was doing quite well. There's some decent tension the scene in the van at night and the beginning of the final night scene after the 2 left behind in the van have disappeared. But ultimately I was left disappointed by a few things.

These types of film have a tendancy to forgo a strong script, dialogue and developed characters. Sometimes for budget reasons, but normally because they're lazy. This film is no different. The characters (even their names) aren't particularly memorable and the dialogue and reactions of people are so plot contrived at times.

"Don't go in there." "But there might be a gun." "Okay, let's look."

There was only one character I was genuinely interested in and wanted to know more of Yuri, but alas he had to die. I can forgive the character problems, but want irked me the most in the end was the choice and design of the radiation patients. Just the fact that they were escaped radiation patients was enough to annoy me, but add the fact that their design consisted of slight disfigurement and baldness it wasn't really intimidating. I think a better option would've been to go with it being ghosts of Chernobyl taking form at night.

Crowning moment of stupidity would have to go to Paul. He can speak the language, we're told this, even see it for ourselves. But at the end when he's told to stop he acts like he doesn't know what's being said and gets himself killed for it. You can make a case for him being emotionally distressed or whatever at the time, but some common sense should apply, guys with guns tell you to stop then you stop.

It's not a terrible film, I think it has it's moments and I imagine a lot of people could like it more than I did. Oh, I will give it a plus point for the fact it uses Manson's No Reflection for the credits. Love his new album.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lay The Favourite 2 out of 10

Urgh, this was just a mess, it had no idea what it wanted to do. Rebecca Hall's ditzy performance wore thin on me very quickly, STOP TWIRLING YOUR HAIR! There wasn't a likeable character, there wasn't any sort of saving grace. When That 70s Show originally aired I would've liked to have seen Laura Prepon's breasts, but now I know it would only have led to disappointment. It actually took a little while after seeing them to realise it was her, which says all it needs to about her presence and performance.
 
Killer Joe

8/10

This was just what I was expecting/hoping it would be. McConaughey gives one of the most unsettling, dark and creepy performances of the last couple years. With The Lincoln Lawyer and now this he's finally showing what he's capable of and I really want to see him stick to doing more serious roles like these.

There's a lot more comedy to this movie than I thought there'd be, it's pitch black humour of course. You laugh at it initially but then think about the horrid circumstances and implications of it all, like just how easily bonds can be broken by money. The whole film has a real unnerving aura to it, you're just waiting and waiting for it to finally pop as it builds the tension throughout and then when it happens, boy does it happen!

I must say that the violence was superb, not since The Killer Inside Me have we seen violence this realistic and horrifying, quite brutal. I'd urge people to go see this film, but if you're not used to watching something a bit more "unconventional" then be warned.
 
The Amazing Spiderman

5/10


I didn't like any of the Raimi and was going into this with hopes it would be at least a bit better, sadly those hopes were well and truly unfounded. I'm just going to spoiler tag the rest of this because there's a lot in there that annoys me.

First thing's first, despite beign over 2 hours long this film feels rushed like hell. We really don't get to dwell on anything for more than 5 minutes or so, it's like they just wanted to get all the origin stuff out of the way, so I have to ask why they even bothered to do this movie then. Just jump to him being Spiderman, it can still be a reboot without going back to the very start. Everything is jam packed in there and relationships between characters only happen for a few scenes but we're supposed to believe there's a great connection between them after that. The example that frustrated me the most of this was Captain Stacy. Peter has literally three scenes with him, none of which were positive encounters, he dies and Peter is acting as if he just lost a good friend. Let's add that onto it too; they kill Captain Stacy in the first film. Nevermind that Peter barely knows him, we barely know him. Oh, and that promise he gets Peter to make, that was just incredibley pointless. I get the idea of he makes a promise not to get Gwen involved so acts a bit distant to her, okay makes sense even if it is incredibly dickish. Such a situation is typically used ot create a bit of drama between the two romantic leads so it can build up to them getting back together in the future and if they're not involved then it stops the typical damsel in distress from happening again and again. But then Gwen turns around and tells him she knows that's what her dad would've said to him, okay so now we've lost the tension on Gwen's end because she knows exactly why he's doing it, but you can still use it. That is until 5 minutes later when Peter tells her he's not going ot keep the promise anyway. Good job, you just did a subplot of an entire other movie in the space of about 10 minutes.

This gets me onto another big bug bear: the reveals. So, Spidey reveals his identity to not only Gwen, who he has seriously shared very little screen time with at that point, but it's also clear that Aunt May catches on quick and then to Captain Stacy too. Again, I understand the basic principle of this, they want to avoid the repition of scenes of Peter coming up with convoluted excuses of why he has to suddenly leave in certain situations with the characters, we're doing away with all that foreplay. In principle that's fine, but why not just start at a point they already know his identity at, why the hell did we go back to the beginning if you clearly didn't want to deal with all the **** that goes on in the beginning?! It's just so rushed.

This next one is something the Raimi films did too that I absolutely detested and that is the vomit inducing cheesiness of involving the citizens of New York. In Raimi's Spiderman I think the scene I hate the most is when a group of New Yorkers start throwing bricks and things at Green Goblin and yell at him not to "mess with New Yorkers". He's trying to make it that their love for Spidey has brought them together to his aid but it comes off incredibly lame and cheesy. I didn't want to watch Green Goblin get heckled by ordinairy folk, I wanted ot watch him have a battle with Spiderman. This film does the exact same but with the father of some kid that Spiderman saved getting the crane operators to all help him get across the city. I know you're wanting to show us that Spidey is a great guy who helps everyone and can bring out the best in them by doing so, but it's kinda implicit we don't need to see it. It's just the cringe inducing American style "patriotism" that these scenes always end up smacking of, it completely turns me off.

I was pleased when they first said they were going back to web shooters rather than the whole naturally ocurring ones. What I always liked about the web shooters is that 1. it was part of that sci-fi edge that made comics cool and 2. the fact that the web shooters could be used to inject some immediate drama/sense of danger into proceedings because they could run out of webbing or get jammed at some moment. Yet, they never bother to use this option at any time. Sure, Lizard crushes his shooters at the end but it didn't really make a difference. I think I've run out of things to complain about, either that or I've just forgotten some more so I'll make another point before one final complaint. Despite how bad this film was I still hold out hope for the sequels, because this was clearly just made as a quick setup for the sequels. I'm not sure who we're going to have as villain in the second, but we've at least got a number of major characters "established". Think we'll see Norman Osborne actually show up in the 2nd, I did like all the mentions of him in this one (also what the hell is with him "dying"?), but they'll be setting him up as Green Goblin for the 3rd I think and go with him killing Gwen in the 3rd, in which they'll probably introduce MJ as the ready made replacement. I think they made these reboots purely so they could do Green Goblin again, which is actually a point I have to give this over Raimi's films. It didn't kill off the villain. Raimi's films all killed the villains with no hope of return, here Connors gets cured and arrested, leaving it wide open for a future return. That's the right thing to do, that's more like a comic book.

Okay so final, final complaint:

spiderman-lizard-from-movie.jpg
super-mario-bros-movie-goomba.jpg


So, in summing up I personally still don't think there's been a good movie adaptation of Spiderman and my favourite incarantion of Spidey will remain the awesome 90s animated series.
 
20thCenturyBoy said:
The Amazing Spiderman

5/10


So, in summing up I personally still don't think there's been a good movie adaptation of Spiderman and my favourite incarantion of Spidey will remain the awesome 90s animated series.

I quite liked the 1st two Raimi Spiderman films (the 3rd one was BAD but then many 3rd films are), but one thing that has put me off seeing this at the cinema (apart from all the rain today) is that there have been mentions of Twilight in a few of the reviews. I get that Spiderman is supposed to have a love interest but it doesn't mean it has to go all twilight (and several of the trailers I have seen so far look Twilight-ish).

And like you meantioned in your review - what is with taking of the mask (I have seen one clip where he saves someone but he takes his mask off first). What's the point of a secret identity if you go around taking your mask off all the time :roll: .
 
animefreak17 said:
@Sparrowsabre7

is it true that will hasn't done the music video like from the first 2 movies

Yup it's Pitbull, not Smith.

@20th Century boy: I don't know about the web-shooters thing, I think that's been done to death, it seems like whenever they need to add tension Spidey's conveniently out of web. I mean they did it in Spider-man 2 and he didn't even HAVE web-shooters

mangaman74 said:
And like you meantioned in your review - what is with taking of the mask (I have seen one clip where he saves someone but he takes his mask off first). What's the point of a secret identity if you go around taking your mask off all the time :roll: .

It's a directorial choice to allow the actor to show more expression and emotion, same reason Cap's helmet got pulled off at the end of Avengers.

It's annoying but it's not going to go away. It's one of the reasons I really like the way Iron Man was handled though, with the interior helmet shots, allows for them to show the actor's face without having him constantly taking his helmet off
 
Sparrowsabre7 said:
@20th Century boy: I don't know about the web-shooters thing, I think that's been done to death, it seems like whenever they need to add tension Spidey's conveniently out of web. I mean they did it in Spider-man 2 and he didn't even HAVE web-shooters

Shows how much I cared in those first set of movies, I don't even remeber that :lol:
 
Yeah, he loses his powers intermittently for no adequately explained reason, based on a storyline in the comics where his guilt stopped his powers working, but that's not really explicitly shown in the film. Like super-impotence I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top