What movie did you just watch, and how was it? (expect some spoilers but try not to post any!)

Forums › Off topic › What movie did you just watch, and how was it? (expect some spoilers but try not to post any!)

1 | ... | 286 | 287 | 288 | 289 | 290 | 291 | 292 | 293 | 294 | 295 | 296 | ... | 433

3646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4554

ID Verified

#2391142 13-Jan-2020 17:50

1917 last Saturday night.

Gritty, good acting, decent storyline although some of it a little far-fetched, amazing cinematography.

I recommend it. Not quite as good as Dunkirk but close.

Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.

Lizard1977

2134 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 628

ID Verified

#2391456 14-Jan-2020 08:44

Shazam - 5/10

Pretty "meh" kind of film. It's one of those films that sounds like it could be a lot of fun, but ended up being just kind of okay. Possibly its because I don't really like Zachary Levi - nothing personal, I've just never really enjoyed his films, but also because it felt like it was just pillaging other films - Big, for instance, with the whole "kid turned into an adult by magic" storyline, plus the whole Spiderman: Homecoming vibe.

kiwi_64

276 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 142

Subscriber

#2391468 14-Jan-2020 09:03

Watched The Peanut Butter Falcon last night.

What an awesome little movie. 9/10 for me

I wouldn't normally go out of my way to watch a Shia LaBeouf movie, but he's great in this.

Filmed in Georgia (I think) it has fantastic cinematography and soundtrack

Item

1739 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 726

Subscriber

#2391516 14-Jan-2020 09:58

Joker.

Meh.

It was Ok. Well acted I guess, but lacked the dark glee and black humor of previous iterations of the character and was just about guy with mental illness descending into violence and unpleasantness. Watch Taxi Driver and King of comedy instead. As critics have pointed out, it is effectively an amalgamation of the two which ends up being less of the sum of its parts.

Can't see why it has the Oscar tip for best film at all.

Marriage Story.

Really enjoyed this, though it is not really the kind of film I would usually watch. Scarlett Johanssen is just brilliant in it - a powerful and subtle performance - and the film really rang true.

reven

3748 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

#2391520 14-Jan-2020 10:06

Lizard1977:

Shazam - 5/10

Pretty "meh" kind of film. It's one of those films that sounds like it could be a lot of fun, but ended up being just kind of okay. Possibly its because I don't really like Zachary Levi - nothing personal, I've just never really enjoyed his films, but also because it felt like it was just pillaging other films - Big, for instance, with the whole "kid turned into an adult by magic" storyline, plus the whole Spiderman: Homecoming vibe.

I like how you compare it to big, when captain marvel/shazam was around for decades before Big, so if anything Big ripped off shazam :P

reven

3748 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

#2391521 14-Jan-2020 10:08

Item:

Joker.

Meh.

It was Ok. Well acted I guess, but lacked the dark glee and black humor of previous iterations of the character and was just about guy with mental illness descending into violence and unpleasantness. Watch Taxi Driver and King of comedy instead. As critics have pointed out, it is effectively an amalgamation of the two which ends up being less of the sum of its parts.

Can't see why it has the Oscar tip for best film at all.

Marriage Story.

Really enjoyed this, though it is not really the kind of film I would usually watch. Scarlett Johanssen is just brilliant in it - a powerful and subtle performance - and the film really rang true.

Im the opposite, i really liked Joker (was expecting to hate it). And marriage story looked great in the trailer, but I hated it/found it boring.

Recently I watched "Kitchen" (with Melissa McCarthy) and once again, trailer looked good, movie was painfully boring.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#2391557 14-Jan-2020 10:43

"Little Women" 9/10 at the urging of, and with, my wife and daughter. It reminded me a lot of the 2005 Joe Wright "Pride and Prejudice" with Keira Knightley: use of colour, similar and same music, and editing style produced similar scenes and cuts. On the same theme, the trailer for the new "Emma" (Jane Austen) looked interesting.

But for most of many of my friends it would only be a 4/10. More than 80% of the audience were women. It had a lot of issues like they spend too long pulling everything together after the point of high emotional intensity, it is very preachy, and much of the plot is telegraphed making the storyline far too obvious even if you have no knowledge of the story.

gehenna

8667 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2391560 14-Jan-2020 10:49

reven:

I like how you compare it to big, when captain marvel/shazam was around for decades before Big, so if anything Big ripped off shazam :P

Shazam! is DC.

Sorry, the power of nerd compelled me.

reven

3748 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

#2391561 14-Jan-2020 10:50

gehenna:

reven:

I like how you compare it to big, when captain marvel/shazam was around for decades before Big, so if anything Big ripped off shazam :P

Shazam! is DC.

Sorry, the power of nerd compelled me.

Yes, but the characters original name was Captain Marvel, he's only recently had a name change to Shazam.

gehenna

8667 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2391563 14-Jan-2020 10:51

Ooh nice reference! I completely read over the word captain in your other post :)

Lizard1977

2134 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 628

ID Verified

#2392565 15-Jan-2020 13:01

reven:

Lizard1977:

Shazam - 5/10

Pretty "meh" kind of film. It's one of those films that sounds like it could be a lot of fun, but ended up being just kind of okay. Possibly its because I don't really like Zachary Levi - nothing personal, I've just never really enjoyed his films, but also because it felt like it was just pillaging other films - Big, for instance, with the whole "kid turned into an adult by magic" storyline, plus the whole Spiderman: Homecoming vibe.

I like how you compare it to big, when captain marvel/shazam was around for decades before Big, so if anything Big ripped off shazam :P

True. I'm not a comics reader, so I came to the film with virtually zero knowledge of the character history.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Lizard1977

2134 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 628

ID Verified

#2392567 15-Jan-2020 13:27

6 Underground - 3/10

I heard from many that this was a turd, but as someone who really enjoys most of what Ryan Reynolds does, I had to see what the fuss was.

It's a turd.

It's funny trying to pin down exactly what makes this a bad film. I can usually get past the Michael Bay aspect - there's nothing wrong with over the top action, if that's what you're looking for. The ultraviolence isn't a problem either - explicit gore can be effective when used correctly. I'm also not bothered if the plot isn't that deep - sometimes simple is good. But this movie is just one hot mess, and not in a good way.

A few thoughts came to mind when trying to work out how to explain this. The first was a series of sketches by David Mitchell and Robert Webb (That Mitchell and Webb Look) where they portray lazy screenwriters who come up with ideas for TV shows but they confess they do little or no research, and as a result the product is extremely braindead (see here for an example). Even though the writers of this film (Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick) have churned out some great films (e.g. Deadpool 1 & 2), it's like they couldn't be bothered to put in any details that would help drive the film along. For instance, the centre of the plot is to instigate regime change in a country ruled by an evil dictator, and their grand plan is to rescue the dictator's brother from captivity, get him in front of a camera, and "inspire" the people to rise up, overlooking all the tricky little details of staging a coup d'etat. As I said, the plot doesn't have to be highly realistic, and I'm pretty forgiving of dumb films, but this just scraped the barrel.

The second thought that came to mind was that it was edited together as if someone was making a 2 hour trailer. In the same way that trailers jump around from scene to scene (to convey the sense of the film), this film just seemed to jump from place to place without even bothering to show how things happened. The staccato effect was really jarring (again, I'm normally fairly forgiving when films make big leaps), and it was if the writers didn't even bother to check that there was any kind of narrative sense. And to make it worse, there were some pointless shots interspersed which didn't add anything to the story, making you wonder if it was edited by a random number generator.

Often the little gripes in a film can be redeemed by a standout performance. And Ryan Reynolds is funny enough that he can usually paper over the cracks. But even here he didn't really rise to the challenge. His character had the scope to inject his snarky, sarcastic wit into the film, but it never appeared.

It's disappointing because the film had the potential to be a fun, if not a "good" action film. But instead it's another wasted opportunity. Possibly the only redeeming characteristic is that it was on Netflix, meaning I didn't have to sacrifice $17 at a cinema to watch it.

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#2392581 15-Jan-2020 13:59

Lizard1977:

6 Underground - 3/10

...

The second thought that came to mind was that it was edited together as if someone was making a 2 hour trailer. In the same way that trailers jump around from scene to scene (to convey the sense of the film), this film just seemed to jump from place to place without even bothering to show how things happened. The staccato effect was really jarring (again, I'm normally fairly forgiving when films make big leaps), and it was if the writers didn't even bother to check that there was any kind of narrative sense. And to make it worse, there were some pointless shots interspersed which didn't add anything to the story, making you wonder if it was edited by a random number generator.

Couldn't agree more with the above - the pacing and editing were my biggest (amongst many) issues with the movie. It really only made it into the 'present day' over 40 minutes into the movie, the earlier content being so frequently interrupted by flashbacks etc (not an issue in theory, but the way they did it...). It was seriously incoherent and poorly put together - I wondered if the editor, director etc were on something?! There has to be a seriously good explanation as to how they could release something like this as a finished product. As for its politics, the less said the better...

The one redeeming feature is that it was the first 4K HDR movie we've watched on our new OLED, but not even an amazing quality picture could rescue it!

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2392693 15-Jan-2020 20:49

What dreams may come, Directed by Vincent Ward. With Robin Williams, Cuba Gooding Jr., Annabella Sciorra

A master piece of a story I have seen this before but revisited it on our much bigger screen.

For me this is a solid 10/10 movie , Robin Williams in a completely different light.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

Handsomedan

7770 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7408

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2392744 16-Jan-2020 08:19

Lizard1977:

6 Underground - 3/10

I heard from many that this was a turd, but as someone who really enjoys most of what Ryan Reynolds does, I had to see what the fuss was.

It's a turd.

It's funny trying to pin down exactly what makes this a bad film. I can usually get past the Michael Bay aspect - there's nothing wrong with over the top action, if that's what you're looking for. The ultraviolence isn't a problem either - explicit gore can be effective when used correctly. I'm also not bothered if the plot isn't that deep - sometimes simple is good. But this movie is just one hot mess, and not in a good way.

A few thoughts came to mind when trying to work out how to explain this. The first was a series of sketches by David Mitchell and Robert Webb (That Mitchell and Webb Look) where they portray lazy screenwriters who come up with ideas for TV shows but they confess they do little or no research, and as a result the product is extremely braindead (see here for an example). Even though the writers of this film (Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick) have churned out some great films (e.g. Deadpool 1 & 2), it's like they couldn't be bothered to put in any details that would help drive the film along. For instance, the centre of the plot is to instigate regime change in a country ruled by an evil dictator, and their grand plan is to rescue the dictator's brother from captivity, get him in front of a camera, and "inspire" the people to rise up, overlooking all the tricky little details of staging a coup d'etat. As I said, the plot doesn't have to be highly realistic, and I'm pretty forgiving of dumb films, but this just scraped the barrel.

The second thought that came to mind was that it was edited together as if someone was making a 2 hour trailer. In the same way that trailers jump around from scene to scene (to convey the sense of the film), this film just seemed to jump from place to place without even bothering to show how things happened. The staccato effect was really jarring (again, I'm normally fairly forgiving when films make big leaps), and it was if the writers didn't even bother to check that there was any kind of narrative sense. And to make it worse, there were some pointless shots interspersed which didn't add anything to the story, making you wonder if it was edited by a random number generator.

Often the little gripes in a film can be redeemed by a standout performance. And Ryan Reynolds is funny enough that he can usually paper over the cracks. But even here he didn't really rise to the challenge. His character had the scope to inject his snarky, sarcastic wit into the film, but it never appeared.

It's disappointing because the film had the potential to be a fun, if not a "good" action film. But instead it's another wasted opportunity. Possibly the only redeeming characteristic is that it was on Netflix, meaning I didn't have to sacrifice $17 at a cinema to watch it.

I actually quite enjoyed it (although my wife left the room at about the point that Dave Franco had his mishap).

It reminded me of the excellent, if not poorly put together action flicks of the 80's that used to star the likes of Mel Gibson or Jean-Claude Van Damme.

I agree wholeheartedly that it felt like a long trailer, but I have the attention span of a godwit, so I enjoyed that aspect.

What I also enjoyed was pointing out the classic "Bay-isms"...the scene where there is smoke curling in the wind, the sun is setting and a hero is walking, shrouded in shadow toward the camera, the other scene, where the sunlight glints off a glass-fronted building, creating a flare effect, while the camera pans across the city...most excellent!

There was a real lack of character development, but I think that was also intentional - part of the whole "Make it go bang!" aspect of a classic Michael Bay movie.

I'd give it a solid 5/10, to be honest.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

1 | ... | 286 | 287 | 288 | 289 | 290 | 291 | 292 | 293 | 294 | 295 | 296 | ... | 433