Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    I hate that which you love: movie reviews « previous next »
 Topic locked! 
Author Topic: I hate that which you love: movie reviews  (Read 9230 times)
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 ... 19 Print
chay´s head

Space Pope
****
« Reply #440 on: 01-17-2008 05:16 »
« Last Edit on: 01-17-2008 05:16 »

CLOVERFIELD!

It was good! I think i was expecting to enjoy it more, but i liked it. Even though it's never clearly explained what is happening i liked the way the story was told. Woulda been a bitch to edit.

Anyone stay till the very end?


Best fucking line
"how scary would it be a flaming homeless person came out of the dark right now"

Will comment more when someone else posts.
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #441 on: 01-17-2008 10:08 »

Comment this chay!

( Y )

That's me mooning you!

Juno
I guess, it was like Little Miss Sunshine in that all they hype built it up and then it didn't blow me away, but still great little film. I didn't see Hard Candy so Ellen Page is still the bees knees for me.  big grin

A-
Minus is for not having a scene with George Micheal and Michael Bluth together ->  frown
Melllvar

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #442 on: 01-17-2008 17:46 »

Faze, if you want Ellen Page to remain the bees knees, don't see Hard Candy.
chay´s head

Space Pope
****
« Reply #443 on: 01-18-2008 02:12 »

 frown i want to see Hard Candy because it has her in it. she seems sho shweet.

Faze's Moon
I was a little confused by it at first, i needed clarification on what it was i was actually witnessing. Once this was out of the way though, i was enthralled, it was able to hold my attention and i was not dissapointed by the ending. Highly rectumended.
A+

Faze's Moon would be an awesome title for a movie...
DogDoo8

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #444 on: 01-18-2008 02:38 »

28 Weeks Later

Yawn.
Basicly exactly the same as 28 days, nothing new and nothing gained. The children are annoying, no surprise there. I rarely ever like children at the end of horror movies, but I did like the girl in the first one.

If you like this sort of movie and enjoyed the first movie, then chances are you'll like this one.

B-

I need 70's horror, classic.
LayZ341

Professor
*
« Reply #445 on: 01-18-2008 02:54 »
« Last Edit on: 01-18-2008 02:54 »

Cloverfield

Interesting perspective and nice action but the rest of it was pure BULLSHIT!  I know, I know, a giant monster destroying Manhattan isn't supposed to be exactly believable; but COME ON.


Cool action + Utter Bullshit = C
chay´s head

Space Pope
****
« Reply #446 on: 01-18-2008 11:01 »
« Last Edit on: 01-18-2008 11:01 »

Re: camera/tape, i think it just got burried amongst all the rubble(sp?). Whilst i'm sure they
Considering battery life. I'm guessing he had spares and also, asuming he turned the camera off during some shots, it would've only been on an hour and half- 2 hours. Heh, but as my friend said, "wow, this dodgy handy cam was able to record in HD AND with 5.1 surround sound!"

Also, i think the story was well told, and wasn't as unbelievable as LayZ says...
Books

Near Death Star Inhabitant
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #447 on: 01-18-2008 11:29 »
« Last Edit on: 01-18-2008 11:29 »

So whats this mythical magick monster thing? I don't care about spoilers...
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #448 on: 01-18-2008 12:25 »

It's a giant spider monkey that knows kung fu.

Google Cloverfield monster, some guy drew the monster as fan-art.
DrThunder88

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #449 on: 01-18-2008 13:22 »
« Last Edit on: 01-18-2008 13:22 »

Cloverfield 4/8 Stars

Meh meh meh.

I guess I shouldn't be disappointed--and I'm not--it's just that I walked in expecting a story and got a narrative.  Weaselish double-talk aside, I saw the trailers, so I knew there wasn't going to be loads of exposition, but there wasn't really a compelling human story to go along with the monster rampage.

Cameraman Hud really makes the movie a watchable 90 minutes.  The graphics are good, but it's difficult to get your head around what's going on with the whole handicam format.

The ending goes back to what I said before about the differences between stories and narratives.  I almost get the feeling that there should be another film on the event unless the whole point of the film is to let the audience write their own resolutions on some of the loose ends.

As monster rampage movies go (a genre near and dear to my heart), I don't know where to put this one.  I'm actually thinking it very narrowly gets edged out by The Lost World: Jurassic Park and maybe slightly ahead of the American Godzilla.

Now, for those of you in the know:

LayZ341

Professor
*
« Reply #450 on: 01-18-2008 13:54 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by chay's head:
Also, i think the story was well told, and wasn't as unbelievable as LayZ says...

Chay, I'm glad you enjoyed the movie and I'm not trying to take that away from you. I was entertained too, I just didn't believe a lot of the events. I went with 5 other people and they felt the same way I did.

Shit I didn't believe  roll eyes:
DrThunder88

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #451 on: 01-18-2008 14:24 »

#3 is what the Wachowski Brothers refer to as "Trinity Power"
LayZ341

Professor
*
« Reply #452 on: 01-18-2008 14:33 »

I told my friends if Trinity couldn't do it, then no other woman could.
chay´s head

Space Pope
****
« Reply #453 on: 01-19-2008 03:37 »

Re Last Words:
Wikipedia first has it as
But now it's listed as
It's what's said at the very end of the credits through static

Also LayZ

Again, it's far from a believable film, but what is these days?
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #454 on: 01-19-2008 05:57 »

One-sentence reviews.

Cloverfield:

Predictable, formulaic Godzilla knockoff as filmed by a Parkinson's sufferer and cast with a bunch of annoying college kids.


I am Legend:

New Scientology recruit against the world's evils in the third attempt at filming the titular novel, the theme of which has become overdone, and the Zombies look more fake than ever.


Return to House on Haunted Hill:

Take 1 effective scary movie, add unnecessary sequel filmed cheaply in Bulgaria, lower quality of special effects despite seven years of advancements in the field, stir in ridiculous plot about an evil statue and liberal helping of idiotic mercenary stereotypes and inane dialogue to taste.


Cherry 2000:

The reason some films are considered 'cult' is because you need to be locked up in a commune for seven years with fanatics chanting at you before you'll begin to believe it's actually good.


The Cave:

Pitch Black underground.


Brazil:

A delightfully quirky mind-trip even after all these years; it's like 1984 if it had been filmed by Willy Wonka.

Ben

Space Pope
****
« Reply #455 on: 01-19-2008 07:04 »
« Last Edit on: 02-03-2008 00:00 »

Cloverfield

Well, I thought it was fantastic. It is a little story  superimposed on a big event, and combined with the innovative camera/narrative concept, it makes for something unlike anything that's come before. The creature's presence is more a  facilitator as opposed to being the central focus, so I can see how those who are expecting a big-budget monster flick will hate it. Maybe some people want every film they see to be everything to them, and this one isn't (for one thing, it's incredibly nihilistic), but I appreciate it as a statement of differentiation in an industry wedded to the mundane and generic. Cinema is richer for this film having been made.
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #456 on: 01-19-2008 10:29 »

Clover-fucking-field

I agree with everything that Ben said. This was one of the most terrific films in a long while. The fact that it's only one group of people and that it's not Mr. Grumpy Pants-centric makes it so good. I probably wouldn't have liked it if it was centered on MGP alone. And the film has some great ironies and gags, such as when they go back to what was originally on the tape or when the camera tries to auto-focus towards the end. Overall, definitely the best film that's been released, in my opinion, since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, both in favoritism and interestingness.

A+
Let's see what it gets after I've seen it for the 7th time...
BirthdayClown

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #457 on: 01-19-2008 15:41 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by LayZ341:


Was it Lizzy Caplan? I'd die for that vagina.

LayZ341

Professor
*
« Reply #458 on: 01-19-2008 15:58 »

No. Are you sure? Wouldn't you need to test drive it first?
Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #459 on: 01-21-2008 06:19 »

Cloverfield

I actually wasn't following any of the hype for this at all until I heard that it was entirely handheld. Man, I love handheld shit... Incidentally - coldangel, I won't hear another bad word about the camerawork! Go watch every episode of Arrested Development, The Office and Curb Your Enthusiasm until your eyes bleed due to handheld's awesomeness. Fuck tripods!

Annnyway, it was pretty much what I was expecting it to be (which is a good thing since I had high hopes for it). The special effects are amazing, the monster kicks ass and there's a genuine sense of terror that you just normally don't get from "giant monsters attack *insert city here*" movies. It's not without its flaws (no fucking WAY could they survive that helicopter crash) but it's still very impressive and highly effective.

If you go in expecting something with a traditional story - a beginning, middle and end - with a resolution and explanation for what's going on, prepare to be very disappointed. That's not what it is and not what it sets out to achieve. Go in expecting something different and juts go along with it. It's awesome.

8/10
HookerBot 5000

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #460 on: 01-21-2008 07:29 »

P.S. I Love You.

Mawkish, predictable, pretty crappy. I kinda don't know whether I want to stab my eyes out with scissors or rip my heart out of my chest. Bleah, bleah, bleah. I hate rom-coms. Even I could do a better Irish accent than the guy who did it. Still, he was pretty hot.

D
any1else

Space Pope
****
« Reply #461 on: 01-21-2008 07:41 »

One of my friends told me that movie was good. But then, she also said this was good and saw it for her second time when we saw it yesterday...
27 Dresses
I don't like the whole wedding aspect of things but otherwise I was quite amused by bits and pieces of the movie. When the majority of your friends are girls you're bound to end up seeing a chick flick. But "electric boobs" was great, as well as "who was that and where can I get one?" There were a few parts that made Jenny cry, and Jenny always cries. So I rate it: chick flick  roll eyes
Also, Katherine Heigl. She's pretty and it's not fair.  cry 
Nixorbo

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #462 on: 01-21-2008 11:16 »

Cloverfield

Man, I would love to see this movie as shot by a steadicam, or at least the cameramen from Firefly/Serenity, who give the handheld feel without making me feel like I'm having a seizure. 

I didn't connect to any of the characters other than Mister Zoidberg, whom we didn't see enough of.  The minimouths were creepy but ultimately unnecessary.

Funniest bit that was supposed to be funny: "Wouldn't it be freaky to see some flaming homeless guy come running at you?"

Funniest bit that wasn't supposed to be funny: the tank getting stepped on.  I could just hear Kif groaning underneath.
Nicky boy

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #463 on: 01-21-2008 11:17 »

kidulthood

good small buget film. funney, violent, wierd.

B+


alien vs predator

good film   big grin B-
DogDoo8

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #464 on: 01-21-2008 21:10 »
« Last Edit on: 01-21-2008 21:10 »

Stardust

Very fun and enjoyable movie, witch seams not to take its self to serious ie; The Golden compass. It knows when and how to have fun with its self and the genre and did not disappoint me.

Definitely a keeper for the collection.

A
Gocad

Space Pope
****
« Reply #465 on: 01-22-2008 01:07 »

And now for something different...

Hell's Angels

In case you're wondering, this is not an upcoming film or something released just a few years ago. In fact this one was made some 80 years ago, by Howard Hughes.

I had heard and read something about it before, but when I saw it was a bit surprised. Hell's Angels tells the story of  two brothers, Roy and Monte and a German, Karl, who study together at Oxford just before the Great War breaks out. Monte is some sort of cowardly playbody, while Roy always ends up covering for him. Roy is also in love with Helen, who is however not the kind of woman he thinks she is. Karl actually likes living in England, so he is quite in a dilemma when the war breaks out and he is ordered to join a German army unit.
Roy then enlists in the RFC trying to impress Helen and Monte gets enlisted there, too, after trying to steal a kiss from a girl. That's the basic premise of the film.

Hell's Angels is perhaps best known for his aerial sequences, for which Hughes had assembled a significant number of authentic WWI planes and stunt pilots to fly them. Given the fact that they didn't have CGI or used models, these sequences really look great.

What is however a bit hard to bear, although this is probably something that was quite common back then, is the overacting, which is especially noticeable when someone dies or when German characters appear.

Nevertheless I do think that this film is a masterpiece of its era and is therefore worth watching.

A-

Don't read this unless you definitely want to know how it ends:
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #466 on: 01-22-2008 01:18 »

Parts of that sound like Pearl Harbor.

The production of Hell's Angels was depicted in the film The Aviator, and I've been interested in seeing it since I watched that.
Gocad

Space Pope
****
« Reply #467 on: 01-22-2008 01:27 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by coldangel_1:
Parts of that sound like Pearl Harbor.

To be honest I thought that, too. But Pearl Harbor is a bloated POS compared to Hell's Angels.  smile
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #468 on: 01-22-2008 01:30 »

Compared to almost anything.
DrThunder88

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #469 on: 01-22-2008 02:26 »
« Last Edit on: 01-22-2008 02:26 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Beamer:
Cloverfield

I actually wasn't following any of the hype for this at all until I heard that it was entirely handheld. Man, I love handheld shit... Incidentally - coldangel, I won't hear another bad word about the camerawork! Go watch every episode of Arrested Development, The Office and Curb Your Enthusiasm until your eyes bleed due to handheld's awesomeness. Fuck tripods!

There's a significant difference between steadicam handheld camerawork and my Aunt Nancy's handicam nightmare.

 
Quote
Originally posted by Nixorbo:
Funniest bit that wasn't supposed to be funny: the tank getting stepped on.  I could just hear Kif groaning underneath.

I actually groaned like Kif when I saw that and laughed in spite of myself.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #470 on: 01-24-2008 20:34 »

I hope the camera didn't go up Aunt Nancy's vagina...
M0le

Space Pope
****
« Reply #471 on: 01-24-2008 20:56 »

Cloverfield's marketing campaign
Pre uhtty lame. I don't like viral marketing or whatever it's called. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer my marketing done by trained attack bears.  mad

Cloverfield
It was pretty OK, actually!!  smile
C+
Books

Near Death Star Inhabitant
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #472 on: 01-24-2008 21:46 »

A tank getting stepped on by a giant monster? Oh lawd the originality!
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #473 on: 01-25-2008 21:00 »

"Meet the Spartans" Has 0% at RT
Here's a few reviews that I thought were funny:
"You only have to wait 5 seconds into the movie to get the first vomit joke, and if that doesn't drive you out of the theater and on your way to see Cloverfield again, nothing will."
"Speaking of YouTube, let me save you 65 minutes. Go to the website, type in United 300, and see a far funnier, far more clever 300 spoof that's only five minutes long. From last spring."

I'm not reviewing this myself because I won't waste the ~$10 to see it.
Books

Near Death Star Inhabitant
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #474 on: 01-25-2008 21:05 »

I don't like the new design of RT. Change isnt usually for the better when websites redesign...alas...
any1else

Space Pope
****
« Reply #475 on: 01-26-2008 06:08 »

Sweeny Todd
I'm not sure I was satisfied with the ending, but it made me laugh a lot. Especially just before it started when my friend turns to me and says "you do know it's a musical, right?" after only having gone on and on about Johnny Depp's singing for weeks.  roll eyes I liked it. Revenge. Trickery. Randomly bursting into song. People pies. What's not to love?
 
Quote
Originally posted by chay's head:
Anyone stay till the very end?
Ha. I didn't see that movie, but I saw the credits of it today. I didn't realise he was actually saying something of any importance but the music was damn loud prior to it  mad
DogDoo8

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #476 on: 01-26-2008 06:40 »

Sweeney Todd

You sir! Two sir?
For some reason I felt like a shave after this movie. Dissapointed by the lack of blood, I thought it was going to be more bloody and gory, but all I got was watery.

Music and singing was quite good by all (loved pretty women song), also liked how he used minimal amount of sets.

Best musical I've seen in along time, yet to see Hairspray and I hated Chicago and the one thats in Paris with whats her name.

A

p.s. Gotta love dvd screeners.
any1else

Space Pope
****
« Reply #477 on: 01-26-2008 06:55 »

Everybody in the cinema laughed when Sacha Baron Cohen popped out of that tent. I think it was his crotch..
DogDoo8

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #478 on: 01-26-2008 07:37 »

He shavadedthepope. I would have turned pale if he came out wearing a mankini.
SlackJawedMoron

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #479 on: 01-27-2008 00:58 »

Cloverfield

Okay, first up, I am really not a fan of the hand-held camera work. Which is strange, as generally speaking, I don't mind that sort of thing. BSG, Arrested Development, THe Office, I'm fine with, but with Cloverfield, as with my family's home movies, I can't watch it for more than 15 minutes without whatever I had for lunch clambering it's way up to see what all the fuss is about. Although, my family home movies usually don't contain  things like giant monsters stomping all over Manhattan, so I guess the parallel ends there.

The characters aren't pretty disposable. We get a token scene at the beginning, setting up the various players, their relationships to each other, and answering why there's a guy running around with a camera during a monster attack, but it's not that interesting. Which is okay, you know, you just need to know enough about the characters to understand why they do what they do during the course of the film, and given that it's a monster attack film, those actions are going to be pretty basic.

And basic they are. Vast majority of the film is following our protagonists as they run away from things or run towards things, as the main character tries to save his girlfriend (a tried and true plot device as ever there was). Of course, this man must have more charisma than Hitler on happy pills, as he pulls the rest of the cast along with him on his seemingly suicidal quest. Even some girl he barely knows comes along for the ride. Why? I dun't know. We are left to assume that these people are simply well-intentioned idiots with a bizarrely loyal streak.

There are some amusing lines delivered by the character who does the majority of the filming, as he appears to be something of a geek with too much interest in the morbid. No one else really gets a lot of time to do much besides run and pant, which is acceptable, as nothing pains an audience more than when a simple monster story suddenly gets bogged down in interpersonal relationships and unnecessary childhood angst.

The monster itself is interesting, not so much for what it is, but for the way it's shown. The audience never gets a real good look at the thing until the final moments of the film, and the tension benefits greatly, if for no other reason then we aren't shown where the monster is at all times, so there's something of an ever-present fear that the fellow could bust out of a nearby sky-scraper at any time. And the little parasite monsters seem slightly superfluous, as they kind of distract from the big beastie itself, and are only in the film for about as much time as it takes to knaw on one of the characters (who, predictably, ka-plodes a few minutes later. Fore-shadowing is not subtle in this film).

Never the less, if you can stomach the hand-held, it's quite an interesting, high-concept ride. There's no real plot to speak of, just the driving force of the characters, but given what this film is trying to be (an on-the-spot view of ordinary people affected by a crisis), it really doesn't matter too much. Anyway, if the characters did do the sensible thing, they'd all be as squashed as what's-his-name on the bridge.

7/10
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 ... 19 Print 
 Topic locked! 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.205 seconds with 18 queries.