Outrageous Prices For Food and Entertainment! (The Movie Reviews Thread)

[Reply #440 on:]

Not really sure what that's supposed to mean...are you comparing Sinister to The Shining via sarcasm? Because I just saw Sinister, and I can't really see any connection to The Shining whatsoever.

Also, for the record, I thought Sinister was actually a pretty decent horror flick. Gets a solid B from me.

[Reply #441 on:]

They're both probably not horror movies.

[Reply #442 on:]

The Hobbit
A Long Anticipated Movie err, I mean An Unexpected Journey

I entertained the notion of going to the midnight session for all of about ten seconds but decided that 10:00am was early enough for me.

(FYI - For those who know the book this film finishes with the party having just

Show spoiler

been rescued by the eagles.

)

Anyway,  I enjoyed it. It didn't blow me away but I wasn't disappointed with it either. I haven't read the book in over thirty years but all the bits that I could remember were included so that was a big plus. I was also ok with the presence of scenes that were only hinted at off camera in the book (or were taken from other writings of Tolkien).

My only gripe, apart from having to wait so long for the rest of the trilogy, was that the

Show spoiler

Great Goblin felt too much like comic relief.

I'd give it 8/10 and am now looking forward to seeing how different the high frame rate version is.

[Reply #443 on:]

A recent action movie with Bruce Willis in the first twenty minutes that I forgot the title of

This was okay. There wasn't anything notably good or bad about it, and for a movie that felt like a Bourne wannabe, the plot wasn't too complicated.

6/10

[Reply #444 on:]

The Cold Light of Day?

[Reply #445 on:]

Ah yes, that was it.

[Reply #446 on:]

I finally saw a movie in theaters for the first time in months!

The Hobbit made me want to watch the the Lord of the Ring movies, which I haven't seen all of them in a while. It was kind of too long, I think I fell asleep for a few minutes during the mountain vs mountain scene. I also understand that in the book there are 13 dwarfs, but I feel like they only needed like 6 or 7. I hated that fat one, because logically there is no way he would keep up with the rest of them. And seriously:

Show spoiler

this entire series would have taken half an hour to tell if they just used the giant eagles for everything. Need to escape? Giant eagle. Got a ring of doom? Giant eagle.

8.6/10

[Reply #447 on:]

I haven't seen it yet, but I felt the same way about the dwarves in the book. 13 was way more than necessary and three quarters of them did absolutely nothing.

[Reply #448 on:]

Just saw The Hobbit - have to say I really enjoyed it. Have to say I kinda see the point of those who accuse it of being too long. Again, I haven't read the book in a long while, but a strong sense of the narrative remains in me, I like to think. To that end, I did feel the film was strongest when it clung tighter to the original narrative.

Much as I loved seeing Sylvester McCoy, I sort of felt it hard to generate any feeling for the character of his scenes, but that may be because I went into the film fearing that they would have bloated it too full, just to force a book which is much, much shorter than the LotR into a film saga of equal length.

Perhaps I've been poisoned against the expanions slightly, but otherwise I though that generally it was superb, and the first time that I've really felt the difference of 3D (not that I have seen too many 3D films) and it wasn't the things flung head-on at the camera, it was the little things, such as feeling I could touch things in the foreground; the best part for me was Smaug's lair, when I felt I had to start wading through the gold.

The 60fps - I guess it will take some getting used to. I initially felt that the first few scenes of Bilbo searching through his chests looked like it was on a slight fast-forward. Also at times, it felt like the film was too fluid, giving the impression that it was being rendered real time on a computer screen - this unfortunately made everything look overly like it was all done by CGI.

That said, even though the effects, both digital and in camera trickery, were more than convincing in the original films, the little things seemed even better this time round - the interactions within Bag End, and Gollum in particular, were pretty impressive.

Anyway, where was I?

B+

I think I still prefer The Fellowship of the Ring at the moment, simply because I felt it had a better sense of direction and progress.

[Reply #449 on:]

Dead Poets Society

What a pretentious, schmaltzy schlock-fest. I mostly kept watching because I knew that one of the kids eventually commits suicide; with that detail already spoiled for me, I treated the whole thing as a mystery of sorts, and kept trying to figure out who would ultimately off himself. First I thought it would be poor, borderline-illiterate Ethan Hawke; then, I thought it would be the big-nosed kid who was foolhardily chasing after another dude's girlfriend. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was actually Wilson from House, driven to suicide by his overbearing father, Red from That '70s Show.

Anyway, this movie was nowhere near as good as I thought it would be. Like, I knew it was an oft-parodied, sentimental slice of cheese, but I thought I would at least find one or two redeeming qualities to keep me semi-interested; however, I had no such luck. All the boys were two-dimensional, and most of their actors were mediocre as both thespians and as eye candy (exception: the aforementioned Big Nose...and, to an extent, Robin Williams. I have weird tastes).

On that note, I had also hoped to find Robin Williams's character more appealing. I mean, he was charming at some points, and amusing at others--but he was not nearly as nuanced as I had expected him to be, and for the most part he came off as self-righteous and annoying. Oh captain, my captain, I wish your boat'd hit an iceberg or something after the first fucking act of this thing.

1.5/5

[Reply #450 on:]

HahahahahahAHhahahahahahaHaha hahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaHAHAH AhahHAH !

[Reply #451 on:]

Jack and Jill
Adam Sandler plays two unfunny twins in this waste of time. They tried to show us how similar they are, and I got the point...

0/100 Laughs

Airplane!
This movie was hilarious. There are so many gags and memorable jokes, that I'm considering buying this! "We're all counting on you, good luck."

10/10

Airplane is a movie you can watch multiple times and still see a joke you didn't noticed the last time you watched it.

[Reply #452 on:]

And even the jokes that you got the first time can still be funny. I laugh my ass off like a cracker every time I see the jive scene.

Also: "Don't call me Shirley!"

[Reply #453 on:]

I always liked the jiggling jello/jiggling booby gag. Also, Mrs. Cleaver talking "jive" is one of the finest, perfect moments in cinematic history.

Has anyone seen Silver Linings Playbook or Lincoln?

[Reply #454 on:]

Don't look at me; we've only just had Wreck-it Ralph (Loved it, btw. 9/10) released here in New Zealand. (I'm still waiting on Rise of the Guardians and Paranorman!) 

[Reply #455 on:]

Still haven't seen Wreck-It Ralph yet unfortunately, but I really liked Paranorman.

[Reply #456 on:]

Green Lantern

 

1/10

[Reply #457 on:]

Ugh, that movie was so poorly done. Totally shit.

[Reply #458 on:]

Green Lantern

 

1/10

Well...it certainly did not re-define the superhero-movie-genre, but it had it's moments. Alone the dialog about a mask being an insufficient disguise.

The superhero movie I am the most sceptical about is "Avengers 2". That genre usually lives by having a great antagonist, and -let's face it- Joss Whedon couldn't write proper villains even if his life depended on it.

[Reply #459 on:]

yeah, Loki was pretty stupid in the first one.... I think they should have just titled it Thor 2, how unoriginal!

[Reply #460 on:]

I actually thought Loki was the most memorable villain of the Marvel movies.

The worst was either Hugo Weaving in Captain America or that Russian dude in Iron Man 2.

Either way, I agree that The Avengers 2 has the potential to be crap. Half the fun of the first one was the build-up, and that would all be lost for the sequel.

[Reply #461 on:]

I actually thought Loki was the most memorable villain of the Marvel movies.

Well..as a character/personality, he was certainly okay. Yet, he was a bit too sneaky to take the center stage in an impressive way*. He always seemed to me rather like some "Evil Grand Vizier" type, some kind of evil advisor. The sidekick for a more impressive Evil Overlord, whom he will betray the last second. (E.g. the Giants in Thor)

Yet, Loki was not even a match for Thor alone in a direct confrontation.
And in Avengers, we had four big superheroes on one side, and little Loki on the other.  Everyone was allowed to kick his ass once, so to speak They did not really defeat him..they rather bullied him throughout the movie

*Cannot resist to quote that scene from Megamind that sums it up perfectly:
"Oh, you are a villain, all right. Just not a super one..."
"Really? What's the difference?"
"PRESENTATION"
*Turn on the lights and play "Welcome to the jungle"*....fantastic scene

[Reply #462 on:]

Yeah, that's one criticism I have with The Avengers. There isn't really much sense of threat, and if Hulk or Thor were the only good guys they still would've won.

And I'll admit I was a tad harsh on Green Lantern. Although it has a really bland story and some horrendous acting, some of the dialogue was entertaining.

[Reply #463 on:]

I feel like having Loki, a pretty easy villain who couldn't really fight for himself and had to make deals to get an army to do it for him, as the main bad guy was a good strategy for the first Avengers flick. For one, it was a villain dynamic that hadn't really been used much before in superhero films, the fact that the villain was actually kind of a bitch (which is what made the scene of the Hulk throwing him around so funny), and I appreciated that. Also, I'm sure they already planned to have more Avengers films when they made this, so they didn't want to blow their load right away with one of those HE'S INVINCIBLE HOW WILL THEY EVER DEFEAT HIM villains in the first movie. By starting off with a relatively easily defeatable main villain and having the main battle be huge simply because of the number of baddies they had to fight, this way they can make the main villains stronger and stronger in each subsequent film, raising the stakes each time instead of just making it a run of the mill "oh how will they ever beat this guy, oh okay that's how" routine.

As for Green Lantern, it was just awful. The shitty acting and dialogue, the embarrassingly corny romance scenes (that girl was so awful), the main villain who lost every trait that made him interesting once he mutated, the other main villain that was just a cloud of smoke and had no interesting traits to begin with...it just sucked. In fact, the only thing I did like about (which surprised me because every review I read trashed them) was the visuals...I actually thought they were pretty decent. I liked the little training sequence on the other planet where he was testing out his powers for the first time, I actually thought that was pretty cool and made a good case for why Green Lantern could make a cool movie. Too bad after that scene they didn't use it well at all. Like, the scene where he made a whole racetrack and car to save people...how unnecessarily ridiculous was that?

[Reply #464 on:]

Also in the comics, Loki was the first villain they fought in Avengers #1. It kind of worked out that Loki in the film universe was the most interesting of the villains. (Honestly the Russian from Iron Man 2 could have totally not been in the movie and it wouldn't have made a difference).



I remember saying that I liked Green Lantern more than Thor initially because GL was at least consistently bad. Thor had a really good beginning with all the Asgard parts but lost me when Thor reached earth. I've come to like Thor more than that now (in part because I love Loki) and I never really intend on ever watching Green Lantern again.

[Reply #465 on:]

Asgard parts but lost me when Thor reached earth. I've come to like Thor more than that now (in part because I love Loki) and I never really intend on ever watching Green Lantern again.

I always kinda assumed Loki in Avengers mostly appealed to the female audience.
Probably by triggering a maternal instinct to protect a little child

But kidding aside...Loki was not bad as a character, but -against 4 heroes- desperately underdimensioned. They had 4 really big heroes, one villain, and had room for 2 more major characters. In that case, adding 2 more villains to create a 4:3 situation makes more sense than to go for a 6:1 ratio. (The army did not help much, as we got used to battles in superhero movies being rather decided by individual actions instead of superior numbers)

[Reply #466 on:]

No I agree I think honestly if you put Loki in a room with all of the Avengers (like at the end of the battle, "I'll have that drink now" line), he would easily have been defeated. But Tom Hiddleston does sell the cockiness of Loki very well, his character isn't meant to be a physical threat but a psychological one. I mean it's a funny visual at the end to see Loki with a muzzle on but it is because he uses his words to his advantage because he is a trickster.

Django Unchained

Saw it two days in a row, each time it was great. Leonard DeCarprio as the evil mustached villain is so freaking awesome. And Christoph Waltz is phenomenal too. Without going into too great a detail I actually still like Inglorious Basterds more but this was a great movie and had an AMAZING soundtrack.

A-

[Reply #467 on:]

I actually thought Loki was the most memorable villain of the Marvel movies.

The worst was either Hugo Weaving in Captain America or that Russian dude in Iron Man 2.

Either way, I agree that The Avengers 2 has the potential to be crap. Half the fun of the first one was the build-up, and that would all be lost for the sequel.

I loved Red Skull. It was ridiculously campy and basically just Hugo Weaving doing an impression of Werner Herzog. Who can complain about that?

Whiplash was a shit villain, though. And Justin Hammer. And as much as I love Jeff Bridges, Iron Monger was extremely forgettable. Basically, Iron Man doesn't have many interesting villains.

The Avengers 2 is almost certainly going to feature Thanos as its principal villain. I'm not too familiar with Thanos, but from what I hear, he's both a great villain and a genuinely quite incredible threat.

[Reply #468 on:]

Yeah, Iron Man has shitty villains. Except the Mandarin, who is a rather racist depiction, and is therefore awesome.

Thanos, by virtue of one or more mystical artefacts (cosmic cube, infinity gauntlet), becomes essentially omnipotent. He's also in love with death, and is insane.

[Reply #469 on:]

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Now, it's no secret that I'm a massive fan of The Lord of the Rings. And while The Hobbit may not exceed it, it's still a great film in it's own right.

I actually didn't feel like it was too drawn out. There were a couple of moments where I thought "yeah, this could be cut down a bit", but for the most part I found the pacing to be great. I particularly like what they did with the movie's climax (which when I read the book, I never thought would make a good climax) and also

Show spoiler

how they made Azog the main antagonist.

Now, as an adaptation, I thought it was superb. It was faithful to the source material and was actually better than the book in some respects:

Show spoiler

In particular, the troll scene. With the book, I could never buy the fact that these three dumb trolls could outsmart the dwarves. But in the film it felt legit.

Secondly, the dwarves. It bugged me how 75% of them were completely pointless in the original story, and here in the film it's more like 20%. And with 2 more movies on the way, that could easily change.

Anyway, I really enjoyed it. I wasn't a huge fan of

Show spoiler

The Great Goblin (The trolls were enough comic relief for me)

and some of the forced LOTR callbacks (Frodo), but that's not enough to stop me from giving this a 9/10.

Martin Freeman makes such a great Bilbo. 

[Reply #470 on:]

The other day, the ginger and I went out for a double feature!

Les Mis
I was so incredibly excited for this movie, and except for Russell Crowe, it was just as good as I hoped it would be. As I mentioned, Russell Crowe was a let-down: lots of people were worried that he wouldn't be able to sing Javert's parts which are, well, some of the most beautiful songs in the musical. People were right to be worried. The only moment that really disappointed me was "Stars". Jesus Christ, he butchered one of the best songs in the entire show. His acting as Javert wasn't that great either- he seemed a little plastic at times, and wasn't quite as angry as he should have been. Every other moment, actor, and song was perfect. I couldn't stop crying, and my boyfriend was ashamed to sit with me. Anne Hathaway was excellent as Fantine, her singing was beautiful and passionate. Hugh Jackman impressed me- he did an excellent job in Oklahoma, but I was still not expecting quite as powerful a performance as the one he delivered here.
9.5/10

Django Unchained
I'm a fan of Quentin Tarantino, and I LOVE violence. Love, love, LOVE violence. I expected to love this, and boy did I. I always love Tarantino's soundtracks, and he doesn't disappoint here. Jamie Foxx and his companion were a hilarious pair, and I genuinely felt for Django and Broomhilda. One of the highlights was seeing a group of Klansmen fuss over their hoods, and seeing one of them say "FUCK ALL Y'ALL, I'm going home."
9/10

[Reply #471 on:]

* Tachy is ashamed to admit that he didn't see the Kill Bill movies until 2011   

[Reply #472 on:]

Kon-Tiki
Retelling of Norwegian adventurer Thor Heyerdahl and his journey from South America to Polynesia in 1947 on his balsa wood raft, the Kon-Tiki.
He and his 5 crewmates have to deal with close quarters tension, wrong course despair, storms and sharks over 101 days and 6900kms.
Great adventure film with good acting and nice visuals.
B+

[Reply #473 on:]

Wreck It Ralph
Really wanted to not be disappointed by this film as seemingly everyone else has been, but unfortunately it never seemed to kick into high gear. It just seemed like cliche Disney plot #2, with a couple of video game references. I also would've enjoyed a bit more setup, it seemed to go from the intro, to Ralph's game, to Ralph getting the medal, and that short period of the film was by far and away the most enjoyable. Having said that, it's still a cool concept and it was sweet hearing the actual game voice actors, so I didn't mind the film overall.
6.5/10

[Reply #474 on:]

* Tachy is ashamed to admit that he didn't see the Kill Bill movies until 2011    

Eh, I honestly haven't seen them yet either. I've seen some of the first one but didn't get to watch it all the way through. They're the only Tarantino films I haven't seen other than Death Proof (although I feel I can probably skip that one, I have seen Planet Terror though which is awesome albeit not Tarantino). I definitely want to watch them and plan to sometime soon, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

They're both probably not horror movies.

I don't get it. Are you saying both of them being in the same genre of film is enough on its own to back up (what I think is) hojay's implication that Sinister is a rip-off of The Shining, despite the fact that they have no distinguishible plot similarities?

[Reply #475 on:]

* Tachy is ashamed to admit that he didn't see the Kill Bill movies until 2011    

Eh, I honestly haven't seen them yet either. I've seen some of the first one but didn't get to watch it all the way through. They're the only Tarantino films I haven't seen other than Death Proof (although I feel I can probably skip that one, I have seen Planet Terror though which is awesome albeit not Tarantino).

"Death Proof" and "Planet Terror" are imhO the best examples for Tarantino and Rodriguez style. Tarantino often goes a tad too much for a "self proclaimed cult status". In "Death Proof", characters talk lots of time about how trashy/crazy/cool/etc... they are. They are characterised by their own description, but not their deeds. While in Rodrigues movies, the characters show that with their actions and overall demeanour.
Sure Rodriguez often settles for less ambitious, more stereotypical characters, but he usually gets them spot-on. While Tarantino often aims a tad too high.
ImhO, Tarnatino has good ideas, but usually needs Rodriguez to help him "stay on track".

[Reply #476 on:]

Kon-Tiki
Retelling of Norwegian adventurer Thor Heyerdahl and his journey from South America to Polynesia in 1947 on his balsa wood raft, the Kon-Tiki.
He and his 5 crewmates have to deal with close quarters tension, wrong course despair, storms and sharks over 101 days and 6900kms.
Great adventure film with good acting and nice visuals.
B+

Faze, when was that movie released? I have always wanted to read the book, being a big fan of impossible trans-oceanic voyages.

I have been glutting myself on movies while on vacay. I just came from Lincoln. For now, I will just say that

1) If explosions and hyper editing are your thing (and aren't a fan of history, or are indifferent to American history), then stay away. It's a very dialogue-heavy movie.

2) If Daniel Day-Lewis doesn't win a 3rd Oscar for his impeccable portrayal of Abe, then I will eat my stove-pipe hat.

3) When Lincoln went strolling off to the Ford theater, shortly after Robert E. Lee surrendered, I could not help but inwardly scream, "Don't go into that theater!" like it was a horror flick and the axe murderer was lurking in the shadows.

4) That the American Civil War was tragic and horrible, but makes for fascinating stories.

Big bonus: Lincoln's story of how an American politician was visiting England, on some diplomatic trip, post-Revolution, and when asked by his host what he thought of George Washington's portrait hanging in the WC, he replied that nothing would make an Englishman shit faster than the sight of George Washington.

[Reply #477 on:]

John Dies in the End

What the hell did I just watch?

[Reply #478 on:]

The Bourne Legacy

I was skeptical going into this film, but was pleasantly surprised. When I accepted it for what it is; a Bourne movie without Bourne, I found it rather enjoyable. It had heaps of cool scenes and I found Aaron Cross likable as a character.

It does suffer the "whatthefuckisgoingon" syndrome that plagues all Bourne movies, but I wasn't really expecting much else.

7/10

[Reply #479 on:]

Kon-Tiki
Retelling of Norwegian adventurer Thor Heyerdahl and his journey from South America to Polynesia in 1947 on his balsa wood raft, the Kon-Tiki.
He and his 5 crewmates have to deal with close quarters tension, wrong course despair, storms and sharks over 101 days and 6900kms.
Great adventure film with good acting and nice visuals.
B+

Faze, when was that movie released? I have always wanted to read the book, being a big fan of impossible trans-oceanic voyages.

There was a documentary in 1950 but I watched a bluray rip of the 2012 movie version.