Jump to content

Rate the Last Movie You've Seen


Farin
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sweeney Todd...

Brilliant! :thumbsup:

Nothing warms my cockles quite as much as Alan Rickman (minus the dyed black hair from the Potters), looking delicious and singing "bum bum bum bum" in a duet with Johnny Devine, I mean Depp... :grin:

Edited by Guest
i had other things to add. sue me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cloverfield: D-

I have no idea how I was fooled into seeing this garbage

I kept turning away from the screen because I was literally nauseated by what I was watching. Thoughts that came streaming whilst watching the movie:

1. When is this s*** gonna be over?

2. Die already! DIE!

3. Whoa, that chick is kinda hot.

4. DIE NOW!

5. Whoa, that camera is indestructible!

6. Yay, they're dead.

7. Did the director, screenwriter, editor, and producers get to see the final product? I'd be shocked if they did.

clodfield was the worst piece of crap I have ever seen. I don't know if that's saying a lot since I've only seen a few thousand movies (including movies by John Waters, Michael Bay, Ed Wood, Uli Lommell, Uwe Boll). This definitely ranks as THE absolute worst I have ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it was pretty awful. I don't mind if nothing is explained in a movie, as long as it's because there is a deeper meaning the viewer has to figure out and understand. But I felt like in Cloverfield nothing was explained because there was nothing to be explained, since there was no point to the movie, and the only reason the plot and characters existed were to show explosions and blood. I've got no problems with explosions and blood (my favorite movie of the year is full of both, No Country For Old Men), but when that's the only reason a movie exists, it just doesn't excite me at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed Cloverfield . I saw something different.

Potential "spoilers" ahead:

It is not one of the best films ever, but it is one of the best giant monster films ever. It is what that horrible Matthew Broderick Godzilla movie should have been.

The incorporation of special effects into the pseudo-camcorder video was inventive and very well done. As with most fantasy plots, a considerable suspension of disbelief is required.

If I gone in completely cold and clueless, if the "big monster" cat hadn't been let out of the bag in reviews, I think I would have been completely blown away. In a universe of formula science fiction and comic book movies, Cloverfield attempts something a little unusual, and exceeded my expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Shining... the first time I've ever watched it. Now it's a very good movie and I liked it a lot and I really see why it's still so popular and famous thirty years later, but I read the book first and I must say I missed a lot. I know the movie can't be as long as the book, but there wasn't nearly enough plot for me. The book is so deep and you get to know so much about Jack Torrance that he's much more frightening in it simply because he's a much deeper character there... you learn nothing at all about him in the movie. Same with the hotel and its history... and I don't quite see the point of the 'shining' in the movie. Anyway, good movie, but the book is much better and to me, the movie was just scary (not as much as the book either) and nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Shining... the first time I've ever watched it. Now it's a very good movie and I liked it a lot and I really see why it's still so popular and famous thirty years later, but I read the book first and I must say I missed a lot. I know the movie can't be as long as the book, but there wasn't nearly enough plot for me. The book is so deep and you get to know so much about Jack Torrance that he's much more frightening in it simply because he's a much deeper character there... you learn nothing at all about him in the movie. Same with the hotel and its history... and I don't quite see the point of the 'shining' in the movie. Anyway, good movie, but the book is much better and to me, the movie was just scary (not as much as the book either) and nothing else.

while practically every critic highly praised the movie when it came out, there was one who didn't like it at all: Stephen King ;)

so, in the 90s, he did a TV movie himself... and I'm soo glad he usually sticks to writing books :P :crazy:

of course I have to say, I haven't read the book, and I'm a great fan of Kubrick's movie, so that could be one reason why I didn't like it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a huge Stepen King fan, I've read everything he's written (no exxageration, I'm his biggest fan... :D you'll get that if you've seen or read Misery). I've seen most all the movies that have been done from his writings. In almost every case, you need to see the movie first, because you will be disappointed in the film. Stand alone, the films are fine, but never do justice to the book. The only one that was done well, but bears absolutely no resemblance to the novella is Stand By Me (from the novella The Body). It's one of my favorite all time films.

By the way, King is never pleased with the films, from the interviews I've read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I treat The Shining book and The Shining movie as two different entities based off the same idea, because their both brilliant but they're both quite different. Although I have to give the edge to the book, for the pure psychological horror of it, plus King had the original idea. It's the same deal for One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. One idea, two brilliant works of art, the book is slightly superior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it was pretty awful. I don't mind if nothing is explained in a movie, as long as it's because there is a deeper meaning the viewer has to figure out and understand. But I felt like in Cloverfield nothing was explained because there was nothing to be explained, since there was no point to the movie, and the only reason the plot and characters existed were to show explosions and blood. I've got no problems with explosions and blood (my favorite movie of the year is full of both, No Country For Old Men), but when that's the only reason a movie exists, it just doesn't excite me at all.

clodfield is not "good" by any stretch of the imagination. I'd have to be brain dead to think otherwise. It is an insult to monster movies, to the craft of movie-making, and to its audience. At this point, I can watch Godzilla, Street Fighter, Double Dragon, Aeon Flux, and all of the uwe boll movies back-to-back rather than go through 10 more minutes of this terrible movie. clodfield plumbed new depths in mediocrity that to be mediocre would make it 1000% better. It really did make me wonder if there IS a bottom to begin with. Yeah, the movie really did make me suspend belief - that anyone would consider this to be good and worthwhile to recommend to other unsuspecting people. Could things get any worse? Only a sequel to this visual diarrhea could prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

clodfield plumbed new depths in mediocrity that to be mediocre would make it 1000% better.

I'll remind one more Songfactor that there are no depths (or heights) of medocrity. If the movie is terrible, it is terrible, and, by definition, not mediocre (ordinary; neither good nor bad; barely adequate; of moderate quality)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll remind one more Songfactor that there are no depths (or heights) of medocrity. If the movie is terrible, it is terrible, and, by definition, not mediocre (ordinary; neither good nor bad; barely adequate; of moderate quality)

Yes, I know the statement reads rather incongruous under scrutiny, but I was merely using the lesser/bastardised definition of the word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mediocre

When I stated the movie was "mediocre," I meant it in the sense of its "poor" and "inferior quality." And to a person, such as myself who can tell there are variations to quality, be it good or bad, there is such as thing as "plumbing new depths" (as well as "reaching new heights"). It's not as if I would ever say, "It's better than the best," but in this instance, just when I thought I had seen "the worst," here comes a new movie which dispelled that notion and made me re-think what constitutes "mediocre" - as in, "of poor quality" (to remind you again, dear reader :beatnik:).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...