Movie Review thread.

[nurman]

Men In Black 3

A mixed bag when compared to the previous parts. Still, a solid sequel. I'd give it 7/10

It feels "smaller" than the previous parts, but they actually came up with something new and did not screw it up, so I'm satisfied with the movie.

[Laccnow]

Okay, so just saw 21 Jump Street.
I wasn't sure what to expect, I didn't even liked the name, but I decided to watch anyway..
..and then I laughed my *** off. Seriously, maybe I was just in the mood required for a movie like this, but I had such a great time and laughs watching this one.
Rating a comedy is not the same as rating a drama or something, so I can only rate the entertainment factor, so for me, this movie is a pure
10/10

[jmervyn]

I already decided I was going to see Prometheus, so I've no reason to give much consideration to reviews, positive or negative. At least Naz said why he didn't like it, that's the part worth sharing.

Isn't that what reviews generally ARE?

didn't understand a word of your ****ty post

Bob was just doing his thang, as are you (obviously).

So yeh, my boy wants to see The Avengers, and I'm fine with that, but the only "prerequisite" we'd seen had been Iron Man 1 & 2 (both of which we generally enjoyed). So since Netflix has become a wasteland, I went to a RedBox kiosk and rented Thor.

Thor
Genre: Comic Action
Director :Kenneth Branagh, Joss Wheldon
Writer: J. Michael Straczynski
Stars: Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Colm Feore, Rene Russo

My rating: 5/10

I really thought this would be more enjoyable than I found it; I don't have a snooty attitude about comic-book movies and I enjoy serial/episodic releases. I guess the best way to put it is that I was significantly underwhelmed, since I went into this seeing the names Branagh, Wheldon, and Straczynski. I'm in the minority; ratings for this are generally high 7/10.

There's some decent humor, the lead is a very charismatic guy, and the special effects are a great translation from the old Marvel books to glossy special effect, but from my viewing there was very little "there" there. With a modern superhero movie, I want either something more turgid, dark, and doubting (Unbreakable) or something tricksy, complex and light (The Mask). Best of both worlds, mix these carefully (Iron Man) and hope for ratings magic.

Instead, Thor tries for complex (fails), light (succeeds), and throughout the movie dips into turgid territory: Norse mythology holds the Frost Giants as the enemies of Asgard, but here it is used as both a political supportive sub-plot and a special-effect-laden battle. This is nowhere near as bad as George Lucas thinking he understands and should teach economics as part of Episode 1, but it still felt emptier than the calories I ingested with the popcorn.

[Ash Housewares]

I found Thor entertaining if not overly impressive, it wasn't for everybody, but there's a lot of stuff from it that goes into Avengers so it wasn't time wasted

I think we basically saw the same movie but you had high expectations and I had really low

and yes, reviews are supposed to be a certain way, though they seldom are in this thread

[Leopold Stotch]

Okay, so I saw Prometheus last night at 10 PM. Imax is nice. 3D is overrated. does anyone else get headaches? :/ Saw a preview for The Hobbit. Looks kickass.

anyways...

73% "Fresh" from RottenTomatoes tells me it's worthwhile. Besides, Charlize!

Naz isn't what I'd consider a reliable source...

EDIT - though he might not be the only one.

Charlize in that body suit... If I was a lesbian...

Sure, that's fair. I didn't think it was terrible, just not that great... and you might disagree with me. I will say that Michael Fassbender and Noomi Rapace were both really good.

Yes! I've seen Fassbender in one other movie (X-Men: First Class) and maaaaaybe one other action movie, can't remember the name of it, and I think he's good. I really liked him in this movie. Thought he did good for... his character.

right, ok, Prometheus

bad

as in not good

At the end as the credits rolled and the 2000 people that worked on visual effects went by, I wondered what might have been if even a tiny fraction of that manpower went to script revision. What a lousy script, what a bland and pointless "story". I hesitate to even call this a movie as it lacked much of what I would expect a movie to have. It was disjointed and pointless, there were no likeable characters, or even characters, just the most shallow and without depth band of "experts" ever assembled. None of the people appear capable of even mediocre performance in their field despite being chosen to participate in a trillion dollar mission cooked up by a crazy old man because some weirdos told him it was a good idea. Ick. As far as a score, I give it a zero out of one, the old thumbs down or pass vs. fail failure.

There was a group of 5 of us that saw it, 1 out of 5 found it to be a passable diversion, so there is hope for some people that they might enjoy it. It offered no immersion whatsoever, everything likeable about past Ridley Scott films is absent here, no tension, no investment in the characters or story, no fun.

just in case...

Spoiler

I was left with more questions than answers, ya know? I enjoyed it, 3D and all (although I would have preferred it not in 3D, it was the only one showing at a decent time so I was like whatever about it. i didn't pay so I wasn't going to *****!) but I had some questions and critiques of my own:

1.) Obviously, this Weyland character fears death and is wanting to live longer or find a way to become immortal. I felt that was kind of a cheap way out and a bit cliché. You fund damn near a trillion dollars into this expedition so you can "meet your maker" ? What did he tell the other scientists? "Oh, new planet and perhaps new life form?" Ok, that seems to be a logical coverup.

2.) After the first hour passed, did anyone else feel like it was rushed? Like, all the action was shoved into the last hour of the movie, not a lot of background, not enough time for a plot build-up. It was like, BAM! IN YO' FACE! plot? (I know that's a terrible way of explaining it, but I can't think of a better way to put it, the words are fleeing me)

3.) Yes, the characters didn't seem developed enough. Vickers is a cold hard-***, Holloway is cocky, Shaw is faithful (religious faithful), and David is a robot. That's about it, lol! Other than Shaw and her curiosity because of her past, why are all the characters there? What is Holloway's motivation? Why was David created? He couldn't have been created just for the trip, ya know? And why did he seem bent on sabotaging everything? Daddy's orders or que?

Idk, maybe I just missed a lot of things upon first time watching. I understand how the creature was created and that this was not their home planet. But the way it ended it left it open for a sequel because this movie, instead of answers, you get more questions! So the sequel will be called Epimetheus? hahaha! get it? Get it? ehh.... no one gets my jokes. >.>

TL;DR version: I did enjoy it, but was left with more questions than answers. So... I guess action wise an 8/10. Plot- and character-wise maybe a 5. I felt it was kinda rushed at the last hour of the movie.

didn't understand a word of your ****ty post

and everyone on the internet has seen that video at least 3 times

i have not. >.>

[Ash Housewares]

the other thing I saw Fassbender in was Inglorious Basterds another turd sandwich but at least he was good in it, maybe that's where you saw him too

to elaborate on my problems with the movie

Spoiler

all character interaction was terrible, aside from everyone being terrible at their jobs, they were terrible at interacting with other people or their environment in a believable manner, Oh, you murdered my husband and tried to kill me, water under the bridge! Oh, you assaulted two members of the crew for seemingly no reason, don't worry they're too polite to ever mention it again! AND THE ****ING PLOT DEVICE MACHINE the stupid home surgery device that has no reason for being present, it is just there for the protagonist to use it when she gets into a predictable pinch because there has to be some goddamn reason to have it there in the first place, it stuck out like a sore thumb. All these types of things kill immersion, instead of enjoying the world I am constantly questioning the many things wrong with it. Most biologists would probably find giant alien corpses to be interesting, hell most anybody would find giant alien corpses to be interesting, based on how many crappy alien autopsy documentaries Jonathan Frakes has hosted, but everybody except for the protagonist was decidedly uninterested or disappointed. Blargh.

[Leopold Stotch]

I didn't see Inglorious Bastards. :(

Spoiler

One of them was a geologist! He loved his rocks, not bodies, remember? hahaha! But even the biologist was like, "Yeah, the ship seems nice." Hey, you're a biologist! You should be like the protagonist and be all gung ho! "OMG! WE FOUND AN ALIEN SPECIMEN! SCORE!"

As for the home surgery thing. . . It was in Vicker's room who was a female. Yet, when Shaw activated the machine, it said it could not perform her surgery because it was for MALES ONLY? uzzled: Hmm....

honestly, I thought David poisoned Holloway because he was being a dick to him. "Oh, you're just a robot! you wouldn't know emotions or feelings, etc." However, David did express having a curiosity for things so maybe he poisoned him to see what would happen. At the same time. . . Why him? Why not everyone else too? And how was he able to figure out all the controls? Should it not have been foreign to him too because it's not in our human history? I think the movie implied he had a personal agenda, but it never explained what nor did it explain his actions. Other than he's a robot who spent two years studying every language there is and to take care of the crew while they are in hypersleep or whatever. . . TBH, I am most curious about him because he intrigued me the most. Why is he doing this? What is his purpose?

[Ash Housewares]

more spoilerings

Spoiler

They couldn't get human motivation right so I didn't expect them to do much for android motivation, which they didn't, they never really explained why he did anything he did, except maybe idle curiosity. When he poisoned the one guy, he waited to get confirmation that that guy would do anything to satisfy his scientific curiosity, which seemed justification enough for David. They made it seem like he was being fed an agenda from his creator, but the creator's agenda was just simple self-preservation, so it seems David was just bored and wanted to see what would happen, which makes as much sense as anything else in the movie, if only they had taken just a moment to explain character motivation here or there, or you know, WRITE IT, instead of just having **** happen, then there might have been a coherent story

[Leopold Stotch]

Exactly. but who knows? maybe the sequel to the prequel will explain it. *smirk*

[Ash Housewares]

maybe they will prequel to the prequel to justify casting Guy Pearce