Rate The Last Movie You Saw

thats it one of my all time favorite !

__________________
''Haters are my favourite. I've built an empire with the bricks they've thrown at me... Keep On Hating''
- CM Punk
http://threemanbooth.files.wordpress...unkshrug02.gif

Tarkovsky's films always felt greater after I watched them compared to the time I was watching'en, with the exception of The MIirror and Stalker, the two movies of his that I instantly rated as and I was crushed with admiration. Andrei Rublev and Solaris, I initially rated as but they grew on me.

Great underrated near-masterpiece. I guess you will be the first to finish Kurosawa (ignoring Mark F, who probably finished him), since I have only watched about 19-20 of his films.

I imagine Holden has seen them all.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Gone Baby Gone

It was interesting, and was kinda relateable (at least for me). However, I wish that the girl's mother was shown more to be a horrible mom as opposed to many of the characters just saying "Yeah, she did this and that". I also wish that how much of a horrible person she was wasn't just a tired old Hollywood cliche of a horrible person (oh they do drugs and drink). Overall, it was okay.



No Such Thing

This movie seemed really cool and interesting, but became way too heavy handed with its satire. There were also a few scenes that felt really unnecessary (the entire plane crash and the main character recovering bit was pointless). The monster was awesome looking, especially since many of the photos on the DVD and online make him look terrible. I wouldn't be surprised if they took all of Francis Ford Coppola's money and put it towards monster design. Robert Burke also played him well and even though he was a misanthropic (can monsters really be misanthropes?) A-Hole, the monster felt the only character in the entire movie I cared about.

Witness for the Prosecution - 1957

What a delightful gem this turned out to be. From the very beginning I knew I was in for a treat. A brilliant court room drama that is wonderfully written and cast. Charles Laughton is delicious as the ill-tempered barrister. I will definitely be seeing this again!

10/10

__________________
“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Django Unchained - 6/10

Was a good movie.. up until the end.

I was really into it, but I think they spoiled the movie during the last 45 minutes or so. To me it seemed like they thought the movie was too slow, and decided to cram as many over-the-top action scenes into it during the last portion of it at the expense of the plot and characters.

It really made no sense that 'King' would spontaneously decide to shoot Calvin just because he 'didnt' like' his prejudiced behavior toward blacks (knowing that he was in his house, surrounded by dozens of armed guards and would likely be killed, and also likely get Django and his wife killed despite having worked so hard to get Django's wife's freedom up until that point). This was totally out of character (up until that point King seemed calm and collected and didn't kill people out of passion - he only killed people because it was part of his job as a bounty hunter).

The later scense of the film also felt out of character. Ex. Up until that point, Django seemed collected and only concered with rescuing his wife, so for him to spontaneously decided to massacre everyone at the estate (including "Ms. Laura") just out of 'revenge' seemed out of character) - not to mention him blowing up the entire mansion with dynamite, and then hamming it up with his wife, smoking a cigarette, with cheesy one-liners as he watched the mansion explode (which again seemed totally out of character with him and his wife up until that point, and felt more like a scene from "Pulp Fiction" than anything else).

Overally I still enjoyed the film, but to me it seemed they decided to sacrifice the plot and character development just to find an excuse to introduce more action and 'big explosions' during the last 30-45 mintues of the film.

Better Living Through Chemistry 2014

OK, little movie... Not bad, but don't expect too much. The actors are doing a great job.
My rating 5.5/10

I have two more of his movies on DVD. After those two, I have to buy The Quiet Duel and Dersu Uzala.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

@90sAce:

Admittedly, I also think the last part wasn't as good as what preceded it, but I kind of like the idea that passion and irrational revenge suddenly get a hold of our two main characters. The actions in the last third are not as calculated as in the first two acts, but they are fueled by immense hate and I think that's what Tarantino was trying to express. It was the biggest flaw of the movie for me too, after the first time I watched it (even though I loved the movie in general), but I've come to appreciate the ending for what it is. I like to think that Tarantino is actually transfering his own thoughts to the audience when he lets Dr. Schultz say the words:

"I'm sorry, I couldn't resist."

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

I didn't think it was anything great, but I enjoyed it, and I will remember it.

I've seen the original from 1942, but never the remake. I'll check it out sometime.

I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With 2006

Great indie comedy, with charm and heart. Any fan of Jeff Garlin's TV appearances must see it! I really enjoyed this movie...recommended 8/10

I watched The Long Goodbye last night. Philip Marlowe is obviously a great character that Elliot Gould nailed. It had a very funny script that didn't take away from the "serious" parts of the film. I enjoyed watching Marlowe go from "It's alright with me" to not being alright with it any longer.

-

Crazy you say that. I'm watching it soon here.

I think you will enjoy it.

Was at the European Premiere of "Divergent" earlier. Really enjoyed it. Yes there are similarities to "The Hunger Games" but still it is unique in many other ways. Based on the books, the story line is interesting. Shailene Woodley is excellent, as is Theo James. Winslet had surprisingly a much smaller role than what I would have expected but does add her presence and authority on the film.

8/10

__________________
Want the latest Movie Features, Movie Reviews, Movie Soundtrack Information and Movie Interviews - then check out the site: http://movieandfilmreviews.com

Twitter: @MandFReviews

That's pretty much exactly how I felt about it. I went back and forth between rating it a 3.5 or a 4 and ultimately settled on 3.5, but I kind of feel like I should've gone with 4.

__________________

I Vitelloni

Hollow Man 2

When Hollow Man in 2000, the reception was negative to say the least, there were redeeming qualities. A lot appreciated the special-effects, in-fact, it received an Academy Award nomination because of them. Kevin Bacon even offered the movie a halfway decent performance, but even still, everybody perhaps rightfully seems to carry the consensus that the movie is one worth remembering. The movie had a ninety-five million dollar budget, which seems astronomical if you ask me because it isn't the kind-of movie you'd expect to have a lot backing it. Obviously, the movie didn't receive a positive critical reception, however, t he movie did manage to make twice its budget with a commendable one-hundred and eighty million. I don't know how much money should be considered for advertising, for example, The Lone Ranger successfully matched its budget, but is considered a box-office flop because over one-hundred million was also attributed to marketing.

Either way, I can't imagine that it was so much to find the logic in there being a sequel released direct-to-video. The film industry does this a lot, even with movies that were technically a success, American Psycho 2 was released direct-to-video, so were Butterfly Effect 2 and 3. The only difference between them and Hollow Man is the fact that Hollow Man's concept actually seemed sufficient for a sequel. The first movie wasn't tremendous, while I loved Butterfly Effect and deeply enjoyed American Psycho, but I could at least see a lot of things that they could do. Nevertheless, and whatever the reason behind it is, they eventually did in-fact make a direct-to-video sequel to Hollow Man. The film was directed by Claudio Fah, perhaps known for his later movie, The Hole, not the one with Keira Knightley, but some other one released in 2009. The movie stars Peter Facinelli, Laura Regan, as well as Christian Slater. I don't know much about Facinelli, however, Laura Regan actually appeared in Dead Silence and How To Be a Serial Killer. While neither of those movies were tremendous, I took enjoyment in both of them. As for Christian Slater, quite frankly, he is known for a lot of things.

The film is based on the very first draft of the first film, and finds itself deciding against everyone of the few redeeming qualities about Hollow Man. For starters, while Kevin Bacon's character wasn't exactly brilliant in-terms of portrayal, there was a certain about of wit and depth to the character in-comparison to what we usually see in horror movies. Hollow Man started out commendably before staggering downward into nonsensical horror territory. Hollow Man 2 starts out in nonsensical horror territory and never really pokes its head out from the hole. The characters come across without much in the way of flushing out, a detective and a female scientist with precious information while the military tries to stop them and a mysterious ghostlike man wandering about wreaking havoc. There isn't a lot of depth behind the characters, they feel cookie-cutter and bland, with the actors feeling as if their heart isn't really into it.

This is certainly to be expected considering the decreased budget, but the special-effects and neat looking transformations and spectacles done by the invisible man have completely been discarded. It isn't even the idea that the special-effects are terrible, those can be worked around through creativity and enthusiasm, rather, the movie finds a way to do even less with the opportunity that they've been given than the original. There is no fun to be had, and it just seems like it's a bad horror film with invisibility factor serving as merely a minor wrinkle to the fabric. In an effort to keep it simple, I'll summarize by saying that not only does Hollow Man 2 fail at fixing some of the problems that were had with the first movie, but it actually takes away all of the redeeming qualities that made me interested in a sequel in the first place.


In Time

In Time is a 2011 American dystopian science fiction film written, directed, as well as produced by Andrew Niccol, starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried. For those that aren't aware, this movie has without a doubt potentially the best concept that I have ever seen inside of a film. I remember whenever I first saw the trailers for this movie and I was instantly swept away by the sheer audacity of the ideas alone. There is nothing to say except that it's a thought that leaves so many possibilities on the table that it would be impossible to do them all in one movie. Unfortunately, with such concepts, there is always the misfortune of somebody else having done it before. I don't believe there is such thing as an original idea, everything has been done before, most of it comes down to the interpretation. The Hunger Games isn't a rip-off of Battle Royale, Game of Thrones isn't a rip-off of Lord of the Rings, Batman isn't a ripoff of Zorro, all of which may take inspiration, but they all have elements which make them unique, and nobody should be able to hold a vice-grip on an idea that has probably already been had by millions. There are billions of people in this world and if you think you are really that intricate of a snowflake than I have some bad news for you. This is why, the lawsuit that was filed against In Time was ultimately dropped after the person watched the movie.

*clunk*

This would be the mesmeric sound of yours truly getting off of his soapbox. Back on task, this movie had my interest from the beginning from the concept. Justin Timberlake has come along way over the years, he is more than merely a former member of an old boy-band, he is actually a formidable actor. I have appreciated his work in The Social Network, and he has had solid performances in decent or mediocre movies like Friends with Benefits, Runner, Runner, and Southland Tales, as well. Decide for yourself which is decent and which is mediocre out of those three. I haven't seen a lot of Amanda Seyfried's work though, in-fact, this is the first movie of hers that I have seen, and I thought she did a decent supporting character. Aside from those two, Cillian Murphy, known for Inception and his role as Scarecrow in the Dark Knight Trilogy, also played a prominent role.

I found for this movie to be particularly entertaining with the novelty that it carried, I appreciate a lot of what they flushed out from the storyline, obviously thinking about several elements and dimensions to their realm aside from what is standard. The performances were considerable as well, nobody was really earth-shattering in-terms of emotions, the three names that I mentioned all had their moments, but none of them achieved the depth that I believe they were capable of. As the protagonist, it was easy to say that Justin Timberlake got the closest, however. I think the biggest issue that individuals have with movies relying heavily upon the concept is the idea that everything else will take a backseat to it. I enjoy interesting premises like this, and Inception, where they take risks or carry ideology that hasn't been saturated into film already.

While I believe they had enough ideas strewn together to keep everything functioning, I do believe that there was an absence of chemistry between all of the characters in-terms of dialogue or emotion. They said things, and they emphasized them, but I never really appreciated any of it. The narrative itself is fueled by the intricacies and unorthodox styling, for the most part, it carries familiar elements and simple storytelling which happens to work against the enigma of it all. I don't believe that the movie capitalizes on a lot of the talent held by the cast, and as I have already expressed, the concept itself has a large plethora of potential. Even still, the film is easy to find yourself wooed into and taken for an entertaining ride that grows weary, ahem, in time.