What was the last movie you watched?

[Elliott Evans]

Originally Posted by kittensXLI

Heat

In a word - unbelievable.

My #1 film.

[Beebz]

The Hunger Games: 6.5/10

Im not really sure the exact moment my feelings went from "this is working" to what a mess," but it couldnt have been more than five minutes into the actual games. What should have been the better half of the film collapsed in a torrent of sieze inducing shakey cam and insipid tween dialogue. The action sequences cant even be described as average. The staging and filming was atrocious. I had no idea what was happening half the time, and when I could it lacked any sense of wonder or excitement. The opening scene of the games should have been raw, visceral, primal, especially since were viewing it through the eyes of a tribute. Instead Ross dimmed the sound and went full shakey cam, robbing the scene of all its power. From then on it never seemed like the games had any stakes. I rarely worried about any of the main characters, didnt connect to any of the ancillary ones, and was disappointed with how cliched most of them were.

Id understand Gary Ross getting the gig if the interaction between the characters was the strength of the film, but I was literally cringing during the scenes between Katniss and Peeta in the cave. Worse, whole parts of the film made no sense. Why were people rioting late? Because a girl from their district got killed and Lawrence threw out the "read between the lines" middle finger? A girl from that district has died every year for 3/4 of a century. Whats different? Why did the pin matter? How did the guy paint his face in the middle of the woods with no supplies? Why was woody harrelson able to semd supplies whenever needed? Why did the movie not really have an ending?

I hate to soud totally down on the film because there were parts i liked. The setup well done and Lawrence was fantastic in a role I thougnt should have gone to Hallie Stanfield. Lenny Kravitz owned as well. But overall, there were way too many obvious and easily correctable flaws that prevent it from being a good film. If tnis was just a movie and not an adaptation of a hugley popular trilogy I dont think the reviews would have been as strong. I give it a 6.5 but its far closer to a 6 than a 7.

[AlpineValley804]

Originally Posted by DrewD55

I think it would have worked OK in the movie, but that fucker was a monster, length-wise, as it was. I think the American movie-going public in 1972 probably would have had the attention span to sit through it (as opposed to now), had it been a part of the film, but to me, the way Coppola and Puzo scripted it was perfect. It does its job of establishing the Godfather's influence and reputation, both in the "No Sicilian can refuse any request on his daughter's wedding day" scenes and in the ones between Hagen and Woltz. If they'd included the entire thing, it would have been an unnecessary tangent, particularly since Coppola decided that his focus of the series was the rise and fall of Michael Corleone. You move too far away from Pacino, it sucks you out of what is inarguably the most compelling story in the movie (and the book) to begin with.

The Johnny Fontaine story is the ultimate reason I massively prefer the movie over the book. When I read the novel years after seeing the movie (on top of many subsequent viewings), I was so used to the Fontaine story just serving as a minor exposition that I ended up hating his extension in the book. I found it so irrelevant to Michael's story that I really struggled getting through the Fontaine parts.

[Rodey]

Originally Posted by water_into_wine

Not even close.

I overanalyzed it then. Guess it really was just pretty straightforward then.

[ExistenceNow]

SPOILER ALERT (books and movie)

Originally Posted by Beebz

Worse, whole parts of the film made no sense. Why were people rioting late? Because a girl from their district got killed and Lawrence threw out the "read between the lines" middle finger? A girl from that district has died every year for 3/4 of a century. Whats different?

That rioting didn't happen in the book. In the book, that district just sent her a loaf of bread as thanks for her kindness to the girl from their district. All rioting happened later. I think the point of showing them rioting early was to show the incendiary effect Katniss has on the people (which is what Snow was already worried about with her).

Why did the pin matter?

The pin matters later. It becomes a symbol for the rebellion.

How did the guy paint his face in the middle of the woods with no supplies?

When they showed him working on his arm in the pre-games, that was a camo training station, teaching you how to create camo in the woods, with no supplies. Granted, they went a little over the top with how well he did it, but basically he was able to do it because he was taught how to do it.

Why was woody harrelson able to semd supplies whenever needed?

That was the whole thing with sponsors. Woody's job was to get people to pony up huge sums of money to be able to help the tribute they are rooting for by sending supplies. All tributes were allowed to receive gifts if their mentor could get sponsors to pay for them (and in the book, you find out that other tributes were in fact getting gifts too).

Why did the movie not really have an ending?

It did. Katniss and Peeta wont the games. The last bit is setup for the next films

[Jake]

Copyright Criminals.


It is a short doc on how rappers used samples (over and over again) to create the music of the 1980's, and how when record companies got wise to them, they got sued and changed the music of the 90's and beyond (they note how Paul's Boutique and Fear of a Black Planet could never be made today)


interesting, kinda dragged at the end, but pretty well put together. Also showed how James Brown's drummer is the most sampled man in history.

[Beebz]

Originally Posted by ExistenceNow

SPOILER ALERT (books and movie)

You read the books right? I think some of your knowledge comes from book informtion that wasnt conveyed on screen. All they showed was Peeta painting his arm. They didnt mention it was from natural compounds or anything. Same with the sponsors. The movie made it seem like Munson sent the supplies when needed because his name was on the notes. The rioted felt way out of place, too. Also, why do future citizens needs to dress like douchebags in every future set movie? The capitol denziens looked ridiculous for no reason at all.

As for the ending, it was painfully anticlimatic and felt almost like an afterthoiught. I realize it sets up the trilogy but there needed to be something more concrete than the two obvious heroes in no danger winning the games. That was really weak, IMO. Maybe the book does it better I dont know. Having smarmy aryan guy give some lame self reflective speech before he dies be the climax was awfully meh.

I hope they get a bigger budget and a better director for the second one, because the cast and story have a lot of potential.

[ExistenceNow]

Originally Posted by Beebz

You read the books right? I think some of your knowledge comes from book informtion that wasnt conveyed on screen. All they showed was Peeta painting his arm. They didnt mention it was from natural compounds or anything. Same with the sponsors. The movie made it seem like Munson sent the supplies when needed because his name was on the notes. The rioted felt way out of place, too. Also, why do future citizens needs to dress like douchebags in every future set movie? The capitol denziens looked ridiculous for no reason at all.

As for the ending, it was painfully anticlimatic and felt almost like an afterthoiught. I realize it sets up the trilogy but there needed to be something more concrete than the two obvious heroes in no danger winning the games. That was really weak, IMO. Maybe the book does it better I dont know. Having smarmy aryan guy give some lame self reflective speech before he dies be the climax was awfully meh.

I hope they get a bigger budget and a better director for the second one, because the cast and story have a lot of potential.

Yea, most of that info was gleaned from the books and I agree that if you didn't read em, the movie didn't do a great job of explaining a lot of it.

I was just answering your questions in case you were curious.

[beefandbean22]

30 Minutes or Less: yeah it could have been better, especially since I like so many people in the cast, but it made me laugh. Aziz could do just about anything and make me laugh so I knew I would at least enjoy the movie. Would probably give it a 6.5 or 7 out of 10

The Social Network: probably haven't watched it in about a year, but it's still one of my favorites. Just really well written and acted. 10/10

[MVDMB]

Sin City last night, and that movie will never get old. Definitely one of my top 5.

I had a lot higher hopes for 30 Minutes or Less, I thought the cast would make it great, but a lot of it felt too forced IMO. The best comedy of last year that I saw is easily Horrible Bosses. I don't expect too much from comedies anymore, but that was so damn funny.

[water_into_wine]

Originally Posted by DrewD55

Started watching Fincher's version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo this morning. Mother of God, is this bad. Someone please tell me what about it is supposed to be amazing, because all I see is an incoherent plotline that I'm doing my best to keep up with, while all Fincher is interested in is drssing it up in as much Seven=ish art direction as possible, none of which I enjoyed. I'm now convinced that he needs Aaron Sorkin's guiding hand every step of the way.

Before The Social Network, there wasn't much of Fincher's stuff that I loved, and I'm already getting to a point where I hate this thing. Style does not always count over substance, and it certainly doesn't make up for a lack of clarity in the script. This thing is horseshit so far.

Disagree with everything here.

[MPizzle06]

Originally Posted by water_into_wine

Disagree with everything here.

I'm with you

[RJP2741]

Me too. Sounds like he's watching a different movie.

[AlpineValley804]

I need to revisit Dragon Tattoo, but like Drive, I lean closer to Drew's take on it the more I think about it. I thought it was so mediocre and just not all that compelling.

[Arby]

Envy

Jack Black and Ben Stiller - it was on HBO this morning and I'd never heard of it so I decided to watch. It was pretty bad. Very few laughs. Christopher Walken had a pretty funny character, but other than that it was a pretty big dud.

[Rodey]

I lean towards Drew on Dragon Tattoo as well. I didn't think it was terrible, I just thought it was a pretty run-of-the-mill movie and nothing out of the ordinary.

Also, I just watched Scent of a Woman again and Pacino is so damn good in it. He really carries the film.

[mja271]

I thought Fincher's Dragon Tattoo was extremely well shot and really nailed the whole "feel" properly. But honestly I just don't find the source material that compelling or stand out, and that showed in the film imo.

[jrod41]

Re-watched X2 (X-men 2) just now on HBO. It's been years since I saw it, and for awhile it was my favorite of the series until First Class. After watching X2 today though, I have no idea why I put First Class over it, X2 is by far the superior X-Men film. 8.5/10

as for Fincher's TGWTDT, I'm kind in between all of yall

[mja271]

I thought First Class was so overrated. Decent enough movie but nothing more.

[junior94]

Originally Posted by DrewD55

Started watching Fincher's version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo this morning. Mother of God, is this bad. Someone please tell me what about it is supposed to be amazing, because all I see is an incoherent plotline that I'm doing my best to keep up with, while all Fincher is interested in is drssing it up in as much Seven=ish art direction as possible, none of which I enjoyed. I'm now convinced that he needs Aaron Sorkin's guiding hand every step of the way.

Before The Social Network, there wasn't much of Fincher's stuff that I loved, and I'm already getting to a point where I hate this thing. Style does not always count over substance, and it certainly doesn't make up for a lack of clarity in the script. This thing is horseshit so far.

I agree that the story definitely has somewhat of an unusual structure (though, if I understand correctly, so did the book) but aside from that, wow, yea suffice to say I strongly disagree

[jrod41]

Originally Posted by mja271

I thought First Class was so overrated. Decent enough movie but nothing more.

I definitely overrated it the first time I saw it. Then I watched it again, and realized the only superb thing about it is McAvoy and Fassbender.

[AlpineValley804]

Originally Posted by som3d3vil34

Envy

Jack Black and Ben Stiller - it was on HBO this morning and I'd never heard of it so I decided to watch. It was pretty bad. Very few laughs. Christopher Walken had a pretty funny character, but other than that it was a pretty big dud.

I remember seeing the trailers for that prior to its release and thinking it looked really funny, but then it got terrible reviews from both critics and audiences, and then I ended up never bothering to watch it.

[DMBstandUP1984]

Originally Posted by MVDMB

Sin City last night, and that movie will never get old. Definitely one of my top 5.

I had a lot higher hopes for 30 Minutes or Less, I thought the cast would make it great, but a lot of it felt too forced IMO. The best comedy of last year that I saw is easily Horrible Bosses. I don't expect too much from comedies anymore, but that was so damn funny.

still waiting for part 2

[dmbetc]

Going into The Hunger Games right now. Pumped!

[junior94]

came across a bit of the WOLVERINE ORIGINS movie here on FX. Never even mind the story, but the way some of these actions scenes are staged, it's just beyond ridiculous

[bartender_man]

Originally Posted by dmbetc

Going into The Hunger Games right now. Pumped!

Let us know how that was?

[jordanbball17]

21 Jump Street 8.5/10 I went in to this expecting it to be funny with predictability, and I was pleasantly surprised that it really wasn't that predictable. It also was genuinely hilarious in some parts, and had an overall good message, albeit one that has been told countless times. All in all, I think it was worth the $9!

Sidenote: I lol'd at the long line for Titanic.

[nh2032]

Saw Friends with Kids today. Thought it was alright, but some of the dialog was extremely cringeworthy (especially the last few lines).

[dmbetc]

I'm in love with katniss.

Hunger games 9/10

[ExistenceNow]

Originally Posted by jrod41

Re-watched X2 (X-men 2) just now on HBO. It's been years since I saw it, and for awhile it was my favorite of the series until First Class. After watching X2 today though, I have no idea why I put First Class over it, X2 is by far the superior X-Men film. 8.5/10

as for Fincher's TGWTDT, I'm kind in between all of yall

Originally Posted by mja271

I thought First Class was so overrated. Decent enough movie but nothing more.

Originally Posted by jrod41

I definitely overrated it the first time I saw it. Then I watched it again, and realized the only superb thing about it is McAvoy and Fassbender.

X2 might be the best super hero movie ever. And no, I didn't forget about Dark Knight.

First Class was great.

X2 > X-Men = First Class > partial birth abortion > Wolverine > X3