Rate / Review the Last Film you've seen v.3

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

Yes, I saw The Descendants this weekend.

Excellent film! Really enjoyed it. Felt as if I were watching real people on the screen, not just actors.

That's actually part of the reason I didn't like it - not because it felt like the actors weren't acting but because if I wanted to see a depressing, real life family tragedy taking place I could go visit one of my parents' friends in the hospital for free. That was such a downer of a movie.


Gone - starring Amanda Seyfried
Rating: 7/10

It's about a girl named Jill who had been kidnapped and thrown down hole in the middle of the forest. Somehow she escaped her killer but now, a year later, her sister has been kidnapped too. Jill, who turns out to have been involuntarily committed because everyone thinks she made her kidnap story up, tells the cops but they don't believe her. She is compelled to solve the mystery of who kidnapped her sister and to find her before the killer strikes again...

I went to see it more for the fact that it was filmed in my home town and many of the location shots were done around my office but found it to be a fairly entertaining movie. I'd recommend seeing it to anyone who enjoys mystery/suspense type movies.

[gertiekeddle]

Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)

7/10

That's a cute (but not only) and very positive (but not always) as also funny (yep, not only) movie about a couple of elderly (and beautifully) old British peeps, finding a new home in the 'Marigold' in Baglalore, India.
India adds a lot to the atmosphere of re-detecting your life, and it's once more a quite positive image of India as well (well, maybe too positive sometimes). The actors are great, what's most likely no surprise if you check through the casts.
A recommendation for everyone who enjoys a good laugh and a story fiddling around a way to re-organize your life.

[Fawkesfan1]

Notorious (1946) -- 10/10

Finally saw this movie and it drew me in from start to finish. The acting was flawless from everyone involved and the chemistry between the two lead characters (Cary Grant, who's playing Devlin and Ingrid Bergman who's playing Alicia Huberman) just shined. It's a real treat to see these two act together. They don't even need to touch (even though they do) to see it -- it's just electric and palpable.

His character, Devlin, has to find out what a ring of Nazi's are up to: So he enlists her character, Alicia, a woman with a past, and a connection to one of the men, Sebastian, to find out just what's going on. What happens next really makes the movie worth the watch... so I won't say any more to spoil it.

Overall, this movie is still good even after all this time and is worth seeing for those who really like black and white films that are sharp and suspenseful.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by Fawkesfan1

Notorious (1946) -- 10/10

Finally saw this movie and it drew me in from start to finish. The acting was flawless from everyone involved and the chemistry between the two lead characters (Cary Grant, who's playing Devlin and Ingrid Bergman who's playing Alicia Huberman) just shined. It's a real treat to see these two act together. They don't even need to touch (even though they do) to see it -- it's just electric and palpable.

His character, Devlin, has to find out what a ring of Nazi's are up to: So he enlists her character, Alicia, a woman with a past, and a connection to one of the men, Sebastian, to find out just what's going on. What happens next really makes the movie worth the watch... so I won't say any more to spoil it.

Overall, this movie is still good even after all this time and is worth seeing for those who really like black and white films that are sharp and suspenseful.

Interesting, this was one of the lesser enjoyable Hitchcock films for me and I felt Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman had horrible chemistry (extremely disappointing since they're 2 of my favs)...but perhaps I should give it another try.

Out of curiosity, which of Alfred Hitchcock's other films have you seen?

[Hes]

You can discuss Hitchcock movies in depth at: Alfred Hitchcock Movies

[Yoana]

High Strung (1991) - 7/10

I thought it was very funny, and Jim Carrey was terrifying.

[Fawkesfan1]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Interesting, this was one of the lesser enjoyable Hitchcock films for me and I felt Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman had horrible chemistry (extremely disappointing since they're 2 of my favs)...but perhaps I should give it another try.

Out of curiosity, which of Alfred Hitchcock's other films have you seen?

None of the others yet, this was my first .

@ Hes: Thanks. I'll go and check it out .

[HedwigOwl]

Watched Aliens and Cowboys on rental.

It's certainly an interesting film, albeit a very strange storyline. Good performances, entertaining.

7/10

[lcbaseball22]

Box Office: First weekend, $11.4 million; total domestic, $64.8 million

Movie math: (Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone — Ron) x (Cinema Paradiso) + (Midnight in Paris + Robert Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol)

Why Hugo should not win: Hugo is a gorgeous movie, but the script and performances take a backseat to the masterful cinematography and stunning costume and production design.

Talking Points:

1) Yes, it’s 3-D and based on a children’s book, but this isn’t your typical kids movie. That is, unless your 10-year-old has a Ph.D. in Film Studies. What does it mean when a film like this barely breaks $100 million worldwide?

3) Did Daniel Radcliffe have a point? “Why is this nominated and we’re not? I was slightly miffed.”

http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/02/20/in...ive-into-hugo/

That was just few snippets I found interesting in EW's in depth look at Hugo...and now that I've finally seen it myself, here are my thoughts on the film

Acting- 7.5
Script- 7
Visuals- 9.5
Sound- 9
Editing- 8.5

Total Score = 83

Verdict- It's no wonder that the Academy took to this where they neglected Potter. I mean while Hugo has also been slapped with the label of "kid's film" there's a significant chunk of Scorsese's film which could easily be seen in some respects as Oscar bait and essentially brown-nosing his peers, making them feel important. However, the Academy got it right at least in only actually awarding the film for technical achievements (and even at that winning for visual effects over Potter is pretty ridiculous) as there isn't a whole lot in the way of a plot; it's more style then substance and the characters are for the most part flat and under-developed...so I think one could certainly be justified in saying the film is a bit pretentious and dull at times. I have a feeling that Scorsese doesn't really care too much though what others think of this particular film because he made it more for himself. I've read that it was a very personal endeavor for him and as so many have said it's his "love letter to cinema", which is the one part of it at least I think almost anyone who enjoys the "magic" of movies can appreciate Furthermore, I did like a few of the ideas presented and this scene in particular stands out to me- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhcXwFWPTWY

[Pearl_Took]

The White Ribbon (Michael Hanneke, 2009)

Wow. Well, this film certainly more than justified my expectations of it.

The time and place is a German village, just before WW1 breaks out. The film opens with a vicious accident in which the local doctor and his horse are seriously injured as a result of someone stringing a wire between the trees. The anonymous attacks then begin to escalate over the months, becoming increasingly sinister and malicious. We also learn the dark secrets of the villagers ... The only happy and normal characters are the schoolteacher and his shy, sweet young fiancée.

The film is shot in black-and-white, and there is no musical score. Some critics said the pace was ‘glacial’ but I was riveted by the story, my nerves strung in expectation of the next horrible ‘prank’.

A number of characters, including some of the ministers’ children, are presented as having vague and unidentified motives for some of the attacks, but nothing quite adds up. Indeed, there could be several perpetrators, unconnected to each other.

This is an astonishing film: very powerful and deeply disturbing, the stuff of nightmares. Yet probably only about two scenes of explicit cruelty are shown on the screen; we mostly hear about the atrocities rather than see them: this is not a graphic or gratuitous movie. But the sense of unease and all-pervasive, creeping evil was so intense that it haunted me for hours afterwards.

Mild spoiler:

Spoiler: show

Some critics have complained about the lack of plot resolution, but the threads left hanging enhance the film’s immense power. The lack of resolution didn’t hurt Picnic at Hanging Rock, in my opinion, and The White Ribbon is even more disturbing than Picnic.

10/10 for being the most unnerving film I’ve seen for ages. It thoroughly unsettled me and I had to watch something else before going to bed.

[MmeBergerac]

Watchmen - 3/10

Weird movie, but not in the weird-that-makes-it-more-interesting sense. The starting point is interesting, but the plot moves in a very irregular way, alternating very well-shot action scenes (though with too much gratuitous violence, IMO) with unnecesary (and very long) pseudo-philosophical reflections and quite confusing flashbacks. Visuals are very good (I quite liked the opening credits), but the story is erratic, rhythm is irregular, you have either too much or too little character-depth and the general tone irremediably reminded me of Sin City, which, in my case, adds negative points.

[Yoana]

The Godfather - 8/10

It may be repulsive in its subject matter and have only one sympathetic character (Kay), but it's a brilliant film which does not age. Expertly written and shot, suspenseful and appropriately menacing, and with an underlying streak of compassion which makes it more than just a thriller/crime flick, in my opinion.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by MmeBergerac

Watchmen - 3/10

Weird movie, but not in the weird-that-makes-it-more-interesting sense. The starting point is interesting, but the plot moves in a very irregular way, alternating very well-shot action scenes (though with too much gratuitous violence, IMO) with unnecesary (and very long) pseudo-philosophical reflections and quite confusing flashbacks. Visuals are very good (I quite liked the opening credits), but the story is erratic, rhythm is irregular, you have either too much or too little character-depth and the general tone irremediably reminded me of Sin City, which, in my case, adds negative points.

You've raised an interesting point, I think... we're all familiar with the comic book movie, and some of those have been pretty successful. But if we distinguish between that and the graphic novel adapted into film, the latter does seem to be a little trickier.

With a movie based on comic books, I think visuals are important, but only fully in the sense of being recognizable. When it comes to graphic novel films (the most notable of which lately have involved Frank Miller) I have a feeling the look of the film is emphasized a great deal more, and even more than the story itself, perhaps.

Well anyway I just found your analysis amusing because it reminded me of most of the graphic novels I've read.

[captain Sparrow]

Soul Surfer
A biography/ real life based movie of a surfer who looses her arm in a shark attack. It was really good, but also very touching and sad. I totally recommend it to everyone. The acting was very convincing. and the views were absolutely stunning.

10-/10

[Wimsey]

Hugo. Adapted from a graphic novel that tells a "historical fiction" tale, it's a charming story about fixing broken people. The film manages a surrealistic air, replete with mystery, tragedy and even a whiff of young romance. If you know about the history of film, then there are some added treats, but the film makes perfect sense without them. The homage to the art of story-telling and cinema works as a wonderful theme, too.

It got a lot of attention at Oscar time, and it deserved it. The direction was excellent (with the kids coming across quite well), and the adult actors of incredibly different pedigrees take their larger-than-life roles up without pushing them over-the-top.

3.5/4.

[lcbaseball22]

Are you sure its a "graphic novel"...I thought it was a children's book;no need to sugar coat it and make it sound more convincing then Harry Potter just cause it was directed by Scorsese...that's the Oscar Academy's job

[Hes]

Selznick himself has described the book as "not exactly a novel, not quite a picture book, not really a graphic novel, or a flip book or a movie, but a combination of all these things. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0439813786

So there, no need to fight over it or making assumptions about other people´s intentions with their posts.

[lcbaseball22]

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

[Midnightsfire]

Hugo was a delight. And I never use that word.

Saw John Carter today. I was impressed by how near epic if seemed. Whomever marketed the movie needs to be shot though. I had low expectations and didn't think it was going to much of a movie at all.

[Animagus86]

We watched Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance in the theater. My significant other didn't like it much. I thought it was good, but you can't watch it as a sequel if you want to enjoy it. You have to view it as an individual movie. Aside from that, the acting and special effects were awesome.