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

[lcbaseball22]

^ From what I have heard, Battle Royale is a gore fest of kids killing each other with no larger scope or aim beyond glorified violence.

Now this comment is comparing the books but it makes the difference between the two pretty clear-

Battle Royale is a soulless book that essentially glorifies violence, using its teenaged protagonists as "torture porn" a la the SAW movies. it bears only a superficial similarity to Hunger Games. Logan's Run and Lord of the Flies are much more in line with this book and even they are only thematically similar.

As for The Hunger Games movie...imo it is a very skillful adaptation of the story of Collin's novel of sacrifice and survival. Secondarily, the execution of the game does a fine job of retaining the novel's themes and satirical statements against violence, reality TV, etc while at the same time providing entertainment and genuine emotional impact. For a richer experience you will probably want to read the novel though!


EDIT: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/5-Rea...ale-30063.html

[ccollinsmith]

As someone with first-hand experience of Battle Royale, I reject that characterization of Battle Royale entirely.

It may be true of the manga (which I found too repulsive to finish), but it is categorically not true of the film (a cult classic since the early 2000s) or (so far as I know) of the novel.

Battle Royale possesses the same themes of loyalty, love, and survival as The Hunger Games... And the way the game plays out between the two films (alliances forming, kids coming into the game for the purpose of killing, kids trying to survive but not kill) is pretty much identical. The main difference inside the game is that Battle Royale is edgier... but not to the point that it ventures into slasher territory, much less the territory marked by films like Saw. The other key difference is the framework. And the framework for The Hunger Games is much richer, though not more poignant.

But honestly, my review of Hunger Games was positive. I gave the film a 10/10, despite the Battle Royale ripoff elements. So I'm not sure what the issue is here.

I think The Hunger Games is the best film so far of 2012 and that it could potentially be an Oscar contender at the end of the year. I would recommend it to everyone.

[lcbaseball22]

Thor

Acting- 7.5
Script- 6
Visuals- 8.5
Sound- 8
Editing- 7.5

Total Score = 75

Verdict- Inferior to both Iron Man and Captain America: The First Avenger but might be the most essential viewing for The Avengers since it appears the villain and some other pretty crucial set up/plot points come from it. Otherwise though, I didn't see much point to the story and (despite the fact that one of my favorite actresses in Natalie Portman was involved) I couldn't really get invested in the characters.

[lcbaseball22]

The Avengers

Acting- 8.5
Script- 8
Visuals- 10
Sound- 9.5
Editing- 9

Total Score = 90

Verdict- Saw it at midnight. Bit too much humor and action but nicely done integration of all the characters and really good performances and camera work. Oh, and it’s amazing what can be done with SFX/VFX these days, though granted the budget was over $200 million.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

But honestly, my review of Hunger Games was positive. I gave the film a 10/10, despite the Battle Royale ripoff elements.

It's a very narrow view saying that HG is a rip-off of BR. The whole set-up is a well-used trope in dystopian fiction.

[SnapesBane]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Contagion- 80

Verdict- despite the amazing array of cast members and an interesting premise, there's something off about this film...which I think is a result of Soderberg's direction that I'm becoming increasingly not a fan of.

What you thin kis wrong with his direction? I find it an excellent movie that is quite realistic in how it show the response to such an event.

I recently saw my first Hitchcoc movie. Vertigo was not very good. I knew from the beginning that it was likely going to be bad. Boring shots, horrible score, terrible acting. I am not sure why people like him so much. I don;t think I can see another of his work.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by SnapesBane

...quite realistic in how it show the response to such an event.

Yes, that much I agree with.

I recently saw my first Hitchcoc movie. Vertigo was not very good. I knew from the beginning that it was likely going to be bad. Boring shots, horrible score, terrible acting. I am not sure why people like him so much. I don;t think I can see another of his work.

Blasphemy!

Alfred Hitchcock is arguably the greatest director of all time, Vertigo is one of the greatest films ever made, and James Stewart one of the greatest actors of all time. That being said, the film was probably a poor choice to start off with and it's harder to love then some of Hitch's others. Vertigo is a slow burn mystery thriller that one comes to appreciate after multiple viewings for its unparalleled film-making, though I thought it was excellent from the start-http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1492

[Midnightsfire]

*nods* Hitchcock is one of the greats for a reason.

--------------------------------

Saw the Avengers today. Never saw the place so damn crowded.
But yeah, it did the job, which was "live up to the hype." it did. Good to see the Hulk steal the show. And that was done in brutal fashion. (Heard a lot of "Damn!" in the place.)

[SnapesBane]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Yes, that much I agree with.



Blasphemy!

Alfred Hitchcock is arguably the greatest director of all time, Vertigo is one of the greatest films ever made, and James Stewart one of the greatest actors of all time. That being said, the film was probably a poor choice to start off with and it's harder to love then some of Hitch's others. Vertigo is a slow burn mystery thriller that one comes to appreciate after multiple viewings for its unparalleled film-making, though I thought it was excellent from the start-http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1492

I just finished The Birds and like that on even less. I found the plotline to be quite dumb. I really don't see wha makes him so special.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by SnapesBane

I just finished The Birds and like that on even less. I found the plotline to be quite dumb. I really don't see wha makes him so special.

The Birds is an even worse choice Even I don't like The Birds much. Please watch North By Northwest, Rear Window, or Psycho. My favorite is Rear Window but I was advised to start with North By Northwest and it was an excellent introduction to the "Master of Suspense"

The following are all in the IMDB Top 250

(8.70) - Rear Window (1954)
(8.70) - Psycho (1960)
(8.60) - North by Northwest (1959)
(8.50) - Vertigo (1958)
(8.30) - Rebecca (1940)
(8.20) - Notorious (1946)
(8.20) - Strangers on a Train (1951)
(8.10) - The Lady Vanishes (1938)
(8.10) - Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
(8.10) - Rope (1948)
(8.10) - Dial M for Murder (1954)

Those Top 4 are also on the American Film Institute Top 100 Greatest Films list

[Midnightsfire]

Terrence Malick is difficult for me to appreciate seeeing as how my preferred genre in action/adventure, fantasy, superheroes, and similar. That being said (or typed), I easily recognize Hitchcock as a master that paved the way for others even though I have only seen few of his movies.

[SusanBones]

This is just a reminder to respect other people's opinions. Name calling is not allowed.

[Alastor]

Not only that. We don't allow sarcasm towards fellow members or accusing others for being reincarnations of members who have left out little flock either. If you have reason to think someone really is a reincarnation, please owl an admin about your concerns but don't write about them in an open thread.

I have deleted a number of posts because I don't want them to stay here as examples for others to follow.

Some of you should start to take rule 2a seriously. If you can't do that, we have a little thing called forum ban for you.

[Yoana]

American Reunion - 5/10 - for what it is, it was ok. Miles away from the original one though, as is to be expected.

[lcbaseball22]

The Rum Diary- I'm not gonna bother with details here; the advertising (trailer in particular) was misleading; it's really not a comedy and it's also quite a dull drama. Amber Heard spices things up a bit however, and Depp brings the charisma like always, so for that I give it a C.

[Sorafune]

Finally gave in and watched Thor, didn't think it would be a movie for me but I loved it.
The music is really beautiful and I liked all the characters.

[SnapesBane]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

As someone with first-hand experience of Battle Royale, I reject that characterization of Battle Royale entirely.

It may be true of the manga (which I found too repulsive to finish), but it is categorically not true of the film (a cult classic since the early 2000s) or (so far as I know) of the novel.

Battle Royale possesses the same themes of loyalty, love, and survival as The Hunger Games... And the way the game plays out between the two films (alliances forming, kids coming into the game for the purpose of killing, kids trying to survive but not kill) is pretty much identical. The main difference inside the game is that Battle Royale is edgier... but not to the point that it ventures into slasher territory, much less the territory marked by films like Saw. The other key difference is the framework. And the framework for The Hunger Games is much richer, though not more poignant.

I don;t think we shouldcompare. They both has different themes.

Having saw Battle Royale for the first time in a long time, I agree to a point. I think Royale work better on a deeper level with the characterisations. I felt for the characters, something I cannot do with Hunger Games.

[Sorafune]

Ended up watching Iron Man yesterday and it's not a movie I'm going to watch again. It was ok but it took too long until something interesting started to happen.

[lcbaseball22]

^ Interesting. For most the original Iron Man is still the best of all the Marvel films...aside from maybe Avengers. I understand why you might say that though. There is a fairly long interlude you either like or you don't. I rewatched the film a while back and recall wanting to skip over the prisoner of war bit. As a mechanical engineering student though the rest makes me giddy. I love the concept of the character.

For the record here is how I rank the Marvel films, from best to worst:

Iron Man
The Avengers
Captain America: The First Avenger
Iron Man 2
Thor

I've yet to see either of the Hulk movies and I'm not sure I ever will; most seem to caution avoiding those.

[Coldwindblows]

Avengers Assemble:
Script- 8
The Actors- 8
Humour- 8.5
CGI- 9
Sound Effects- 9.5
Editing- 8.5

Total Score = Anywhere from 85-90, so an A+

Before going to see Avengers Assemble, I was flat-out uninterested in it. I am a huge Marvel fan, and have seen Thor, Iron Man 1 and 2, Captain America: The First Avenger and The Incredible Hulk. However, the trailer for Joss Whedon's movie didn't really fill me with joy or excitement. In fact, I found the cinematic trailer to be extremely boring; without any compelling dialogue, and the action scenes, I felt, looked too familiar. I was a fan of Tom Hiddlestone's Loki, but I was of the opinion that Loki alone could not drive the movie.

Anyway, I was prepared for idiocy when I went to see it, despite the good reviews. I wasn't interested, and only went to it because my Dad wanted to see it. By the end, though, I was very glad I went, as I now regard it as probably the best Marvel film I've ever seen.

Let's start with the script. I had heard that Joss Whedon had written the film with interesting and compelling dialogue; which I love in a film (moreso than mindless action scenes). Why this didn't attract me, I don't know; but after watching the movie, I see exactly what he meant and was extremely impressed by the script. I felt it to be a welcome change from idiotic superhero movie scripts, such as the deadful Green Lantern movie's script. Whedon's script was clever and slick, with great one-liners, interesting theories and concepts, and that gave so much room for unfamiliar characters like Hawkeye to develop, despite the fact that the film was obviously not centered around him.

One thing that greatly impressed me was how Whedon didn't focus on any one of the Avengers, and, despite the fact that each and every one of their personalities was big enough to drive their own movie, each member of the team was given plenty of room to show off their personalities without diminishing any other member. A good example would be Thor, whose portrayor, Chris Hemsworth, managed to again recapture Thor's direct, offbeat, quirky-but-likeable personality. Hemsworth's portrayal in Kenneth Branagh's Thor was, for me, the main attraction of the movie; with Hemsworth choosing to portray Thor as the strong, ferocious character that appeared in the comics, but adding a very welcome offbeat quirkiness that gave Thor a huge personality in the film.

Thor, in the Avengers, recaptures this personality, but doesn't diminish the massive, ego-centric, brazen and carefree personality of Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark, the driving force behind both of the Iron Man movies. It was Whedon's ability to keep these massive personalities at bay that really impressed me, script-wise.

The acting in this movie, from all camps, was impeccable. I would greatly praise the acting of newcomer Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk/Bruce Banner. His acting really gave a new angle to the Hulk, very far removed from Ed Norton's Hulk in the 2008 movie. I personally preferred Ruffalo's portrayal, and think that his Hulk could really go places, and could probably spawn some spin-offs.

Tom Hiddlestone's Loki was again, overplayed, but that is what made him such a good villain in both Thor and Avengers Assemble. It is Hiddlestone's exaggeration of Loki's personality that attracts fans; much like Shakespearean actors would always over-emphasise all their lines, Hiddlestone keeps in the same vein as that, over-acting to 100% positive effect, as over-acting too much can just create implausibility; which is never an attraction.

Another performance I'd praise would be that of Chris Evans as Captain America. If any actor had something to prove in this film, it was him. Although his character was strong, likeable, and relatable (to all the wimps out there), I still felt that Evans had a lot to show in this movie, to solidify Cap's personality, and to really create a strong image of who Captain America really is to the audience. When thinking of Downey Jr's Iron Man, you don't need to think hard to get a plethora of adjectives in your head; and the same applies to Hemsworth's Thor, and Ruffalo's Hulk. With Captain America, Evans had the chance to play an iconic character, and to put his own personal spin on him; which all of the other actors did. In Cap's own film, I felt he did that to an extent. However, in Avengers Assemble, he really created Cap as a reserved, solid, all-American hero, a bit lost in the times, but with endless conviction. He used Avengers Assemble as a blank canvas to add skin to the skeleton he'd already created in The First Avenger.

One thing that suprised me were the jokes in the film. Most of these superhero movies don't have overly hilarious jokes, but Avengers Assemble had some great moments, mainly featuring the Hulk. Iron Man had some great lines, but my favourite line absolutely has to be Thor's line when talking about Loki.

Spoiler: show

"He's my brother"
"-he killed 80 people in 2 days!"
"He's adopted."

And another character who I liked in this film was Clark Greg's Agent Coulson, whose hero-worshipping of Captain America made me chuckle numerous times...

Spoiler: show

until Nick Fury uses this Coulson's hero worshipping of Cap as a catalyst for the Avengers to unite after his death.

Clark Greg's Coulson, who in other films, didn't have so much of a personality, was really expanded on in this film, and I hope to see more of him.

Spoiler: show

It's being said that he's in talks about appearing in Iron Man 3.

The CGI in this film can be desribed in two words: frighteningly realistic. The action scenes, which usually bore a sophisticated guy like me, drew me in, and just when I thought it couldn't get any more exciting, IT TOTALLY DID.
The final, climactic scene was easily the best climax I've ever seen of any Marvel film. Each character played an important role, and the fact that each of the Avengers' roles were explored equally, as well as being interlaced with some slapstick humour...

Spoiler: show

Hulk and Loki; "PUNY GOD!!!" Oh my God, I nearly cried, it was so funny.

...was wonderfully effective, and showed us that having the right director can make an action packed climax the following things: emotional, edge-of-seat exciting, full of artsy visuals, hilarious, and paced to perfection.

All in all, I'd day that Avengers Assamble, after Buffy, is Whedon's masterpiece, and should be heralded as one of the finest superhero movies ever to be made for screen, and without a shadow of a doubt, the best Marvel superhero movie ever made.

Bottom line: like action/humour/an interesting story/amazing CGI/good acting/solid characters/interesting ideas? If you answered yes to one or more of these things: SEE THIS MOVIE. NOW.

I'll wait right here to see what you think.
(If my English is broken, I'm sorry. It is my first language but I suck at writing it.)