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

[Midnightsfire]

On a lark , I saw Hugo over the weekend. I admit it's not my preferred genre, but I have to say I was pleasantly surprised to find myself charmed by the time the credits rolled.

[Wab]

A lark couldn't carry a person, not even an African lark.

[AnotherD]

Took my kids to see the Muppets movie. Thought it was pretty good. Funny, great cameos. 8/10.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Wab

A lark couldn't carry a person, not even an African lark.

...definitely not a European lark.

[1BellaLestrange]

Breaking Dawn: 7/10

There were some really good funny moments.

[IenjoyAcidPops]

Originally Posted by 1BellaLestrange

There were some really good funny moments.

I'll venture a guess and say that none of them were intentional.


Jackie Brown
Oh, I do love this movie. Pam Grier and Robert Forster have never been better, Sam Jackson, Bridget Fonda, Michael Keaton, and Robert De Niro are pretty damn good too, and Tarantino finds the perfect melding of his and Elmore Leonard's voices.

[Mad_Druid]

Originally Posted by IenjoyAcidPops

I'll venture a guess and say that none of them were intentional.

There are one or two intentional, genuinely amusing moments in there, but pretty much.

We Need to Talk About Kevin - 8/10

Brilliantly put together and deeply unsettling at times but ultimately too ham-fisted with the portrayal of Kevin for me to rate it any higher. Tilda Swinton is amazing. Oh, and I found the score to be very, very effective.

[lcbaseball22]

^ Some friends and I watched that a while back and found it pretty dull...

Anyway, lots of great movies hitting redbox this week. Saw 2 last night-


Crazy, Stupid, Love- any movie with a Dirty Dancing reference is an automatic winner in my book...but then throw in Marisa Tomei (still looking hot in her 40's), Emma Stone, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling (how I wish I look like him), Steve Carell, and a crazy funny story and you've got one of the best movies of the year!

Water For Elephants- definitely more then just a chick flick and wow Rob can actually act when he's not doing that Twilight ****! There's a lot to love about this movie. First and foremost is the story...very unique. I won't spoil it for you but I bet you'll never see an ending like this one. In addition the cinematography is quite beautiful as is the James Newton Howard score. Oh and of course the cast is bolstered by Oscar winners Reese Witherspoon and Chrisoph Waltz, who is perhaps even more sinister in this role then he was in Inglorious Basterds.

[lcbaseball22]

The Tree of Life


What is with Malick in thinking you can just throw a bunch of pretty images on a screen without cohesion of a story and call it a film? I don't know what more to say so I'll just paste this review from IMDB as this sums it up perfectly...

This film was awful. Terrible. A waste of time.

I find it ridiculous that there are so many posts defending this film. It seems there are so many people out there who are fully ready to take in pointless stories and label them "deep" (by which they mean "made no sense whatsoever, which must mean its beyond our grasp")

I can forgive some films that choose form over content but not this. Where it isn't ripping off shots from documentaries like "Home" (I/2009) and "Planet Earth" and concepts from classics such as "2001", it is trying desperately to convey some sort of painful story with minimal basic dialogue and endless monologues of pointless drivel. Yes, parts of the cinematography were beautiful, the acting (especially from such young boys) was impressive, yet there was not one SINGLE original idea when it came to the script. There was absolutely no motivation for the viewer to stay glued to the screen. It was more a case of:, "Ooh, this woman is grieving for her dead son, but it doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things cos' there were also once dinosaurs roaming the Earth and there are big explosions and...here's a shot of orange smoke...you figure all this out since I couldn't be bothered." Really deep stuff... I actually paid money to see this. Argh.

[Perlidia]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

What is with Malick in thinking you can just throw a bunch of pretty images on a screen without cohesion of a story and call it a film? I don't know what more to say so I'll just paste this review from IMDB as this sums it up perfectly...

I disagree with your opinion. I am sorry you didn't like the film, yet I understand why this film has a limited audience (I think about 6 people walked out in the cinema during my viewing). I am reposting my original review I wrote directly after seeing the film, because it sums up everything I felt after leaving the cinema.
I don't agree with the IMDB post, firstly all the shots used in the film were created by Malick and not taken from any catalogue, yes Malick was influenced by shots used in 2001 (as far as I know it was the same art director on tree of life), but he used them because they worked for his story and he used them in a different way. Secondly what is with the complaint of an original idea? Yes the plot is simple, but the art of film is how that story is told. You don't need a complicated, twisting plot to create a masterpiece. I rate films mostly on how the story conveyed to the audience. In this case I think Malick has fulfilled his obligation to his audience tenfold. He created an extraordinary, beautiful and emotional piece, which I found to be very raw, human, suffocating and impacting. I hate when Malick, Gilliam and so on get accused of being pretentious and people believe these films are not meant to be understood. If it doesn't impact you fair enough, it’s not your thing you don't have to think deeply about it - you just prefer different manner of storytelling. But the person, who posted in IMDB, seems to think they have the final say when it comes to this way of telling a story. They must acknowledge that some of us do like this manner of storytelling. It does impact us, and we are not trying to be pretentious or patronising. It just appeals to us. Everybody is different. Sorry for ranting - i just get mad when I see closed statements and opinions

The Tree of Life

Viewing was truly euphoric and wonderful cinema experience. Malick did not disappoint, the film was very beautiful and mesmerising. I was slightly apprehensive before viewing due to all the current debate about the message of the film. I was very glad to find that the so called "religious leanings" of the film are based in individual’s opinions and interpretations. My experience was of a deeply profound and interesting piece, centring on the experiences of its characters. The film engages you with some of the most beautiful visuals I have ever seen on screen, I found it so easy to commit myself to its haunting and elegant imagery and once immersed, I found it to be a very emotional experience. If you are interested I highly recommend viewing it while it is still in the cinema.

[lcbaseball22]

It's not a closed minded statement...I gave it a chance (though I seriously thought about turning it off after that 20 minute montage of images), heck it was even my #2 most anticipated film of this year, but after seeing it myself now I'm apalled at all these critics placing it on the end of year Top 10 lists and some even daring to call it the "Film Event of the Year". BAHAH, they are so out of tune with reality. Clearly the film event of the year (of a generation actually) was Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. [staff edit] I've talked to 2 other film fans (and I don't mean just your average movie-watcher...no, one is a theatre major and another counts films like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof amongst her favs) already who agree Tree of Life is a worthless "film"…it's boring abstract art belonging in a museum not on the silver screen.

[Perlidia]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

It's not a closed minded statement...I gave it a chance

I wasn't referring to what you said; I was referring to the IMDB posting. I think your original statement was valid, I just didn't agree with it. But that's my point we have different opinions. You spoke to 2 other people who shared your opinion. I saw the film with people who shared mine, as I said this type of storytelling doesn't appeal to everyone, but it does appeal to me and obviously some critics. I don't think DH Part2 was a good film, let alone the film event of the year, but I know there are plenty of people on here who would disagree with me. That is fine, however I don't like words like "snob" or "pretentious" used to describe people who like this type of film.
Making a film is a commitment. It has been 6 years since Malick last film, he doesn't take his work lightly, he believes in what he is doing and what he makes is important to others.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Tree of Life is a worthless "film"…it's boring abstract art belonging in a museum not on the silver screen.

I think worthless "having no good qualities" is fairly strong and not at all apt. Whether you liked it or not, visually it is stunning and all the actors (particularly the children) were excellent.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Clearly the film event of the year (of a generation actually) was Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.

Give me a break, it was mediocre at best.

[staff edit]

Nice. Until you watch upwards of 250 new releases a year as is the job of most professional critics (not counting festivals and old movies watched for pleasure) I'll pay more attention to their more educated and experienced views.

[Siriusandme]

Thor - 7/10

I saw Thor recently on dvd, never really had the chance to see it in the cinema, and I liked it. It’s predictable, filled with silly cliche’s, love story that was a bit... well... but it was still quite fun to watch and I’m willing to overlook all of it’s faults for the pleasure of seeing Chris Hemsworth half naked.

[StaceysChain]

Wuthering Heights - 1/10

My god, this film was horrendous! It was two hours of a mix between boredom and torture. I admit, I've never read the book, but I've seen the 2009 ITV adaptation with Tom Hardy so I know the story. This version of Wuthering Heights is told from Heathcliff's perspective - which is an interesting take. But the film is basically this: shot of landscape, shot of birds flying, shot of the actors, shots of more landscape, shots of more birds flying, shot of the actors again etc. The camera basically just focuses on one thing during a shot, like a flower for example, while everything else remains blurry and all this just goes on and on and on. The narrative is also disjointed: one minute is young Heathcliff and Cathy on the moors doing nothing, next minute they're in the house doing nothing, then Hindley brutalises Heatchcliff, then Heathcliff and Cathy are on the moors again. It doesn't help that there is little to no dialogue as well. The acting for what it's worth is passable. The only good things about this film was the lovely song by Mumfords and Sons during the credits and the actress playing Young Cathy: she was marvelous. If I hadn't watched the Tom Hardy version, I would've had no clue what was going on and even so, I was somewhat confused anyway during my viewing of this.

[yorkiedoodle]

Hugo

I saw this today and was blown away by it! It's a beautiful fim with a touching story and an amazing cast ( Ben Kingsley, Helen McCrory, Frances de la Tour, Richard Griffiths, Jude Law, Sacha Baron Cohen) directed by Martin Scorsese. The music is also brilliant!

The film is really a homage by Scorsese to the early pioneers of film but he has done such a beautiful job!

I give it 9.5/10 - yes it's THAT good!

[Fawkesfan1]

The Adjustment Bureau -- 8/10

Just saw this recently and it was worth the watch. It really made me think and the cast did a wonderful job acting. The plot drew me in from the start and I really cared whether or not he was able to control his own destiny.

[lcbaseball22]

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

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

Total Score = 92

Verdict- The story is actually not quite as intriguing as the trailers made it seem and revolves around a deeply disturbing blood chilling tale, however, Fincher weaves it into a gripping almost hypnotic thriller with his command of the camera and his actors...or more specifically his virtually unknown lead actress who turns in a show-stopping performance. Oh, and it's supremely satisfying to see the "pigs" served justice.

EDIT:

I almost forgot to mention I rented Midnight in Paris last night. It's only the 2nd Woody Allen film I've seen and it was a perfectly fine film, a nice piece of work...but nothing that particularly stood out, elicited strong emotions, or any reason to watch again...so I give it a solid B.

EDIT 2:

Jeez, also forgot I saw Sherlock Holmes 2 a few days ago!

I've practically seen more 2011 films this past week then I had all year...I can't keep up!

Anyways, it definitely had it's moments that surpassed that first but the story was a bit of a mess, so as a whole it rates just a tad lower then Guy Richie's first adaptation of the classic detective...

Sherlock Holmes- 87
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows- 85

[yorkiedoodle]

Just got back from seeing Sherlock Holmes - I have to say it was brilliant!

I agree that the plot is slightly messy, but for action, cinematography, score and charm it gets top marks from this reviewer!

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

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

Total Score = 92

Verdict- The story is actually not quite as intriguing as the trailers made it seem and revolves around a deeply disturbing blood chilling tale, however, Fincher weaves it into a gripping almost hypnotic thriller with his command of the camera and his actors...or more specifically his virtually unknown lead actress who turns in a show-stopping performance. Oh, and it's supremely satisfying to see the "pigs" served justice.

EDIT:

I almost forgot to mention I rented Midnight in Paris last night. It's only the 2nd Woody Allen film I've seen and it was a perfectly fine film, a nice piece of work...but nothing that particularly stood out, elicited strong emotions, or any reason to watch again...so I give it a solid B.

EDIT 2:

Jeez, also forgot I saw Sherlock Holmes 2 a few days ago!

I've practically seen more 2011 films this past week then I had all year...I can't keep up!

Anyways, it definitely had it's moments that surpassed that first but the story was a bit of a mess, so as a whole it rates just a tad lower then Guy Richie's first adaptation of the classic detective...

Sherlock Holmes- 87
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows- 85

Interesting that you went to a letter ranking for Midnight in Paris rather than the number ratings you customarily use...any reason for that departure?

Personally I loved the movie....I thought the acting was excellent (casting Owen Wilson was a stroke of genius), the concept was very clever, and the cinematography was wonderful.