PDA

View Full Version : Movies of 2014



FreeAim
02-20-2014, 01:09 PM
I want to post this here because I really like movies and discussing about them, but I don't like having to make individual threads about all the movies I want to talk about on here. Therefore, here is one, hopefully big topic for all the movie-related discussions and reviews on movies that come out in 2014. Things like awesome trailers, what movies you are looking forward to and so on. Keep in mind, that there are a few cinematic universes which need their own threads, which is why we have this one. (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?73060-Marvel-Cinematic-Universe)

Anyway, so far, I have seen seven movies this year. A couple of them are actually movies of last year, but due to the fact that late year movies in USA get a wider release in Finland in January or February. Here are short reviews of these movies:


Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones

Insultingly bad movie with no innovation or new ideas. Dull and poorly made in every sense of the way. Not the worst Paranormal Activity, though, since there were the second and third installments, but absolutely, hideously terrible. Avoid at all costs. 1/10

American Hustle

Easily the weakest Academy Award best picture nominee, American Hustle has little ambition, fails to bring any life on screen and even fails at casting actors who fit the roles given to them, apart from Christian Bale, who seems like the only person actually enjoying this. Not all terrible and is in no league for the worst of the year, but still... this kind of sucks. 4/10

Wolf of Wall Street

No matter how much one could hate him in the nineties, Leonardo Di Caprio single handedly makes this movie. If this movie came out last year, I would be required to say that this is the best movie of the last year, but not my favourite since Pacific Rim. Best possible cast, sense of fun and completely justifies its 3 hour run time. Heavily recommended, masterful piece of cinema. 10/10

Cuban Fury

Romantic comedy in every sense of the word, but with a twist. The competition and the fight between the male characters put into a dance-off is a great way to visualize the competition without violence, making for easily the most intense romantic comedy out there. Nick Frost sells his role and there are a few stand-outs, but mostly the rest of the characters fail to have personalities apart from being plot devices. Still, arguably good time. If you see one romantic comedy this year, let it be this one. 8/10

Lego Movie

I don't know how anybody justified bringing this madness on the screen. Easily the most fun movie of the year and the most mad one too (at least so far), Lego Movie was one I was really looking forward to since it was announced. Great characters and great sense of adventure, without forgetting that the movie is about Lego. WoWS excluded, which can be counted as last year's movie, this is the best movie of the year so far. 9/10

Robocop

We know we are digging from the bottom of the barrel when Robocop is getting a reboot. Lacking any charm of the original, this new movie is just another dumb action movie with no gore, which wouldn't be so degrading if the original one wasn't such a classic. The name is easily the worst thing here. If this was just another movie, I could buy it, but the fact is that Robocop deserved a reboot with passion, not one made just to use an already existing franchise instead of a new one. Also, the movie sucks. In fascinating ways. There are some things which might seem good, until you realize they have already been done better and for cheaper elsewhere. Don't worry, rest of the year. The bar has been set as low as it can get. 1/10

Monuments Men

Why do people hate this movie? It's great! It has great, committing cast, is about a story that needs to be told and really tries to tell its audience something about the importance of art and culture. It's not perfect, but the flaws are few. The pacing in the last act, when it's supposed to get going is bad and the entire structure of the movie suffers from it, but it's not a bad movie by any means. I suggest you support this one, because this one really deserves it. 7/10


Anyway, what movies have you seen? What movies are you looking forward to? Comment below! I will be posting new mini-reviews whenever I see a movie, fear not. Next movie to be seen? "Her." Let's see how this nominee for best picture turns out.

Ironface
02-20-2014, 02:03 PM
I haven't seen too much so far this year, but Robocop, can't tamper with the classics, and The Marked Ones, can't tamper with... don't try to... never go and... just stop making these. No more!

FreeAim
02-21-2014, 12:41 PM
Saw "Her" and "Lone Survivor". Here are my thoughts:


Lone Survivor

When I say a movie is bad, it can either mean that the movie is either bad in an utterly boring way, when nothing just works in the movie or it can be bad in a fascinating way, when it looks like people behind the camera seem like they attempt to look like they give a crap. Here, it isn't as simple though. The movie constantly keeps you guessing whether it'll end up good or bad. However, when the credits roll, you realize that it wasn't on border at all. It was just bad all along. 3/10


Her

Another Oscar best picture nominee. If not great, these ones usually end up being at least pretty good, with few exceptions. Her is a good movie, it unarguably is. The characters are great, the main character is very relatable to many in modern culture and it has its own unique sense of style and its admirable. However, and yes, there is a however here, the movie doesn't feel like it does too much with its premise. It plays it safe to avoid being too strongly impactful in a wrong way, which would be good if I was a person who is afraid of technology like the Academy. Except that I'm not. Still, great time, one of the weaker best picture nominees, but still pretty good. It's on par with Captain Philips in quality, I'd say. 7/10


Other stuff

Godzilla remake? Really looking forward to. Awesome trailer, stunning posters, stellar cast and it really seems like a good film in every way. The director is... Gareth Edwards. Wait, didn't he direct the movie with too-great-to-be-bad premise Monsters? Yeah, the one that sucked. Yeah. Kind of divided here. I will see it, but it can end up being bad. I hope not, though.

Have you seen the cast for the new Fantastic Four (http://variety.com/interstitial/?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fvariety.com%2F2014%2Ffilm%2Fnews %2Fmiles-teller-kate-mara-fantastic-four-1201099921%2F) movie? Michael B. Jordan: awesome. Awesome pick. Young person for the most young-minded of the team. The other ones, though... not a fan. They are just too young. I really hope this will rise above the miscast, but still, I'm lowering my expectations.

Robocop remake sucked. Yeah, still don't know what I expected. However, it seems to be bombing at the box office. Good. Maybe it'll teach Hollywood a thing or two about remakes. Probably not, though.

FreeAim
03-05-2014, 10:18 AM
Holy Michael Bay...

Have I mentioned the new Transformers looks... kind of good? I mean, static camera is one thing but instead of concerning around the sex life of LaBeouf, this one seems to actually be about transformers. Bay did good with Pain & Gain last year, so it's entirely possible this'll be good too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubGpDoyJvmI

Tynz21
03-06-2014, 10:55 AM
Out of the best picture nominees I've seen, Nebraska was my favorite. Gravity was pretty bad, 12 years a slave was pretty good.

FreeAim
03-06-2014, 12:50 PM
I would rank the best picture nominees, from worst to best:

9.) American Hustle - Kind of terrible.
8.) Captain Philips - Very good, but terrible camera-work.
7.) 12 Years a Slave - Very good, but directing feels inexperienced.
6.) Dallas Buyers Club - Awesome performances, but the journey is predictable.
5.) Nebraska - Glorious performances, jack of all trades that is directed very well.
4.) Gravity - Strong spectacle, weak story.
3.) Her - Stunning, sincere love story which gets better over time.
2.) Philomena - Strong emotions, awesome acting and very clever writing.
1.) The Wolf of Wall Street - Master at everything.

Tynz21
03-06-2014, 07:23 PM
I totally forgot captain Phillips. I wasn't a big fan. It was decent, but not great. And Dallas buyers club i loved. I also saw all is lost which was absolutely horrible.

FreeAim
03-12-2014, 12:05 PM
300: Rise of an Empire

I liked the first one, but not as much as others, apparently. It is a great movie that knows exactly what it wants to be, even if what it wants to be is dumbness on a foundation on dumber. Therefore it's kind of odd that the movie is getting a sequel in the first place, but what is odder is that the sequel is actually good. I really liked Rise of an Empire, not as much as original, but I really do like it. The main reason is that the villainess here is not only easily among the best villains of 21st century cinema, but also probably the best female villain in any form of entertainment in any genre since Cruella Devil. That being said, the rest of the movie doesn't really rise as high, so she kind of rules the show a bit too much. 8/10

Tynz21
03-12-2014, 09:48 PM
I'm having a hard time thinking of many actual good villains from this century. Heath ledger's joker and anton chigurh from no country for old men are the first that come to mind. As good as those?

FreeAim
03-12-2014, 09:57 PM
I'm having a hard time thinking of many actual good villains from this century. Heath ledger's joker and anton chigurh from no country for old men are the first that come to mind. As good as those?

ALMOST as good as...

Hades from Disney's Hercules
Joker from the Dark Knight
Syndrome from the Incredibles
Lots'o-Hugging Bear from Toy Story 3
Darth Vader from Star Wars
Gaston from Beauty and the Beast

I am not kidding, this is hands down one of the best villains to ever be in any movie ever and Eva Green does wonders to the role. Even if not technically the best, the movie will almost certainly be among my favourite 10 from the year almost entirely due to her. I really, really hope this will be a breakthrough for her career, as Eva has been in top 3 things in all the movies she has ever been in.

flamingemu
03-14-2014, 09:06 AM
The Grand Budapest Hotel.
personally, this is my favourite film in terms of cinematography ever. The colours of the film are beautiful, as is the cutting together of somewhat over the top gore, brutal prison escape fights and ludicrous chase scenes on a sled. It's quirky too, humour is peppered throughout and the meta-meta-meta-narrative really works. Go watch it. :kz:

FreeAim
03-14-2014, 01:01 PM
The Grand Budapest Hotel.
personally, this is my favourite film in terms of cinematography ever. The colours of the film are beautiful, as is the cutting together of somewhat over the top gore, brutal prison escape fights and ludicrous chase scenes on a sled. It's quirky too, humour is peppered throughout and the meta-meta-meta-narrative really works. Go watch it. :kz:

Yeah, The Grand Budapest Hotel is a blast, but I can't say it'll rank with the best of the year.

SnipySev
03-15-2014, 12:46 PM
Yeah, The Grand Budapest Hotel is a blast, but I can't say it'll rank with the best of the year.

I haven't seen it yet, but judging by the critical reception it's been getting, I think you might be wrong here.

FreeAim
03-15-2014, 05:14 PM
I haven't seen it yet, but judging by the critical reception it's been getting, I think you might be wrong here.

Depending on what kind of critics you've been reading reviews from, I have to say that they might be wrong.

Or at least they don't see half as many movies as I do. For some reason to majority of the reviews I have read are constantly praising the movie for being emotionally impacting. While it certainly is emotional, I have seen way too many movies with higher emotional stakes and so on to feel the impact. That's not a bad thing, it's not why I don't think it's quite as amazing as people are praising it to be, but just because I have to object to their view there means that I don't quite think their perspective of the movie is very well thought out.

To me, the movie feels more like "style-over-substance" kind of movie which I can appreciate in its own right. There are many great movies like that, for example last year's impossibly underrated "The Great Gatsby" was one such. I think this might be a tad bit better than "The Great Gatsby" for the things it doesn't do. Kind funnily, the lack of the thing some critics are claiming there is makes the movie a great experience for me.

It's a movie existing in its own styalised world and is far better at being quirky and witty rather than being impactful or emotional, but that's okay. More than okay, it makes the movie get better over time just for being so darn refreshing.

I still don't think it will break the top 10 of the year, since there are still several good looking movie to look forward to. For now, it has only little competition, but even so it's not better than "The Wolf of Wall Street," it's not better than "The LEGO: Movie" and it is not better than "Her". The movie year hasn't properly began yet, as any recent movie year only really begins after the first proper superhero movie that year and I don't think it can stand up to the competition.

For now, however, it's more than well made comedy with great visual style. If that's what you look for in a movie, good. If you look for heavy emotional meaning, let's just say that it's on par with "Pacific Rim" in that respect (if not a tad too central to the movie's progression) AND IT'S A GOOD THING. I hate doing decimals, so I'll just round up. 9/10

In other news, guess what is my most dreaded superhero movie looming in the horizon (looks like it's set out to be even worse than "Batman Vs. Superman")? The new "Fantastic Four". They production team FIRED the director Josh Trank and the screenwriter. If you have a director like Trank, the person who made the best found footage movie in the history of ever "Chronicle" you do not fire him and the scriptwriter to take on a new pair to work SIX MONTHS before you start filming.

If this film comes out even decent it's a surprise.

Meanwhile the newest material on the other superhero swinging by this year, "Amazing Spider-man 2" is actually looking pretty good. The posters are good, half of the movie is basically out as it's shown in the trailers and clips and the material is good here, though I think the Peter Parker's parents subplot is still the worst thing to ever happen to any version of Spider-man I've seen (even worse than Peter making a deal with THE DEVIL in one comic to rewrite the past decade of the comic book line).

Not getting excited, but at least it won't be all terrible. It's already better than the first one.

flamingemu
03-15-2014, 06:22 PM
I think you're grossly underrating the grand Budapest hotel, and i believe it surpasses the wolf of wall street. This film didn't rely heavily on shock. The wolf of wall street was also unnecessarily long for the sake of indulgent drug scenes, and frankly farcical party sequences; the grand Budapest had enough visual entertainment to be attention-grabbing, and a plot although a little silly, was so self aware in its comedy that it didn't need hard hitting emotional bollocks to be enjoyable. By which i mean obvious ridiculous long speeches like in pacific rim, for me a huge disappointment, subtle emotional substance will always prevail. If youre seeing it as a gatsby-esque visual ******** film youre really only scraping the surface

Is anyone planning on seeing a long way down? the book's fantastic, and it satiates my need for aaron paul, fingers crossed for film being as good as the book (NOT like Gatsby)

(P.s chronicle pales in comparison to the Blair witch project)

JustinArt
03-15-2014, 06:48 PM
The only movie I saw this year so far is "The Lego Movie". It's a great animated film that's filled with amazing visuals, hilarious jokes, awesome voice cast, and a surprising ending. Overall: it's a 9.5/10.

FreeAim
03-15-2014, 07:40 PM
I think you're grossly underrating the grand Budapest hotel, and i believe it surpasses the wolf of wall street. This film didn't rely heavily on shock. The wolf of wall street was also unnecessarily long for the sake of indulgent drug scenes, and frankly farcical party sequences; the grand Budapest had enough visual entertainment to be attention-grabbing, and a plot although a little silly, was so self aware in its comedy that it didn't need hard hitting emotional bollocks to be enjoyable. By which i mean obvious ridiculous long speeches like in pacific rim, for me a huge disappointment, subtle emotional substance will always prevail. If youre seeing it as a gatsby-esque visual ******** film youre really only scraping the surface

Is anyone planning on seeing a long way down? the book's fantastic, and it satiates my need for aaron paul, fingers crossed for film being as good as the book (NOT like Gatsby)

(P.s chronicle pales in comparison to the Blair witch project)
I think "Blair Witch Project" is the manifestation of EVERYTHING wrong with found-footage movies, as it is worse than any other found footage movie there is (even Paranormal Activities) and among the worst debacles of movies ever made by shear principle, but that is a debate for hopefully another time.

As I said before, the movie is not bad, not on one level or another. However, the reason I think "Wolf of Wall Street" is not only superior movie as it's easily one of the best movies of 21st century, but also the one which passes more as a landmark than just another movie is exactly the addition of drug-scenes, sex-scenes and any unnecessities like them. While I think "The Grand Budapest Hotel" is awesome, it lacks this sort of connective tissue that ties the stuff going on together in a way that makes the film richer as a result.

Would "Wolf of Wall Street" be better without these scenes? No. It would probably end up being "Iron Man" level would-be-average movie which surpassed the fact it's average with its main lead's starpower alone, but instead it makes for an amazing movie simply because it takes time to show what kind of life its manic main character lives. Would "Lord of the Rings" movies be better without partying at shire, the landscape shots of New Zealand and the small character moments such as Boromir picking up the One Ring at the mountains? Well, they'd still be awesome but they wouldn't pass as classics.

The flaw of "The Grand Budapest Hotel" is exactly not having these moments that make the movie feel richer as a result. It doesn't have the connective tissue that isn't necessary but makes the movie better as a result. It doesn't leave a long lasting impression. It doesn't have the teeth that make a great movie into an amazing movie.

I AM NOT TRYING TO BRING "The Grand Budapest Hotel" down a peg here. The movie is awesome and it's easily the best fully committed comedy in theaters since "The World's End". I am not claiming not to see the emotional intentions of the film, but seeing them as something to be remembered over the rest of the movie is exactly what you claim I'm doing here: only scratching the surface. The movie is gold at what it does, but it could've been even better.

I absolutely understand you not thinking the same way. That is fair, you may like the movie better than I do for different reasons than I do, but for the love of God understand that it's all about opinions. There is no incorrect way to review, hate or appreciate any film. In fact, thinking that one opinion is lesser than another is not straight-up wrong, but it's something which drops my respect for a person to a bare minimum. I hope you are not that person.

PS: Also, as you mentioned in a passing remark, "The Great Gatsby" book was indeed better than the movie even in my opinion. The reason the movie didn't make my top 10 of that year could've been fixed had the director understood the source material better and had he implemented the underlying themes of the book into the movie. The film is still great and hugely underappreciated, though.

PSS: Where is the F4F on my level? I reviewed "Dave" like a month ago and when I did it was F4F.

flamingemu
03-15-2014, 08:14 PM
I absolutely understand you not thinking the same way. That is fair, you may like the movie better than I do for different reasons than I do, but for the love of God understand that it's all about opinions. There is no incorrect way to review, hate or appreciate any film. In fact, thinking that one opinion is lesser than another is not straight-up wrong, but it's something which drops my respect for a person to a bare minimum. I hope you are not that person.

PSS: Where is the F4F on my level? I reviewed "Dave" like a month ago and when I did it was F4F.

I wasn't saying your opinion was wrong, it just panders to a different film taste than me, and I still disagree entirely that Budapest lacked the 'teeth' to be a good film. It was absence of these 'teeth', which made it one of my favourite films of all time. Alas, I feel we shall just agree to disagree on this film.

I reaaaallllly dislike the Great Gatsby, as it seems to be targeted at people who don't understand symbolism so everything has to be literal, and also Gatsby almost admitting his bootlegging nature ruins him as a character, and thus the plot, and thus the film yadda yadda yadda.

PSS: I will get around to it at some point, doing hella exam work at the moment. Thanks for reminding me though >.>

butter-kicker
03-15-2014, 08:38 PM
Wolf of Wall Street only had one problem for me. I kept comparing it to Catch me if you can. I know the two films are fairly different but this film seemed over-familiar for me. I'd still say it's the best film of the year so far but it lost a bit of it's charm for me at least.

94% out of 100

SnipySev
03-16-2014, 01:02 AM
I'm not gonna argue further on Grand Budapest because I lack information. Although I could argue that a movie doesn't need to be in the top ten to be one of the best in the year. A lot of movies come out in a year.

On the other hand...


For now, however, it's more than well made comedy with great visual style. If that's what you look for in a movie, good. If you look for heavy emotional meaning, let's just say that it's on par with "Pacific Rim"

Wut? I loved that movie, but anything that didn't revolve around big mechs punching monsters was pretty bad. The actors and the writers of The Grand Budapest Hotel would really have to phone it in for both movies to be at the same level. And considering the repertoire of Wes Anderson and TGBH's cast, that possibility doesn't seem very likely.

Smudge228
03-17-2014, 06:41 PM
nah, I think the thing with budahpest is pretty much the same as it is with all andersons works in that no-one can deny it's a well made and great movie but it takes a certain type of person to really get it, and fall in love. luckily for me I am exactly that kind of person so yeah, I'd say I'm on the side of it being better than any films I've seen since... well actually probably moonrise kingdom by the same team (watched it on DVD a year or so ago, not in the cinema mind) and that includes wolf of wall street. what I might suggest is that budahpest really doesn't need an equivalent to those 'drug scenes' or 'sweeping new Zealand shots' as it makes no attempt to be an epic or classic style film, and so trying to compare it objectively to them is pretty much futile since it will always come down to a matter of opinion.

xxMATEOSxx
03-17-2014, 06:54 PM
Gonna throw something completely different into the mix and say Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues.

No, it is not anywhere near a best movie list, but I just wanted to throw a bit of credit at it. I saw the original one last year, and for something that was obviously a quick cash grab of a re-release, I'm glad this version had at least a facade of difference, even if the movie proper was the same. Some jokes were replaced completely, some characters were changed some (in some cases I was not happy with that, but still, it's something). So yeah.

Liked the original Anchorman 2 better. Liked the first Anchorman a heck of a lot more. But this one was fine for what it was.

FreeAim
03-18-2014, 12:16 PM
Wut? I loved that movie, but anything that didn't revolve around big mechs punching monsters was pretty bad. The actors and the writers of The Grand Budapest Hotel would really have to phone it in for both movies to be at the same level. And considering the repertoire of Wes Anderson and TGBH's cast, that possibility doesn't seem very likely.
It was a reference to the fact that "The Grand Budapest Hotel" isn't exactly an emotionally impactful movie as some critics seem to blame for no reason whatsoever. I'd say that if one loves the movie they should love it for what it is, not for something it isn't. The movie is a brilliantly visualized comedy which really knows what it is, even if it means being a bit cartoony at times, though there is nothing wrong with that.

I saw "Need For Speed" by the way.

The stunts were all great and the cars looked real (and they apparently, quite often were) but the movie tries to sell itself as a story rather than a movie about cars, fast cars and even faster cars, which it is. Kind of the exact opposite of "The Grand Budapest Hotel" in that sense. Do you like cars? Do you like cars that go fast? Boy, do I have a movie for yo-- nah, just kidding. The movie is a drag with bad acting all around and a terrible male lead giving a dead performance (I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING, BUT EVEN SO), boring narrative and essentially it's too "good" in theory to be any good. Good as in it's not so terrible it gains some kind of transcendence to another level. The movie is ridiculous, but it plays too straightforwardly for anyone to enjoy the absurdness even by a car-accident. There may have been a need for speed, but nobody had need for this. 3/10

FreeAim
03-23-2014, 12:13 AM
Muppets: Most Wanted

I like the Muppets. I have seen their movies and I have thought that Muppets are fun. Not amazing, they are not something that made me me, but they are something I have liked always. This movie is a sequel to the previous one, which was an awesome movie and this movie follows that well enough. While the previous one was a big, monumental thing in the history of Muppets, this seems to try to be "just another" Muppets movie. Then again, there are other Muppet movies that are "just another" Muppet movies, so why not simply watch them? Still, if you like Muppets then I don't think you have any reason to miss this. The movie is made with love for the Muppets and is lighthearted, pure fun. Muppets style. 8/10

Also, I watched "The Grand Budapest Hotel" a second time and I can now see two things. Firstly, I criticized something in the movie unjustly. Secondly, I have something new to moan about it and I sort of feel like I gave it too much credit in the first place. Please know that while it may be unprofessional, as a critic, it's much harder to find things to not like in a movie rather than to find stuff to like. Therefore I rather second guess stuff I like rather than stuff I don't like.

This is not still a bad movie, but it's just not as good as most of the other stuff. It's not as good as the director's masterwork "Fantastic Mister Fox", it's not the best comedy of the year, it's certainly not the best drama of the year and it's not the best movie of the year. This movie mostly suffers from to aspects that really tear away from it on repeated viewings.

Firstly, there are moments in the movie when the pacing screeches into an absurd and obsolete halt with no real reason than to build up to something, which won't be worth it later. At these moments I feel just so uninvolved and uninterested that when it leads into the supposedly dramatic third act, I feel nothing.

Secondly, the supposedly dramatic moments are much more obvious on second viewing and they just don't work. They follow from uninterestment into vanity. I am not involved in the movie, so how am I supposed to be suddenly involved when the supposedly emotional part kicks in? Also, it's kind of difficult to care for the characters when the movie doesn't even attempt to portray them as believable human beings. These are mostly flaws related to the moments in the film that don't happen in the thirties. What happens then is the best the movie has to offer and it's reaaaal good.

The movie also feels too long, being such a hecticly manic movie, that it just can't hope to keep the momentum up the whole way.

I would actually lower my score from the 9/10 to 7/10 because of these flaws. It is a movie with unique style and fantastic comedy, but what doesn't work in it is disfigured and abominated in such a way that it really keeps bothering me.

LittleBigSnooth
03-23-2014, 08:25 PM
Saw the new 300 film last night and thought it was actually really good :) Sometimes it's nice to see some good ol' slow mo sword fighting :)

Best film of the year for me so far though has to be The Wolf Of Wall Street :)

flamingemu
03-24-2014, 04:26 PM
I would actually lower my score from the 9/10 to 7/10 because of these flaws.

Pls.

On an unrelated note, saw Beneath the skin with Johansson in it.
Do not. It's terrifying, gratuitous in nudity and frankly a little dull. It's also completely unnerving throughout its entirety; so whilst technically, it's a very good film, it's just not enjoyable.

FreeAim
03-24-2014, 06:33 PM
Reviewing for a young people's magazine I need to go through movies I don't want to see at all. Movies that are terrible and EVERYBODY knows it. You know, instead of movies like "The Grand Budapest Hotel" or "LEGO: Movie", I NEED to sit through debacles like "Under the Skin" (yeah, you probably won't enjoy it) and "Divergent", both of which are unarguably bad but also boring, since neither of them even bothered to get my expectations above subterranean.

Under the Skin

Surprisingly the more boring out of these two, but by no means is this the worse. This movie defines the word pretentious art, which didn't get ready early enough for the Oscar season so they just pushed it back to the next year hoping to get some audiences who like the smell of their own farts to go and see this monstrosity. It has interesting ideas on a technical level, but the lack of skill or courage to try to even make them work just show how little faith these people had in their own movie. By no means go see this. It is complete waste of time and space.
3/10

Divergent

Trying to hate the previous movie more is pretty hard when its competition is like this. We all know how these movies play out and there is no kidding ourselves. It really is just another cash-in in the world of Twilight movies, Hunger Games movies and any other crappy movie-licenses fed to the youth especially nowadays. Except this one doesn't even try to be anything beyond small ego-boosting for its audience. Let me put it into a nutshell for you:

MOVIE: "Have you ever felt like you didn't fit exactly into the adult world's expectations of you and that society was just so much crushing conformity and phoniness that you can totally see right through and want no part of? Because if so, that means you're actually The Chosen One!"

AUDIENCE: "Why, yes! Because what you just described is called being a teenager - OMG! This story... is about meeeeeeeee and how my self-centered, hormone-driven sense of angst and isolation is actually what makes me The Most Specialest Person Ever!!!!!"

1/10


Now, I got payed to see those movies and if I didn't I'd probably ask for my money back. Don't support either of these two. They are completely insignificant and you should probably spend your money on something else. As much as I am dreading for Mockingjay part 1, at least the world the previous movies have tried to build up is somewhat relevant to some people. Neither of these is relevant to anyone and they are not even slightly entertaining. They are complete slugs of bad movies and terrible in most rights, though there are couple of things to admire in the one with Black Widow.

Speaking of Black Widow, I am seeing "Captain America: ...thereturnofthefirstavenger" this weekend. Week before America gets it.

Huh.

I honestly don't see the logic here... help, anyone?

amoney1999
03-25-2014, 08:54 PM
Iron Man 3 was also released in Europe and I think Austrailia before the US, so maybe Marvel has a thing of releasing movies in other countries before the US?

FreeAim
03-27-2014, 07:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZm6LahB3uM

I am rationally angry at this. It looks just like "Amazing Spider-man" did and that movie suuuuucked.

My expectations are not just low, they are at rock-bottom.

However, then there is this trailer, which looks much more interesting and ambitious than anything by Michael Bay (I know, he's just producing this, but still). I don't know if this is based on a novel or something and I really don't care. To me, it looks like a space-opera blockbuster with awesome action (as I can actually tell what's going on), great cast and visual effects that are OUT OF THIS WORLD.

I also very much like the cinematography. Yeah, looking forward to JUPITER ASCENDING.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgkD3_0qCA8

Seriously, this looks like some kind of combination of style from Thor, Star Wars and Disney Princess movies. How could I not look forward to this?

FreeAim
04-04-2014, 09:55 PM
Okay, let's talk artistic license.

About a year ago, a movie came out which took huge artistic license from its source material plot-wise. The reaction to this was generally... pretty negative.

About 17 months ago, a movie came out which showed true love to its source material, changed a few things but kept the tone same, but also added great deal of content to a pretty down-to-basics story. The reaction to this from the audience was... mixed, to say the least, though majority seemed to really lean on at least a little negative side. Sequel to the movie came out about 5 months ago and then the borders between those on board with these changes and those who hate them were made crystal-clear.

Currently, I live in the aftermath of seeing Noah, a stunning psychological biblical horror fantasy drama epic which doesn't only stand among the best movies of the year, but also one of the best movies (if not the best) made from its source-material ever. What does it do? It takes more artistic license than any of the previous movies, it adds so much material into what was originally three pages worth of material and makes it over two hours long and so far... people seem to really love it.

Of course, biblical literalists were not satisfied with the end result, but that's the case whenever somebody takes artistic license over Bible to make the best movie possible. However, the critical response as well as audience reaction to the movie have been pretty stellar so far, despite the fact that it took more artistic license in every way than The Hobbit movies or Iron Man 3 did, whereas those movies are criticised solely by those who do not like the fact they took artistic license in the first place. Also, they seem to come from a place where that is the only thing that matters. But... why do those same people not hate Noah?

The reason is probably that they either think making a movie about a biblical story without even a mention of God (as that character is referred to as "The Creator") is a victory for non-religious viewer-base, or they just don't care about the source material enough to care about changes. That is fair, but it doesn't change the fact it's double standards. If your only criticism about a movie is that it doesn't follow source material word to word, page to page, then you have to imply that, even if you don't care about the material in question. That is like sitting through two near-identical movies you supposedly hate because they have one same actor in them, but you hate only one instead of the other one, for no particular reason.

I am not telling anyone whether or not they are allowed to hate movies for not following source material or not, even though I find that absolutely moronic excuse to dislike a movie, but if you do, then at least imply it to every case. This doesn't mean that if you don't like the love triangle in Hobbit 2 that you must hate Noah, only because the love triangle is added material, this means that if your only criticism that makes any coherent sense either is or means "it takes artistic license", it is a criticism you must imply at other times too.

If you don't, you are basically implying that your other statement was a lie, which would mean that your entire opinions on any of the movies in question would be permanently marked as "invalid".

But yeah, anyway. Noah is a one-of-a-kind spectacle which offers everything that is best in movie-making in general and may be one of Russel Crowe's best movies to date. It is much more intriguing movie than any I have seen this year so far, it has interesting characters and it has a genuine sense of visual story-telling, but it doesn't fear to dive into dark themes about human psychology, especially on the matter of communicating with beings whose entire existence may be out of one's comprehension. It is kind of nuts and kind of weird hybrid of a movie, but it's also infinitely wonderful and thought-provoking.

10/10 for Noah, for sure, though I do think that some of the animals on board of the ship should've been more on display, especially since the CGI was so high-tech and well visualized.

FreeAim
04-10-2014, 08:54 PM
Guys... go see The Double, the new Jesse Eisenberg movie that came out this month.

It's kind of amazing. It has great acting, no, amazing acting, let's be clear here. It has a fascinating philosophical viewpoint of depression and identity and really gets some genuine emotions across for its main character. The movie has one of the smartest screenplays this year so far and even delves in insidiously gritty but absolutely hilarious dark comedy at times. The Double is an amazing movie and one of this year's best ones so far.

9/10

comishguy67
04-12-2014, 11:05 PM
Just saw Oculus yesterday.

I have mixed feelings on it.

FreeAim
04-13-2014, 04:52 PM
The Oculus... was certainly better than I expected. I mean, I knew it was going to at least have redeeming qualities, as I was familiar with the main cast, but I wasn't expecting it to be actually like very good. It's certainly a bold movie but it's not pretentiously so. It doesn't tease and then pull the rug under the audience, but it teases and keeps teasing after the movie is over. While it may not actually be absolutely terrifying, there are a few moments when the movie gets genuinely scary. I won't spoil anything, but in case you are interested, do NOT watch any trailers. Here's the main reasons you should see the movie:

-Karen Gillan
-Brenton Thwaites
-Great surprising scary parts
-Unquestioned intrigue
-Solid script

There are a few weaker aspects, such as the movie itself being maybe 10 minutes too long. Also, considering the main conflict there are few parts in the movie which indicate directly into one outcome, but never qualify it as the certain thing, which can get frustrating. Still, great horror movie, far better than I expected and you should definitely see it.

8/10


...Another good movie? Raid 2 came out and holy my, have you seen it? Check out the trailer for it and then continue. Yeah, it's THAT good. Not commenting on the original movie since I actually find it a little overrated, but this movie is genuinely great. As a standalone action movie this would stand as the best of the year so far, as the action is gory, tactile, fast, fun and clear. There are also several things which are just so cool I wish I could talk about them, but that might spoil the fun. The only actual flaws are with the plot, as it seems to work as a way to generate big set action-scenes and not the other way around. Also, considering it works as a sort of a crime-thriller in style, everyone in the movie has secrets and it can get really confusing at times, though you will not be left without a clue at the end.

Great stuff.

9/10


Great movies this month so far. I can't wait until the next one... oh, wait...

http://lestoilesheroiques.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bouffon-vert-green-goblin-spiderman.jpg

Yeaaaah... not exactly anticipating this one.

flamingemu
04-14-2014, 09:28 AM
The Raid (the first one) was incredible; second one was trying and failing to carry off the originality of the first for pointless gratuitous violence. Lame.

FreeAim
04-14-2014, 12:48 PM
The Raid (the first one) was incredible; second one was trying and failing to carry off the originality of the first for pointless gratuitous violence. Lame.

Actually, I find the original Raid to be many things, but not original. I mean, it's a video game plot, but even so Dredd came out the same year with almost entirely identical premise, only doing everything better with memorable characters, stellar action and fascinating subtext. The only real good things in the original Raid were the well made action scenes and even then they were only well made instead of being innovative. It's a decent Hong Kong Kung Fu/gunfight action flick, but it failed to leave an impact on me on any level. I'd say the second one gets most of those wrongs right.

FreeAim
04-16-2014, 05:03 PM
Just to leave these here:

Rio 2 kind of sucks. Nothing interesting happens, the constantly annoying characters have not changed since the previous movie, the animation qualities are B-class, the plot is a mess and unengaging... but then again, you didn't really need me to tell you it's not good. There are a few fun moments, the musicals are pretty nice and there are few moments of wit which have the tendency to make the movie feel kind of redeemable, but the movie still fails to deliver worth the money put into the ticket.

4/10


Mr. Peabody & Sherman is a lazy excuse for animated movie. In fact, I think I may personally dislike it more than Rio 2. Yes, the character dynamic between the dog and the boy are fun and the animations quality is good. There are few fun moments and the movie isn't straight-out bad, it's simply underwhelming. It feels like the movie repeats itself a few times and suddenly the main conflict is solved. The side characters are annoying and the plot doesn't work. The reason I don't like this movie, though, is that it represents the annoying thing Hollywood keeps doing, which is using any existing franchise before using a new one. Let's hope for a change there.

5/10

PS: I actually saw these movies a little earlier and wrote these reviews, but didn't leave them here when I meant to. Stuff happens.

FreeAim
04-18-2014, 06:11 PM
Getting to see The Amazing Spider-man 2 a week before its initial release in Finland would be nice... if the film in question wasn't The Amazing Spider-man 2.

To sum up why this movie doesn't work would be trying to describe why neither Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen nor The Son of God work as movies. It's just as bad movie-wise as Tranformers 2 was and it simply doesn't work as a movie like The Son of God. The entire movie is just a barrel on unrelated narrative plot-threads that fail to be either interesting or engaging and the movie is literally just set-up for the eventual Sinister Six and Amazing Spider-man 3 films.

The movie itself is so bad it makes movies like Spider-man 3 and Man of Steel look like classics. I'm not kidding. Save the action scenes (out of which EVERY SINGLE ONE was in at least one of the trailers) the movie is just as tasteless and colourless mess as the first one was.

The characters are all written so poorly and every character misses the point of its comic-book counterpart. I don't even need to tag spoilers here because you already know it: there is no build-up for the Goblin! The character simply jumps into the movie to say: "Hey, I'm a semi-ordinary genius and now I'm Captain Planet-villain! Feel sad for me!" Say what you will about Spider-man 3, at least there the villains were worked into a single narrative somewhat coherently.

This movie is so bad it makes me sad to sit through it, as if it wasn't bad enough that it carries every reason I hate this reboot for from the original film, but it also manages to come up with a bunch of own original reasons that make the movie even worse. I don't see how any, even the fans of the original one could ever see this piece of unforgivable crap as a good movie.

The characters are non-entities with only definable trait anyone has being that nobody changes as a character throughout the movie (not even the Green Goblin, whose entire character is based on change from good to evil), the action while visually engaging doesn't work in 3D nor is there enough of it to distract from the abominable mess that is the rest of the movie, the plot lacks momentum, concentration and coherence, the chemistry between the actors is all over the place and most importantly, the movie still doesn't get Spider-man.

If there is one thing to make me consciously optimistic for the future of this franchise, it's that the director chosen for the Sinister Six movie has a pretty great track-record. Still, there is no denying that this movie is an absolute piece of crap and nobody should be demanded to sit through it.

Come on now! We haven't even started with the summer-movie season and already we have not one, not two, not even three but FOUR contestants for some of the worst movies made in the past decade.

God dang it.

1/10

Brutal
04-19-2014, 05:25 AM
yay 35 year old actor playing spiderman , yep thats a teenager alright i love how holywood did 2 sets of spiderman movies , its just so un needed

FreeAim
04-19-2014, 07:22 AM
yay 35 year old actor playing spiderman , yep thats a teenager alright i love how holywood did 2 sets of spiderman movies , its just so un needed

Trust me, Andrew Garfield is the least of the film's problems... but it's a problem nonetheless.

Let's untangle this a bit, okay? When I say every character misses the point the original ones were trying to make, I mean EVERYONE. Spider-man/Peter Parker is an unlikable prick, Gwen Stacy barely even resembles any of the qualities which made the original character work because she is given no definable qualities in the first place, the horrible mishandling of Electro with a brand new origin story to fit the film's small and intimate universe, the Rhino is seriously in the movie for two minutes, Harry Osborn is given no time or space to grow and breathe and is pretty much a bad guy from the start and Aunt May serves mostly for plot details concerning Peter's birth-parents, which NOBODY cares about or can relate to and is probably the least interesting thing in the mess of a movie.

This movie is fascinatingly terrible, but anyone who can not fangasm at the thought of "Nolanizing" Spider-man could already tell from the first movie, that the creative team doesn't care about Spider-man. I am not hating this movie just to have been right about it sucking from the first trailer, I don't want to was time seeing bad movies, especially if it's Spider-man... but this might actually be the worst comic book movie ever made.

Yeah, Catwoman, Steel, Green Lantern and the 90's Captain America are things that exist, but if the movie isn't worse than those, it's just as bad.

Anyway, let's see what kind of movies we've been getting this year so far!


Top 5 movies of the year so far (note, that these opinions may change over the course of time):

5.) Raid 2
4.) The Double
3.) Captain America: The Return of the First Avenger
2.) Lego: Movie
1.) Noah


Bottom 5 movies of the year so far:

5.) Need For Speed
4.) Divergent
3.) Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones
2.) Robocop
1.) The Amazing Spider-man 2

Brutal
04-19-2014, 03:49 PM
yeah all those found footage horror films are so gimicy and unscary. and we did not need another robocop lol

FreeAim
04-23-2014, 07:47 AM
Transcendence is the kind of movie which is so freaking dumb but yet so ignorant about its dumbness that it isn't even funny. It's not a terrible movie, but it's boring, blatant and stupid. The second act drags on until the last 15 minutes of the movie, while uninteresting yet well acted characters give speeches about how technology is scary and how Thomas Edison was a witch. Whereas sci-fi movies which criticize progress of technology and culture can work and have worked before (Robocop (the original), for example), this movie approaches its subject matter with arrogance and just enough intellect to become kind of fascinating in a way. At the end of the movie the viewer will be just asking how can someone be so stupid that they thought this screenplay was good.

Now, performances are all solid, but the characters are unlikable and just as stupid as the script. The visuals, while unimaginative are well detailed, especially the make-up on several occasions. Not the worst movie of the year, probably won't end up being on the worst of the year list, but overall just disappointing. In case you couldn't tell, the movie is also stupid.

3/10

FreeAim
04-23-2014, 07:21 PM
I recently wrote article about one of my favourite movies of all time, Pacific Rim, but sadly it didn't fit the "What's new" criteria of the young people's magazine I write for, so I decided to share it with internet buddies over Tumblr, LBPC and other nice places. Here's the English translation so you don't need to use the godawful Google Translate:

In 2013 there were several movies which had a lot to prove. Most notably these were “Iron Man 3,” “Man of Steel” and “Pacific Rim.” Whereas “Iron Man 3” had to justify its own existence in the aftermath of the global smash hit “The Avengers“(2012) and “Man of Steel” had to show that WB is a force to be reckoned with in terms of comic book movies (which it didn’t accomplish), it’s the often overlooked “Pacific Rim” which really surprised the audiences with just how good it ended up being.

Contrary to the popular belief, “Pacific Rim” isn’t an adaptation of any form. It’s completely original material and while big monsters and big robots have been done before and have been done well, “Pacific Rim” showed just how good those kinds of movies could really be. The movie itself was masterfully crafted with detail crammed into every frame. The deceptively simple movie’s greatest strength is easily its masterful creator, Guillermo Del Toro, who created the world and scenario of “Pacific Rim” from ground up and filled it with interesting, three dimensional characters and subplots that are as packed to the gills with detail that flesh out the background.

The movie was a masterpiece in every sense of the word, but it truly all came together in big action set-piece battles between the said robots and the monsters. While the action is easily “Rim’s” greatest strength, it’s not its only strength, not by a long shot. It trusts its characters to establish and form themselves to the audience through their actions rather than exposition while making every character memorable.

While doing all this, “Pacific Rim” could’ve still ended up being a failure if it didn’t forget its heart. While every piece of detail is masterfully crafted in the movie, it’s the movie’s own simplicity which makes it all work wonderfully well together, but sadly it also undermines the movie in the eyes of those who do not wish to dig deeper than the surface of the glamour itself.

Main reason I still talk about “Pacific Rim” is its near futuristic originality but this isn’t because the movie takes place in the near future. While completely original, the movie also trusts itself to be strong enough in front of everyone who sees it and it’s easily one of the most confident films ever made. Ever since movie culture evolved into its current form, but especially in the 21st century it has become a trend to bring down the colour and imagination in movies to create more darker and realistic settings for the said movies. “Pacific Rim” doesn’t fall for this trap, but it is exactly what it wants to be, even if that may leave it underappreciated… for now.

In 20 years time, when we are looking back at the movies released during this time period, I am nearly certain that then is when “Pacific Rim” truly shines, for it is a movie which feels like a visitor from that time; Time when people don’t go to movies to be grounded in dark and gritty realism, but instead aim for child-like wonderment. “Rim” is a movie of that emerging global future and in addition to that, it’s also just a really good movie altogether.


Now, the actual article may have been a bit longer than this, but that's because I also wrote a brief review of the movie and went over what happened in it. Also, it was written in Finnish, so that might also have something to do with it.

L-I-M-I
04-27-2014, 03:45 PM
Watched "The Grand Budapest Hotel" last night
and if I gave it a score it would be an easy 9.5/10.

The cast was perfect, the script was awesome, The scenary, music, and camera work was magic.

All 100 minutes keep you engaged.

This is definetly my #1 movie for 2014.

FreeAim
04-27-2014, 04:48 PM
It took quite a long time for Non-stop to make it to this corner of the world, but here it is and it's quite awesome. It's just as cool of an action movie as the premise is: Liam Neeson trapped in skies with one person dying every now and then until Liam Neeson finds the bad guy. Then again, that's all there is to the movie. The action is good and the atmosphere is convincing, but nothing really feels fleshed out. I didn't care for anyone else but Liam Neeson (I know, the character had a name, but let's face it... he's Liam Neeson), even though the movie tried to take the easy way out by adding traits that make characters supposedly sympathetic. As in, people on the plane were either handicapped, children or otherwise "aww-worthy" in some other way. It didn't work for me. Sorry. Still, pretty good action movie.

7/10

Ali_Star
04-28-2014, 07:20 PM
You watch a lot of films!

FreeAim
04-28-2014, 08:15 PM
You watch a lot of films!

50% of them are free for me, the others I watch because what else am I supposed to spend my money on?

However, I am not going to see The Other Woman. No. I have no intention, no wish or desire to see that film. Not. One. Bit. From what I can tell, it's absolutely terrible, unfunny and lacks any and all heart apart from that melodrama you get from films like these in the first place. I don't like the actresses involved, the director or the writer, I don't have any reason to see this since it wouldn't even be free for me, so NO. I am not seeing this. Never. Never ever, hopefully.

FreeAim
04-29-2014, 01:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As5Ye3DrIvU

Well... if you don't want spoilers, don't watch this one. Because there is one. A big one.

One might say A VERY BIG ONE.

Meanwhile, I don't seem to be alone in my hate for TASM2. Good. Moviebob from the Escapist Magazine has made quite a few Twitter entries about it. Ones that especially hit home for me about how terrible that movie is are these:

"I just watched a 2 1/2 hour trailer for Sony's next 4 years of projects and Ive NEVER so desperately wanted to be anything but a film critic"

"If AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 were to be a complete and total boxoffice failure (which it won't be) literally *nothing* bad would come of it."

"And preemptively *bleep* that *bleep* noise that me or any critic "wanted" to hate this movie. Have YOU ever "wanted" a *bleep* day at work?"

And, perhaps my favourite...

"BATMAN & ROBIN is far and away a better movie-watching experience than this."

FreeAim
05-10-2014, 05:35 PM
Okay, so if you're wondering, I'm still doing these. I just haven't seen much anything because, well, first two weeks of a month are generally really quiet.

Frank is an exceptionally amazing comedy with all-around brilliant cast, stellar screenplay and pretty dang brilliant directing. The movie itself suffers from surprisingly little amount of actual flaws, as it never feels like the movie is holding back from being brilliant. The movie is brave and doesn't make any wrong turns. The end result is just a really great movie that will certainly end up being on the top of the year list, but also will probably end up being among the best comedies of this decade. Heartfelt and really just brilliant all around.

10/10

FreeAim
05-12-2014, 05:56 PM
Neighbours is the surprising movie of either comedy or horror genre that comes out once a year. It looks good from the trailers, but once you see the movie it's just better than expected, mostly because in addition to just being good at what it aims to do, the movie also decides to be very smart. Last year it was You're Next, this year... well, this one. The story sounds like something out of an above average sitcom, but when the real movie gets going it just blows away the audience, mostly because the movie is rated R. The comedy is good just as it is, but if you get some of the references or most of them, then you will be laughing most of the time in the theatre. It also takes an interesting turn at one point that reflects upon the actions of the main characters, but telling more about it could possibly ruin the experience, at least partially.

9/10

Greensmurfy
05-13-2014, 02:01 AM
I haven't watched too many movies this year. The only one I saw at theaters was Lego: The Movie because of all the hype. While there were definitely some funny moments, I thought it was a pretty average film. Not something that really kept my attention and I wished I was doing something else.

I did see Pacific Rim on tv. I don't know if that was released this year, but Pacific Rim was so much better. Maybe it's unfair to compare these two movies, but these are the only the two movies I think I've seen this year. Everything was huge in scale and the battles were incredible. I also enjoyed all of the characters. My two cents from a person that doesn't watch too many movies :)

FreeAim
05-13-2014, 09:50 AM
I did see Pacific Rim on tv. I don't know if that was released this year, but Pacific Rim was so much better. Maybe it's unfair to compare these two movies, but these are the only the two movies I think I've seen this year. Everything was huge in scale and the battles were incredible. I also enjoyed all of the characters. My two cents from a person that doesn't watch too many movies :)
"Pacific Rim" was last year. That movie is platinum. The best movie of last year, at least from a viewpoint of someone who adores originality in movies and is sick and tired of movies based on existing franchises that think pandering around with no imagination or creativity is an easy way to make a good movie.

I mean, if it wasn't for the fact that some movies dared to be original and dared to derail from the source material (or go without any) to make the story better, I probably wouldn't like those movies as much as I do. I mean, whether or not the quality of those movies is gold, it's at least always pretty good. Movies like "The Hobbit"-movies, "Pacific Rim", "Iron Man 3", "Frank", "Wolf of Wall Street" and many others are already at least really good, but they are also made a lot better by the fact that they dared to be original (even if they were adaptations of books, comics or real world events). I doubt anyone has ever watched a movie and thought:

"Yeah, this is good... but I'd like it more if it took fewer chances."

And aren't we getting some originality this year too! "Million Ways to Die in the West", "Jersey Boys", "Jupiter Ascending" and "Guardians of the Galaxy" are all bound to be unique and most likely very good on the movie landscape this year, not to mention about the late-year participants that come, well, later this year.

That's my two cents.

FreeAim
05-15-2014, 07:04 PM
I have to say, Godzilla looked, felt and sounded just about perfect. The cinematography was gorgeous and the detailed visual effects and amazing sound design are really turned to 11 during the big action scenes. If it wasn't for Pacific Rim, these action scenes would be undoubtedly the best of their kind in cinema history. Godzilla itself is a beautiful design and a great visualization of what could've easily looked ridiculous in a modern movie. Music too is very awesome and the entire movie is absolutely perfect... for about 30% of the movie. The issue is, however, that while the movie, the plot and the story is about Godzilla and possible other big monsters, when Godzilla isn't on screen, you really ache for him to stomp in. This wouldn't itself be bad, if it wasn't for the fact that we've already seen this done well in other movies, such as the masterful Jaws. I know, it's an unfair comparison. Jaws is a timeless masterpiece and while I don't think Godzilla is anywhere near its level, and I doubt that Godzilla will stomp on the best of the year lists at the end of the year, Godzilla is just a really good movie.

Even when Godzilla isn't there the actors and the script compliment Godzilla and its history. If you want to see a great Godzilla-movie made in modern times, it can't get much better. If you wanted this to be a great movie cutting out the nostalgic stuff and concentrating on being just amazing, well, you may be a bit underwhelmed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T65rW_SIzg0

People who say Godzilla is too little in the movie are not directly wrong, but saying he's in it for less than 20 minutes (at least) is a *bleep* lie. Besides, if you watched the latest trailers you know there are other monsters here too, so you get enough big monster action, even though there could've been more. Besides, when Godzilla is there it's BLOODY AMAZING. No kidding. No, it's not Pacific Rim, but unlike that (awesome) movie, this movie tries to show the world in the aftermath of Godzilla, rather than being an action movie starring a big lizard.

In a sense, more Godzilla could've been here. I think the movie would be generally stronger if there was more Godzilla here. You might say that anything less than 40 minutes of Godzilla in a Godzilla-movie is a crime and you are entitled to say so. Even though I am not directly bothered by the lack of big pay-off to what has been build up to for months now, the movie would've been generally better otherwise.

The human characters are interesting and realistic. Everything is realistic. While I am not a big fan or dark realism in movies as a whole and while I still really want a Godzilla-movie with big and awesome amounts of big and awesome Godzilla, this movie works as a movie not supposed to do that. The thing is that things that are good in the movie are simple and easily explained, while the things that are bad in the movie are either really complex or things not in the movie to begin with. Still, I really did like this one. But I sort of wanted to love this.

8/10

PS: If you even think about drawing a comparison to the other Godzilla movie... then I am no longer your friend.

amoney1999
05-15-2014, 10:34 PM
The new Godzilla film looks cool, but it would be even cooler if it had this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuEa6Hum0b4
Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrhe9KO8Z1Y
Or maybe even this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E284IfUyssc

Ali_Star
05-16-2014, 08:29 AM
PS: If you even think about drawing a comparison to the other Godzilla movie... then I am no longer your friend.

I actually enjoyed the other (assuming you're talking about the one with Matthew Broderick?) Godzilla movie when I was younger (must've been around 11 or 12 when it came out). Haven't seen it in my adult life though. I'd probably enjoy it for nostalgic reasons.

FreeAim
05-16-2014, 08:34 AM
I actually enjoyed the other (assuming you're talking about the one with Matthew Broderick?) Godzilla movie when I was younger (must've been around 11 or 12 when it came out). Haven't seen it in my adult life though. I'd probably enjoy it for nostalgic reasons.
Now, I don't really. I think it's terrible. Not the worst of all time, not even really that diabolical. It's just messy, boring and it looks bad. It's also very cheap. Those wouldn't bring the film down so much, if it wasn't a big monster movie.

FreeAim
05-20-2014, 02:39 PM
So... um?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ2Nd53ye-Y

Neat? I mean, I am looking at his muscles.

FreeAim
05-22-2014, 10:05 AM
In my opinion, there have been few breakout performances this year so far. The ones I especially like are (in no specific order):

Ken Watanabe as Dr. Ishiro Serizawa in Godzilla.
Anthony Mackey as Sam Wilson / Falcon in Captain America: The Return of the First Avenger.
Zac Efron as Teddy Sanders in Neighbors.
Eva Green as Artemesia in 300: Rise of an Empire.

These are not the best performances or even necessarily the only breakout performances so far, these are just the ones I can remember at the time. And they are really good. Any differing opinions?

Ali_Star
05-22-2014, 10:16 AM
Eva Green as Artemesia in 300: Rise of an Empire.



I haven't seen the 300 sequel yet, but she's been great so far in Penny Dreadful. Steals every scene she's in.

FreeAim
05-23-2014, 08:04 PM
I am a tad bit disappointed in the new X-Men Movie, The Days of Future Past. No, it's not bad, it's probably the best Bryan Singer movie and the second best of these X-Men movies altogether, but it's just really kind of okay. The kind of strange thing about this franchise is that since the early 2000's DC has been making good stand-alone movies and then has moved into brand new direction and Marvel has successfully passed their standalone season of movies and blown the modern cinematic landscape with their cinematic universe, X-Men still seems to pander around like the best action movie to date is still the Matrix.

This wouldn't be so bad, but it seems like in the Future Past the director decides to sort of unwrite every X-Men movie not made by him out of existence. I'm not going to spoil how, but it sort of seems to be the case.

The film itself is pretty good. The cast is almost great all the way around, especially Patrick Steward and Ian McKellen giving great performances, since these are probably last ones they will give to this franchise. While it's boring to have Wolverine spearhead every single one of these movies (apart from still the series's greatest movie, First Class), Hugh Jackman equips the role with passion and respect that really shows. Maybe next time they will actually make an interesting story about him (Old Man Logan, I'd suggest). Surprisingly it's Jennifer Lawrence who lets the movie down, since she looks spectacularly bored here.

The minor roles are kind of mixed, though. Peter Dinklage, while not in the movie much, makes the best out of his role and then some here. He's probably the stand-out performance here, but it does seem a bit like he was only cast after his success in Game of Thrones. Still, he's great here. I don't get people saying how Evan Peters as Quicksilver was not terrible, as his Quicksilver is the weakest link here. The character is annoying, the actor only adding to that and his supposedly big action scene seems like it was made out of deleted scenes of Matrix: Reloaded. Ironic, since the movie still seems to be trapped in the same time period as those movies. Besides, it doesn't even look like there's any reason for him to be here apart from competing with the Age of Ultron and seem like they were the first one's to realize the character's potential, which I honestly don't see.

Surprisingly, the action is not terrible, which would be sort landmark property for any Bryan Singer action movie. They are not especially noteworthy, but they are not bad. Well done. The movie also looks really good most of the times, the score is not particularly memorable apart from the recycled soundtrack from X2: X-Men United, the voice effects really just blend like they should and the cinematography is not overly gritty like it looked like from the first trailer.

The writing, though. The overall, comic book story is just fine and the dialogue is servicable, but the detail is just all over the place. Convenience happens whenever the plot requires it to and the supposedly interesting, smaller scenes feel like they belong into Man of Steel, which is not a good thing. The post credit scene, though, is rather interesting, so I suggest staying and watching it. Almost makes me hopeful for the future of this franchise.

The movie is not bad, but it feels dated overall. Still, it's a good X-Men movie in a day and age when that feels like much to ask from Bryan Singer. If you are not involved in the X-Men universe though, this doesn't break much ground so it's probably not worth seeing. If you are, tone down your expectations maybe a bit and you'll enjoy this.

7/10

FreeAim
05-27-2014, 02:12 PM
So tomorrow marks the Finnish opening of two big blockbusters: Maleficent and Edge of Tomorrow.

Maleficent is a movie I've really been looking forward to. It has an accomplished cast, its subject is intriguing and it has a certain otherworldly essence to it. Then, there's Edge of Tomorrow, a movie which looks unimaginative, generic action movie, has poor trailers and lacks any sort of thing I look for in a movie by the looks of it.

BUT Edge has gained tons of positive reviews while Maleficent has no reviews at all, which could mean that the movie is diabolical. I can't choose which one to see first, so... suggestions?

Rabid-Coot
05-27-2014, 04:22 PM
Maleficent has no reviews at all

This one, go in blind.

FreeAim
05-28-2014, 12:07 PM
https://scontent-b-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/l/t1.0-9/1513809_244299672439287_4470226420651612380_n.jpg

Bananaman (2015)

It's a whole new world up ahead.
It's a whole new way to see.
It's a whole new place, with a brand new attitude
but we're still gonna watch them all.

Because it's superhero
and it's the best that it can be.

BasketSnake
05-29-2014, 11:37 AM
I'm excited about Jurassic World. I've read the spoilers that's out so far because I don't care. It won't live up to the original no matter what. That's uh..chaos theory...

Rabid-Coot
05-29-2014, 02:19 PM
I'm excited about Jurassic World. I've read the spoilers that's out so far because I don't care. It won't live up to the original no matter what. That's uh..chaos theory...

I know its great for the movie part but for the pre movie in universe stuff why would you splice together some new thing then give it camoflage abilities that would mean your visitors probably won't be able to see your new attraction.

FreeAim
05-29-2014, 05:39 PM
Uhh...

I hate it when a movie is bad for one, easily pinpointed reason.

Even more I hate it when a movie does that, but there's also a case where a movie actually manages to pull that off, because then I have to explain why that is and it's tiresome and boring, but otherwise some people, thinking they are clever call me out on that and boast as if they invented the freaking wheel. For example, Man of Steel is not a good movie and the reason it's not a good movie is ultimately the same reason why Iron Man 3 is a good movie: they create their own realities that are noticeably different to those of comics. The thing however is, that in Iron Man 3 that twist is actually used to try new things and be innovative. In Man of Steel, though, it's used to drain every last bit of optimism from Superman.

Maleficent is a bad movie. It's really bad. Why is it bad? Because Maleficent, the character, isn't. The fact that Maleficent isn't thoroughly evil in this movie is bad is so because the movie does nothing with it. The original character works because she is thoroughly evil, She has no specific revenge motivation, no specific reason for being evil, other than that she loves being evil. She even has a pet crow, not because it's useful but because it makes her look even more sinister.

In the movie, the people behind the camera try to make the character sympathetic and that ends up being the downfall of this movie. The movie takes what originally worked in the character and turn it upside down for no other reason than to imitate Frozen. Oh, that might be a bit unfair. It's not as if the same studio made both of these mov-OH MOTHER...

There is a lot wrong with Maleficent, but it seems like every bit of it, every reason it's bad traces back to the same very reason. There is a new, more specific villain who only exists so Maleficent can have a revenge arc, because she can no longer be evil. That revenge arc is the backbone of the movie AND IT DOESN'T WORK IN ANY CONCEIVABLE WAY. This movie is an active crime-scene against source material, not because it changes something major in it but because it does so in the lazies, most inconsistent way because that's apparently what world needs after Frozen: another Frozen, but nowhere near as memorable or innovative.

This kind of change to the source material has worked before. A character who is known for being thoroughly evil is changed to have a specific motive behind the evilness. At the same time the change is character driven and is used to do new and exciting things. What movie and character am I referring to? Theodora, the Wicked Witch of the West from Oz, the Great and Powerful.

I could go on for hours as to why that movie is great, but that's a talk for another time. Maleficent though? Well, Angelina Jolie does try as well as the girl who acts Aurora and the CGI, while not very clear, does lead into some interesting-looking action scenes. Anything else in the movie, though? Thrash. Absolute garbage. Don't see it.

3/10

Tikaki-MooMoo
05-29-2014, 09:23 PM
I'm going to see Maleficent on Saturday! I'm seeing some mixed reviews on this so let's see what will happens when i give this movie a try.

Once that done you'll expect to see my review on this movie.



Maleficent is a bad movie. It's really bad. Why is it bad? Because Maleficent, the character, isn't. The fact that Maleficent isn't thoroughly evil in this movie is bad is so because the movie does nothing with it. The original character works because she is thoroughly evil, She has no specific revenge motivation, no specific reason for being evil, other than that she loves being evil. She even has a pet crow, not because it's useful but because it makes her look even more sinister

And you want to know what the biggest shocker is... The horns are in the wrong position.
Don''t believe me?
http://www.hollyscoop.com/sites/hollyscoop.com/files/p18g4mntn911tq67bhl9dt1aus4.jpg

FreeAim
06-01-2014, 06:18 PM
So yeah, general consensus seems to be in the right this time after all.

Edge of Tomorrow is pretty dang awesome. Tom Cruise can still run fast, even when he's wearing lots of equipment, action can be made to look better and better progressively with each passing year and it almost seems like action screenwriters have begun daring to try out different things to strike themselves and their movies out of the masses. I have to say though, when it came to the marketing of this movie, I was not exactly anticipating this. Posters looked like generic FPS game covers and trailers seemed to trip over on that broody side that has ruined several otherwise good movies (Dark Knight Rises, in hindsight). Does that still bother me? Not really, given how the movie goes with the approach.

Despite having great cast all around the breakout comes from Emily Blunt as Rita Vrataski. The character first seems kind of like that tough action-movie girl but quickly proves to be something more. Oh, she's still awesome, though, partly because she's given a broadsword to go around with in the movie.

With the underrated yet kind of hastily put together Oblivion last year and the gazillion kind of mediocre Mission Impossible films it almost seemed like Tom Cruise's adventures as a major action star were over. Edge of Tomorrow proves that's not the case.

9/10

FreeAim
06-02-2014, 11:04 AM
Okay, guys, I'm going away for a week so here's the last movie review for a while:

A Million Ways to Die in the West is really just what one would expect from Seth McFarlane comedy, apart from being, well, good. Oh, it's not bad, the movie is just kind of mediocre. Acting works mostly and Liam Neeson and Neil Patrick Harris are as awesome as any would expect. The jokes range from misfires to good laughs and the spontaneous humour is good, yet often ruined by the fact that it's only used as exposition.

The plot is kind of a mess, yet it kind of stands it. The humour is still decent, so the movie technically fills the only requirement to major audiences. Not a classic, but not the worst of the year.

5/10

Ali_Star
06-02-2014, 12:12 PM
Edge of Tomorrow is pretty dang awesome. Tom Cruise can still run fast,

If you've watched Family Guy, you'll be aware of the real reason Tom Cruise runs in all his movies. ;)

BasketSnake
06-02-2014, 04:28 PM
I know its great for the movie part but for the pre movie in universe stuff why would you splice together some new thing then give it camoflage abilities that would mean your visitors probably won't be able to see your new attraction.

I wouldn't spoil it for anyone. Anyways the latest news makes me all giddy. Very cool stuff.

FreeAim
06-11-2014, 08:27 PM
Yeah, I don't think I can ever convince anyone to see or to not see The Fault In Our Stars, but just in case there's a possibility, I'll say something about the movie: it's the most devilishly manipulative, most aggressively provocative and infuriatingly disappointing movie in a long time, because there is a great movie here, but it's hidden beneath layers of annoying negativity and the faults (sorry) that the movie has are just too thick for me to call it worth seeing. The good things are that the movie dares to try take a different look at cancer with good taste and the movie does the best presentation yet of young people in general, though those are apparently both some of the things the book is loved for.

Also, the girl who acts Hazel must be a great actress, because no living human being should ever be able to play the role straight. You know, the kind of person who is literally the manifestation of why people don't generally like manic pixie-girls in movies. While both of the leading characters are too perfect to be true, the way the movie shows them as young people (where youth is actually a part of the characters and not just a shortcut to make them moody and emotional) almost makes up for that. However, the fault (sorry again) in The Fault In Our Stars is that the movie doesn't seem to trust itself enough to make you feel your own emotions and therefore shoves them down your throat. That wouldn't break the movie as a whole, but it's a movie about a cancer patient and love and death so it's obviously all about the emotions and when they don't work, the movie doesn't work either.

It's better than the trailers made me think, though, so maybe that's something. Still, not a good one.

4/10

Also, am I the only one reaaaally growing tired of predestination as a way of storytelling? I mean, it's probably the laziest screenwriting way imaginable and actually undermines characters as a whole and instead turns them into plot-devices. Not to say it has never worked as a way to tell a story, just look at the six Star Wars movies, but apart from that it's always done so poorly it's just annoying. I mean, c'mon! The Amazing Spider-man, the new Star Trek movies, Man of Steel and many others are almost entirely ruined partially because some of their best elements are ruined by predestination. And don't say this isn't relevant, the movie's name itself is The Fault In Our Stars.

FreeAim
06-14-2014, 06:25 PM
Well, that was expected.

It's no surprise at all that the sequel to one of Dreamworks' most well remembered classics ends up being one of the year's genuine cinematic highlights. How To Train Your Dragon 2 is not only better than its predecessor, but it also works as a perfect example of what a good sequel to any movie should be like. We, the audience are already familiar with the world and the characters, so instead of trying to just be a good stand-alone movie the movie does what any sequel should do: take the already established things from the last movie and bring them to the next level. Kind of like all the other Dreamworks' second installments to a franchise.

It's not a perfect movie though. The main villain is little more than a two-dimensional villain, one of the movie's most noteworthy twists was spoiled in the trailer so it no longer worked as a surprise and there wasn't much in the final action scene that wasn't in the last action scene of the last movie. These are flaws, not flaws I really care about when placed against all the things I do like but flaws all the same. I am not sure whether it's the best movie of the year, let alone the best animation of the year, but it's definitely up there on both lists.

Now, I hope they do Kung Fu Panda 3 next.

9/10

EDIT: They dooooo!

FreeAim
06-28-2014, 10:55 AM
Okay, I haven't posted for while because all the big movies worth talking about were, for whatever reason, released near the end of the year.

22 Jump Street is not as good as its predecessor, but it's not bad. In fact, I'd say it's the funniest comedy of the year so far. Not only that, but it's a miracle they somehow made a comedy sequel that is actually good, which is something that has not previously been accomplished. If nothing else, that has to get this movie up a few notches. Not to say the rest of it is bad: the comedy is funny, characters are memorable and the new things they do with the premise and the meta critique for comedy sequels are on spot here and I don't think this kind of acting potential has been accomplished in a comedy since The World's End.

There are a few dead zones here, for example the villains of the last movie show up here for a few unfunny jokes that can, at best, get a few giggles from the audience. Still, the movie is pretty good and it's easily worth seeing.

8/10


Transformers movies have always baffled me. For some reason, people were angry at the second one, as if the first one had been any good in any way. The first movie is just awkward, hard to watch and miraculously poor, even on its own standards (which includes being about a dumb cartoon with big robots that turn into cars) and the only thing more baffling than that is that the sequel managed to be even worse.

The third one dropped out Megan Fox and got a few great action scenes where the titular characters actually do what it says on the pin and they actually finally seemed to understand why Transformers ever were popular, so it actually gets to be called decent. Still, not a great one.

The Age of Extinction is... better than the first three. Is it overlong, stupid, silly, over-plotted and does it concentrate too much on the humans at times? Yes, yes and yes. But, if for nothing else, the movie's action looks better than before, the new characters have unique designs and are easy to tell apart, the decision to only keep Optimus Prime and Bumblebee as returning characters was a great idea and while the dinobots are in for a short time, kind of like the green ghost army in the Return of the Kind, we still got to see robot dinosaurs. With firebreath.

Not a great movie, but still a good diversion. I liked it, but it's not a classic.

5/10

RockSauron
07-23-2014, 09:12 PM
I just saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

It was good

amoney1999
07-24-2014, 12:12 AM
I saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes as well. What a fantastic movie, much better than Rise, though it's still very good in it's own right. A lot of people have considered Dawn to be the Empire Strikes Back of the Reboot movies, and it's not hard to see why after watching.

wally-217
07-24-2014, 01:03 PM
FreeAim, I just read your post about Godzilla and your wrong about the screen time. I sat through the film for a second time using the stopwatch on my phone and He actually has 10 minutes of screen-time (10 minutes 5 seconds I had it at, give or take a few) [including the elusive shots, the news channels, etc.] I actually sat through the 1954 original doing the same thing.
http://i.imgur.com/gXsnouP.png

Although I have to agree that the audio/sound effects were superb. But the visual effects weren't brilliant.

FreeAim
07-24-2014, 01:53 PM
Yeah, Dawn is great. As good as the original in many respects. I'd actually say that when it comes to sci-fi action blockbusters, this was the best of the kind. Great action, monkeys, awesome acting and interesting plot, coupled with great subject matter.

Also, props have to go to the fact that there were monkeys riding horses while dual-wielding machine guns.

10/10

- - - - - - - - - -

Yeah, Dawn is great. As good as the original in many respects. I'd actually say that when it comes to sci-fi action blockbusters, this was the best of the kind. Great action, monkeys, awesome acting and interesting plot, coupled with great subject matter.

Also, props have to go to the fact that there were monkeys riding horses while dual-wielding machine guns.

10/10

Ali_Star
07-24-2014, 02:35 PM
The movie was that good, you posted the review twice. :)

I'll be seing it this weekend.

RockSauron
07-24-2014, 02:37 PM
I loved the fact that it showed both sides equally well, and not try to either demonize humanity or hate on apes because they're replacing us.

FreeAim
07-24-2014, 11:07 PM
Hmph, don't know why it did that. This particular thread has been giving me issues with posting things for quite a while. For example, my review of Earth to Echo and the new Purge never made it here due to that.

SnipySev
07-25-2014, 12:22 PM
Are they seriously making a Fifty Shades of Grey movie? Are they seriously making a movie based on a terrible book which originated from a terrible fanfiction of a terrible movie adaptation of another terrible book series?

WHO THE **** GREENLIGHTS THIS ****

Ali_Star
07-25-2014, 12:41 PM
Are they seriously making a Fifty Shades of Grey movie? Are they seriously making a movie based on a terrible book which originated from a terrible fanfiction of a terrible movie adaptation of another terrible book series?

WHO THE **** GREENLIGHTS THIS ****

Yup..... pretty much. I bet they split the last book into 2 as well, just like they have with every other book-to-movie cashcow.

RockSauron
07-25-2014, 01:04 PM
Are they seriously making a Fifty Shades of Grey movie? Are they seriously making a movie based on a terrible book which originated from a terrible fanfiction of a terrible movie adaptation of another terrible book series?

WHO THE **** GREENLIGHTS THIS ****

More excited for this than Guardians.

SnipySev
07-25-2014, 01:39 PM
The brilliance of it is that the movie premieres on February 14. Many poor men are going to be dragged to the theater, socially obligated by the power of Valentine's Day to do whatever their girlfriends want. Whoever is in charge for this aberration's marketing is a genius.

RockSauron
07-25-2014, 01:45 PM
The brilliance of it is that the movie premieres on February 14. Many poor men are going to be dragged to the theater, socially obligated by the power of Valentine's Day to do whatever their girlfriends want. Whoever is in charge for this aberration's marketing is a genius.

Oh, I thought it was releasing this week. Must have delayed it for that reason

Speaking of which, my brother was dragged to see all of the Twilight movies by his girlfriend/ now fiance once. He hated it, of course, but I just remember him telling me how at the end of the last movie, there was a giant bloody battle, and while girls were all scared and whatever, he was laughing his almonds off because, after 8 hours of boredom or whatever, finally something enjoyable, something so ridiculous happened.

I don't think 50 Shades of Grey would have that same deal.

Also, 50 Shades of Grey will heavily censored to the point it is R rated, since the book itself is literally porn, going by readings I've heard. So that's weird.

SnipySev
07-25-2014, 02:55 PM
Oh, I thought it was releasing this week. Must have delayed it for that reason

Speaking of which, my brother was dragged to see all of the Twilight movies by his girlfriend/ now fiance once. He hated it, of course, but I just remember him telling me how at the end of the last movie, there was a giant bloody battle, and while girls were all scared and whatever, he was laughing his almonds off because, after 8 hours of boredom or whatever, finally something enjoyable, something so ridiculous happened.

I don't think 50 Shades of Grey would have that same deal.

Also, 50 Shades of Grey will heavily censored to the point it is R rated, since the book itself is literally porn, going by readings I've heard. So that's weird.

Yep. From what I've heard the fourth Twilight book ends in a huge anticlimax. Tensions rise between two factions because they disagree on what to do with the protagonist's half-human half-vampire child, to a point where a battle is almost inevitable. When they're actually on the verge of a face-off, some dumb Deus Ex Machina comes out of nowhere and the bad guys agree to back off.

Whoever wrote the screenplay for the movie version was all like "You know what, screw this" and decided to include a big battle scene at the end. Not only that, but they also decided to kill off some of the major good guys (including one of the main characters I think, but I can't recall which). Afterwards they revealed it was just a vision showing what would happen if there was a fight, and returned to the "villains decide it's not worth the trouble" ending. Biggest troll ever, both for the fans and non-fans.

I streamed the movie just to watch the fight scene (which was actually pretty decent by action movie standards) and pretended it was the canonical ending.

Ali_Star
07-25-2014, 03:25 PM
The brilliance of it is that the movie premieres on February 14. Many poor men are going to be dragged to the theater, socially obligated by the power of Valentine's Day to do whatever their girlfriends want. Whoever is in charge for this aberration's marketing is a genius.

Yes, but imagine how the girlfriends feel after watching the movie! If you catch my drift *nudge nudge wink wink*.

SnipySev
07-25-2014, 04:49 PM
Yes, but imagine how the girlfriends feel after watching the movie! If you catch my drift *nudge nudge wink wink*.

They'll look at their boyfriends and will be turned off by the fact that they aren't Hollywood-level hot, incredibly wealthy, or glamorously abusive?

Ali_Star
07-25-2014, 05:36 PM
They'll look at their boyfriends and will be turned off by the fact that they aren't Hollywood-level hot, incredibly wealthy, or glamorously abusive?

Ok.... good point.

FreeAim
07-25-2014, 07:53 PM
It's not only that that Fifty Shades of Grey is "terrible" or "bad fiction", but generally there is zero sense in the business decision of actually making the movie. There is no way it'll make its money back and I could list ten reasons as to why... in fact, let' do that!

1.) The movie has a budget 40 000 000 dollars. In addition, we can imagine there'll be another 40 000 000 dollars spent on the marketing of the movie and around 20 000 000 dollars to get the movie to every theater in the world. That means that the movie would have to make about 100 000 000 dollars to break even and it'd have to make at least 50 000 000 dollars extra to be considered worthwhile. There's no way the movie's ever gonna reach that, because...

2.) Fifty Shades of Grey is smut. But who goes to movie theater to see smut? A place where there are at least 20 other people watching the same thing, I don't think it would be comfortable.

3.) Who dares go see the movie? Seriously, there are reasons as to why Fifty Shades of Grey made so much money on e-book sales and that's because nobody dared to go to a book shop and buy such an infamous book.

4.) Sure, the book was a smash hit, but we can see how poorly it was received by the reader by looking at how little money its two sequels made. If the movie is for people who read the book, I doubt that'd be a very good marketing strategy.

5.) According to a study, a third of the book's readers quit before having read the book fully and about half of those quitters quit before reaching the 100 page mark. That should ring some bells.

6.) One could imagine that the movie would make some extra money on DVD sales, but it's just pirated just like any other... you know. Swords and stab-wounds and all that.

7.) The only way to deliver half of the book's harsh content to the big screen would be to have the movie be rated NC-17, but since the most active movie-going age group is young people, there is no way that adults would actually pay to see Fifty Shades of Grey.

8.) There will be competition. The movie is released around Valentine's Day and as most know romantic comedies tend to populate that spot. Even if Fifty Shades somehow manages to make more money than those other movies, it'd still be a big loss for the movie. In fact, it'd be just like Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice being released on the same day as Captain America 3: one movie would make more money, but not enough. Not at all enough.

9.) Ideally the movie would tone down the smut enough to be rated R, but that'd be too low to be considered a proper adaptation. The fact is, that the only way for the movie reach the target audience and to make any money at all would be to have it be split into an R-rated and an NC-17 rated version, but that'd require more money than what could be accomplished by the fact, since they'd have to also market the fact that there are two versions of the film.

10.) The book sucks. Yeah, I read it. It was terrible, terrible, terrible piece of unforgivable horrifyingly disgusting literature and easily the worst book I have ever read. AND I HAVE READ TWILIGHT. ALL OF IT. With that in mind, before the non-existing audience that don't know the fact that the movie is terrible would get to see it, the critics have had enough time to maul the trash.

Whew, made it.

Also, I'd like to add that when it comes to Twilight movies, the last movie was genuinely great, mostly because it was like watching a train wreck for two hours. Also, I am not joking while saying that the last battle is the best mutant-on-mutant action scene there has ever been on a big screen, which should ring some bells, if I was in charge of the future X-Men movies.

In addition, any argument as to why the movie is bad only adds to its brilliance, because yes, the movie is bad. In every way imaginable. It's just fun to laugh and point at it.

RockSauron
07-25-2014, 08:19 PM
Yeah, I dunno how well it'd do. But let's not talk about pseudo porn on this forum (the book itself is porn, but the movie won't be.

Also, that is a 2015 movie... heheheheheh

wally-217
07-26-2014, 08:37 AM
I think a teacher at my school/sixth form said she was going to see it with her boyfriend. Shes one of those teachers that all the younger... male... students 'look up to'. Well, when I say younger it also includes a lot of sixth form.

Oddmania
10-18-2014, 08:32 AM
Has anyone heard of Mommy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mommy_%282014_film%29)? It's received a LOT of awards and praise. The trailer got me kind of excited. It looks like a powerful burst of emotion. I can't wait to have some time to see it!

SnipySev
11-08-2014, 07:13 PM
Interstellar's great. It has a couple dumb plot points, and the pacing isn't perfect. Some parts of the movie could use some trimming down while others should have been expanded upon. But if you manage to suspend your disbelief in a few scenes, I think it's a great experience.

And oh boy, Matthew McConaughey absolutely kills it in this film. One of his most powerful performances yet.

The sheer heartbreak of watching messages from his kids and realizing they've grown old (whereas he has barely aged due to relativity) and over the years have lost faith that he'll ever return? Biggest tearjerker I've seen in a while.

And of course, the soundtrack is as overpowering as you'd expect from a Nolan movie with Zimmer music. Dat organ.

FreeAim
11-12-2014, 09:03 PM
Interstellar was... okay. It was quite mediocre for the most part, but it managed to hold my attention for nearly 3 hours. Fun fact, though: if you removed the uninteresting scientific explanation stuff that took about 45 minutes of runtime as a whole, you'd end up with a far more enjoyable story with a sense of wonder. Also, while I realize Nolan is a great director, he is like an asexual, emotionless robot genius. He has no idea how emotions work and how they are brought out on screen, so that part of the story really was the low point for me, which is also why The Dark Knight Rises was a bit of a blunder.

Cool ideas, great camerawork, it looks great all around, surprisingly well fleshed out characters, but overall a tad bit forgettable, really predictable plot twists (apart from the third and final plot twist that is so stupid that I can't still believe it actually happened) and Hans Zimmer's score is even more loud and more obnoxious than usual here. It's like sitting in a boring class where you have a really good looking teacher. It won't get boring and you'll always have something to look at, but the substance goes in through one ear and comes out through the other.

Because you just don't care.

6/10

SnipySev
11-13-2014, 06:57 PM
Hey FreeAim, don't take this the wrong way, but... have you ever tried just posting your own opinion about a movie instead of repeating whatever Movie Bob says? It seems that every time you review a movie in this thread you're just straight up copying what he says in his reviews. You even use the same expressions and similes he does, sometimes almost verbatim.

I'm really not trying to start a fight here. I'd just rather read what you think about these movies. If I want to know Bob Chipman's opinions, I'll just watch Escape to the Movies.

FreeAim
11-13-2014, 09:13 PM
Well, apart from the robot part, I think I did.

I don't agree with him on that much, honestly, but when I do, he usually says it better than I ever could. For stuff I don't agree with him on, off the top of my head, though:

Avatar, Star Wars, Star Wars preguels, John Wick, Guardians of the Galaxy, Iron Man 2, The Incredibe Hulk, The Avengers (all the way through), Titanic, Godfather, Batman, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises (it's a blunder, but I still like it a lot), Man of Steel, The Lone Ranger, The Maze Runner, Sin City 2, Sin City, any of the Expendables, Maleficent, Godzilla, I Frankenstein, Anchorman 2, The Hobbit 2, Frozen, The World's End, Elysium, Two Guns, unlimited rice pudding, etc, etc.

Just because I agree with him on many movies and just because I paraphrase him occasionally doesn't mean my opinions aren't my own.

And that part in your comment really annoys and antagonizes me.

SnipySev
11-13-2014, 09:19 PM
Alrighty then. As I said I'm not looking for a fight, so I'll say no more.

xxMATEOSxx
11-14-2014, 02:34 AM
I think Disney needs to advertise their movies differently. Not knowing that Wreck it Ralph was going to be as good as it was worked in it's favor since all I was expecting was to enjoy some game references but got a good story. Then I had no interest in Frozen because most of what I saw for it was just "Hey, look at this hilarious snowman we came up with," which immediately turned me off on the whole project.

Now Big Hero 6 has the advantage of me knowing that they're building up some momentum right now but it's trailers are again, "Hey, look at this robot, he's slow and a balloon and that's funny and the kid has to deal with him alone because the adults just don't get it and blah..." I think I only saw one trailer that even showed that there were, gasp, other characters.

What I'm saying is, Disney, kudos for making some really good movies as of late (I can't believe I'm saying this, Pixar, take notes). But don't sell yourself short. You take your target child audience seriously in the films, do the same in your trailers.

FreeAim
11-14-2014, 01:39 PM
Big Hero 6 didn't work for me. I appreciate it, but I don't really like it. Apart from Baymax, who I found surprisingly enjoyable.

The pacing was off really bad. At times it felt rushed and at times it felt like a drag and at the end of the climax I just felt like the movie ended too fast. Ironically, though, I didn't want to watch it longer anyway. If there is one thing I particularly enjoyed, though, it's the fact that the main characters were all distinquishable and they actually were characters instead of ciphers that have been woven into the plot to spell out the words "Look how progressive we are!" like in Frozen. The characters here are not just archetypes, but they actually have some layers to them.

(For the record, just in case somebody wants to have a lash at me, I have grown to dislike Frozen, mostly because anything and everything it does has been done better in other movies, like Shrek, just for example. It doesn't do anything for me and I just don't quite enjoy it, Apart from the trolls.)

The action was mindlessly enjoyable, even though it tried to rise above it. I didn't ultimately click with the movie, because I was just mind-numbingly bored or confused all the time. Is it seriously impossible to have character development without having to slow the plot into a screeching halt nowadays? That wouldn't be that big of a problem if the movie took its time to have the characters do something in the story. Like the Hobbit movies do.

Ugh. Ultimately, a real big disappointment, I wanted to like it but it just really doesn't do anything for me.

3/10