Rate the last movie you watched/saw

[Caveboy0]

i actually agree. the movie is a very funny comedy.

[mr. excellent]

Midnight in Paris: 8/10
This movie was a treat. Study up on your early 20th century literary figures, and you'll enjoy it more.

The Hunger Games: 8.5/10

Cinematography: A-
The shaky cam was awesome in this film. It's a reminder that not all cliche's are incapable of being put to good use (in this case, REALLY GOOD use). There was one scene where I just didn't want it, hence the minus. All in all, the imagery in this film was unexpectedly beautiful. Some scenes were just breath taking.

Special Effects: Three categories here.
i) CGI: B+. It's not the best you'll ever see, but it certainly gets the job done.
ii) Practical Effects: A+. These are quite simply fantastic.
iii) Overall coolness: A. The architectural designs in this movie are inspired enough, and the engineering and holographic displays managed to look fresh in their own right.

Acting: All around, the whole cast did good. Here's the break down.
Jennifer Lawrence: A+. She made me cry, and I thought the book was just okay. She floored me.
Josh Hutcherson: B+. He did good for what he was given. It's hard to compete with Lawrence in this film.
Stanley Tucci: B+. His character was weird, he handled it well.
Woody Harrelson: B+. This character's dialogue in the book was so-so, but I get what the author was trying to do with him. Harrelson delivered.
Liam Hemsworth: B+. He had the least amount of screen time I think, but he handled it well.

Directorial Vision: A+
Story: B+
Script: B+

My verdict: Go see it. Damn thing made me shed a few tears, completely unexpectedly. I haven't been this surprised since Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.

EDIT: When I said the book was "just okay", I undersold it. It's a decent read, it just didn't inspire me. I look forward to seeing more movies and reading the other two books in the series though.

[Spazz]

Mar 18, 2012 18:11:48 GMT -5 mr. excellent said:

Last night was the night of remakes for me. Minus 16 Candles.

16 Candles 7/10: It was okay. Not all cult classics reach me, and it's just because I don't have all the 80s culture to fully appreciate the little nuances in the movie. That being said, Anthony Michael Hall and Molly Ringwald were pretty good. I especially loved the scene between Anthony Hall and Michael Schoeffling after the big party. That was classic indeed.

Straw Dogs (2011) 9/10: I never saw the original, I'm not sure that I'd want to because this movie doesn't seem to have skimped on whatever quality the first one had. If the first one is more intense, I don't think it's for me. That's just because this version made me feel things; it was just so primal and tragically disturbing. I was not expecting to have the intense reaction to this movie that I did. Watch it, James Mardsen FTW.

Fright Night (2011) 8.5/10: I never saw the original, but I plan to. Regardless, this movie was fuuuunnnn. Watch it, it's funny, gory, filled with cool action scenes and great performances. Collin Ferrell has been criticized a lot before for his... unique way of speaking. However, it really fits this movie well. Anton Yelchin is great in this movie, as is Imogen Poots (who interestingly enough were up to play Pete and Gwen). Christopher Plasse-Mintz is good, the Uma Thurman look alike. I just enjoyed the heck out of this movie is all. Check it out.

I love the original Straw Dogs and actually, I think as far as intensity goes they're just about equal. You are correct though, the new one is very true to the original and they're just about equal IMO. No skimping on quality. Hoffman and Marsden are just about equal as well. I personally like Dustin Hoffman better but they're really not far off. There are some differences though. It's worth checking out if you really want to.

I recently had a Winona Ryder marathon (kinda) with;
Heathers - 9/10
They just don't make movies like this anymore. It's smart, original and contains some of the most excellent satire. Black comedy gold. Winona Ryder and Shannen Doherty are a great contrasting pair. Christian Slater annoys the piss out of me but I could tell his character was written well so I was able to ignore his goddamn voice.
and
Beetlejuice - 7/10
Not the greatest movie, but it's redeemed by how insanely entertaining, fun and bizarre it is. The plot is kinda messy but it's like a damn funhouse. Michael Keaton just steals the show and of course, Winona looks her finest as miss Lydia Deetz

[Spazz]

Mar 27, 2012 18:56:36 GMT -5 Caveboy0 said:

i actually agree. the movie is a very funny comedy.

It's like Freddy VS Jason. As a horror movie it's fucking terrible. Hell, even as a slasher it sucks but if you take it in as an action movie, it's pretty damn cool.

[Caveboy0]

yeah FvJ was just kind of what is this trying to be? ultimately it was just really funny and cool not gross or scary violence.

[Spazz]

Mar 28, 2012 12:57:12 GMT -5 Caveboy0 said:

yeah FvJ was just kind of what is this trying to be? ultimately it was just really funny and cool not gross or scary violence.

Yeah that probably is what it tried to be but it also tried to sneak some horror in there. I mean, the plot was terrible so it got that piece of a horror movie down

[mr. excellent]

So apparently a lot of fans aren't too thrilled with "The Hunger Games" film adaptation. There's a lot of frustration over details left out, certain character reductions (in screen time mostly, not necessarily motive as these may be expanded upon in subsequent films), and of course the shaky cam.

Of the shaky cam I will say this: the movie was PG-13, and shaky cam was the remedy to being faithful to the visceral brutality of the book without having to show all the blood and gore. But there's more to it than that. The reason why I found the use of shaky cam to be acceptional is because it really put the viewer into first person mode. It made you feel as though you were Katniss running for your life, falling, stumbling, running through the woods. The book is told in first person narration, the movie isn't by and large. But those scenes of confusion and chaos most definitely were. They weren't shot with the shaky-cam style just for the sake of getting a PG-13 rating or to follow the action movie cliche. My only criticism of it is that it was employed once or twice when it shouldn't have been. Overall, the presentation was still very beautiful.

[Spidey 1923]

Gotta see the adaptation ASAP, loved the books.

[mr. excellent]

Winter's Bone: 9/10

Saw it because I've been so impressed with Jennifer Lawrence as of late. This girl is only 21 years old, but she has crazy mad talent. I'm blown away by it. This movie came out when she was 19, and it must've taken about a year to make, so she was just out of high school. God damn.

Aside form that, Winter's Bone is a very well made movie with good supporting actors, a good script, and good locations.

[mr. excellent]

Batman Begins: 10/10

Scripting solid.
Pacing and narrative style superb.
Cinematography solid.
Story solid.
Acting solid.
Entertainment value very high.
Use of foreshadowing is excellent.

The movie gets better upon every viewing. What really blows me away is how beautiful Gotham city is during the day time. It's this shiny, metropolitan behemoth of a city. It's futuristic, and yet retro at the same time. From what I gather, its located on the east coast of the US, and is located in a southern state. However, some of the city's inhabitants have hints of what I think is a Chicago accent. I don't think it has to do with the fact that they shot parts of the film in Chicago. Nolan does a great job at making the city appear real, yet, unlike any other city in the world. I never noticed how great it was.

The only things I noticed that might have been weak were some of the visual effects shots of the narrows. It's kind of surprising, considering how beautiful the city looked during the day. But then when you got in to the street levels, the locations were freaking perfect. As for the cinematography during the fight scenes, I understand why there were so many different cuts and views from different angles. However, I've noticed that in most Nolan films that his action scenes are never as crisp as I'd like them to be. Engaging, yes, but not as straight forward in terms of being able to see exactly what's going on as I'd like.

[Caveboy0]

i always thought the warehouse fight was in the perspective of the criminals so it was supposed to be disorienting.

[Webber3000]

The Hunger Games: 7/10

EDIT: Oops, I feel bad for creating a new page with that 1 line post, burying mr. excellent's great reviews... Check them out!

[Caveboy0]

and here is your lump of an existence.

[mr. excellent]

Thank you Webber, I feel validated. XDDDDD

[mr. excellent]

Cabin in the Woods: 8/10

This movie is like Joss Whedon crack. It's so awesome. Richard Jenkins is awesome in it, as are some of his supporting cast members. No one in the Cabin really shines (except for the stoner character), but that's the point (the Stoner might have been a surprise tour de force). Go see the film, it'll make you clap for it.

The Hunger Games: 8/10
After a second theater viewing, I'm bumping my rating down half a notch. Still a good movie though. Shaky cam bothered me a little more this time, I still think it was for a good cause.