The last movie you saw

[MKJ]

did u watch the director's or the cinema cut?
theres different endings ysee

[obsidian]

Skyfall - 5/10

I'm pretty sure that's not how cyanide works. Aside from creepy dentures, the villian wasn't particularly menacing. I mean, what exactly was his specialty? Was he supposed to be some kind of super hacker? That would make him more of a match against Q than 007. And wtf was up with his master plan, he just happened to know exactly what people would do at exactly the right time? Seemed like it depended on too many perfect coincidences to be reliable.

[4days]

silent hill revelation - 1/10
really enjoyed the first one, genuinely spooky atmosphere and did a good job of putting silent hill up on the big screen. for a video game adaption, it was a great movie.
this isn't great; this is bad, like accidentally swigging rotten milk bad. easily the worst movie i've seen since resident evil explodation or whatever the fuck it was called.

django unchained - 8/10
too long, too much n-word - pretty much everything ryoki said, but with one whole extra point just for the nodding horse.

skyfall - 3/10
can't say why without massive spoilers, but didn't like where they went with this at all. i get that they were worried about losing the franchise altogether, but this was an overload of randomly plundered source material.

headhunters - 7/10
excellent black comedy/thriller.

man with the iron fists - 7/10
would've given it more if the cast didn't look they were enjoying themselves so much.

dredd - 7/10
made for pennies, but the costume is perfect, the story's good enough and it sets the world up well for the 2 sequels that probably won't get made.

prince of the city - 8/10
solid 80's crime drama.

[GONNAFISTYA]

I was just wondering why the fuck he didn't go 'falling down', I'd of been so fucking pissed which kinda puts a flaw in the whole movie for me. I'm not sure what it wanted to be tho, wether it wanted a twist or a classic mystery then got lost somewhere in the middle, mumbling it's answers in the meantime. Better end than LOST tho

Yer a fag and you're mixing up two characters the same actor happened to play.

Nicholas Van Orton was a privledged loner who kept everyone at arms length and was slowly becoming like the father he loathed: only caring about himself to the detriment of his relationships with friends and family. It was never in his character to go "falling down" because he was never as desperate as Falling Down's 'D-Fens' character until the very end of the movie. The character 'D-Fens' was desperate and well into his "fall" before that story even began. In The Game, it's Nicholas Van Orton's arc, as he was counting his money at the beginning and it's only at the end where he - now actually giving a shit about other people - had any chance of "falling down". But then the movie ended.

I seriously believe you missed the point of a brillant film and you should perhaps watch it again.

P.S. I'm pretty sure if there was a sequel to The Game that if Nicholas Van Orton were somehow thrown back into it, he'd recognize the signs, grab an Uzi and bring the pain to whoever is fucking him over. He'd never call his lawyers, he'd fix the problem himself. Not sure, though.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Hmmmmmmmmmm.....zomboob nurses.

[LawL]

That's a shame to hear. I liked SH. Captured the creepyness of the first couple games to a tee I thought, bar the completely out of context zomboob nurses.

creepiness

[LawL]

Yeah I can spell.

[losCHUNK]

[spoilers]

did u watch the director's or the cinema cut?
theres different endings ysee

I see , I'll double check but it was the one where he shoots his bro then believes he can fly

I was just wondering why the fuck he didn't go 'falling down', I'd of been so fucking pissed which kinda puts a flaw in the whole movie for me. I'm not sure what it wanted to be tho, wether it wanted a twist or a classic mystery then got lost somewhere in the middle, mumbling it's answers in the meantime. Better end than LOST tho

Yer a fag and you're mixing up two characters the same actor happened to play.

Nicholas Van Orton was a privledged loner who kept everyone at arms length and was slowly becoming like the father he loathed: only caring about himself to the detriment of his relationships with friends and family. It was never in his character to go "falling down" because he was never as desperate as Falling Down's 'D-Fens' character until the very end of the movie. The character 'D-Fens' was desperate and well into his "fall" before that story even began. In The Game, it's Nicholas Van Orton's arc, as he was counting his money at the beginning and it's only at the end where he - now actually giving a shit about other people - had any chance of "falling down". But then the movie ended.

I seriously believe you missed the point of a brillant film and you should perhaps watch it again.

P.S. I'm pretty sure if there was a sequel to The Game that if Nicholas Van Orton were somehow thrown back into it, he'd recognize the signs, grab an Uzi and bring the pain to whoever is fucking him over. He'd never call his lawyers, he'd fix the problem himself. Not sure, though.

Lol sorry mate, I kinda meant that's prolly what my reaction would have been and only drew a connection because of the actor. I know where your coming from and I know I missed the point even though I'm pretty sure I understood it, I just can't see it , anyone who got put through all that would've walked off that pillow and gave everyone the big 'fuck you'.

I'm not convinced by the story arcs either, they couldn't of guaranteed the actions went the way they did (shooting his bro for example, or jumping off where he did maybe ?), even the actor saying that 'my job was to throw you off if you didn't jump' kinda makes the cunt clensing a bit pointless. I felt it was an anti climax, with the killer twist being that it's what they said it was in the 1st place and I thought the end would have been better if he ended up as a pizza on the pavement, maybe the alternative version will please my criticism

looking forward to the sequel n all, sounding epic

[/spoilers]

[losCHUNK]

you'd know

He's like the paperclip, I'm pretty sure that's what he did for a living before he ended up here

[Don Carlos]

[MKJ]

That's a shame to hear. I liked SH. Captured the creepyness of the first couple games to a tee I thought, bar the completely out of context zomboob nurses.

zomboob nurses were from SH2; James' repressed sexuality.
they were out of place in SH3 tho :/

[Pext]

skyfall - 3/10
can't say why without massive spoilers, but didn't like where they went with this at all. i get that they were worried about losing the franchise altogether, but this was an overload of randomly plundered source material.

i think the main mistake in the new bond movies is the lack of strong villains.

a superhero movie can't live on the hero alone since the plot is driven by the antagonist.

it can work extremely well in a tv show - see for example buffy - since there is much more room to focus on character development. but in a movie that has to fit into a span of 2 hours the actual plot has to be good and this plot is driven by the antagonist.

this problem can party be ignored if there is enough cast and overtime (avengers: the plot here is pretty stupid but the interactions between the heroes - and a strong villain - make the movie shine)

so bond movies - only one hero, one vilain - would be better off if more time was spent on the villain. another problem here is that bond itself is not a really interesting character; even less so after taking away the misogynism. an example with only one hero that actually works is iron man: the movie lives completely on tony stark/robert downey jr. ~ in the end the missing character of bond is the problem.

[DTS]

^tl;dr: James Bond films are no good cause they are about James Bond, who is no good.

[LawL]

Thanks for your enlightening insight.

[Plan B]

DTS re-enacted all scenes with his action figurines.
Shit got real, and James ("who is no good") obviously got smashed by a giant potato.

[obsidian]

I'd have to agree with Pext, sometimes it's better to have a movie about the villian rather than the hero, particularly when the hero of the franchise is a little more than a muted muscle monkey with a hint of a troubled past. Take the Dark Knight for example, Christian Bale's Batman is nothing more than a scratchy voiced guy with a cool car. What makes the movie is Ledger's twistedly psychopathic Joker who rightfully has more screentime than Batman.

In contrast, in Skyfall, you don't get to meet the antagonist until halfway though the movie, and there's absolutely nothing menacing about a guy with a few racks of servers and a bad case of cavities. Are we and Bond supposed to feel threatened by his sense of impeccable timing?

[feedback]

if you didn't like skyfall you probably just have bad taste

[obsidian]

If you did like Skyfall, you are probably incapable of putting more than two sentences together to form an opinion.

[4days]

true stuff

more true stuff

aye - i got too hung up on how clumsily material from the books was used to think about how it might've been a better movie. the villains are definitely a problem, but everything about the new bond movies feels like it's overworked and dulled as a result.

idk - all this emo-noodling and borne-aping stuff can be done far better with different characters in a different story. think the glamour and menace of bond can work really well - never been a fan of the movies, but some scenes back in the day really nailed the threat of imminent horrible violence in a luxurious setting. it wouldn't be that hard to do a modern take on that, where you build the tension up for 30 mins while the characters are introduced, then have a little bit of understated violence - then build the tension for another 50 minutes before a car chase and a lovely, bone-snapping, marrow-gouging, blood-letting finale where the baddies get well and truly fucked.

thought they were going somewhere with the noir thing from casino royale (which made it really good), but that'd been abandoned by the time they got to quantum of solace

seven swords - 6/10
kung fu/novelty weapons action from the 'once upon a time in china' guy.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Silent Hill Revelation = 2/10 - It's too bad this movie was made as the first one was a respectable "game-to-movie" attempt. There's nowhere to go with this franchise as a movie project and the second movie proved it, so please stop making them.

Killing Them Softly = 8/10 - Great performances with one hell of an ending rant from Brad Pitt. Even though most of them were horrible bastards, the film was full of great characters.

Wreck It Ralph = 6/10 - Meh...sokay I guess. Terrific production design with some laughs. I like it when animated films focus more on the comedy than the "kid's animated movie" approach, but they focused too much on making this one a "kid's animated movie".

[Plan B]

Yeah, but was it really that much worse than the original?
I enjoyed the slomo bullet through the cheek bit

[feedback]

I loved Dredd. Very Verhoven-esque

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

I loved Dredd. Very Verhoven-esque

Fuck Verhoven, watch Verhoeven...

[menkent]

Fuck Verhoven, watch Verhoeven...

[Das Schreckliche Mädchen]

hah. i have that on dvd... part of a box set with Die Weiße Rose and Mutters Courage (the last of which I haven't gotten around to watching). good stuff.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

how fucking good is that movie?