Just finished watching "The Departed" (2006) - last time I saw it was shortly after I moved to Austria in 2007, brilliant movie then, brilliant movie now.
Yes.AussieReaper wrote:
I read it as a book in primary school. Very depressing at times.HITNRUNXX wrote:
Bridge to Terabithia:
9/10 - Whole family really loved it. Really great movie.
Was the movie as sad as I remember the book?
Warrior 7/10
Rocky but MMA
Rocky but MMA
terminator salvation. again a disappointment. 5/10
City of Men - 9/10 follow up to city of God... takes place in Rio(awesome).. the boys have grown up ..easier to watch than the first one with more focus on relationships than violence
second film sucked so fucking bad. especially compared to the first.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Fear and loathing in las vegas is on dave right now uk people.
I enjoyed it a couple of weeks ago.
I enjoyed it a couple of weeks ago.
I take it you're talking about City of Men '88, kimmm?
Young People Fucking 7/10
I still don't get what the point was.
I still don't get what the point was.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
The Muppets 10/10 Im an old fan, this movie rocks. Fun fun funny
Conan the Barbarian (2011 release)
A somewhat rebooted storyline which does not sit too well with me, especially after watching the classic Conan the Barbarian numerous times. 5/10
A somewhat rebooted storyline which does not sit too well with me, especially after watching the classic Conan the Barbarian numerous times. 5/10
Rise of the planet of the apes
It was decent enough but there was just no sense of closure. Am I supposed to believe a tribe of apes with near human intelligence and the ability to speak fucking English are just going to be left alone to frolick in some american forest? No, they're not are they.
It was decent enough but there was just no sense of closure. Am I supposed to believe a tribe of apes with near human intelligence and the ability to speak fucking English are just going to be left alone to frolick in some american forest? No, they're not are they.
Closure: The untested virus spans out globally and wipes out the human population. The new epidemic probably causes the human population to decline and anarchy to ensue. I am assuming the primates are left to froflick because there are other "important" problems to deal with or the virus has severely weakened any form of governing body ...my best guess.
Eventually someone launches a nuclear attack (from the Planet of the Apes).
Eventually someone launches a nuclear attack (from the Planet of the Apes).
Last edited by loubot (2011-12-05 12:09:22)
thank you.
Conan (2011): 7/10
I haven't seen the old one in forever, so I am not comparing the two. This one was an enjoyable action movie. Good fight scenes. Bloody (which I don't usually like, but worked well here). Good cast. Enjoyed it. Seems really under rated... I am sure a lot of that comes from being compared to the original. Liked the 20-30 minutes while he was a kid the best though... That was pretty cool.
I haven't seen the old one in forever, so I am not comparing the two. This one was an enjoyable action movie. Good fight scenes. Bloody (which I don't usually like, but worked well here). Good cast. Enjoyed it. Seems really under rated... I am sure a lot of that comes from being compared to the original. Liked the 20-30 minutes while he was a kid the best though... That was pretty cool.
I think people tend to forget that the original Conan movie wasn't that spectacular nor particularly faithful to the source material. James Earl Jones stole every scene he was in and it was all pretty cheesy. And for its time, it was also pretty violent for a mainstream film.
7/10 was the score I gave it. Average, but fun to watch.
I would've liked it more had the movie told us a bit more about the characters it threw at us. Conan's friend, summed up in five seconds at a bar? I still don't know who the fuck this guy it. I also don't know anything about Conan's love interest or the temple she grew up in. The villains' motives were also pretty vague. If these were filmed more like the action movies they're supposed to be and less like "thrillers," I think they'd be better.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
FFS, CONAN THE BARBARIAN can't pull a girl up away from a ledge with one arm?
7/10 was the score I gave it. Average, but fun to watch.
I would've liked it more had the movie told us a bit more about the characters it threw at us. Conan's friend, summed up in five seconds at a bar? I still don't know who the fuck this guy it. I also don't know anything about Conan's love interest or the temple she grew up in. The villains' motives were also pretty vague. If these were filmed more like the action movies they're supposed to be and less like "thrillers," I think they'd be better.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
FFS, CONAN THE BARBARIAN can't pull a girl up away from a ledge with one arm?
I agree... I started to say something about the friends also... I thought his friends seemed really charismatic and thought it was going to be fun to see them all go have fun tearing stuff up together. I was surprised they weren't really in the movie for more than a couple small scenes.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think people tend to forget that the original Conan movie wasn't that spectacular nor particularly faithful to the source material. James Earl Jones stole every scene he was in and it was all pretty cheesy. And for its time, it was also pretty violent for a mainstream film.
7/10 was the score I gave it. Average, but fun to watch.
I would've liked it more had the movie told us a bit more about the characters it threw at us. Conan's friend, summed up in five seconds at a bar? I still don't know who the fuck this guy it. I also don't know anything about Conan's love interest or the temple she grew up in. The villains' motives were also pretty vague. If these were filmed more like the action movies they're supposed to be and less like "thrillers," I think they'd be better.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
FFS, CONAN THE BARBARIAN can't pull a girl up away from a ledge with one arm?
I'd like to know in which world 7/10 is average?
Review scores 2011 general?DrunkFace wrote:
I'd like to know in which world 7/10 is average?
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
You're finding the average between 0 and 10, but it's not quite like that.DrunkFace wrote:
I'd like to know in which world 7/10 is average?
And OP:
And because on average, most movies have at least some worthwhile aspect to them. 70%-79.9% Also falls in the C grade (not to be confused with B-rated or C-rated) by American standards.blademaster wrote:
10--> outstanding
8-9 -->very good
6-7 -->average (meh its k)
4-5 -->below Average
0-3 -->piece of shit
10: Should be an almost unattainable score. By using it, you're saying the film has no flaws at all. If you're giving it this, chances are you just watched it and are still bedazzled by its excellence or are being influenced by critical acclaim.
9: Very good.
8: Above average.
7: On the good side of average.
6: On the bad side of average.
5: 50/50. Not that great, but with some redeeming element.
4: Barely above being a dud.
0-3: Spectrum of fail.
11 or -1: Not sure if srs.
That is pretty close to my method too... I say a 5 is more "Meh, nothing good about it, nothing particularly bad about it either..."unnamednewbie13 wrote:
You're finding the average between 0 and 10, but it's not quite like that.DrunkFace wrote:
I'd like to know in which world 7/10 is average?
And OP:And because on average, most movies have at least some worthwhile aspect to them. 70%-79.9% Also falls in the C grade (not to be confused with B-rated or C-rated) by American standards.blademaster wrote:
10--> outstanding
8-9 -->very good
6-7 -->average (meh its k)
4-5 -->below Average
0-3 -->piece of shit
10: Should be an almost unattainable score. By using it, you're saying the film has no flaws at all. If you're giving it this, chances are you just watched it and are still bedazzled by its excellence or are being influenced by critical acclaim.
9: Very good.
8: Above average.
7: On the good side of average.
6: On the bad side of average.
5: 50/50. Not that great, but with some redeeming element.
4: Barely above being a dud.
0-3: Spectrum of fail.
11 or -1: Not sure if srs.
He had fun watching it... This pushes it above a 5, which to me says it wouldn't have anything good or bad about it. If he enjoyed it enough or it had other good redeeming values, I would say a 7 is average.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
7/10 was the score I gave it. Average, but fun to watch.
The key here, is more people don't watch EVERY SINGLE MOVIE... You typically only watch the ones you have some interest in already... Since you already have some interest, it probably already has some redeeming value to it, even if it is just the correct genre for your mood.
If you give a movie a 3, for example, chances are, it REALLY surprised you with how bad it was, or you were forced to watch it... Why else would you sit through something you already thought was crap.
Probably 90% of the movies I rate fall in the 5-7 range. Anything outside of that, and I had to really like it or start disliking it.
Moneyball 9/10
Same. I also try to take into consideration the target audience and how it compares with others of its genre.HITNRUNXX wrote:
Probably 90% of the movies I rate fall in the 5-7 range. Anything outside of that, and I had to really like it or start disliking it.
Angels and Demons.
Dan Brown can be a bit of a guilty pleasure if you suspend disbelief and treat it as dumb fun. Really though this one required a bit too much suspended disbelief. It was good old dumb chase-movie fun for the most of it and it did enough here to be enjoyable but then it got ridiculous when it started the business end. I know Brown really wanted another obvious good-guy-is-really-evil plot twist but it was so weak. The motivations of the antagonists had been fairly competently explained, the new one viewers were expected to swallow was wafer fucking thin. You could almost see a poor dude with a trowel working frantically to try and fill in all the plot holes. Completely unnecessary too, they had the quest/chase bit, they found the baddie, they foiled the plot in an over-the-top and unbelievable way, the film was already beginning to feel a bit long but they had to tack on this extra bit that added nothing and took away the last shred of 'grounded in reality' - or logic maybe.
In amongst it all was supposed to be a running theme of science vs. religion but it was completely and utterly smothered and in the end proved to be irrelevant anyway.
Dan Brown can be a bit of a guilty pleasure if you suspend disbelief and treat it as dumb fun. Really though this one required a bit too much suspended disbelief. It was good old dumb chase-movie fun for the most of it and it did enough here to be enjoyable but then it got ridiculous when it started the business end. I know Brown really wanted another obvious good-guy-is-really-evil plot twist but it was so weak. The motivations of the antagonists had been fairly competently explained, the new one viewers were expected to swallow was wafer fucking thin. You could almost see a poor dude with a trowel working frantically to try and fill in all the plot holes. Completely unnecessary too, they had the quest/chase bit, they found the baddie, they foiled the plot in an over-the-top and unbelievable way, the film was already beginning to feel a bit long but they had to tack on this extra bit that added nothing and took away the last shred of 'grounded in reality' - or logic maybe.
In amongst it all was supposed to be a running theme of science vs. religion but it was completely and utterly smothered and in the end proved to be irrelevant anyway.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Clash of the Titans
3/10
Utter shit.
3/10
Utter shit.
noice 