Rate The Last Movie You Watched

[Butter]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm biased because my best friend wrote it, but I thoroughly enjoyed McFarland, USA this weekend.

Please tell me that wasn't the original title.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

Really.

[spoiler]What you describe is why i find it boring. It's not a bad movie, I'm not saying that. It is most definitely boring though. When I say nothing happens, I mean every plot point you mention is glossed over as the film has to keep moving on until the kid is 18.

I'll never watch it again, which doesn't make it bad. Its just dull.

I have kids, and the thing it did for me was realize that my own kids have their own desires and feelings that are not in line with what I want for them. Maybe that makes me a bad father for it to take a movie to make me realize that. But sitting there and watching this movie made me stop and think about how time marches on for all of us... especially the last scene with the mother. That scene affected me so much, I still look back on that months after seeing it the first time. The fact that the movie "stops for no plot point" is exactly the point. Linklater himself says that there is not really much plot in this movie, and there wasn't intended to be.

He has done a number of interviews (I would recommend his appearance on WTF podcast, or this one) talking about how the movie was intended to have you feel what it was like to live life for this one kid, and that's really all it is. He felt that would be compelling enough on its own without having to over-dramatize it with events that rarely happen in most people's lives.

I thought it was brilliant, but I can definitely see how someone would find it boring. It's easily one of my favorite movies of all time.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

This got me thinking of award-winning and/or highly praised acting that you did not like or actors you do not like regardless how good he/she is.

Al Pacino (anything after Godfather Part II) is this for me. It is as if he's been playing the same character for a couple of decades now. IMO, he's even the weakest part of Heat as he's just riffing on his usual character.

IMO, John Malkovich and Christopher Walken have been mailing it in for some time.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Please tell me that wasn't the original title.

The title was just McFarland for a long time. It was Run to Fly for a little bit, Campiones for a bit and Cross Country for a small time.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I have kids, and the thing it did for me was realize that my own kids have their own desires and feelings that are not in line with what I want for them. Maybe that makes me a bad father for it to take a movie to make me realize that. But sitting there and watching this movie made me stop and think about how time marches on for all of us... especially the last scene with the mother. That scene affected me so much, I still look back on that months after seeing it the first time. The fact that the movie "stops for no plot point" is exactly the point. Linklater himself says that there is not really much plot in this movie, and there wasn't intended to be.

He has done a number of interviews (I would recommend his appearance on WTF podcast, or this one) talking about how the movie was intended to have you feel what it was like to live life for this one kid, and that's really all it is. He felt that would be compelling enough on its own without having to over-dramatize it with events that rarely happen in most people's lives.

I thought it was brilliant, but I can definitely see how someone would find it boring. It's easily one of my favorite movies of all time.

This was far better than any response I could have made. So, yeah, this. I can understand why some would call it dull, but a lot of stuff does indeed happen - it just doesn't linger on them, because life moves quickly. It doesn't have to be about some sort of out of the blue dramatic conflict.

Though, I also find some people say "Tree of Life" is dull, which I really cannot understand. So in the end, we all have different ways of looking at things and that's not a bad thing.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I thought "Boyhood" was excellent. The transitions from time to time were utterly seemless. What rung true for me was that everything was completely genuine. From the first scene to the last every interaction seemed very real. People acted and behaved like people in the real world act and behave. The dialogue, the situations, the mannerisms, all of it.

Like others, I sort of kept waiting for the "big dramatic" event, a car accident, a death, something, but I'm glad it didn't happen. The film didn't need it.

The film was just about moments. Moments happen and they seize you for better or worse. The mom (Arquette) wasn't "good" and the dad (Hawk) wasn't bad, they were just people who were trying to do their best.

It was quite an achievement.

As for "Tree of Life." That movie sucks balls. I find Terrence Malick and his films to be insufferable. They are definitely beautiful, but have all of the subtly of a sledge hammer and revel in the smell of their own farts unlike any other.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

As for "Tree of Life." That movie sucks balls. I find Terrence Malick and his films to be insufferable. They are definitely beautiful, but have all of the subtly of a sledge hammer and revel in the smell of their own farts unlike any other.

Haha that's great. I haven't seen this, but seeing it described this way almost makes me want to watch it to see if I agree with you.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Haha that's great. I haven't seen this, but seeing it described this way almost makes me want to watch it to see if I agree with you.

Granted, I was scarred by "The Thin Red Line." It was largely due to unsettled expectations, but it was particularly traumatic movie going experience for me. As "traumatic" as any movie going experience can be, which, to be honest, isn't really all that traumatic.

That said, you should totally give it a go, Chief!

[ISiddiqui]

I find people like to say that Malick's films have the subtly of a sledge hammer, but then miss the point he's trying to make . Though reviewers have tended to point out, more and more, Malick's religious themes so people tend to realize it a bit more .

I think "Tree of Life" (and to a certain extent, "To the Wonder") are fantastic encapsulations of the Christian faith. (It's amazing how many people had no idea that it was about Grace & Law)

[cartman]

I don't know how many of you have seen Linklater's very first movie, Slackers. To me, it and Boyhood are bookends. Slackers was about a day in the life of various eccentric characters, and Boyhood was about 12 years in the lives of related characters.

[korme]

Just saw Citizenfour. Pretty crazy stuff.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I spent the last two weekends watching Bond movies: a 3-pack for Brosnan and the 3 Craig ones. I thought each of the Brosnan ones were forgettable and completely interchangeable. Each of locations, characters and plots seem to run together, as in if you place that hot French girl in Iceland trying to blow up dam, it wouldn't make any difference. The only part that stood out as different was the NK torture. The Craig ones were better with Casino Royale being quite good and probably in the minority in thinking Skyfall fell way below expectations (for its hype and popularity).

Never saw the Brosnan movies. Quantum of Solace was terrible.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Never saw the Brosnan movies. Quantum of Solace was terrible.

I actually really liked Golden Eye. The rest of them, not so much (for Brosnan films).

I don't know if I would say Quantum was terrible, but it was a strong step back from Casino Royale, which was excellent and one of my fave Bond movies. Skyfall moved things back toward better, but not to the level of Casino Royale.

[Kodos]

Yep. I liked Skyfall, but Casino Royale was clearly the best of the new Bond movies.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I find people like to say that Malick's films have the subtly of a sledge hammer, but then miss the point he's trying to make . Though reviewers have tended to point out, more and more, Malick's religious themes so people tend to realize it a bit more .

I think "Tree of Life" (and to a certain extent, "To the Wonder") are fantastic encapsulations of the Christian faith. (It's amazing how many people had no idea that it was about Grace & Law)

I'm pretty sure I got the point of his films. Over and over and over....

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

I am watching to be entertained.

Not necessarily the only reason to watch a movie, although it seems most recent American movies try a do this. I think watching a movie to be engaged, provoked or challenged is also enjoyable. Wild Strawberries is probably my favorite example of this.

[Johnny93g]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Not necessarily the only reason to watch a movie, although it seems most recent American movies try a do this. I think watching a movie to be engaged, provoked or challenged is also enjoyable. Wild Strawberries is probably my favorite example of this.

Which all falls under the "entertaining" label.

[ISiddiqui]

There seems to be different ideas of "entertaining", then. I don't necessarily think a movie that engaged or provoked or challenged me is per se 'entertaining'. For example, if I thought a movie was really interesting, but I'd never want to see it again, like "American History X", I may put it in the provoking & challenging box but not the entertaining box.

[korme]

Ah, re-watch American History X. Might have to be 5 year windows, but that movie is always good to re-see.

[stevew]

Edge of Tomorrow. 9.5/10, pretty much as close to perfect as you can get in an action movie. Also quite funny. Works in spite of having all the Cruise baggage.

Road Hard-8/10. Adam Carolla crowd funded this. I'm a big fan, but it just shows that funny people can make specific funny stuff when there is minimal interference from producers and focus groups. I think that it's hurt by his public persona. If a darling like the Duplass bros or Louie made the exact same movie it would be marginally better but it would be super hyped.

[Chief Rum]

Okay, I bought Interstellar and re-watched it for the first time since I saw it in the theater. I also turned on closed captioning so I could read the dialogue if the sound got too loud again.

I'm not saying it becomes a great movie, but, in my opinion, it plays better the second time again. The story is pie in the sky and really requires suspension of disbelief, but it's still a touching story.

There are many things that bugged me (and still bug me) about this movie. Like the apparent lack of any kind of fanfare for the amazing return of Cooper, which, in any time, would qualify as a miracle on deity levels. I mean, one of the most famous humans--the father of the savior of humankind and one of the members of the last "fated" mission through the wormhole magically appears in space around Saturn some 80-85 years after he left Earth--and he is still nearly the same age--and yet it's like barely anyone knows he is there. That's just silly.

And the family at the end, too. Okay, yeah, I get it, they are waiting for the matriarch of their family to pass on and haven't been able to speak to her for two years and probably not seen her in even longer. But I have to tell you, if I was standing around my great grandma's deathbed, even then, I would not fail to be aware of the return of my great-great grandfather via some miracle, nor would I miss his walking into the hospital room and speaking to my great-grandma.

So that still bugs me. What doesn't anymore? Going to see Brand. It seems like such a throwaway line at the end of the scene where Cooper is about to sacrifice himself to send Brand off to the Edmunds planet. I probably missed it completely because the music would have been blasting in IMAX. But I heard it clearly and read it this time. Cooper remarks to Brand as TARS is firing up his rockets that they just "lost" about 51 years, from flying so close to the event horizon.

Think about that. He's 120 or so at the end of the movie, per the doctor. I would guess Cooper is mid to late 30s or so at the start of the movie. Two years in transit to Saturn. 23 years on the ocean planet. 51 years sailing into the black hole. That's 76 years, which could make him 110-115 years old depending on your guess at his age. Toss on a few years, maybe five for the trip further into the black hole, and the numbers roughly work out. And Brand is living along mostly the same time line. She will still be young, having taken some time to get to the more distant Edmunds planet and then they indicate she would have gone to cryo-sleep.

Anyway, long explanation but for me one of the most glaring holes is pretty much solved (and forgive me if someone else put this together and I missed it).

Still very much a movie with "issues". But I feel a bit better about it after watching the second time. And it's still a very impressive visual movie in any case.

[Shoveler]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Okay, I bought Interstellar and re-watched it for the first time since I saw it in the theater. I also turned on closed captioning so I could read the dialogue if the sound got too loud again.

I'm not saying it becomes a great movie, but, in my opinion, it plays better the second time again. The story is pie in the sky and really requires suspension of disbelief, but it's still a touching story.

There are many things that bugged me (and still bug me) about this movie. Like the apparent lack of any kind of fanfare for the amazing return of Cooper, which, in any time, would qualify as a miracle on deity levels. I mean, one of the most famous humans--the father of the savior of humankind and one of the members of the last "fated" mission through the wormhole magically appears in space around Saturn some 80-85 years after he left Earth--and he is still nearly the same age--and yet it's like barely anyone knows he is there. That's just silly.

And the family at the end, too. Okay, yeah, I get it, they are waiting for the matriarch of their family to pass on and haven't been able to speak to her for two years and probably not seen her in even longer. But I have to tell you, if I was standing around my great grandma's deathbed, even then, I would not fail to be aware of the return of my great-great grandfather via some miracle, nor would I miss his walking into the hospital room and speaking to my great-grandma.

So that still bugs me. What doesn't anymore? Going to see Brand. It seems like such a throwaway line at the end of the scene where Cooper is about to sacrifice himself to send Brand off to the Edmunds planet. I probably missed it completely because the music would have been blasting in IMAX. But I heard it clearly and read it this time. Cooper remarks to Brand as TARS is firing up his rockets that they just "lost" about 51 years, from flying so close to the event horizon.

Think about that. He's 120 or so at the end of the movie, per the doctor. I would guess Cooper is mid to late 30s or so at the start of the movie. Two years in transit to Saturn. 23 years on the ocean planet. 51 years sailing into the black hole. That's 76 years, which could make him 110-115 years old depending on your guess at his age. Toss on a few years, maybe five for the trip further into the black hole, and the numbers roughly work out. And Brand is living along mostly the same time line. She will still be young, having taken some time to get to the more distant Edmunds planet and then they indicate she would have gone to cryo-sleep.

Anyway, long explanation but for me one of the most glaring holes is pretty much solved (and forgive me if someone else put this together and I missed it).

Still very much a movie with "issues". But I feel a bit better about it after watching the second time. And it's still a very impressive visual movie in any case.

I enjoyed Interstellar but I really wish they had stuck to their original ending.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

There are many things that bugged me (and still bug me) about this movie. Like the apparent lack of any kind of fanfare for the amazing return of Cooper, which, in any time, would qualify as a miracle on deity levels. I mean, one of the most famous humans--the father of the savior of humankind and one of the members of the last "fated" mission through the wormhole magically appears in space around Saturn some 80-85 years after he left Earth--and he is still nearly the same age--and yet it's like barely anyone knows he is there. That's just silly.

I took it that as far as humanity's concerned, she saved humanity. The fact that he provided the calculations (or whatever) either a) didn't come out or b) wasn't understood. The doctor makes the point that normally someone her age wouldn't be allowed to make the voyage to the habitat where Cooper shows up at, but you can't say no to her, because she's a legend. She's the legend.

As far as humanity's concerned, the wormhole expeditions are a footnote.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Just re-watched Big Hero 6 and I don't remember if I posted in here about it the first several times I watched it or not. Just a phenomenal movie. One of the best Disney has put out in years. Highly, highly recommended.

Also, I thought it was going to be shit after watching the trailers.

[Vince, Pt. II]

The new Avengers movie was great. Probably not QUITE as good as the first, but if you liked the first, you'll like the second a lot. David Spader as the voice of Ultron was perfect.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

The new Avengers movie was great. Probably not QUITE as good as the first, but if you liked the first, you'll like the second a lot. David Spader as the voice of Ultron was perfect.

I actually thought Age of Ultron was better. It went right into the action and didn't let up. Spader was fantastic.

[Kodos]

I enjoyed the new Avengers movie, but it wasn't as good as the first. And it felt like it had a ton of action just for the sake of having action. Part of the problem is probably the fact that I'm not a comic-book nerd.

I will say that it was enjoyable as a popcorn movie.

[Vince, Pt. II]

It was definitely that. The main issue I had with the movie was that the problems introduced as motivating factors for the main characters (mistrust between team members and the twins' major motivation being the major ones) never seem to be resolved. The characters simply continue moving forward until things turn out the way they do. Knowing what comes next in the Captain America story arc, I get it, but the continuity of the movie seems a little...lacking.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

It was definitely that. The main issue I had with the movie was that the problems introduced as motivating factors for the main characters (mistrust between team members and the twins' major motivation being the major ones) never seem to be resolved. The characters simply continue moving forward until things turn out the way they do. Knowing what comes next in the Captain America story arc, I get it, but the continuity of the movie seems a little...lacking.

Yes, I was a bit surprised that nothing was ever brought up between the twins and Tony Stark.

[law90026]

Really enjoyed Avengers 2. Sure the ending third was a little heavy handed with the whole "we must save the city before we leave" bit but it was overall a good movie to me. I really didn't like the romance bit though ... that felt a little overdone and unnecessary.

[whomario]

In light of his anniversary and me about to tackle a paper on 1940s cinema, i rewatched most of Orson Welles movies and again came away a fan. Not just Citizen Kane (which is a brilliant movie, period. Not just technically or "for its time")) but also Chimes at Midnight (Falstaff) or the Magnificent Ambersons. Even a somewhat more "unrefined" movie like Touch of Evil offers a ton of great stuff (like the opening shot, a greatly executed looooong tracking shot).

[Vince, Pt. II]

John Wick was great. Just a pure action flick that doesn't pretend to be anything more and sticks to the script. Really enjoyed the attention to detail - seeing the main character reload a gun on a regular basis throughout the movie was great. This is also the perfect role for Keanu - his range is very small, but this film nails it.

I think they did a great job setting the tone early and creating an aura of mystique around Wick. Apparently they're making a sequel now, not sure I like that idea though. The simplicity of this story - straight up angry revenge - helps to keep the focus on the action. The shallow world they created is perfect as is...delving into it more will do nothing more than dilute the strength of the film, in my mind.

[ISiddiqui]

Ex Machina - 8/10: This is an absolutely fantastic AI movie, one that really gets you to think and consider our emotions and whether a computer can truly feel. The films gets uncomfortable in all the right ways. Also had some fantastic acting. This is definitely one that will create some great discussion.

[chinaski]

Kingsman: Secret Service and John Wick. Im a sucker for good action movies and both of these do it perfectly. 10/10 all the way. Cant wait for the sequels.

[Julio Riddols]

A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night 9/10 for me. This is a beautifully shot black and white film with vampire elements, a little drug dealing, and a guy who looks like the Iranian James Dean. The soundtrack is excellent and stuff you don't hear every day, and the visuals are incredible, even vivid, despite being black and white. There are elements of comedy, but it is generally a sort of strange romance story with western and supernatural elements. Wholly unique.

Going Clear (The Scientology Documentary) 9/10 - Fascinating for those curious about the inner workings, docked a point because it didn't quite get as deep into it as I had hoped. Still very absorbing, especially the stuff about Cruise.

Hyena 7/10 - This only gets a 7 because the ending bugs me. I don't like ambiguity in my endings, but I can understand why they did it here. Prior to that ending, a very tense and well done suspenseful crooked cops vs crooked criminals story out of the UK. I was pretty fully absorbed for the entirety, but kinda got blue balls when the credits rolled.

Charley Varrick 7/10 - I really enjoyed this, an oldie that kind of flies under the radar, a heist movie with Walter Matthau playing the lead. You wouldn't expect Matthau to play this kind of role, but he does well in it and its a pretty solid story that definitely brings to mind other films of the same era that are more well known today.

The Babadook 9/10 - Wow. The kid in this film reminded me so much of my son it tripped me the hell out, but aside from that it was also a quite good horror film, far better than a typical genre entry. Good suspense, intriguing moments throughout. Some solid scares as well, which is something I rarely get from horror films.

Spring 9/10 - This is a very unique film, a love story and a monster movie rolled into one, and the guys that made it are the same ones that directed an excellent indie film from 2013 called Resolution. If their first two films are any indication, these guys are going to have a solid career making unique movies that also manage to be compelling for more than just the fact that they are unique. I highly recommend Spring, its really not easy to describe it without spoiling some of what makes it interesting.

[Kodos]

You give out nines like they are going out of style, sir!

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by Kodos

You give out nines like they are going out of style, sir!

I generally do enough research on a film before I watch it so that I never watch a shitty film. I knows what I wants, and I goes and gets it. That said, my tastes are kinda hipster-y I guess.

Also after reading the reviews on the new Mad Max film I think I might hit the theater for the first time since Inception to go see it.

[Kodos]

Inception was great.

[Grover]

Going Clear was awesome, but I was still left wanting more.

Time to sign that billion year contract...

[claphamsa]

just watched imitation game...which was one of the best movies i have ever seen... also watcher birdman which was ok at best.

[stevew]

I generally enjoyed Boyhood, but

Spoiler

at a certain ending scene with a waiter/restaurant manager I wanted to throw my remote through the TV.

I don't think I need to spoiler tag that, but anyways that was some Its a Wonderful Life level horseshit.

http://www.avclub.com/article/most-p...boyhood-215961

I just found that article, and tbh I couldn't care less about the racial implications there, but the scene was pure hack level shit.;

[Julio Riddols]

Man, Whiplash is more intense than probably any thriller I have ever seen. J.K. Simmons is amazing, Miles Teller is amazing, the ending is an all time great in my opinion.

[Dodgerchick]

The Machinist - 6.5/10

Lots of tense moments. It was creepy watching "Batman" rail thin, with bones sticking out where they're not supposed to. He was really good but the payoff wasn't worth the intense moments and buildup.

Tomorrowland - 6/10

Great visuals, but the story seemed flat and I ended up falling asleep during some parts.

[cmp]

Just watched Interstellar, took me a bit to get into it but I really ended up enjoying it.

[stevew]

Watched Fury, I'd give it about a 4/10 or so. Don't understand how it gets a 77% on RT. First half of movie had decent promise. Tank battles, etc. Maybe young Nazi kids forced to fight. Middle part is really rapey. End part is super far fetched. Don't wanna get all spoilery, but if we're to believe that a group of soldiers is highly trained, then don't have them act like dummies.

[Grover]

JURASSIC WORLD - 8/10

Highly, highly entertaining. A little over the top and if you were playing Action Movie Trope Bingo, you'd have filled the entire board. Don't let the plot holes bother you too much. Like my friend said "they did bring dinosaurs back to life here..."

[Dodgerchick]

Spy - 7.5/10

Jason Statham was so ridiculously funny. I honestly thought he was funnier than Melissa McCarthy. She played the usual funny, raunchy character she's known for.

[BillJasper]

Jurassic World - 7/10

Good movie. But I could have done without the 'kids in danger' angle again.

[Dodgerchick]

Mad Max - 7.5/10

Saw it several days ago and all I remember were the awesome action scenes. Even with one arm Charlize Theron is hella hot. When the movie was over and had a chance to catch my breath, I turned to Ant and said, "I've no idea what this movie's about" hahaha. I guess it's rated high because of the action sequences?

[Groundhog]

Interstellar was enjoyable, but too heavy-handed with it's themes for my money.... giving Matt Damon's character the surname of "Mann" in particular. The ending also tried way too hard to be 2001: ASO.

Caught some movies on my various flights around the Americas.

Chappie - 6/10
Wasn't as bad as I expected based on reviews I'd seen, but not great. The Die Antwoord duo weren't nearly as bad at acting as I expected, either.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone - 5/10
I actually think this plot would make a really good movie if done differently. As it was, it felt a bit muddled and kind of straddled the line of all out Adam Sandler-style silliness without committing to it all the way.

American Sniper - 4/10
Shot wonderfully and great acting all around, but something about the whole tone of the movie really put me off.