What Was The Last Movie You Watched and Rate it!

[OscarB63]

Yeah but it had Denzel and Ryan Reynolds, which could easily cover a multitude of movie-making sins.

I'm a straight dude and I think both Denzel and Ryan are hot

 

[Superfly]

I'm a straight dude and I think both Denzel and Ryan are hot

That. Is. So. Hot.

:lol:

 

[OscarB63]

That. Is. So. Hot.

:lol:

I find it funny that so many guys seem to be incapable of admitting that another man is attractive.

 

[Superfly]

They are afraid they won't seem as "manly." Honestly, doesn't make them less manly at all. If anything, it shows a security that they feel strong enough, and confident enough to say what they feel without worrying about what other people think. And confidence is sexy.

Women have no problem with this. At least I don't. Can't speak for others, but I have no problem saying a woman is "hot" or whatever.

 

[German guy]

"Star Trek Into Darkness" last thursday in cinema, on opening day.

Was the best action-centered movie I have seen in a while. Although the story lacks some creativity, many amazing effects, good character moments and very fast pacing make up for it. It doesn't try to be anything else than just a fun sf-action popcorn flick, and it succeeds.

I'd give it 7 out of 10 points (I'd rate the first "new" Star Trek movie from 2009 slightly better, 8 out of 10 points).

 

[Carjosse]

I watched Les Miserables, it's not very good especially if you hate musicals. I think the continuous signing causes the dialog to just fall flat flat on it's face and make the experience unenjoyable.
This basically summarizes my viewpoint:

 

[Kane]

"Star Trek Into Darkness" last thursday in cinema, on opening day.

Was the best action-centered movie I have seen in a while. Although the story lacks some creativity, many amazing effects, good character moments and very fast pacing make up for it. It doesn't try to be anything else than just a fun sf-action popcorn flick, and it succeeds.

I'd give it 7 out of 10 points (I'd rate the first "new" Star Trek movie from 2009 slightly better, 8 out of 10 points).

Cheap looking sets, CGI'd to death, awful acting, rehashed characters ...I'd take old repeats of Capt. Picard on TV any day.

I shudder to think what J.J. Abrahms will do to Star Wars, he obviously cant write and has zero imagination. As long as the cash flow keeps going, the Studios don't give a rip that the quality of their films and the art of storytelling has been forgotten, only to be replaced with computer effects and nonsense.

 

[German guy]

Cheap looking sets, CGI'd to death, awful acting, rehashed characters ...I'd take old repeats of Capt. Picard on TV any day.

I shudder to think what J.J. Abrahms will do to Star Wars, he obviously cant write and has zero imagination. As long as the cash flow keeps going, the Studios don't give a rip that the quality of their films and the art of storytelling has been forgotten, only to be replaced with computer effects and nonsense.

Disagree. I think you can only think the old Star Trek movies are better, when you look at them through rosy glasses (like childhood nostalgia or something). The acting of the new actors easily beats the entire old crew, and in two new movies, there is much more character development already than in 79 tv episodes combined. IMO.

Maybe the new movies are not *good*, but they are certainly not worse than the old Star Trek big screen movies, which most of the time were crap (don't get me wrong, I love it nevertheless).

Agreed on TNG on tv (or now Blu Ray), though ... but it's not really fair to compare 178 hours of a tv series with two mass-compatible two-hour movies. Star Trek has always been better on the small screen than on the big screen, IMO. ANd there is the advantage when today's episode sucks, you get a better episode next week. Star Trek on the big screen has always attempted to be mass-compatible popcorn stuff (with the possible exception of TMP). The new movies beat at least the TNG movies by miles.

I mean, tell me with a straight face that "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier", "Star Trek: Insurrection" or "Star Trek: Nemesis" were better than the new movies. I wouldn't believe you.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I'm a trek fan boy and enjoyed the first abrams film a lot. And german guy is right, some of the st movies are horrendous

 

[Helix]

the Hobbit; a strong 6/10. will watch the next installment.

while it didn't strike me quite as much as as the LOTR trilogy, i wonder if that's because i didn't watch it in one sitting as i did with the other movies. either way, it beats many other movies i've seen recently.

 

[Gathomas88]

Just got back from Star Trek. The story wasn't terrible per se from a dramatic or action movie standpoint... but, my God, it was dumber than a sack of hammers.

J.J. Abrams is a decent story teller, but he can't write science fiction to save his life.

The villian was pretty good, but he felt massively under-utilized. The shameless rehashing was also cringe-inducingly obvious in several scenes.

To rant a bit.

Spoiler

1. COLD FUSION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!! You do NOT "freeze" a volcano with a "Cold Fusion bomb."

2. Who the Hell was the military advisor for this thing? Someone doesn't constantly disrespect superior officers, ignore orders, and get demoted for violating doctrine and regulations, while generally behaving like an immature, arrogant, and erratic moron the whole time only to then get handed the keys to an unstoppable interstellar warship carrying weapons of mass destruction and a crew of thousands five minutes later. It is especially ridiculous when you consider that the officer in question is barely pushing thirty.

How has the Federation managed to survive this long? With a command structure this ineffectual, they should've been steam-rollered over by Klingons ages ago.

3. Why the f*ck do neither Earth nor the Klingon homeworld have ANY kind of defense network or early warning system in place? Where are the defense fleets? Where are the radar stations and air traffic control? Where's the civilian traffic?

I could buy some isolated outpost in the middle of nowhere being relatively easy to infiltrate, but the friggin' CAPITALS OF TWO POWERS IN THE MIDDLE OF A COLD WAR??? I mean... Really?

The crap shown in this movie would be roughly the equivalent of having the final dogfight from TopGun take place in the skies over Moscow or Washington DC.

It's even inconsistent with the first movie, as the villain there had to torture Pike to get the codes to access Earth's defense network before he could start his attack. The oversight is simply indicative of piss poor writng.

4. Someone dying of severe radiation poisoning does not look like that. C'mon guys, they managed to do this scene far more convincingly in the Wrath of Khan, and that was using special effects from f*cking 1982!

5. Hulk mode Spock completely defeats the purpose of the character. It actually made sense in the first movie for Spock to freak out. This was just lame and unnecessary.

6. Transwarp beamimg makes starships completely pointless.

7. The fact that the villian's final act probably kills tens of thousands of civilians is completely ignored. I found this to be kind of strange.

In short, it's "okay" if you can turn your brain off and just nod along with the latent absurdity being depicted at any given moment. If you think about it in the slightest, you'll just want to throw things at the screen.

I'm frankly kind of disappointed to see that it's doing so well with the critics. That just means the studio will feel they have license to make the next film even worse in this regard (if they make one).

It's kind of ironic, really. Comic book movies are growing more mature and serious by the year while science fiction seems to be poised to completely destroy what little intellectual credibility it has left. Go figure. :roll:

 

[specklebang]

Great Science Fiction comes with world building that some writers do very well. There is absolutely no way to translate that to the screen. Here's you damn starship. There is nowhere to insert the history of star flight without the infamous "info dump" . I've never seen a great Science Fiction film in my life. A few were OK, but none were great. Can't be done.

Just got back from Star Trek. The story wasn't terrible per se from a dramatic or action movie standpoint... but, my God, it was dumber than a sack of hammers.

J.J. Abrams is a decent story teller, but he can't write science fiction to save his life.

The villian was pretty good, but he felt massively under-utilized. The shameless rehashing was also cringe-inducingly obvious in several scenes.

To rant a bit.

Spoiler

1. COLD FUSION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!! You do NOT "freeze" a volcano with a "Cold Fusion bomb."

2. Who the Hell was the military advisor for this thing? Someone doesn't constantly disrespect superior officers, ignore orders, and get demoted for violating doctrine and regulations, while generally behaving like an immature, arrogant, and erratic moron the whole time only to then get handed the keys to an unstoppable interstellar warship carrying weapons of mass destruction and a crew of thousands five minutes later. It is especially ridiculous when you consider that the officer in question is barely pushing thirty.

How has the Federation managed to survive this long? With a command structure this ineffectual, they should've been steam-rollered over by Klingons ages ago.

3. Why the f*ck do neither Earth nor the Klingon homeworld have ANY kind of defense network or early warning system in place? Where are the defense fleets? Where are the radar stations and air traffic control? Where's the civilian traffic?

I could buy some isolated outpost in the middle of nowhere being relatively easy to infiltrate, but the friggin' CAPITALS OF TWO POWERS IN THE MIDDLE OF A COLD WAR??? I mean... Really?

The crap shown in this movie would be roughly the equivalent of having the final dogfight from TopGun take place in the skies over Moscow or Washington DC.

It's even inconsistent with the first movie, as the villain there had to torture Pike to get the codes to access Earth's defense network before he could start his attack. The oversight is simply indicative of piss poor writng.

4. Someone dying of severe radiation poisoning does not look like that. C'mon guys, they managed to do this scene far more convincingly in the Wrath of Khan, and that was using special effects from f*cking 1982!

5. Hulk mode Spock completely defeats the purpose of the character. It actually made sense in the first movie for Spock to freak out. This was just lame and unnecessary.

6. Transwarp beamimg makes starships completely pointless.

7. The fact that the villian's final act probably kills tens of thousands of civilians is completely ignored. I found this to be kind of strange.

In short, it's "okay" if you can turn your brain off and just nod along with the latent absurdity being depicted at any given moment. If you think about it in the slightest, you'll just want to throw things at the screen.

I'm frankly kind of disappointed to see that it's doing so well with the critics. That just means the studio will feel they have license to make the next film even worse in this regard (if they make one).

It's kind of ironic, really. Comic book movies are growing more mature and serious by the year while science fiction seems to be poised to completely destroy what little intellectual credibility it has left. Go figure. :roll:

 

[Gathomas88]

Great Science Fiction comes with world building that some writers do very well. There is absolutely no way to translate that to the screen. Here's you damn starship. There is nowhere to insert the history of star flight without the infamous "info dump" . I've never seen a great Science Fiction film in my life. A few were OK, but none were great. Can't be done.

True, but I've seen it done much more effectively than this. It's painfully obvious that they weren't even trying to make things consistent or believable.

They were just after the pay check.

Just like with Prometheus, it looks like story writing 101 went right out the window in favor of pretty special effects; ultimately leaving us with nothing but a garbled mess of a movie meant to do little more than put asses in seats. The sad part is that you can tell that both movies might've actually been something special if their creators had simply given them an ounce more TLC.

The first Abram's Trek movie might not've been a masterpiece, but at least it accomplished what it set out to do. This film misses far more notes than it hits.

 

[specklebang]

So, name a perfect Science Fiction film.

True, but I've seen it done much more effectively than this. It's painfully obvious that they weren't even trying to make things consistent or believable.

They were just after the pay check.

Just like with Prometheus, story writing 101 goes right out the window in favor of pretty special effects. All you're ultimately left with is a garbled mess of a movie meant to do nothing more but put asses in seats. The sad part is that you can tell that the movie might've actually been something special if creators had simply given it an ounce more TLC.

 

[Gathomas88]

So, name a perfect Science Fiction film.

It's not about finding a "perfect" science fiction film. It's about finding one that doesn't make you want to repeatedly stab yourself in the eye with a salad fork.

Again, the first Abrams Trek movie had its flaws, but it was freaking Gone With the Wind compared to this tripe. It followed some kind of consistent internal logic, and paid some token respect to basic story telling and scientific principles.

It also didn't rip off entire scenes wholesale from other films in utterly lame attempts at fan service.

 

[paris]

So, name a perfect Science Fiction film.

2001: A Space Odyssey. Contact was also great, imo.

Last movie: La migliore offerta (2013). Tis an okay romance.

 

[Gathomas88]

2001: A Space Odyssey. Contact was also great, imo.

Moon, Inception, and Gattaca were pretty amazing as well, IMO.

Pandorum would also be a pretty great movie if you edited out some of the sillier bits in the second half of the film.

 

[paris]

Moon, Inception, and Gattaca were pretty amazing as well, IMO.

Pandorum would also be a pretty great movie if you edited out some of the sillier bits in the second half of the film.

Yes. And also Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., and one of my favorites, Alien.

Just found a list, a bit old but interesting: http://www.ofcs.org/ofcs-top-100-top-100-sci-fi-films/

 

[Superfly]

the Hobbit; a strong 6/10. will watch the next installment.

while it didn't strike me quite as much as as the LOTR trilogy, i wonder if that's because i didn't watch it in one sitting as i did with the other movies. either way, it beats many other movies i've seen recently.

No, I've sat through it completely, twice. Once at the theater and once at home when it came out on Bluray. While it was great, and much better than most of the other garbage that is out now, it's not anywhere near LOTR. Not even on the same playing field. LOTR just grabbed me from the beginning of FOTR to the end of ROTK. Did not let go.

 

[Ben K.]

Bilbos better than any of the other hobbits though.

 

[Helix]

No, I've sat through it completely, twice. Once at the theater and once at home when it came out on Bluray. While it was great, and much better than most of the other garbage that is out now, it's not anywhere near LOTR. Not even on the same playing field. LOTR just grabbed me from the beginning of FOTR to the end of ROTK. Did not let go.

i need to watch all of that trilogy again. i've forgotten enough of it that it will be fun.

i should add that Cate Blanchett as Galadriel is beyond hot.

 

[Superfly]

i need to watch all of that trilogy again. i've forgotten enough of it that it will be fun.

i should add that Cate Blanchett as Galadriel is beyond hot.

She is way hot in the movies. One of my favorite characters, and I love the scene in the extended edition where she's gifting everyone different things as they are leaving. It also showed you that Gimli had a terrible crush on her that wasn't talked about in the standard version.

 

[specklebang]

I must admit that I didn't think my claim through. But I'm difficult about video. The ones mentioned that wwere originally from books, were based on books I didn't get to big a thrill out of either. I'm such a narrow-minded grouch.

2001 - OK, this was pretty much a great movie. I saw this in Bangkok in 1967 or 1968. I smoked some Laotian pot just before I went in to the theater (beautiful theaters with reserved love-seats - and you coulkd smoke!) and between the movie and my own hallucinations, it was quite experiential. Quite.

Close Encounters - Meh

Moon - Good drama but not very Sci-Fi

Gattaca - Good drama but not very Sci-Fi

Inception - If they had skipped the level where it was cold and the gunfire was incessant (without reloading) I would have given this 4 stars but that gunfight lowered it to 2.87535

Pandorum - Never heard of it. Will check it out.

2001: A Space Odyssey. Contact was also great, imo.

Last movie: La migliore offerta (2013). Tis an okay romance.

Moon, Inception, and Gattaca were pretty amazing as well, IMO.

Pandorum would also be a pretty great movie if you edited out some of the sillier bits in the second half of the film.

Yes. And also Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., and one of my favorites, Alien.

Just found a list, a bit old but interesting: OFCS Top 100: Top 100 Sci-Fi Films « Online Film Critics Society

No, I've sat through it completely, twice. Once at the theater and once at home when it came out on Bluray. While it was great, and much better than most of the other garbage that is out now, it's not anywhere near LOTR. Not even on the same playing field. LOTR just grabbed me from the beginning of FOTR to the end of ROTK. Did not let go.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Yes. And also Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., and one of my favorites, Alien.

Just found a list, a bit old but interesting: OFCS Top 100: Top 100 Sci-Fi Films « Online Film Critics Society

alien is more horror. it isn't really about how new technology and future developments will impact human society and culture, which is generally what sci-fi is understood as

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I must admit that I didn't think my claim through. But I'm difficult about video. The ones mentioned that wwere originally from books, were based on books I didn't get to big a thrill out of either. I'm such a narrow-minded grouch.

2001 - OK, this was pretty much a great movie. I saw this in Bangkok in 1967 or 1968. I smoked some Laotian pot just before I went in to the theater (beautiful theaters with reserved love-seats - and you coulkd smoke!) and between the movie and my own hallucinations, it was quite experiential. Quite.

2001 seems like it would be an amazing viewing experience in a theater. Every time I watch it at home, I can't help but feel I'm missing out