This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Just curious - what are you watching? Zombieland was the last one that I remember seeing, but I have gotten fairly good at steering clear of the B horror movies now. I keep picking up The Horde but haven't pulled the trigger on that one yet.
Every movie I watch featuring SLJ is torture. One of my least favorite actors.
I really enjoyed this, thought Clooney and most of the support was great, but something about it felt average to me. I dont remember enough about the movie to elaborate on that, I just remember finishing it, liking it, thinking "OK, that was pretty good", then went to bed. Id probably give it 7/10 (which is probably more like 5.88/10 on your scale), enojoyed it, but Im amazed it was nominated for so many awards.
Could have watched Clooney & Fermiga go back & forth forever - hope theyre paired again sometime. Enjoyed it, but that yr of movies was so bad that i was grateful for anything without major suckness.
Did the same thing and loved it as well. Planned on watching a couple episodes, but the end of each episode made watch the next and watched them all some night. I also agree that they need the bring Rooker back (and assume they will). Itll leave a bad taste in my mouth if they dont. I thought all the "non-group" supporting actors were great in this - Rooker, Norman Reedus, Noah Emmerich.
Opening scene and basement bar room scene are clearly the highlights, as well as pretty much every extended scene with Christoph Waltz. Tarantino usually does a great job with soundtracks, but this movie didnt fit the typical genre/theme to utilize his wheelhouse. I honestly didnt notice anything 1 way or another regarding the soundtrack in Basterds
It gets a bump for being a rom/com or romance that isn't completely predictable. Maybe it was about low expectations, especially in this genre. Not how our scales correlate, but a 7/10 for me is a good movie that isn't quite good enough to get into a 'best of the year' list, but still quality enough that I would watch it again multiple times. a 5/10 would be the definition of average for me - I got through the movie, probably recommend it to a couple people, but once was enough. Not a ton of difference between my 4s and 6s.
Your scale is one of, if not the only, scale Ive been able to somewhat pinpoint at this juncture. Which is basically what I was getting at. I know 7.5/10 is a lot for you, I just didnt think UITAir was quite that good and was surprised you rated it so highly. Then again, you complained about watching #### movies for awhile and watched this, Basterds, and In Bruges back to back, so it makes a little more sense why this seemed better
(Give In Bruges another chance, its quite good. If you hate Farrell though, you probably wont like it. IMO, he's a good actor who is starting to make better decisions role-wise)
I thought when Up in the Air was on, it was a damn good movie - scenes with Clooney and Fermiga were great, and as I said I thought the business backdrop worked too and was interesting. Didn't like the other actress that had to go on the road with him though. Probably wouldn't make my 'best of the year' but it would be close (I'd have to revist what movies came out that year)It is sort of pointless having all these ratings in this thread but not knowing what they mean or how they correlate with your own rankings. Probably need to tweak mine a little bit for reasons like this movie. An 8 is a movie that would show up on my top of the year list, and a 9 would be the best 1-2 of the year or show up on a 'best of the decade' list or something like that. As wikkid pointed out, a weak year will give weirder 8s for me, and that probably shouldn't be the case.'Kenny Powers said:Your scale is one of, if not the only, scale Ive been able to somewhat pinpoint at this juncture. Which is basically what I was getting at. I know 7.5/10 is a lot for you, I just didnt think UITAir was quite that good and was surprised you rated it so highly. Then again, you complained about watching #### movies for awhile and watched this, Basterds, and In Bruges back to back, so it makes a little more sense why this seemed better'KarmaPolice said:
brendan gleason and the script carry the movie, i think. farrell plays a little against type and has a little fun in the process. i've see/read a number of the director's other work (he's a terrific playwright) and he's a hoot.
I don't think there's any subtext or metaphor in this movie that'll confuse you or annoy you with ambiguity. I'm too busy to re-write this, so this is what I said in the Terrence Malick Appreciation Thread:I'm often reluctant to write lengthy, mellifluous reviews about movies like this since I've already been appointed the house movie snob.Fully understood.I've said repeatedly that I'll watch a film solely for it's aesthetic qualities- Mallick is the aesthetic king, so I will watch, and I'm sure I will love. My brain is so fried with the newborn, I doubt I'll be able to process much of whatever else is going on.'TexanFan02 said:This is what I've heard from three different people that saw it in the theater.I'd gladly give you my four hour experience, if I could get my four hours back.Must. Find. Way. To. See. In. Theater.
This is a movie I would have loved in my twenties, but I am kind of over these movies now.
I was surprised at the negative reaction to this movie. I expected a simple action film and it delivers.
I'm not a fan. Although I am comparing it to AMC's other series Mad Men and Breaking Bad. Hard to live up to that standard. I'm done with the entire zombie genre in general. Loved 28 Days Later, and even Zach Snyder's Day of the Dead was good. But I've had enough.
I like this movie a lot, but I shared a similar experience the first time. I don't think I liked the timbre of the movie the first time and gave up about 20 minutes in. But I gave it another shot, and was glad I did.'KarmaPolice said:
I thought In Bruge was great- but exactly for what saintfool metnions... the writing and Gleason is fantastic, but it takes a little work to get past watching Farrel (although, to be honest I really enjoyed his performance here- mostly I think because of how well the character is written). I think I missed whatever fanfare there was going into it, and could just sit back and enjoy it for what it was- quiet, very well written and acted.
my favorite flick of '08'Thread Killer said:
The resolution to that movie that's performed by a bit character that we'd barely seen up until that point was so jarring to me that it ruined the movie completely.
Might have to revisit this one. Remember being disappointed when I saw it in the theater.
Yeah, I thought that it was a pretty bad movie given all of the hype.
I agree except that I think it was still good.In Bruges was great - I compare it to Fargo in it's dark humor and action.
I think that's a pretty good comparison. Fargo was quite a bit better over, but its probably around my Top 5-10 all-time. And In Bruges can be compared to it without embarrassing itself.
fun, i thought, but that's about it. i appreciated that they were drying different things but it wasn't more than a B movie. to its credit, it seemed to accept those limitations rather than get overly ambitious and fail miserably.
I guess it makes sense because I didn't care for Fargo either. I definitely want to give Fargo another shot though one day. I doubt I'll do the same for In Bruges.
i thought the first half was great but the movie fell apart after that when it became a buddy flick.
I hear you. When I love a movie, the minor faults disappear over time.
Now imagine he's a paper-flat stereotype.
I remember watching Mo Better Blues way back when, and there's a horrific Jewish stereotype in there. I just thought, "Wow, really? This from the guy that gave us Bamboozled?"
clicks link....."wow, this looks promi......####### webs!
Still prefer the original from overseas, but this is a fine film.
Looking forward to seeing Infernal Affairs some day.
I'm hoping World War Z will be good
I have my doubts with the format. Would probably be kick ### as a HBO miniseries, but not so much as a 2 hour movie.
Agreed. The book's format is a big part of what makes it work and a two hour film can't do that. It may well turn out to be a fine movie, but it will be very little of World War Z in anything other than name.In regards to Walking Dead, I enjoyed it but I'm another who watched the whole season in one sitting. Maybe that makes a difference? Of course, I can also overlook massive plot holes if I like the premise. And WD has some stuff happen that makes zero sense, so take my recommendation with a large grain of salt.
Maybe - seems like the few of you who did this liked the show more than those of us who watched it week to week. Still don't know how people can overlook the terribleness of the middle couple episodes with the Mexican gangs, etc.. I am hoping they do something more with Season 2, but I thought I read they are using the same writers?
