Recently viewed movie thread - Rental Edition (7 Viewers)

[saintfool]

Once Upon A Time In The West

Not a huge western fan, but holy #### this movie was epic. http://forumimages.footballguys.com/forums//public/style_emoticons/default/thumbup1.gif

5/5

Finally saw this one too. I liked it quite a bit as well, but I don't get the 'one of the greatest films ever made' talk, the story was too all over the place for that imo. I still prefer The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly by a decent bit.

this.

 

[Abraham]

Dead man down - pretty solid but can't decide if it wants to be an action movie or a thriller flick. 3 out of 6 stars. Absolutely average.

Jack reacher - solidly entertaining. Pretty easy to see the story was taken from a book series. Doubt it was good enough to get a sequel. Decent little crime investigation thing with some action. 4/6

The master - watched first twenty minutes. Didn't finish.

Spring breakers - sensational. Very bright and loud movie with lots going on and lots of things to push buttons. Nudity, hot chicks, crime, good music. 5 out of 6.

Side effects - much better than I was expecting. Jude law does a nice job as does Rooney Mara. Definitely worth a couple hours. 4/6

Snitch - another good crime action movie. Nothing sophisticated Bout it but its entertaining. 4/6.

Ranked in order...

Sprint breakers

Side effects

Snitch

Jack reacher

Dead man down

 

[17seconds]

Contagion - 1.5/5

If you want to see a movie like Outbreak with less suspense, a matter-of-fact plot, and an abrupt ending just when you think it's ramping up to have a good last 30mins... then watch this one I guess. Not good. Seriously, there is no reason for this movie to exist. We've already seen Outbreak.

 

[Chaka]

Contagion - 1.5/5

If you want to see a movie like Outbreak with less suspense, a matter-of-fact plot, and an abrupt ending just when you think it's ramping up to have a good last 30mins... then watch this one I guess. Not good. Seriously, there is no reason for this movie to exist. We've already seen Outbreak.

Spoiler

Gwenyth Paltrow dies horribly in the first 10 minutes.

That's worth the price of admission.

 

[Run It Up]

Evil Dead (2013)

Actually surprised by the positive reviews on this one. How was this different than the other dozens of horror remakes that get panned? This one felt like it checked off all of the same items that the remakes feel the need to have (usually to their downfall): 1. gore for gore's sake 2. over explain stuff - either why the bad guy is bad or add in some melodramatic plot line for back story 3. seemingly whiff on the tone/style of the original.

This one had a big heaping serving of all three. We get a completely unneeded back story of why they were at the cabin, how the book came to be, etc.. I think the reason for the popularity of the movie was the gore - this movie had a ton of it. However, by the end of the movie I saw so much that I was just done. It is on the lines of being trapped in a room in Hostel for about an hour. I think the biggest mistake that the movie made is that there was 0 fun to be had watching this. The original is one of my favorite horror movies, and that was a great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs. Because of the back story we got, there was a dark mood from beginning to end with this one, and I got little enjoyment out of this one.

There was one good jump scare and a #### ton of gore, but nothing that I would recommend people watching. 4/10

I disagree completely and am sad that you didn't enjoy it as much as I did.

What makes this remake so good is it met my expectations and exceeded them.

There hasn't been a better movie in the past 10 years that has used minimal CG effects. Almost all of the effects were physical and it contributes a great deal to the movie. The movie felt brutal at times, it was great. The acting was surprisingly good and actually convincing. Everyones descent into madness was believable and incredibly violent. The ending really topped it all off.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Evil Dead (2013)

Actually surprised by the positive reviews on this one. How was this different than the other dozens of horror remakes that get panned? This one felt like it checked off all of the same items that the remakes feel the need to have (usually to their downfall): 1. gore for gore's sake 2. over explain stuff - either why the bad guy is bad or add in some melodramatic plot line for back story 3. seemingly whiff on the tone/style of the original.

This one had a big heaping serving of all three. We get a completely unneeded back story of why they were at the cabin, how the book came to be, etc.. I think the reason for the popularity of the movie was the gore - this movie had a ton of it. However, by the end of the movie I saw so much that I was just done. It is on the lines of being trapped in a room in Hostel for about an hour. I think the biggest mistake that the movie made is that there was 0 fun to be had watching this. The original is one of my favorite horror movies, and that was a great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs. Because of the back story we got, there was a dark mood from beginning to end with this one, and I got little enjoyment out of this one.

There was one good jump scare and a #### ton of gore, but nothing that I would recommend people watching. 4/10

I think it's a mistake to remake a movie that's practically perfect.

The other problem is that Evil Dead already has an excellent remake: Evil Dead 2. The sequel really is the same movie with a better budget.

I think that remaking films in general is a difficult proposition and should be done with more consideration than is currently given however there is nothing about the original Evil Dead that is perfect. It's a campy, entertaining film that misses almost as often as it hits..

The original Evil Dead is perfect in that it had a singular aesthetic and excecuted that well on screen on a tiny budget. A movie doesn't have to be Apocalypse Now to be perfect. A movie, to me, fails or succeeds for the viewer if it delivers an interesting vision.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Evil Dead (2013)

Actually surprised by the positive reviews on this one. How was this different than the other dozens of horror remakes that get panned? This one felt like it checked off all of the same items that the remakes feel the need to have (usually to their downfall): 1. gore for gore's sake 2. over explain stuff - either why the bad guy is bad or add in some melodramatic plot line for back story 3. seemingly whiff on the tone/style of the original.

This one had a big heaping serving of all three. We get a completely unneeded back story of why they were at the cabin, how the book came to be, etc.. I think the reason for the popularity of the movie was the gore - this movie had a ton of it. However, by the end of the movie I saw so much that I was just done. It is on the lines of being trapped in a room in Hostel for about an hour. I think the biggest mistake that the movie made is that there was 0 fun to be had watching this. The original is one of my favorite horror movies, and that was a great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs. Because of the back story we got, there was a dark mood from beginning to end with this one, and I got little enjoyment out of this one.

There was one good jump scare and a #### ton of gore, but nothing that I would recommend people watching. 4/10

I think it's a mistake to remake a movie that's practically perfect.

The other problem is that Evil Dead already has an excellent remake: Evil Dead 2. The sequel really is the same movie with a better budget.

I think that remaking films in general is a difficult proposition and should be done with more consideration than is currently given however there is nothing about the original Evil Dead that is perfect. It's a campy, entertaining film that misses almost as often as it hits..

Yes. I meant to reply to this earlier because KP said the original is a "great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs". To me, the original is all camp and laughs, no scares or gore. It is as cheesy as any film Ive ever seen. I like it for what it is, unique if anything, but its becoming a cult classic had little to do with how great it was. ED II was a huge step up from the original IMO, but still not what I would call scary or gory on a horror movie level.

I liked this remake particularly because while staying true with numerous things in ED & EDII storyline wise, it switched it up to the point where you can see what it is referring to, but its different. And unlike the first two ED's, this went full force for on the gore and scares. I dont see how the backstory was a downfall either, it actually made a lot of sense on how characters made decisions/actions as it progressed as well. The tone is obviously different from the original, that was inevitable IMO, but I thought there was still more humor infused than your standard horror flick.

The photography in Evil Dead alone make it an important movie in the genre.

Raimi's shots have been ripped off in countless movies.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

This Spring Breakers movie is wacky.

 

[VA703]

Contagion - 1.5/5

If you want to see a movie like Outbreak with less suspense, a matter-of-fact plot, and an abrupt ending just when you think it's ramping up to have a good last 30mins... then watch this one I guess. Not good. Seriously, there is no reason for this movie to exist. We've already seen Outbreak.

Spoiler

Gwenyth Paltrow dies horribly in the first 10 minutes.

Spoiler

That's worth the price of admission.

1.5 really?

id give it at lowest a 2.5 out of 5

 

[KarmaPolice]

Evil Dead (2013)

Actually surprised by the positive reviews on this one. How was this different than the other dozens of horror remakes that get panned? This one felt like it checked off all of the same items that the remakes feel the need to have (usually to their downfall): 1. gore for gore's sake 2. over explain stuff - either why the bad guy is bad or add in some melodramatic plot line for back story 3. seemingly whiff on the tone/style of the original.

This one had a big heaping serving of all three. We get a completely unneeded back story of why they were at the cabin, how the book came to be, etc.. I think the reason for the popularity of the movie was the gore - this movie had a ton of it. However, by the end of the movie I saw so much that I was just done. It is on the lines of being trapped in a room in Hostel for about an hour. I think the biggest mistake that the movie made is that there was 0 fun to be had watching this. The original is one of my favorite horror movies, and that was a great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs. Because of the back story we got, there was a dark mood from beginning to end with this one, and I got little enjoyment out of this one.

There was one good jump scare and a #### ton of gore, but nothing that I would recommend people watching. 4/10

I think it's a mistake to remake a movie that's practically perfect.

The other problem is that Evil Dead already has an excellent remake: Evil Dead 2. The sequel really is the same movie with a better budget.

I think that remaking films in general is a difficult proposition and should be done with more consideration than is currently given however there is nothing about the original Evil Dead that is perfect. It's a campy, entertaining film that misses almost as often as it hits..

Yes. I meant to reply to this earlier because KP said the original is a "great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs". To me, the original is all camp and laughs, no scares or gore. It is as cheesy as any film Ive ever seen. I like it for what it is, unique if anything, but its becoming a cult classic had little to do with how great it was. ED II was a huge step up from the original IMO, but still not what I would call scary or gory on a horror movie level.

I liked this remake particularly because while staying true with numerous things in ED & EDII storyline wise, it switched it up to the point where you can see what it is referring to, but its different. And unlike the first two ED's, this went full force for on the gore and scares. I dont see how the backstory was a downfall either, it actually made a lot of sense on how characters made decisions/actions as it progressed as well. The tone is obviously different from the original, that was inevitable IMO, but I thought there was still more humor infused than your standard horror flick.

I have long realized that ED2 is loved by more people. Maybe I made the mistake recently of watching them back to back. It's campy, but I think a bit of that is just budget constraints. I thought there were a few good jumps in the first one. Come on, no gore? The effects weren't top notch or anything, but part of the humor is watching Bruce Campbell get slathered in blood for the last 30mins or so. I just loved the look and feel of the original. Like JD stated - ED2 was already the bigger budget remake. It is basically the same movie, but with more money. Maybe that's why I had it a notch below the first when I watched them recently. I thought ED2 was mostly laughs and didn't have much in the lines of scares (again, maybe it was the back to back viewing). No way am I in here saying that it's a bad movie - I love them both. I just have a softer spot in my heart for the original I guess.

Feel like I was watching a different version of the new one than you. I agree that they went full force with the blood - I just don't see where the scares or humor was at all. Like I said, there was one spot in the beginning that got a jump out of me, and I had my hopes up. But I think to me they replaced the scares with torture/gore and that is not was scares me. There are tons of horror movies lately that bring the humor intentionally or not. Maybe I have been watching too many lately on the lines of Cabin in the Woods, Behind the Mask, Drag Me to Hell, Cabin Fever, and Tucker and Dale. Hell even stuff that wasn't that good was fun to watch such as Hatchet, Final Destination 5, etc.. For my money, this movie was too dour and that was it's biggest offense. People who watch horror for the gore will have a blast, no doubt about it. I will just play my Old Man card and say that's not for me anymore.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Evil Dead (2013)

Actually surprised by the positive reviews on this one. How was this different than the other dozens of horror remakes that get panned? This one felt like it checked off all of the same items that the remakes feel the need to have (usually to their downfall): 1. gore for gore's sake 2. over explain stuff - either why the bad guy is bad or add in some melodramatic plot line for back story 3. seemingly whiff on the tone/style of the original.

This one had a big heaping serving of all three. We get a completely unneeded back story of why they were at the cabin, how the book came to be, etc.. I think the reason for the popularity of the movie was the gore - this movie had a ton of it. However, by the end of the movie I saw so much that I was just done. It is on the lines of being trapped in a room in Hostel for about an hour. I think the biggest mistake that the movie made is that there was 0 fun to be had watching this. The original is one of my favorite horror movies, and that was a great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs. Because of the back story we got, there was a dark mood from beginning to end with this one, and I got little enjoyment out of this one.

There was one good jump scare and a #### ton of gore, but nothing that I would recommend people watching. 4/10

I disagree completely and am sad that you didn't enjoy it as much as I did.

What makes this remake so good is it met my expectations and exceeded them.

There hasn't been a better movie in the past 10 years that has used minimal CG effects. Almost all of the effects were physical and it contributes a great deal to the movie. The movie felt brutal at times, it was great. The acting was surprisingly good and actually convincing. Everyones descent into madness was believable and incredibly violent. The ending really topped it all off.

Sad? Don't need to go that far.

Me appreciating them using little CG and me liking the movie are two different things. In your comments I highlighted how many times to you touched on the effects/gore. I completely get why people were into it if that is your thing, but for me it was relentless to the point where I numbed to it and stopped being interested.

I think saying there hasn't been a better movie in the last 10 years that used minimal CG is a bold, bold statement. I hope you mean in the genre, or there are probably some Nolan fans that are getting a little steamed right now.

 

[Sarnoff]

Argo...good enough movie but Best Picture...really?

No, not really. However, it is exactly the type of movie the Academy drools over.

For my money, Argo and Silver Linings were a bit overrated and Zero Dark Thirty got the shaft.

Finally saw Zero Dark Thirty last week. I thought it was very good, better than Argo although Id probably like to see both again. Im surprised it didnt get more hype. That said, it felt entirely too long to me. Started out fantastic and lost whatever steam it had by the time the raid came around.

Considering they started making this movie when bin Laden was alive, then had to write in the raid once it happened in real life, I wonder what this movie would have been like otherwise. Fizzled out into nothingness?

 

[Warrior]

Put me in the "Evil Dead remake sucked" camp. Over the top gore, to the point where it was just silly and uninteresting. Gore just for gore's sake...not very creative for the most part. The only redeeming part was at the very end.

 

[Chaka]

Evil Dead (2013)

Actually surprised by the positive reviews on this one. How was this different than the other dozens of horror remakes that get panned? This one felt like it checked off all of the same items that the remakes feel the need to have (usually to their downfall): 1. gore for gore's sake 2. over explain stuff - either why the bad guy is bad or add in some melodramatic plot line for back story 3. seemingly whiff on the tone/style of the original.

This one had a big heaping serving of all three. We get a completely unneeded back story of why they were at the cabin, how the book came to be, etc.. I think the reason for the popularity of the movie was the gore - this movie had a ton of it. However, by the end of the movie I saw so much that I was just done. It is on the lines of being trapped in a room in Hostel for about an hour. I think the biggest mistake that the movie made is that there was 0 fun to be had watching this. The original is one of my favorite horror movies, and that was a great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs. Because of the back story we got, there was a dark mood from beginning to end with this one, and I got little enjoyment out of this one.

There was one good jump scare and a #### ton of gore, but nothing that I would recommend people watching. 4/10

I think it's a mistake to remake a movie that's practically perfect.

The other problem is that Evil Dead already has an excellent remake: Evil Dead 2. The sequel really is the same movie with a better budget.

I think that remaking films in general is a difficult proposition and should be done with more consideration than is currently given however there is nothing about the original Evil Dead that is perfect. It's a campy, entertaining film that misses almost as often as it hits..

Yes. I meant to reply to this earlier because KP said the original is a "great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs". To me, the original is all camp and laughs, no scares or gore. It is as cheesy as any film Ive ever seen. I like it for what it is, unique if anything, but its becoming a cult classic had little to do with how great it was. ED II was a huge step up from the original IMO, but still not what I would call scary or gory on a horror movie level.

I liked this remake particularly because while staying true with numerous things in ED & EDII storyline wise, it switched it up to the point where you can see what it is referring to, but its different. And unlike the first two ED's, this went full force for on the gore and scares. I dont see how the backstory was a downfall either, it actually made a lot of sense on how characters made decisions/actions as it progressed as well. The tone is obviously different from the original, that was inevitable IMO, but I thought there was still more humor infused than your standard horror flick.

The photography in Evil Dead alone make it an important movie in the genre.

Raimi's shots have been ripped off in countless movies.

I absolutely agree about the visual style and that it is an important film but it is far from perfect even for super low budget. It was a film that, at times, seemed very unclear about whether or not it wanted to be a horror film or a spoof and the blending of the two in the script was not really tight. Good film, important film, entertaining but not a perfect film.

 

[17seconds]

Contagion - 1.5/5

If you want to see a movie like Outbreak with less suspense, a matter-of-fact plot, and an abrupt ending just when you think it's ramping up to have a good last 30mins... then watch this one I guess. Not good. Seriously, there is no reason for this movie to exist. We've already seen Outbreak.

Spoiler

Gwenyth Paltrow dies horribly in the first 10 minutes.

Spoiler

That's worth the price of admission.

Spoiler

1.5 really?

id give it at lowest a 2.5 out of 5

I go that low because the movie has no purpose. It makes no statements about anything, it has no real plot and Outbreak did it better. So why even make the movie? When it ended I felt like I watched a pilot episode of a TV series, not a complete movie.

Spoiler

People get sick and die, they find a vaccine, and then we find out how it started.

 

[Chaka]

Contagion - 1.5/5

If you want to see a movie like Outbreak with less suspense, a matter-of-fact plot, and an abrupt ending just when you think it's ramping up to have a good last 30mins... then watch this one I guess. Not good. Seriously, there is no reason for this movie to exist. We've already seen Outbreak.

Spoiler

Gwenyth Paltrow dies horribly in the first 10 minutes.

Spoiler

That's worth the price of admission.

Spoiler

1.5 really?

id give it at lowest a 2.5 out of 5

Spoiler

I go that low because the movie has no purpose. It makes no statements about anything, it has no real plot and Outbreak did it better. So why even make the movie? When it ended I felt like I watched a pilot episode of a TV series, not a complete movie.

People get sick and die, they find a vaccine, and then we find out how it started.

I enjoyed Outbreak but in no way should it be viewed as having done anything related to the possible global outbreak of disease better. It was a summer action romp and nothing more.

Contagion presented a far more realistic scenario, it wasn't a more entertaining film but it presented the possibility much better than Outbreak.

 

[Chaka]

Spoiler

People get sick and die, they find a vaccine, and then we find out how it started.

That's what happened in Outbreak except it had a monkey, which naturally makes everything better...kinda like bacon.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Contagion - 1.5/5

If you want to see a movie like Outbreak with less suspense, a matter-of-fact plot, and an abrupt ending just when you think it's ramping up to have a good last 30mins... then watch this one I guess. Not good. Seriously, there is no reason for this movie to exist. We've already seen Outbreak.

Yeah, considering the cast and Soderbergh directed I thought this was pretty bad. Just sort of felt like it was going thru the motions and I didnt care about any of the characters.

 

[joffer]

Contagion presented a far more realistic scenario, it wasn't a more entertaining film but it presented the possibility much better than Outbreak.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Yes. I meant to reply to this earlier because KP said the original is a "great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs". To me, the original is all camp and laughs, no scares or gore. It is as cheesy as any film Ive ever seen. I like it for what it is, unique if anything, but its becoming a cult classic had little to do with how great it was. ED II was a huge step up from the original IMO, but still not what I would call scary or gory on a horror movie level.

I liked this remake particularly because while staying true with numerous things in ED & EDII storyline wise, it switched it up to the point where you can see what it is referring to, but its different. And unlike the first two ED's, this went full force for on the gore and scares. I dont see how the backstory was a downfall either, it actually made a lot of sense on how characters made decisions/actions as it progressed as well. The tone is obviously different from the original, that was inevitable IMO, but I thought there was still more humor infused than your standard horror flick.

I have long realized that ED2 is loved by more people. Maybe I made the mistake recently of watching them back to back. It's campy, but I think a bit of that is just budget constraints. I thought there were a few good jumps in the first one. Come on, no gore? The effects weren't top notch or anything, but part of the humor is watching Bruce Campbell get slathered in blood for the last 30mins or so. I just loved the look and feel of the original. Like JD stated - ED2 was already the bigger budget remake. It is basically the same movie, but with more money. Maybe that's why I had it a notch below the first when I watched them recently. I thought ED2 was mostly laughs and didn't have much in the lines of scares (again, maybe it was the back to back viewing). No way am I in here saying that it's a bad movie - I love them both. I just have a softer spot in my heart for the original I guess.

Feel like I was watching a different version of the new one than you. I agree that they went full force with the blood - I just don't see where the scares or humor was at all. Like I said, there was one spot in the beginning that got a jump out of me, and I had my hopes up. But I think to me they replaced the scares with torture/gore and that is not was scares me. There are tons of horror movies lately that bring the humor intentionally or not. Maybe I have been watching too many lately on the lines of Cabin in the Woods, Behind the Mask, Drag Me to Hell, Cabin Fever, and Tucker and Dale. Hell even stuff that wasn't that good was fun to watch such as Hatchet, Final Destination 5, etc.. For my money, this movie was too dour and that was it's biggest offense. People who watch horror for the gore will have a blast, no doubt about it. I will just play my Old Man card and say that's not for me anymore.

I like ED2 and Army of Darkness much more than the original, but the original has its own place and redeeming qualities. I sort of viewed this new one as its own entity, for one, since you have no Bruce Campbell. As someone said in the ED (2013) FFA thread, the new one is more of a relaunch than a remake. Parts of the storyline are the same or close enough to the point you know what theyre referencing, but its a different breed of horror movie. We differ on that being good or bad obviously in this case.

As for the humor part, I thought this had enough injected lines (why dont you come down here so I can....., pretty boy!!) to where it was there but stayed a pure horror movie. Also to me, part of the humor was the inability of the characters to realize what was happening for seemingly 2/3rds of the movie it seemed (pretty sure the main girl isnt having symptoms of withdrawal here), especially the guys, and moreso Lou Taylor Pucci's character considering he read/opened the damn book. So to me, this had enough enough that kept in firmly in the pure/standard horror genre, whereas the movies you referenced that Ive seen - Cabin in the Woods, Tucker and Dale, Cabin Fever - or others that come to mind John Dies at the End, Slither, Fido, Shaun of the Dead, Idle Hands, Dead Snow I felt were horror comedies, not standard horror. They may have had their share of violence/gore, but they didnt take themselves seriously, were fun movies, and arent scary whatsoever to me.

Im with you that gore doesnt give me the "jump scares", but a lot of the gore in Evil Dead (2013) was pretty ####ing creepy I thought.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Contagion presented a far more realistic scenario, it wasn't a more entertaining film but it presented the possibility much better than Outbreak.

I dont remember much about Outbreak, but havent there been other movies besides Contagion that have also presented realistic scenarios? All Im coming up with at the moment is 12 Monkeys, but if you eliminate the Bruce Willis time travel aspect, its quite plausible (rich psycho convinces scientist to release a deadly virus).

 

[Kenny Powers]

Argo...good enough movie but Best Picture...really?

No, not really. However, it is exactly the type of movie the Academy drools over.

For my money, Argo and Silver Linings were a bit overrated and Zero Dark Thirty got the shaft.

Finally saw Zero Dark Thirty last week. I thought it was very good, better than Argo although Id probably like to see both again. Im surprised it didnt get more hype. That said, it felt entirely too long to me. Started out fantastic and lost whatever steam it had by the time the raid came around.

Considering they started making this movie when bin Laden was alive, then had to write in the raid once it happened in real life, I wonder what this movie would have been like otherwise. Fizzled out into nothingness?

Interesting, I didnt know that. I almost dont even see the point of making it prior to capturing him. So they wanted us to watch a movie about torturing people for information and not getting anywhere with it? What a rewarding viewing experience.

 

[Sarnoff]

Argo...good enough movie but Best Picture...really?

No, not really. However, it is exactly the type of movie the Academy drools over.

For my money, Argo and Silver Linings were a bit overrated and Zero Dark Thirty got the shaft.

Finally saw Zero Dark Thirty last week. I thought it was very good, better than Argo although Id probably like to see both again. Im surprised it didnt get more hype. That said, it felt entirely too long to me. Started out fantastic and lost whatever steam it had by the time the raid came around.

Considering they started making this movie when bin Laden was alive, then had to write in the raid once it happened in real life, I wonder what this movie would have been like otherwise. Fizzled out into nothingness?

Interesting, I didnt know that. I almost dont even see the point of making it prior to capturing him. So they wanted us to watch a movie about torturing people for information and not getting anywhere with it? What a rewarding viewing experience.

Yeah, pretty much.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/06/3167617/zero-dark-thirty-r.html

The ironic thing about Zero Dark Thirty, director Kathryn Bigelow’s gripping, harrowing procedural, is that the movie was originally intended to be about the CIA’s unsuccessful search for Osama bin Laden. Screenwriter Mark Boal ( The Hurt Locker) was already deep into his script in May 2011 when the elusive terrorist was shot and killed in a Pakistani compound by U.S. Navy SEALs.

Boal started rewriting immediately, but to say bin Laden’s death gave the story a happy ending isn’t entirely accurate. There’s little patriotic, rah-rah cheer or backslapping in Zero Dark Thirty: This is a study of people saddled with supremely difficult jobs, doing them as well as they can. Instead of trying to provide a panoramic look at the decade-long search for bin Laden, Zero Dark Thirty unfolds almost entirely through the eyes of Maya (Jessica Chastain), who we first meet as she witnesses the “extreme interrogation” of a suspect by a fellow agent (Jason Clark). The questioning includes water boarding, sleep deprivation, bondage and other forms of abuse.

Here's an industry account from the day of the raid: http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/pair-of-hunt-for-bin-laden-projects-could-be-timeliest-movies-now/

Bigelow and Mark Boal, her collaborator on The Hurt Locker, have been mobilizing their film to go into production as their follow-up to that Best Picture Academy Award winner. Their movie as planned was based on an earlier unsuccessful mission to try to kill the Al Qaeda leader responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack on America as he hid in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But now they’ve certainly got a celebratory ending to that dramatic story with tonight’s announcement that the U.S. conducted a military operation that killed Bin Laden. Mind you, reps for Bigelow have told me previously that this movie isn’t specifically about the Al Qaeda leader.

 

[Chaka]

Contagion presented a far more realistic scenario, it wasn't a more entertaining film but it presented the possibility much better than Outbreak.

I dont remember much about Outbreak, but havent there been other movies besides Contagion that have also presented realistic scenarios? All Im coming up with at the moment is 12 Monkeys, but if you eliminate the Bruce Willis time travel aspect, its quite plausible (rich psycho convinces scientist to release a deadly virus).

Actually it's crazy son of rich guy convinces pals to release animals from the zoo and crazy lab tech steals virus and releases it in an airport.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Contagion presented a far more realistic scenario, it wasn't a more entertaining film but it presented the possibility much better than Outbreak.

I dont remember much about Outbreak, but havent there been other movies besides Contagion that have also presented realistic scenarios? All Im coming up with at the moment is 12 Monkeys, but if you eliminate the Bruce Willis time travel aspect, its quite plausible (rich psycho convinces scientist to release a deadly virus).

Actually it's crazy son of rich guy convinces pals to release animals from the zoo and crazy lab tech steals virus and releases it in an airport.

Either its been too long since Ive watched it, or watched it after a few beers on those occasions, or a combination of both, but I swear Pitt's character actually wanted to get this virus out one way or another.

But still, so no other movies have had a similarly feasible world infection besides Contagion? I swear Ive seen at least a couple of others, zombie movies notwithstanding.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Contagion presented a far more realistic scenario, it wasn't a more entertaining film but it presented the possibility much better than Outbreak.

I dont remember much about Outbreak, but havent there been other movies besides Contagion that have also presented realistic scenarios? All Im coming up with at the moment is 12 Monkeys, but if you eliminate the Bruce Willis time travel aspect, its quite plausible (rich psycho convinces scientist to release a deadly virus).

Actually it's crazy son of rich guy convinces pals to release animals from the zoo and crazy lab tech steals virus and releases it in an airport.

Either its been too long since Ive watched it, or watched it after a few beers on those occasions, or a combination of both, but I swear Pitt's character actually wanted to get this virus out one way or another.But still, so no other movies have had a similarly feasible world infection besides Contagion? I swear Ive seen at least a couple of others, zombie movies notwithstanding.

You passed out before the end of 12 monkeys.

 

[Chaka]

Contagion presented a far more realistic scenario, it wasn't a more entertaining film but it presented the possibility much better than Outbreak.

I dont remember much about Outbreak, but havent there been other movies besides Contagion that have also presented realistic scenarios? All Im coming up with at the moment is 12 Monkeys, but if you eliminate the Bruce Willis time travel aspect, its quite plausible (rich psycho convinces scientist to release a deadly virus).

Actually it's crazy son of rich guy convinces pals to release animals from the zoo and crazy lab tech steals virus and releases it in an airport.

Either its been too long since Ive watched it, or watched it after a few beers on those occasions, or a combination of both, but I swear Pitt's character actually wanted to get this virus out one way or another.

But still, so no other movies have had a similarly feasible world infection besides Contagion? I swear Ive seen at least a couple of others, zombie movies notwithstanding.

Well I guess I Am Legend and World War Z are also viral end of humanity scenarios.

ETA: And, yes, you were clearly drunk by the end of 12 Monkeys (or you smoke too much weed).

Or both.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Contagion presented a far more realistic scenario, it wasn't a more entertaining film but it presented the possibility much better than Outbreak.

I dont remember much about Outbreak, but havent there been other movies besides Contagion that have also presented realistic scenarios? All Im coming up with at the moment is 12 Monkeys, but if you eliminate the Bruce Willis time travel aspect, its quite plausible (rich psycho convinces scientist to release a deadly virus).

Actually it's crazy son of rich guy convinces pals to release animals from the zoo and crazy lab tech steals virus and releases it in an airport.

Either its been too long since Ive watched it, or watched it after a few beers on those occasions, or a combination of both, but I swear Pitt's character actually wanted to get this virus out one way or another.

But still, so no other movies have had a similarly feasible world infection besides Contagion? I swear Ive seen at least a couple of others, zombie movies notwithstanding.

Well I guess I Am Legend and World War Z are also viral end of humanity scenarios.

ETA: And, yes, you were clearly drunk by the end of 12 Monkeys (or you smoke too much weed).

Or both.

I said zombie movies notwithstanding, HTH

 

[Run It Up]

Evil Dead (2013)

Actually surprised by the positive reviews on this one. How was this different than the other dozens of horror remakes that get panned? This one felt like it checked off all of the same items that the remakes feel the need to have (usually to their downfall): 1. gore for gore's sake 2. over explain stuff - either why the bad guy is bad or add in some melodramatic plot line for back story 3. seemingly whiff on the tone/style of the original.

This one had a big heaping serving of all three. We get a completely unneeded back story of why they were at the cabin, how the book came to be, etc.. I think the reason for the popularity of the movie was the gore - this movie had a ton of it. However, by the end of the movie I saw so much that I was just done. It is on the lines of being trapped in a room in Hostel for about an hour. I think the biggest mistake that the movie made is that there was 0 fun to be had watching this. The original is one of my favorite horror movies, and that was a great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs. Because of the back story we got, there was a dark mood from beginning to end with this one, and I got little enjoyment out of this one.

There was one good jump scare and a #### ton of gore, but nothing that I would recommend people watching. 4/10

I disagree completely and am sad that you didn't enjoy it as much as I did.

What makes this remake so good is it met my expectations and exceeded them.

There hasn't been a better movie in the past 10 years that has used minimal CG effects. Almost all of the effects were physical and it contributes a great deal to the movie. The movie felt brutal at times, it was great. The acting was surprisingly good and actually convincing. Everyones descent into madness was believable and incredibly violent. The ending really topped it all off.

Sad? Don't need to go that far.

Me appreciating them using little CG and me liking the movie are two different things. In your comments I highlighted how many times to you touched on the effects/gore. I completely get why people were into it if that is your thing, but for me it was relentless to the point where I numbed to it and stopped being interested.

I think saying there hasn't been a better movie in the last 10 years that used minimal CG is a bold, bold statement. I hope you mean in the genre, or there are probably some Nolan fans that are getting a little steamed right now.

Not in the literal sense, more disappointed that a movie in a genre I love that is dying because the CG graphics are so cheaply done or so expensive that everything else is abandoned is being criticized overwhelmingly for the thing that it does perfectly.

Now if someone came out of the theater and said the story sucked, or the acting was campy thats reasonable, but to say that the violence was over the top or that the effects were overdone is sad to me. Evil Dead is what it is, its a simple story with simple characters, its purpose is to make you cringe and provide comic relief in between those scenes.

My only complaint about the remake was it took it self too seriously, which is saying a lot because it was still a pretty funny movie. But it succeeded at what it set out to do.

 

[Daywalker]

I watched Let the Right One In last night, and their is really not enough praise I can give this movie. In fact, I'm afraid my words will pale in comparison to how much I loved it. First off, I have to put it out there, it's one of those that isn't for everyone. It's foreign. It will start playing with a dubbed soundtrack, but of course, is better with the original soundtrack and subtitles. On top of that, if you go in expecting The Lost Boys or Fright Night, you will probably be severely disappointed. If, however, you can appreciate beautiful cinematography, and a "slow at first" storyline that deconstructs the traditional vampire movie, you will be in for a treat. Don't want to give too much away. It's great. (Eleventy billion/5)

Saw Let Me In which I liked but finally got around to seeing the original. This one is brilliant. The differences were substantial.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Evil Dead (2013)

Actually surprised by the positive reviews on this one. How was this different than the other dozens of horror remakes that get panned? This one felt like it checked off all of the same items that the remakes feel the need to have (usually to their downfall): 1. gore for gore's sake 2. over explain stuff - either why the bad guy is bad or add in some melodramatic plot line for back story 3. seemingly whiff on the tone/style of the original.

This one had a big heaping serving of all three. We get a completely unneeded back story of why they were at the cabin, how the book came to be, etc.. I think the reason for the popularity of the movie was the gore - this movie had a ton of it. However, by the end of the movie I saw so much that I was just done. It is on the lines of being trapped in a room in Hostel for about an hour. I think the biggest mistake that the movie made is that there was 0 fun to be had watching this. The original is one of my favorite horror movies, and that was a great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs. Because of the back story we got, there was a dark mood from beginning to end with this one, and I got little enjoyment out of this one.

There was one good jump scare and a #### ton of gore, but nothing that I would recommend people watching. 4/10

I disagree completely and am sad that you didn't enjoy it as much as I did.

What makes this remake so good is it met my expectations and exceeded them.

There hasn't been a better movie in the past 10 years that has used minimal CG effects. Almost all of the effects were physical and it contributes a great deal to the movie. The movie felt brutal at times, it was great. The acting was surprisingly good and actually convincing. Everyones descent into madness was believable and incredibly violent. The ending really topped it all off.

Sad? Don't need to go that far.

Me appreciating them using little CG and me liking the movie are two different things. In your comments I highlighted how many times to you touched on the effects/gore. I completely get why people were into it if that is your thing, but for me it was relentless to the point where I numbed to it and stopped being interested.

I think saying there hasn't been a better movie in the last 10 years that used minimal CG is a bold, bold statement. I hope you mean in the genre, or there are probably some Nolan fans that are getting a little steamed right now.

Not in the literal sense, more disappointed that a movie in a genre I love that is dying because the CG graphics are so cheaply done or so expensive that everything else is abandoned is being criticized overwhelmingly for the thing that it does perfectly.

Now if someone came out of the theater and said the story sucked, or the acting was campy thats reasonable, but to say that the violence was over the top or that the effects were overdone is sad to me. Evil Dead is what it is, its a simple story with simple characters, its purpose is to make you cringe and provide comic relief in between those scenes.

My only complaint about the remake was it took it self too seriously, which is saying a lot because it was still a pretty funny movie. But it succeeded at what it set out to do.

I think we are talking in circles a little bit. Let me try to be clearer - I think the F/X were great. Very realistic and very hard to watch at times (which is the point). One of the highlights for me was the slight twist from the original at the end about the lost arm. What I am talking about when I say over the top is that what disappointed me is that this film didn't seem to be interested in much beyond just showcasing that realistic gore. For me it just became people killing people/things in increasingly gory ways. Combine that with what we do agree on - it took itself too seriously with the tone and backstory, and I was disappointed in this film and got bored with it by the end. Based on reviews and hype I guess I was hoping for something a lot better than the other mass quantities of horror remakes we have been hit over the head with in the last several years. I guess I just didn't see enough besides the quality of gore to make it stand out from something like the Halloween remake. For me, a 4/10 is an average movie that I didn't dig, but I would suggest to others that I think would be down for the onslaught of gore. I think that is a fair rating.

I think the difference between my take and the positive reviews in here is that I didn't get any humor out of this. I think for me a charismatic lead, a Bruce Campbell cameo, or not taking itself so seriously would have gone a long way.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I watched Let the Right One In last night, and their is really not enough praise I can give this movie. In fact, I'm afraid my words will pale in comparison to how much I loved it. First off, I have to put it out there, it's one of those that isn't for everyone. It's foreign. It will start playing with a dubbed soundtrack, but of course, is better with the original soundtrack and subtitles. On top of that, if you go in expecting The Lost Boys or Fright Night, you will probably be severely disappointed. If, however, you can appreciate beautiful cinematography, and a "slow at first" storyline that deconstructs the traditional vampire movie, you will be in for a treat. Don't want to give too much away. It's great. (Eleventy billion/5)

Saw Let Me In which I liked but finally got around to seeing the original. This one is brilliant. The differences were substantial.

I prefer the original a bit, but thought the remake was a decent although unnecessary movie. One of the better foreign movie conversions I've seen, and would put it at the top with The Ring.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Yes. I meant to reply to this earlier because KP said the original is a "great balance of gore/camp/scares/laughs". To me, the original is all camp and laughs, no scares or gore. It is as cheesy as any film Ive ever seen. I like it for what it is, unique if anything, but its becoming a cult classic had little to do with how great it was. ED II was a huge step up from the original IMO, but still not what I would call scary or gory on a horror movie level.

I liked this remake particularly because while staying true with numerous things in ED & EDII storyline wise, it switched it up to the point where you can see what it is referring to, but its different. And unlike the first two ED's, this went full force for on the gore and scares. I dont see how the backstory was a downfall either, it actually made a lot of sense on how characters made decisions/actions as it progressed as well. The tone is obviously different from the original, that was inevitable IMO, but I thought there was still more humor infused than your standard horror flick.

I have long realized that ED2 is loved by more people. Maybe I made the mistake recently of watching them back to back. It's campy, but I think a bit of that is just budget constraints. I thought there were a few good jumps in the first one. Come on, no gore? The effects weren't top notch or anything, but part of the humor is watching Bruce Campbell get slathered in blood for the last 30mins or so. I just loved the look and feel of the original. Like JD stated - ED2 was already the bigger budget remake. It is basically the same movie, but with more money. Maybe that's why I had it a notch below the first when I watched them recently. I thought ED2 was mostly laughs and didn't have much in the lines of scares (again, maybe it was the back to back viewing). No way am I in here saying that it's a bad movie - I love them both. I just have a softer spot in my heart for the original I guess.

Feel like I was watching a different version of the new one than you. I agree that they went full force with the blood - I just don't see where the scares or humor was at all. Like I said, there was one spot in the beginning that got a jump out of me, and I had my hopes up. But I think to me they replaced the scares with torture/gore and that is not was scares me. There are tons of horror movies lately that bring the humor intentionally or not. Maybe I have been watching too many lately on the lines of Cabin in the Woods, Behind the Mask, Drag Me to Hell, Cabin Fever, and Tucker and Dale. Hell even stuff that wasn't that good was fun to watch such as Hatchet, Final Destination 5, etc.. For my money, this movie was too dour and that was it's biggest offense. People who watch horror for the gore will have a blast, no doubt about it. I will just play my Old Man card and say that's not for me anymore.

I like ED2 and Army of Darkness much more than the original, but the original has its own place and redeeming qualities. I sort of viewed this new one as its own entity, for one, since you have no Bruce Campbell. As someone said in the ED (2013) FFA thread, the new one is more of a relaunch than a remake. Parts of the storyline are the same or close enough to the point you know what theyre referencing, but its a different breed of horror movie. We differ on that being good or bad obviously in this case.

As for the humor part, I thought this had enough injected lines (why dont you come down here so I can....., pretty boy!!) to where it was there but stayed a pure horror movie. Also to me, part of the humor was the inability of the characters to realize what was happening for seemingly 2/3rds of the movie it seemed (pretty sure the main girl isnt having symptoms of withdrawal here), especially the guys, and moreso Lou Taylor Pucci's character considering he read/opened the damn book. So to me, this had enough enough that kept in firmly in the pure/standard horror genre, whereas the movies you referenced that Ive seen - Cabin in the Woods, Tucker and Dale, Cabin Fever - or others that come to mind John Dies at the End, Slither, Fido, Shaun of the Dead, Idle Hands, Dead Snow I felt were horror comedies, not standard horror. They may have had their share of violence/gore, but they didnt take themselves seriously, were fun movies, and arent scary whatsoever to me.

Im with you that gore doesnt give me the "jump scares", but a lot of the gore in Evil Dead (2013) was pretty ####ing creepy I thought.

I know we are splitting hairs, but scares <> horror genre. I think there are only a couple there that intentionally set out to make a comedy movie - Shaun of the Dead, Tucker, Idle Hands. I think the others are horror movies that infused humor or had fun with the genre. To me there is a big difference between something like Shaun of the Dead and something like Behind the Mask or Cabin Fever. The last 2 have a quality horror movie in the mix.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Orange is the New Black

I've struck gold. This Netflix original series about a woman's true life experience in prison is funny and well made.

Highly recommended.

 

[packersfan]

This Spring Breakers movie is wacky.

I didn't think it was very good in terms of being a movie. I suppose someone would argue it was over the top for a reason (Franco's "Look at mah s**t" scene was laughably bad) but the story itself was pretty weak. The final shootout scene pretty much put the theory of suspension of belief to the ultimate test.

That being said, if you are fans of Vanessa Hudgens, Selena Gomes and/or Ashley Benson it was well worth watching since nearly every scene features them in a bikini. Unfortunately, the 3way sex scene with Hudgens, Benson and Franco was pretty weak. Nowhere near enough Hudgens and Benson for me.

I'd give it an A+ for all the hot chicks in a bikini and a D- for the actual sotry.

 

[badmojo1006]

Watched the last hour of "Jules and Jim". I am not going to watch the first hour

Some decent acting, but I didn't care for any of the characters. And then they end by driving off the bridge and dying? Was she saying if I can't have you, nobody can? But why didn't he get out of the car?

 

[Kenny Powers]

I have no clue what film you are referring to, or if I have any interest in seeing it, but SPOILER TAGS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND NICE

 

[badmojo1006]

I have no clue what film you are referring to, or if I have any interest in seeing it, but SPOILER TAGS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND NICE

At what point do spoiler tags become useless? Jules and Jim was made in 1962 and is considered a classic

 

[Kenny Powers]

I have no clue what film you are referring to, or if I have any interest in seeing it, but SPOILER TAGS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND NICE

At what point do spoiler tags become useless? Jules and Jim was made in 1962 and is considered a classic

Thats probably why I have no clue about it, and Im not sure how important the ending is to the entire film, but you give away the entire ending and the fact that you have questions about it makes me think its somewhat important and not worth just throwing out there asking why. Timewise, I understand, but still

 

[Chaka]

I agree with Kenny ###### ###### Powers.

 

[whoknew]

A Good Day to Die Hard - Watched this last night. Holy crap. This was absolutely horrible. I mean - ridiculously terrible.

 

[D_House]

Saw Avengers recently and was pretty lost from the get go. As a comic book film I get the point is the action but having not seen all the Iron Mans, Thor, or Captain America, I had little clue why things were happening and who people were.

But the action was really good, great battle/fight scenes for the last third of the movie. And Hulk rules

 

[jamny]

Interesting article on why so many movies seem similar.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Epic

Just watched with my son. Good flick for ages 6 and up.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Dead man down - pretty solid but can't decide if it wants to be an action movie or a thriller flick. 3 out of 6 stars. Absolutely average.

Watched this last night. Id actually say the complete opposite of your thoughts, Abe, as far as what kind of movie it was. I was expecting an action/mystery, but there wasnt too much mystery here, or action for that matter, and it was basically a drama with some action thrown in. I thought the Colin Farrell/Noomi Rapace storyline and interactions were great, and that alongside solid direction from Oplev (who directed the original GwtDTattoo film) and the feel he gave it elevated this to above average. Farrell and Rapace are quite good in their respective roles and the biggest reason this is worth seeing. Early on they make you think youre in line for a lot of action, but in reality this is a pretty good character drama with guns involved periodically....3.4/5

 

[KarmaPolice]

Trance:

Danny Boyle is a director that I find interesting, but after thinking about it, don't really love. For me this movie was more of that sentiment. Very stylized, slick, hyper-kinetic movie that really didn't feel like it had much going on. Can't quite put my finger on it, but this movie didn't seem to interest me at all last night and couldn't really hold my attention. 5/10.

Point Break:

Once in awhile I need to revisit this movie and remind myself of the pure awesomeness that was Johnny Utah.

Spring Breakers:

I think I am still processing how I feel about this one. There really is no plot and little acting, but I still found myself glued to the screen. Think it is a beautiful looking movie and loved the feel of it. Sounds stupid, but the name that popped in my head when I was watching this was Malick. I am not saying that there is the same level of talent involved, but it did start to feel like a neon ode to him. In a way this is the 2013 Badlands. You have: teenage girl(s) falling for and in a way running off with a criminal, instead of the narration we have weird calls to their families, and replace meandering shots of nature with slow motion shots of bouncing ####. I can see why there is a big divide between critics and fans on this one, and for me it would be in the category of liking it, but probably wouldn't recommend it to many people. 6/10.

 

[cstu]

Interesting article on why so many movies seem similar.

This is why I prefer TV to (especially American) movies today.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Interesting article on why so many movies seem similar.

This is why I prefer TV to (especially American) movies today.

Great article and makes a lot of sense. If this has been going on for so long - it is apparently what audiences want and has worked for years. Keep me in good documentaries and I am fine.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

Saw This Is 40

What a steaming pile of crap that was.

Apatow needs to hang it up.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Saw This Is 40

What a steaming pile of crap that was.

Apatow needs to hang it up.

seemingly very polarizing movie. the wife and I laughed quite a bit during this one. really dont understand why people find this one so much worse than knocked up