What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Recently viewed movie thread - Rental Edition (12 Viewers)

Is really that hard to make a good action movie? Do we need to get the guys who do the Fast and Furious movies to teach the rest of hollywood how to do it?
Wait, should this really be what we set the bar at for action movies?
As a baseline? Yes. Good action. Fast cars. Hot wimmins and hero guys that are cool and funny. They aren't winning any awards but if you can't accept those movies are pretty close to perfect guilty pleasure type action movie then you are missing out. If they slightly better acting and tighter stories they would be awesomer.
:goodposting:

Didn't really care for 2 or 3 .. 3 being the worst.. Really enjoyed 5 & 6 and will definitely be seeing 7 this weekend :popcorn:
I've seen the first two and have the fourth on my imdb list. 3 looks like it's just a bunch of filler characters to keep the series going. That about right?
3 wasn't terrible, but I wouldn't bother with it, or 4. I'd go straight to 5. Hell, if I had never seen any of them I would skip the first 4.

 
Is really that hard to make a good action movie? Do we need to get the guys who do the Fast and Furious movies to teach the rest of hollywood how to do it?
Wait, should this really be what we set the bar at for action movies?
As a baseline? Yes. Good action. Fast cars. Hot wimmins and hero guys that are cool and funny. They aren't winning any awards but if you can't accept those movies are pretty close to perfect guilty pleasure type action movie then you are missing out. If they slightly better acting and tighter stories they would be awesomer.
:goodposting:

Didn't really care for 2 or 3 .. 3 being the worst.. Really enjoyed 5 & 6 and will definitely be seeing 7 this weekend :popcorn:
I've seen the first two and have the fourth on my imdb list. 3 looks like it's just a bunch of filler characters to keep the series going. That about right?
3 wasn't terrible, but I wouldn't bother with it, or 4. I'd go straight to 5. Hell, if I had never seen any of them I would skip the first 4.
1 is "needed" if for anything else the back story between Walker and Diesel's characters.

Otherwise 4.. hmm. can't recall that one as much..

5 & 6 are great :popcorn: rides :drive:

 
That is more than ever should have been written about White House Down.

And the FF movies are guilty pleasures not good action films.

 
Next I would really appreciate a scene by scene analysis of White House Down vs Olympus Has Fallen.
Haven't seen Olympus Has Fallen........... just IMBD'ed. Holy crap. They did this movie at the same time? OMG. I have got to get them on my duel TV's and play them together. This is my mission.
Two movies have made me angry while watching them in the theater. I mean "Hulk get mad...HULK SMASHHH!!!" type angry.

The first was Raising Cain and the second was Olympus Has Fallen.

The scene where Melissa Leo recites the Pledge of Allegiance is probably the most embarrassed I've ever been for an actor. In a mainstream movie that is. :bag: :unsure:

 
Next I would really appreciate a scene by scene analysis of White House Down vs Olympus Has Fallen.
Haven't seen Olympus Has Fallen........... just IMBD'ed. Holy crap. They did this movie at the same time? OMG. I have got to get them on my duel TV's and play them together. This is my mission.
Two movies have made me angry while watching them in the theater. I mean "Hulk get mad...HULK SMASHHH!!!" type angry.The first was Raising Cain and the second was Olympus Has Fallen.

The scene where Melissa Leo recites the Pledge of Allegiance is probably the most embarrassed I've ever been for an actor. In a mainstream movie that is. :bag: :unsure:
Raising Cain? Is the the dual John Lithgow movie?

 
If you like the Fast and Furious flicks, check out the 'What Say You' podcast from Brian Quinn and Sal Vulcano from Impractical Jokers. They've been watching and reviewing all the movies (except 3 because they felt it didn't fit with the rest, but now they want to get back to it for Dragon). Universal or whoever produces the movies caught wind of their reviews and set them up with a private screening of 7 for them and some of their podcast fans. Their reviews of the films are pretty funny.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Into the Storm

Meh. The best part was the drunk guy getting taken by the tornado and his camera going black ala Blair Witch Project. And that isn't saying much.

 
Next I would really appreciate a scene by scene analysis of White House Down vs Olympus Has Fallen.
Haven't seen Olympus Has Fallen........... just IMBD'ed. Holy crap. They did this movie at the same time? OMG. I have got to get them on my duel TV's and play them together. This is my mission.
Two movies have made me angry while watching them in the theater. I mean "Hulk get mad...HULK SMASHHH!!!" type angry.The first was Raising Cain and the second was Olympus Has Fallen.

The scene where Melissa Leo recites the Pledge of Allegiance is probably the most embarrassed I've ever been for an actor. In a mainstream movie that is. :bag: :unsure:
Raising Cain? Is the the dual John Lithgow movie?
RC is strange combination of satire and social commentary.

Carter's father is the media
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you like the Fast and Furious flicks, check out the 'What Say You' podcast from Brian Quinn and Sal Vulcano from Impractical Jokers. They've been watching and reviewing all the movies (except 3 because they felt it didn't fit with the rest, but now they want to get back to it for Dragon). Universal or whoever produces the movies caught wind of their reviews and set them up with a private screening of 7 for them and some of their podcast fans. Their reviews of the films are pretty funny.
Should one rewatch those masterpieces prior to the podcast? Or will the jokes make sense if you don't remember much of the movies?

 
Bonfire said:
If you like the Fast and Furious flicks, check out the 'What Say You' podcast from Brian Quinn and Sal Vulcano from Impractical Jokers. They've been watching and reviewing all the movies (except 3 because they felt it didn't fit with the rest, but now they want to get back to it for Dragon). Universal or whoever produces the movies caught wind of their reviews and set them up with a private screening of 7 for them and some of their podcast fans. Their reviews of the films are pretty funny.
Should one rewatch those masterpieces prior to the podcast? Or will the jokes make sense if you don't remember much of the movies?
I've seen all the movies but I barely remember what happened in them. Don't think you need to rewatch them and their running commentary is hilarious.

 
If you like the Fast and Furious flicks, check out the 'What Say You' podcast from Brian Quinn and Sal Vulcano from Impractical Jokers. They've been watching and reviewing all the movies (except 3 because they felt it didn't fit with the rest, but now they want to get back to it for Dragon). Universal or whoever produces the movies caught wind of their reviews and set them up with a private screening of 7 for them and some of their podcast fans. Their reviews of the films are pretty funny.
That's Bill Simmons and Adam Corollas schtick.

 
Cool classic film trivia:

During the filming of 'The Spy Who Loved Me', production designer Ken Adam called up his old boss Stanley Kubrick for advice on how to light the inside of an enormous tanker ship, the villain's secret lair. Kubrick snuck in on a Sunday morning for four hours to set the lighting up himself.

Interview

 
Watched Stonehearst Asylum. Didn't really know what to expect. It was interesting, but a little predictable and the premise is absurd. Good movie for my flight as it killed time and it has Kate Beckinsale in it. 3.5/5

 
Tom Hardy attached to three more Mad Max films


...and described the new Max film as “****ing unbelievable”
I like Tom Hardy but it's going to be hard for me to enjoy any remake of The Road Warrior, which is on my Top 10 All Time Movie list. Hopefully they will go with other plots after the first one.
How does it hold up? I've never seen it.
It's cheesy in the best possible way, and totally worth renting.

 
Tom Hardy attached to three more Mad Max films


...and described the new Max film as “****ing unbelievable”
I like Tom Hardy but it's going to be hard for me to enjoy any remake of The Road Warrior, which is on my Top 10 All Time Movie list. Hopefully they will go with other plots after the first one.
How does it hold up? I've never seen it.
It's cheesy in the best possible way, and totally worth renting.
That sounds right up my alley

 
Tom Hardy attached to three more Mad Max films


...and described the new Max film as “****ing unbelievable”
I like Tom Hardy but it's going to be hard for me to enjoy any remake of The Road Warrior, which is on my Top 10 All Time Movie list. Hopefully they will go with other plots after the first one.
How does it hold up? I've never seen it.
It's cheesy in the best possible way, and totally worth renting.
It's also directed by the original Mad Max trilogy George Miller.

 
Hadn't seen Theory Of Everything.

One of the greatest acting performances I've ever seen. It wasn't like an acting portrayal, it was like he became Hawking, inhabited his body in terms of body language, gestures, facial expressions. If I had seen this and Birdman pre-Oscar, I would have thought Keaton, as good as he was, had virtually no chance. I'm not sure the last time I've seen a performance that left such an impression?

If it matters, either way, good or bad, science was very light in the movie. Unless some absolutely hate science (Luddite demographic :) ), hard to imagine even disinterest in science getting in the way of appreciating the thrust of the narrative, his struggles and triumphs as a person as well as scientist, because he is such a compelling character of general interest. In many ways his story is inspiring, he should have been dead decades ago by all rights medically, not one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the second half of the 20th century. Despite a towering intellect, it is not an accident that he became internationally famous for his popular science non-fiction (not the likeliest material for such wide acclaim). I respect geniuses that can communicate complex ideas with simplicity and clarity to laypersons and the public at large, and he clearly had a gift. Check his answer at a public speech late in the movie, when asked to talk about his philosophy of life, coming from an atheist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Hardy attached to three more Mad Max films


...and described the new Max film as ****ing unbelievable
I like Tom Hardy but it's going to be hard for me to enjoy any remake of The Road Warrior, which is on my Top 10 All Time Movie list. Hopefully they will go with other plots after the first one.
How does it hold up? I've never seen it.
It's cheesy in the best possible way, and totally worth renting.
Definitely. Classic
 
The Birdman.

Good Lord, what a bunch of crap. I can't believe this won awards. Keaton did a very good job, but the movie was bad. The music was bad. Girlfriend stopped watching, wish I would have done the same.

.5/5
Freaking terrible. Typical award winning movie you're supposed to like.
 
Hadn't seen Theory Of Everything.

One of the greatest acting performances I've ever seen. It wasn't like an acting portrayal, it was like he became Hawking, inhabited his body in terms of body language, gestures, facial expressions. If I had seen this and Birdman pre-Oscar, I would have thought Keaton, as good as he was, had virtually no chance. I'm not sure the last time I've seen a performance that left such an impression?

If it matters, either way, good or bad, science was very light in the movie. Unless some absolutely hate science (Luddite demographic :) ), hard to imagine even disinterest in science getting in the way of appreciating the thrust of the narrative, his struggles and triumphs as a person as well as scientist, because he is such a compelling character of general interest. In many ways his story is inspiring, he should have been dead decades ago by all rights medically, not one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the second half of the 20th century. Despite a towering intellect, it is not an accident that he became internationally famous for his popular science non-fiction (not the likeliest material for such wide acclaim). I respect geniuses that can communicate complex ideas with simplicity and clarity to laypersons and the public at large, and he clearly had a gift. Check his answer at a public speech late in the movie, when asked to talk about his philosophy of life, coming from an atheist.
I loved me some Jim Carrey. Particularly in a plain obvious overcoming adversity through the love of a woman story that we have never seen before. So creative and original, it's a triumph of the pedantic. The best part is the fact that most people think the film is about Stephen Hawking
 
Hadn't seen Theory Of Everything.

One of the greatest acting performances I've ever seen. It wasn't like an acting portrayal, it was like he became Hawking, inhabited his body in terms of body language, gestures, facial expressions. If I had seen this and Birdman pre-Oscar, I would have thought Keaton, as good as he was, had virtually no chance. I'm not sure the last time I've seen a performance that left such an impression?

If it matters, either way, good or bad, science was very light in the movie. Unless some absolutely hate science (Luddite demographic :) ), hard to imagine even disinterest in science getting in the way of appreciating the thrust of the narrative, his struggles and triumphs as a person as well as scientist, because he is such a compelling character of general interest. In many ways his story is inspiring, he should have been dead decades ago by all rights medically, not one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the second half of the 20th century. Despite a towering intellect, it is not an accident that he became internationally famous for his popular science non-fiction (not the likeliest material for such wide acclaim). I respect geniuses that can communicate complex ideas with simplicity and clarity to laypersons and the public at large, and he clearly had a gift. Check his answer at a public speech late in the movie, when asked to talk about his philosophy of life, coming from an atheist.
Totally agree with you on this. One of the best physical acting performances ever.

 
Predestination.

Was what I hoped for. Good sci-fi flick.

Of course paradoxes that you can't wrap your ahead around but was a good watch.

6/10

 
I dunno, i guess i always ding a performance of a well known person more since the actor has so much footage to use to get into a character. It is more impressive here since he had to do all of the phases of deterioration of Hawking, but i will be a Richard and say a bit of the peformance was just physical by the end too.

I am just drawn more to great performances by an actor doing a character that they and the director come up with and developed on their own- ie Nightcrawler. Even something from a book i am more drawn to since they at least have to develop the speech and phyicality of the characters, like Phoenix for Inherent Vice.

Yes it takes talent, but it is basically sitting in front of a mirror and mimicing someone over and over from footage.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kill the Messenger:

Good movie despite my annoyance of Jeremy Renner. He stars as a reporter covering the CIA's role in arming rebels and the drug trade in Nicaragua. 6/10

This Is where I Leave You:

Had some very funny parts, but mostly was just from Bateman. As much as I like a lot of the other actors, it didn't do a lot for me as a whole, and didn't find many of the other people that funny. 5/10

Two Night Stand:

Decent small rom-com starring Miles Teller. Two people hook up for a one night stand, and as the title suggests, get stuck together the following day. 5/10

In Your Eyes:

I watched this one because I saw that Joss Whedon wrote it. Romance about a man and woman that share a connection even though they are on opposite sides of the country. An actual connection - for some reason they can hear each other, see what the other sees, etc.. Interesting idea, but the dialogue between the two was just horrible to listen to. 4/10

 
Hadn't seen Theory Of Everything.

One of the greatest acting performances I've ever seen. It wasn't like an acting portrayal, it was like he became Hawking, inhabited his body in terms of body language, gestures, facial expressions. If I had seen this and Birdman pre-Oscar, I would have thought Keaton, as good as he was, had virtually no chance. I'm not sure the last time I've seen a performance that left such an impression?

If it matters, either way, good or bad, science was very light in the movie. Unless some absolutely hate science (Luddite demographic :) ), hard to imagine even disinterest in science getting in the way of appreciating the thrust of the narrative, his struggles and triumphs as a person as well as scientist, because he is such a compelling character of general interest. In many ways his story is inspiring, he should have been dead decades ago by all rights medically, not one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the second half of the 20th century. Despite a towering intellect, it is not an accident that he became internationally famous for his popular science non-fiction (not the likeliest material for such wide acclaim). I respect geniuses that can communicate complex ideas with simplicity and clarity to laypersons and the public at large, and he clearly had a gift. Check his answer at a public speech late in the movie, when asked to talk about his philosophy of life, coming from an atheist.
Totally agree with you on this. One of the best physical acting performances ever.
Fire Marshall Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephen Hawking

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Focus - 2/5

Nothing about this was enjoyable. I thought Margot Robbie was horrible. She did not work well with Will Smith. Their chemistry was awful. I didn't like the plot twist at the end either. Do not waste your time.

 
In Your Eyes:

I watched this one because I saw that Joss Whedon wrote it. Romance about a man and woman that share a connection even though they are on opposite sides of the country. An actual connection - for some reason they can hear each other, see what the other sees, etc.. Interesting idea, but the dialogue between the two was just horrible to listen to. 4/10
I actually kind of liked this. :bag:

Wasn't the dialogue supposed to be awkward and hard to listen to based on how unconventional their situation was? Anyway, the story kept me interested all the way through the movie even if the end was a little hamfisted.

 
I'll Follow you Down - C+

It was about time travel and how it affected people in his life. Not a bad concept, but Haley Joel Ostmet can't act as an adult. Gillian Anderson was good as ever, but couldn't save this mess

 
I dunno, i guess i always ding a performance of a well known person more since the actor has so much footage to use to get into a character. It is more impressive here since he had to do all of the phases of deterioration of Hawking, but i will be a Richard and say a bit of the peformance was just physical by the end too.

I am just drawn more to great performances by an actor doing a character that they and the director come up with and developed on their own- ie Nightcrawler. Even something from a book i am more drawn to since they at least have to develop the speech and phyicality of the characters, like Phoenix for Inherent Vice.

Yes it takes talent, but it is basically sitting in front of a mirror and mimicing someone over and over from footage.
I agree very much. It takes much more of an actor to create a compelling performance from an everyman than portraying someone handicapped, ######ed, alcoholic, etc. Yet those are the roles that get the awards.

 
Kill the Messenger:

Good movie despite my annoyance of Jeremy Renner. He stars as a reporter covering the CIA's role in arming rebels and the drug trade in Nicaragua. 6/10
I really liked this. Hugely depressing, but an outstanding portrayal of how the American public interprets and acts on events.

 
Chaka said:
Mr. Mojo said:
Hadn't seen Theory Of Everything.

One of the greatest acting performances I've ever seen. It wasn't like an acting portrayal, it was like he became Hawking, inhabited his body in terms of body language, gestures, facial expressions. If I had seen this and Birdman pre-Oscar, I would have thought Keaton, as good as he was, had virtually no chance. I'm not sure the last time I've seen a performance that left such an impression?

If it matters, either way, good or bad, science was very light in the movie. Unless some absolutely hate science (Luddite demographic :) ), hard to imagine even disinterest in science getting in the way of appreciating the thrust of the narrative, his struggles and triumphs as a person as well as scientist, because he is such a compelling character of general interest. In many ways his story is inspiring, he should have been dead decades ago by all rights medically, not one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the second half of the 20th century. Despite a towering intellect, it is not an accident that he became internationally famous for his popular science non-fiction (not the likeliest material for such wide acclaim). I respect geniuses that can communicate complex ideas with simplicity and clarity to laypersons and the public at large, and he clearly had a gift. Check his answer at a public speech late in the movie, when asked to talk about his philosophy of life, coming from an atheist.
Totally agree with you on this. One of the best physical acting performances ever.
Fire Marshall Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephen Hawking
Travolta>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shatner>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Fire Marshall Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephen Hawking

Shatner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12tMVK42yQg

Travolta (Battlefield Earth)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw8RVcUyma0

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fly said:
KarmaPolice said:
In Your Eyes:

I watched this one because I saw that Joss Whedon wrote it. Romance about a man and woman that share a connection even though they are on opposite sides of the country. An actual connection - for some reason they can hear each other, see what the other sees, etc.. Interesting idea, but the dialogue between the two was just horrible to listen to. 4/10
I actually kind of liked this. :bag:

Wasn't the dialogue supposed to be awkward and hard to listen to based on how unconventional their situation was? Anyway, the story kept me interested all the way through the movie even if the end was a little hamfisted.
Maybe it was because of the name attached to it. Joss is usually known for his humor, banter, pop culture references, etc.. I didn't pick up on any of that. It just felt awkward in a clunky way to me.

 
cosjobs said:
KarmaPolice said:
I dunno, i guess i always ding a performance of a well known person more since the actor has so much footage to use to get into a character. It is more impressive here since he had to do all of the phases of deterioration of Hawking, but i will be a Richard and say a bit of the peformance was just physical by the end too.

I am just drawn more to great performances by an actor doing a character that they and the director come up with and developed on their own- ie Nightcrawler. Even something from a book i am more drawn to since they at least have to develop the speech and phyicality of the characters, like Phoenix for Inherent Vice.

Yes it takes talent, but it is basically sitting in front of a mirror and mimicing someone over and over from footage.
I agree very much. It takes much more of an actor to create a compelling performance from an everyman than portraying someone handicapped, ######ed, alcoholic, etc. Yet those are the roles that get the awards.
Also, for obvious reasons, they tend to be one-note performances too. I think what he had to do with Hawking and his deterioration is definitely a step above some of the other performances in that style that we tend to praise, such as Rainman.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top