Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Rate The Last Movie You Saw


I4I-vc4
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Hangover= Not even close to living up to the hype = 5.5/11. Eleven because I thought that I would need the extra point going in because of the morons that saw it before me telling me it was the funniest movie of all time, even funnier than Anchorman...."Anchorman, really?" I said. "Yes, better than any other comedy, that I have seen." I gave Anchorman a 10/10 so, I was going into The Hangover thinking that it would have to be rated on an eleven scale.

What a disappointment!

Hrm. I thought that it was definitely not up to its hype, but i also thought it was better than anchorman...but then I didnt really like anchorman that much...i mean it was fine, but nothing I spectacular for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avatar: 0/10

One of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life, nearly if not just as bad as Episodes II and III of Star Wars.

Really?

I heard that it was one of the best movies out there. It could surpass Titanic in the box office with more than 1.6 Billion so far.

Some people say it's the best movie ever, and others (like you), who say it's terrible. I really want to watch this movie, but I don't want to waste my money on it if it as bad as you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avatar.

9.5/10.

Great movie! Must see!

And don't bother to see it in 3-D, doesn't make a difference.

I couldn't disagree more! The only real impression Avatar left on me was its novel use of 3D. Definitely worth the money and I hope more (and better!) movies will be made this way. The depth of view was breathtaking.

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus - 7/10. Gilliam let loose is a splendid thing but the finale was very underwhelming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hurt Locker was good but the camera movement started to make me sick lol.

I liked it to a point. The acting was good, the script sincere, but it seemed...unresolved. Like the director/writer was trying to tell us something but wasnt clear in his own head what that something was. I mean Im all for leaving things open to interpretation, but when you contradict yourself & make questionable character choices, it begins to look like it wasnt intentional & was more that the theme wasnt thought through all the way.

Like most war movies, it is a victim to what the great director Truffaut once said: "There can be no such thing as an anti-war movie because it will invariably look exciting up on screen." Once the action starts & the adreneline kicks in, we all want to see some butt-kicking. (But in fairness, there are VERY few war films that dont fall into this category... Das Boot or the surreal apocalypse now, perhaps).

Its not perfect, but its still worth seeing & I wouldnt be surprised to see it get some hardware at the academy awards. I just think there are better versions (with the same message) of it out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked it to a point. The acting was good, the script sincere, but it seemed...unresolved. Like the director/writer was trying to tell us something but wasnt clear in his own head what that something was. I mean Im all for leaving things open to interpretation, but when you contradict yourself & make questionable character choices, it begins to look like it wasnt intentional & was more that the theme wasnt thought through all the way.

Like most war movies, it is a victim to what the great director Truffaut once said: "There can be no such thing as an anti-war movie because it will invariably look exciting up on screen." Once the action starts & the adreneline kicks in, we all want to see some butt-kicking. (But in fairness, there are VERY few war films that dont fall into this category... Das Boot or the surreal apocalypse now, perhaps).

Its not perfect, but its still worth seeing & I wouldnt be surprised to see it get some hardware at the academy awards. I just think there are better versions (with the same message) of it out there.

interesting. i quite enjoyed it but for the abrupt ending that i felt was rushed more than open-ended.

care to elaborate on the contradictions and questionable character choices?

i didn't feel the movie was making an anti-war statement. you did?

overall, thumbs up. received a few oscar nods this morning. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

care to elaborate on the contradictions and questionable character choices?

I felt that characters were making choices at certain points in the film that were incongruous with other choices they made in other parts of the movie. I cant name specifics off the top of my head, but do remember feeling that way at least a couple of times while watching.

i didn't feel the movie was making an anti-war statement. you did?

Well thats the thing - and maybe thats why I felt it fell short for me. As I mentioned, I have no problem with a movie asking me to make my own opinion, but I also expect a film like this, dealing with subject matter like this, to have some sort of strong opinion - or at least consistency of opinion - throughout.

In some places it did feel like it was anti-war, Kathryn Bigelow (the director) has done other anti-war works (k-19). Mark Boal (the writer) has been very critical of the american military foreign policy - especially with regards to the costs of military lives. In his article for playboy "the real cost of war" he goes into great detail about how the US army is trying to quiet the information on military damage to troops - much to the disservice to the troops themselves. The film certainly showed the horrors, the frenetic pace & terrible risks we ask our soldiers to put themselves in. This certainly didnt come across as "positive." It wasnt John Wayne with a gun, shooting down the baddies.

More often than not, it felt opinion-less - showing things matter of fact, like these are just guys getting up and going to work, like a plumber or lawyer or chef.

Of course, finally, on the other hand, one could argue in some ways its "pro" war, simply because it presents the soldiers as better versions of ourselves

Any one of these would have been fine, but all 3 left me...unsure what they were even trying to say. It felt inconsistent.

That said, it definitely kept me entertained, and I did think Renner was exceptional in the lead role, I just felt it scored a tad lower for me than some of the true war classics like AP Now, Platoon etc. - and I cant necessarily verbalize it enough to put my finger on why.

overall, thumbs up. received a few oscar nods this morning. :)

Agreed. I would also give it a thumbs up - I always said it was worth watching, I just feel that it is not quite living up to the Hype, but obviously thats 100% my opinion.

I saw the oscar nods too - since when do they have 10 movies vying for top film? Isnt it usually 5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt that characters were making choices at certain points in the film that were incongruous with other choices they made in other parts of the movie. I cant name specifics off the top of my head, but do remember feeling that way at least a couple of times while watching.

there were some odd moments and some scenes that were too abrupt for my taste (often feeling out of place with the flow of the film) but i can't think of any character inconsistencies but we may be talking about the same thing. without giving anything away, there were some character moments that i found forced but not necessarily inconsistent. just wondering if we noticed the same thing.

Well thats the thing - and maybe thats why I felt it fell short for me. As I mentioned, I have no problem with a movie asking me to make my own opinion, but I also expect a film like this, dealing with subject matter like this, to have some sort of strong opinion - or at least consistency of opinion - throughout.

In some places it did feel like it was anti-war, Kathryn Bigelow (the director) has done other anti-war works (k-19). Mark Boal (the writer) has been very critical of the american military foreign policy - especially with regards to the costs of military lives. In his article for playboy "the real cost of war" he goes into great detail about how the US army is trying to quiet the information on military damage to troops - much to the disservice to the troops themselves. The film certainly showed the horrors, the frenetic pace & terrible risks we ask our soldiers to put themselves in. This certainly didnt come across as "positive." It wasnt John Wayne with a gun, shooting down the baddies.

More often than not, it felt opinion-less - showing things matter of fact, like these are just guys getting up and going to work, like a plumber or lawyer or chef.

Of course, finally, on the other hand, one could argue in some ways its "pro" war, simply because it presents the soldiers as better versions of ourselves

Any one of these would have been fine, but all 3 left me...unsure what they were even trying to say. It felt inconsistent.

fair enough. i wasn't arguing with you, just curious as the movie is fresh in my mind.

i didn't mind the more objective stand-point. i thought it was quite effective in relaying the implications of becoming a soldier which, depending on the viewers pt of view, can either be heroic (something i can't relate to) or disruptive (something i can).

i guess what i liked about the film (because, i agree with you, it's far from perfect) was its attempt at a neutral stance (if possible) because more often than not movies bombard you with their moral message and i find it annoying, for example, brothers (which i didn't like at all).

very interesting that both writer and director have taken anti-war stances in the past. i had no idea and i find it all the more intriguing that their bias wasn't prevalent throughout.

That said, it definitely kept me entertained, and I did think Renner was exceptional in the lead role, I just felt it scored a tad lower for me than some of the true war classics like AP Now, Platoon etc. - and I cant necessarily verbalize it enough to put my finger on why.

Agreed. I would also give it a thumbs up - I always said it was worth watching, I just feel that it is not quite living up to the Hype, but obviously thats 100% my opinion.

it's so hard for movies to live up to the hype these days, isn't it? tbh i'd read some incredible reviews about it (and clearly the academy agrees) but didn't know anyone who had seen it. i was pretty impressed with the pace, the acting and the edge-of-your-seat anticipation that kept me enthralled for over two hours. it's not the most original movie i've ever seen, (ie district 9) but impressive nonetheless. :)

I saw the oscar nods too - since when do they have 10 movies vying for top film? Isnt it usually 5?

got to love the academy thinking of anyway they can to increase ratings. they've upped the nominations to 10 so that blockbusters might get a nod or two instead of just the critics' choices. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

curb-stomp

:mellow::o:blink::unsure:

I'll admit it, I knew that scene was coming, so I looked away, and didn't look back until I knew for sure that the scene was over. That has got to be one of the most brutal scenes I've even heard of. Although the scene in the supermarket was pretty brutal too.

New Mel Gibson movie there

Darkness

12/10

Edge of Darkness? Glad to hear someone enjoyed it. It looked to me like a stereotypical "I'm a cop who isn't holding back" movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...