What movies have you seen lately? Now with reviews!Movies 

  • Thread starter Thread starter scentedsoap
  • 8,275 comments
  • 562,310 views
2012 - 8/10

Walked into this last night expecting nothing more than insane action scenes of the world getting blown up. I got that and more. Obviously the action scenes were awesome, but the movie actually had a good plot to it, at least to me. Also I liked how although it's a doomsday movie, there are a handful of mildly funny parts throughout.
 
Driving Park
Also I liked how although it's a doomsday movie, there are a handful of mildly funny parts throughout.
Click to expand...
Movies that are unrelentingly bad usually are funny throughout.

I can't personally comment on this particular movie, however I can deduct based on previous experience.
 
The Mummy - Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
200px-Dragon_emperor_ver4.jpg

First, I'll confess I was never a fan of the previous movies, drawn out, weak plot, uninspring.

But this was worse. Rachel Weisz was sorely missed and was instead replaced with a women that was far, far too American-ised. But otherwise more of the same rubbish.

2/10
 
2012.


Dear God, please do not see this film. Absolutely diabolical.
The plot was questionable, the dialogue was even worse... and then there's the 'acting'.

I'll leave you with this.

The president's daughter finds out that her dad has just been killed. Five minutes later she's gotten over it and it flirting with the protagonist. What?
 
2012+Movie+Poster.jpg


2012 (Roland Emmerich, 2009) -- Don't watch it. The pain is almost 3 hours long. 1.5/10
 
Last edited:
bajolasal.jpg


Bajo la Sal (a.k.a. Under the Salt) (Mario Muñoz, 2008) -- a very decent attempt at a thriller-type movie, this one coming from Mexico. As it happens with many non-budgety/famous movies, the actors in this one are a bit overacted and there's a few mistakes and scenes that don't work well. But with all that, it's somewhat original and good to watch, if a tad slow and a good venture into this kind of genre for Mexican cinema. 7/10
 
Last edited:


The Last Picture Show (Peter Bogdanovich, 1971) -- As it happens with many coming-of-age films, this one gets compared to another great movie from the same time period and dealing more or less with the same subject, and that movie is American Grafitti. And while Picture Show deals with the subject in sometime around a year in the lives if the characters, Grafitti does so in one night. I knew before watching this one that is was going to be more or less the same, but the truth is that it's not at all. This one is much more 'mature' and directed at older generations who'd like to reminisce their younger years, I think. Maybe because of that I didn't like it much, aside from the all-country-music soundtrack, being set in the mid-50s, there's a lot of country music yodelling which made it a bit harder to stand. The movie itself is too slow and inconclusive for my tastes, but on the plus side The Dude is in it and a very hot looking Cybil Sheperd... with quite some nekkid scenes too! I'm simply mind boggled that this movie has a 8.1 in IMDb (and it's not in the Top 250). 6/10
 
Last edited:
I just watched the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey called 2010 (can't remember what it was called).

I thought 2001 was weird, but this takes the cake. Anyone who's seen 2001 definitely needs to see this movie, ties up some loose ends with Hal and is actually a pretty interesting watch compared to 2001 which presumably most of us who've seen it almost fell asleep watching.
 
Watched Ninja Assassin the other night.

I'll make it short because well, there's not much to say. The plot is dumb, simple, & impossible to misunderstand. There's no twists, no superb acting, it would only take 30 minutes at most to tell.

BUT, I loved it just because of the fight scenes. They're nice, simple, and a decent length. There's even a couple "slow-mo" parts within the fights, but they're kept to appropriate moments. I'd almost call it a modern day version of those old Japanese kung fu movies as N.A.'s whole story pretty much follows those movies' "typical", basic storylines. Just like those movies, you enjoy it for the fight scenes & just give a glance towards the plot. :)
 
Last edited:
Diablo'
I thought 2001 was weird, but this takes the cake. Anyone who's seen 2001 definitely needs to see this movie, ties up some loose ends with Hal and is actually a pretty interesting watch compared to 2001 which presumably most of us who've seen it almost fell asleep watching.
Click to expand...

Bite your tongue sir...




;)
 
Diablo'
I just watched the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey called 2010 (can't remember what it was called).

I thought 2001 was weird, but this takes the cake. Anyone who's seen 2001 definitely needs to see this movie, ties up some loose ends with Hal and is actually a pretty interesting watch compared to 2001 which presumably most of us who've seen it almost fell asleep watching.
Click to expand...

God bless you, movie noob.
 
Star Trek(the new movie) - I went in with somewhat high expectations, and still came out very pleased, very satisfied. Very interesting and entertaining. Can't ask for much more than that. "A-"

The Taking of Pelham 123 - This one, I didn't have much expectations going in. :p It's not that great, but it wasn't that bad either. They took no risk, so while it's not really offensive to us snobs, nothing rewarding is found in here. "C"

X-Men Origins: Wolverine - Not really up to par with the X-Men movies. I've seen worse, but if I didn't watch this while going thru the Black Friday ads, I might've been offended. Everything seemed sub-par in this one. "C-", but that's probably too generous.
Tom Servo
The Year we Make Contact

And 2010 is nothing compared to 2001, in any respect.
Click to expand...

Delphic Reason
Bite your tongue sir...




;)
Click to expand...
I liked both, though one of them is an undisputed classic. If I grew up in Florida, I would've considered 2001 a 'weird' flick as well.

:p
 
a6m5
I liked both, though one of them is an undisputed classic. If I grew up in Florida, I would've considered 2001 a 'weird' flick as well.

:p
Click to expand...

Don't insult me like that, I didn't grow up in Florida, I've been stuck in this hell hole for the past 4+ years :p

I grew up in New Hampshire thank you very much, although I can't imagine that's any improvement (but I like it).

In any respect 2001 was pretty weird, not that it makes it a bad film, but a random monolith, a computer that kills people, and whatever the hell you'd call what happened at the end of the film isn't exactly in the realm of what I would call a normal occurrence. As for 2010, I agree with you guys now that I went and watched 2001 again. You have to admit 2010 was semi decent though, I liked it, but as previously stated it doesn't at all compare.

Edit: Now that I actually think back, 2010 was pretty crappy, I take back what I said. Was a decent watch, but compared to the first film it seems like it's trying a bit hard to be interesting, and they didn't even get the inside of that red room (forgive me I forget exactly what it's called) correct.
 
Last edited:
I have to say this.... I had to watch 2001 a couple of times before I started to like it. The first time I saw it I was in a sci-fi trend with some friends when we were about 12 and none of us liked it. A few years later I had to watch it again, just to understand why so many people liked it and I hadn't... and I liked it better.

Then I watched it on a huge screen and a 5.1 system and REALLY liked it, though it's just as enjoyable wherever you watch it. But mostly because it's not the type of movie that spreads it all out, but more of an 'interactive' experience between the screen and your brain, with a constant flow of varied interpretations... because of that, it's miles above a 12-year-old mind and reason enough for someone to have some required level of maturity to be able to enjoy it thoroughly.

I'm not saying Diablo' is a kid or that he lacks mindset, I'm just saying it generally, that you can't come to this movie expecting battleships and cyborgs, although it's in the same category as Star Wars because of the Sci-Fi theme.
 
Yeah, I can understand the point of the film, or rather the many different points and interpretations that are held within the film. This is the second time I've watched it, the last time being at least three or four years ago. The difference between then at age 14-15 and now at age 18 is pretty substantial. This time I enjoyed it a hell of a lot more than I did then, and I can definitely respect the work that was put into the film and the story (if you could call it a story) behind it. The first time I watched it I could barely sit through the beginning. The main reason I kept watching it back then was because of what I had heard about the film, and I wanted to be able to put the famous "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I cant do that" quote into context.

I'm sure down the line I'll watch it again and it will be even better, I'll just have to wait until then.
 
I was in my 20's when I saw it first, and I was totally confused by the end. :dopey: I've been meaning to watch it again, but now that Blu-ray version is out, I've been waiting until I get one of those to watch it again.

P.S. Roy Scheider rocks.
 
Tom Servo
The Year we Make Contact

And 2010 is nothing compared to 2001, in any respect.
Click to expand...
2010 has a many issues on the film-making side. Story is not one of them though, as it approaches the events of 2001 the same as the non-book reading audience: What the hell happened? It achieves that, but unfortunately takes a story that began as a work of art and turns it into just another sci-fi film.

All that said, the scenes of Jupiter on Blu-Ray are absolutely amazing to see.

Diablo'
In any respect 2001 was pretty weird, not that it makes it a bad film,
Click to expand...
Let's start here: Stanley Kubrick, at your current age you know what you are getting yourself into. The film and movie were created side by side with the intent being that the audience experience both. Unfortunately, the book didn't make it on shelves before the movie came out, so theater audiences were left to figure it out on their own, in an age before we landed on the moon or the concept of aliens being responsible for man's origins was in the public mindset.

but a random monolith
Click to expand...
Not random at all. Kubrick does a good job of leaving the audience with the same information as the humans in the film. It appears random, but when you analyze it and what it is actually doing, it is anything but.

a computer that kills people
Click to expand...
Kills people because it follows its programming in the strictest way possible. This is one of the oldest clichés in science fiction. We can thank Asimov and Clarke for laying a foundation of caution to all future roboticists.

and whatever the hell you'd call what happened at the end of the film isn't exactly in the realm of what I would call a normal occurrence.
Click to expand...
The end of the film is the tricky part. Think of it this way: It was first contact with an intelligence that was, millions of years ago, beyond our ability to comprehend today. So intelligent that they created intelligence in us. That contact would not be anywhere close to what we call a normal occurrence, and any outside witnesses would like refer to it as "whatever the hell happened there." This is the one part that many people need the book to explain. Kubrick only had a few minutes to work with here while Clarke had an entire chapter


Seriously, if the story intrigues you at all pick up the book. Clarke explains it as he goes along instead of pummeling your senses with images of stuff that requires you to stop and think.
 
I liked both. 2010 is more "understandable" to a wider audience than 2001 was, but I see no wrong in that.

And, at the time (80's) the cold war theme - and the notion that we could/would blow up our own planet someday for any reason - was very believable also.

I remember watching 2010 in the theater and how impressed I was with the two astronauts (or 1 astronaut and 1 cosmonaut :p) going from the Leonov to the Discovery. I really "felt" that sensation of them being in outer space, over Europa (or was it Io?) and completely helpless/fragile/miniscule/irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
 
FoolKiller
Seriously, if the story intrigues you at all pick up the book. Clarke explains it as he goes along instead of pummeling your senses with images of stuff that requires you to stop and think.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm definitely planning on getting the book, I figured the book would help me understand it better on top of being a great read.
 
I like you FoolKiller. You are so damn good at explaining, sometimes, I think you should be a politician. :D Seriously, that is the best explanation I've ever seen/heard on 2001. 👍
 
Recently watched 2012 and Terminator Salvation.

2012 was actually very good but got boring toward the very end of the movie. About 20 minutes of dead wasted time that could have been removed. Acting was meh but what do you expect from John Cusak. Special effects made up for it.

Terminator Salvation was good all around. Some predictable parts but overall very good. Excellent in surround sound. I cant even imagine how great this would sound in blu ray.
 
The Vulcan part of my brain says stay away from 2012.

The cat part wants to see it now.

The human part just wants the voices to go away.
 
100% of a6m5 logic says go see it now. Good thing I'm lazy and cheap, but if the movie makes it to the cheap theater, look out! :lol:
 

Latest Posts

Back