List some movies you've watched recently. Theatre, rental, TV... and give a */10

Page 630 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
828
126
Let me know what you think of the most recent season or two of Archer. I loved the first few seasons but the last two haven't seemed funny to me. I'm not sure if the writing has gotten lazy or if I've just gotten tired of the characters
The Miami Vice one (season 5 or 6?) was by far the best season lately. The last couple haven't been nearly as good. Pam on cocaine...priceless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slayer202

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
33,164
5,074
126
you know Muse, i like you, and i will continue to like you even after reading that you do not like Escape From New York. It will not be as easy, but i will continue to like you.

Plissken! Come In !! What are you doing Snake!!

(Plissken, while piloting a ultralight) "I'm Masturbating"
I might have been having a "bad day." It happens. I sometimes rewatch a movie I did not like the first viewing thinking "others really like this movie, I should give it another chance some day." Usually my "opinion" doesn't change, but sometimes it really does.

I prefer to watch movies that are rewatchable, especially movies that are infinitely rewatchable. Of course, that's not always possible and many not particularly rewatchable movies are well worth watching that first time.
 
Last edited:

Six

Senior member
Feb 29, 2000
523
34
91
re: blade runner 2

so I watched the 1st 45min or so.
turned it off at the 1st plot hole. (but will watch the rest of the movie when I have more free time.)

there's a microscopic serial # in the tiny cut of the bone made by the scalpel?
Wtf?!?!
You missed Blade Runner 1 --> zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...for over 10 minutes. hahahah

Blade Runner 2 is pretty good. Just turn it off when he finds the person inside the radioactive city and never look back.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,579
4,612
136
Let me know what you think of the most recent season or two of Archer. I loved the first few seasons but the last two haven't seemed funny to me. I'm not sure if the writing has gotten lazy or if I've just gotten tired of the characters
I still love Archer but you may be more right about the last two seasons than I want to admit. Even if that's so, it's like pizza . . . even cold, day old pizza isn't all that bad. But the sad reality is that every long-running series eventually exhausts the creative energies of its originators.

Entropy man. It sticks its cold shark snout into everything. You try to jump that shark but you never seem to land in a better place. Now, about that last moldering slice sitting next to the bong . . . "You gonna eat that?" :cool:
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
27,835
1,600
126
You missed Blade Runner 1 --> zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...zoom in, enhance...for over 10 minutes. hahahah

Blade Runner 2 is pretty good. Just turn it off when he finds the person inside the radioactive city and never look back.
no, the zooming wasn't what I had a problem with.

It was why was there a serial # in the cut by the scapel?

Of all the places on her body, how did a serial# get there in the cut of her bone by the scapel?
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,409
1,421
126
Blade Runner 2049, Scene By Scene

1. titles
cool. i like the black and white, grainy effect, it recalls the neo-noir style of the previous film.
2. intro
ugh; bad copy of the original intro, with some nausea-inducing camera tilt. also, why would someone have their own id photo on their in-car control center? do you need to be reminded of what your face looks like?
3. on the farm/house
fire's too high for a dutch oven. why do you need a metal pressurized suit to grow insects?
3b. on the farm/fight
given the rubble is concrete, ryan gosling should be dead now, OR he is an android. yep, he's an android. cool fight scene. "you've never seen a miracle" i can tell this is the key to the plot.
3.c on the farm/report
pretty good scene, introduces some mystery and moves forward to the next scene.
interlude1. flight
trying to give a sense of how the world is overpopulated, but the detail is too minute, and there is no contrast.
interlude1. at the station
random extra blurting out exposition. modern voight-kampf test.
interlude1. apartment
multicultural melting pot copied from the original. more exposition.
4. loneliness/at home
i really should explain how the replicant works as an antagonist, because you don't need to explain anything: he's bad, we're good, kill him. but when you need to identify with a synthetic human, questions spring to mind. why do they need to eat? why do they need to feel emotions? why can they not have a system built in which covers all their psychological needs, like an internal brain drug system? surely if you can make an android WITH emotions, you can make one without?
i did find nice the laser + hologram cigarette lighting things, except that tobacco is a plant. remember the rules you just set for this world without vegetation? and the whole psychologica attachment to a wayfu is weird, more so for a purpose-built machine.
4b. loneliness/rain
man this scene is long and slow and boring
5. after the job/morgue
introducing the partner. copy of the "boring" scene in BR1. why does the mortician say "sorry" ? is he afraid to hurt the feelings of the replicant? again, why do replicants have emotions? emotions serve us, as animals, to make us reproduce and to keep us together, an evolutionary trait that you do not need to build into a machine, more so if you have perfect control over it. the reason the Nexus 6 were made illegal is *exactly* because they developed emotions, when they were meant not to. actors who are supposed to despise replicants keep giving them non-verbal communication, meaning they perceive them as people and not machines, which is bad action or bad writing, you decide.
5. after the job/office
this is what scene 3 was referring to. replicants can reproduce. not a surprise if they can eat. anyway, the point is that if replicants are people-but-made-differently, they they would feasibly have more or less the same human rights that non-replicants do, making the whole "retiring" redundant. on a similar note, gosling must have been told to do the dead stare which is giving mixed messages on how human-like these replicants are. Zhora could hold a better conversation than a replicant two generations down the line.
interlude2. flight
... the film's catchphrase, again.
6. database/reception
that's a cut-up apple keyboard. crappy set. introducing "the blackout"
6b. database/mysterious woman
introducing the antagonist. "you can make them as human as you want them to be".
6c. database/the archive
exposition for the blackout. some nice set transitions. mannequins in the jar suck balls. the skeleton belongs to Rachel from BR1.
6d. database/the antagonist
finally mentions the words slave. nonsensical replicant birth scene. is that Anne Hathaway ? nice butt. horrible villain evil-without-reason that only hollywood could birth.
7. on the street
horrible set with bad extras, makes you appreciate even more how awesome BR1 was.
7b. on the street/pleasure models
"i've never seen a tree before". "you dont like real girls" implies replicants have sex. what exactly would they ejaculate? if they need pleasure, can this not be built it?
8. on the farm/investigating
Rachel had a baby (not exactly a surprise by now). i'm ready to turn this off because i'm bored.
9. morgue
nice death scene.
10. at the station/apartment
why would they need memories if they clearly know they are fake. at this point, we have replicants who feel emotions (while not supposed to), who are essentially cloned humans, yet they have no free will, yet they have free will. i again do not see the point of creating a machine for the purpose of enslaving it, and giving it the very thing that conflicts with enslavement.
10b. at the station/flashback
10c. at the station/birth records
god this film is boring. gosling could be the son of Rachel. gosling's "Alexa" somehow doesn't spy on him.
interlude3. the city
nice jacket. again, these towering visuals do nothing without contrast.
11. San Diego ruins/approach flight
aside from the ludicrous shot, a flying piece of metal does not need help from a kyte to draw lightning. we already have lightning protection on normal airplanes and the thing shorting out the systems is reeeally hard to believe. also, somehow a metal brick without wings can do a controlled landing. why is gosling stunned? these nexus can kill a man with a punch (scene 9) and survive being rammed through a concrete wall (scene 3).
11b. San Diego ruins/scavengers
11c. San Diego ruins/the orphanage
how do they feed these kids? why are they all without hair? nice performance by the slaver though. gosling remembers he lived here. incredibly slow reveal scene.
12. at home
13. the botanist
"happy in a cage" reflects the protagonist. tons of exposition. actually not a bad scene due to the convincing delivery by both actors and a soundtrack that works for this type of emotion.
14. at work/the test
gosling is worth his money here.
14b. at work/going rogue
actually picks up the pace a bit.
15. at home/pleasure girl
again exceedingly long scene, and the hologram girl isn't really important for the film, even though she might be for gosling.
15b. at home/getting ready
again, overtly long and i'm not sure why i'm supposed to care for hologram girl.
interlude3. doctor badger
announcing the final showdown
16. at work
this is a police station, remember? a replicant barges in and attacks a captain. we're also shown that every replicant can be tracked, which means the antagonist just condemned herself to death.
17. the hotel
the pacing in this film is horrid.
17b. the hotel/elvis
not sure why they had Deckard react the way he does. my guess is that they wanted some confrontation to use the tripwires, and then needed to resolve it somehow.
17c. the hotel/answers
why does gosling jump to the conclusion that this guy is Deckhard, his dad, and the husband of Rachel?
18d. the hotel/attack
gosling casually shows how ridiculously strong they are, gets taken out.
interlude4. capture
i like the fire effect
19. la resistance
again, this is not bad. it twists things around a bit. frau blucher is kinda horrid but we'll pass for now.
20. abducted
wasn't this recording wiped in the blackout? also, Ford doesn't remember how to be Deckard. also, and this is really painful, is Wallace convinced that they need Deckard's sperm to generate the new replicants? if anything, it's Rachel that somehow managed to ovulate. Once you got that, *any* human male would do. Besides, these are replicants; you made one, you can surely replicate it?
Ford somehow manages to deliver ONE line convincingly, which is more than i've seen him do in 20 years.
interlude4. the bridge
it's time for our hero to Kick Ass(tm) !
21. on the beach
nice dead scene. it's a shitty climax, because the antagonist and the hero have basically zero interaction, the hero is just trying to kill the antagonist because she wants him dead and she has Deckard, but in no way she personifies the struggle in the character arc of the hero.
22. in the snow
having gosling NOT being Deckard's son is a great move that gives some depth to his character. he's just another replicant, fighting for all the other replicants. no reaosn to rehash "tears in the rain", though.
before closing, i'd like to point out that Wallace and his evil goon replicant have the same interest as the hero; they want to turn replicants from machines into humans. The whole conflict is born out of misunderstanding and could have been resolved in the very opposite direction that it instead was.

in conclusion, not an horrid film, but nowhere near the level of perfection that BR1 had.
 
Last edited:

Six

Senior member
Feb 29, 2000
523
34
91
no, the zooming wasn't what I had a problem with.

It was why was there a serial # in the cut by the scapel?

Of all the places on her body, how did a serial# get there in the cut of her bone by the scapel?
In part 1, the makers marked their creation with serial numbers that need an electron microscope to see. In part 2, D zoomed in far beyond the cut to see the serial number.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
81,411
14,540
126
I just now watched Blade Runner 2049.
Its an excellent film, but like its parent, it won't be appreciated by most people right away.
Thats OK. Its good to occasionally make a big budget extravaganza that's not lowest common denominator. Maybe once every few years.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
27,835
1,600
126
In part 1, the makers marked their creation with serial numbers that need an electron microscope to see. In part 2, D zoomed in far beyond the cut to see the serial number.
so the serial # wasn't in the cut?
it was on the surface of the bone?
 

kn51

Senior member
Aug 16, 2012
692
110
106
I still love Archer but you may be more right about the last two seasons than I want to admit. Even if that's so, it's like pizza . . . even cold, day old pizza isn't all that bad. But the sad reality is that every long-running series eventually exhausts the creative energies of its originators.
Yeah, feel about the same. The last few seasons were very hit and miss with the episodes. Always felt they need a dash more Kruger.

Edit: Forgot to say I watched 'Watership Down' last night. Haven't seen it in decades and for some reason got a hankering to watch it. Haven't seen it in decades but remembered it was pretty brutal for an animated kids film when I was a kid.

It was more brutal than I remembered. 7/10
 
Last edited:

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,409
1,421
126
i instead watched Bright - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5519340/

note that it's currently at 6.6/10 on IMDb. i don't know why people do not like it, and while i have some critique too, i did like it quite a lot.

the first part of the film is a very serious race-relation film about an Orc trying to integrate into Human society, more than facing racism, he's facing his own existential problems. i found this part to be very well acted and well made, with some surprising maturity in the dialogue and delivery. there's the backdrop of a magic world and an evil ritual to serve as framing device. i could not help but notice the strong resemblance to Alien Nation (1988), but i would say that Bright does better on this front.
the second part is a shooty shooty kaboom action hero film that for some reason must be the way every Will Smith film concludes; i can't blame Hollywood for thinking this, due to the previous performances by Smith in his "serous" films. But, Smith does very well here with the first part dialogues, and much worse with the shooty jumpy bits.

Still inferior to Lethal Weapon, i would give Bright a vote of 7.5/10
the elf girl is the same character as Mila Jovovitch in Fifth Element
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
81,411
14,540
126
Poop. I forgot to tell you fuckers about one I saw a couple days ago.

Brawl In Cell Block 99 is a very well made piece of cinema, but its also quite ugly. Would not recommend for anyone trying to stay happy.

Keep in mind, much like Blade Runner its not an action film. Its a character film and it can be a little slow. In fact the actual Brawl in cell block 99 doesnt even happen until the very end and its not so much a brawl as it is several murders. And thats not what the movie is about. Its about redemption and sacrifice.
 

deustroop

Golden Member
Dec 12, 2010
1,859
310
136
its not so much a brawl as it is several murders. And thats not what the movie is about. Its about redemption and sacrifice.
This is primarily a fight movie, and intentionally so. Without MMA , by which I mean not its style but its emphasis on street fighting, the film's energy/plot would well be weakened. The fights Vaughan wins are just great realistic-type fights. There was no loss for which he felt his incarceration was necessary.

Moreover the strait forward plot and simple dialogue create the absolute toughest context I have seen in a movie in a long time. Good Bye Dirty Harry. He is the toughest character I have ever seen and that includes Hacksaw Ridge warriors, Terminator 2, and lots of other guys/plots. This is the real stand-up type guy, who takes his punishment for a drug deal "like a man" and then to save his wife and child, fist fights his way to the top of the prison hierarchy allowing himself to be killed to ensure they survive.
So yes there is sacrifice. However the film is all about toughness: in addition to the brawls there is not a drop of anything but tough in the dialogue, e.g, listen to the conversation where he is fired from his job, or the talk he has with his wife on entering prison.Very little dialogue I have ever heard matches this guy's absolute sticking to the hard truth of a situation. There is not blink in these conversations (We were Soldiers Once And Young does come to mind). I was not sad at the end but proud that this kind of man can exist , if only in films.
After losing his job he was asked how he was. He replies "South of OK, north of cancer".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
Saw Titanic again. 10/10

Cried. sniff sniff. You can't tell me that you've never cried watching that movie! :(
Well, I was sad that those people didn't die after ninety minutes like I wanted so that I could get on with my life, but not THAT sad. Plus one of the two most obnoxious characters in the film didn't even have the basic human decency to die even though she was given four hours. WTF???

Watched "Star Wars: The Hype Continues" (or whatever it is called.) 6/10 for decent visual effects and a nice though not exactly memorable soundtrack. Cringe-worthy dialog, poor choreography, and science that isn't. Here we have cruisers moving at their maximum velocity so that fighters can't keep up and in the middle of their flight a freakin' shuttle leaves a cruiser, gallivants around the galaxy, then comes back to rejoin the chase. What's up with that? How is it that after hours of a maximum sidereal speed chase, they are still right there at the same forgotten planet? How about bombers that use gravity bombs - in space combat? Just . . . no. And if Laura Dern (who amazingly turned in a very forgettable performance - how do you even get such a bad performance from such a good actress?) can do, um, that, then why didn't the first two cruisers?

"Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle": easily 10/10. It's extremely funny, Karen Gillan has never looked better or performed better, Johnson and Hart are hysterical, and Jack Black deserves a freakin' Oscar. "Jumanji" is one of my all-time favorite movies but this one is hands-down better; it works both as a comedy and as an over-the-top action movie. Highly recommended. And as a very much appreciated bonus, the AMC theater at which we viewed it is the first in my last two or three decades to not assume that the entire audience is stone deaf. Really, really nice to leave a theater without my ears ringing. (Well, any more than they always ring.)
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
27,835
1,600
126
Blade Runner 2 is pretty good. Just turn it off when he finds the person inside the radioactive city and never look back.
yeah, should have followed your advice.

so K having memories
of Deckard's child
is just stupid coincidence.
and the ending with the child's identity is far fetched and unbelievable.

the movie would have been so much better if you removed the bad guy and his killer replicant.
I mean that.. literally remove all their scenes, and it doesn't change the movie much.

hope someone does this, like Star Wars episode 1 where they removed every scene with jar jar binks.

Blade Runner 2049 7/10
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Six

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
471
126
i instead watched Bright - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5519340/

note that it's currently at 6.6/10 on IMDb. i don't know why people do not like it, and while i have some critique too, i did like it quite a lot.

the first part of the film is a very serious race-relation film about an Orc trying to integrate into Human society, more than facing racism, he's facing his own existential problems. i found this part to be very well acted and well made, with some surprising maturity in the dialogue and delivery. there's the backdrop of a magic world and an evil ritual to serve as framing device. i could not help but notice the strong resemblance to Alien Nation (1988), but i would say that Bright does better on this front.
the second part is a shooty shooty kaboom action hero film that for some reason must be the way every Will Smith film concludes; i can't blame Hollywood for thinking this, due to the previous performances by Smith in his "serous" films. But, Smith does very well here with the first part dialogues, and much worse with the shooty jumpy bits.

Still inferior to Lethal Weapon, i would give Bright a vote of 7.5/10
the elf girl is the same character as Mila Jovovitch in Fifth Element
Just saw it. Not horrible but not good. There was obviously a lot of world building they could have done to make it more interesting with the whole fantasy aspect, orcs, elves, magic, being an everyday normal thing. They are probably going to do a sequel and hopefully they build upon the world more.

It was a very basic plot even with the whole fantasy world on top of it. They didn't end up doing much with it which is sad.

I'd give it a 6.5\10
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,409
1,421
126
If that's what you want, i think Who Framed Roger Rabbit did it best.



while everyone else was partying, i watched The Foreigner - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615160/

Jackie Chan stars as an old man with a military past; his daughter is killed in an IRA bombing, and he goes all Taken on the terrorists.

This is not an action film. Or rather, it's not *that* kind of action film, which is good, if you hate, like i do, Chan's clownish antics. Instead, it's a serious film in the vein of First Blood. Chan can't act and looks like a fish out of water, but Pierce Brosnan as the IRA-backing politician is an absolute gem, and since he's about twice as much in the film as Chan is, this makes the film much more watchable. Pretty good casting all around, nicely shot, well acted, some cheapo CGI here and there, nice dialogues, if you liked Taken but wished the actors in it would behave a bit more realistically, this is the film for you.

7/10
 

Dr. Detroit

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2004
7,778
319
126
Bright - Netflix

2/10 - The writing was atrocious, the acting was not much better. Will Smith was typecast with dialogue straight out of BadBoys with Martin Lawrence.

It dragged, endless scenes of unnecessary cringe-worthy dialogue, enormous plot holes. The world the filmmakers built was very cool, maybe they can resurrect this with something memorable.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
27,835
1,600
126
Just saw it. Not horrible but not good. There was obviously a lot of world building they could have done to make it more interesting with the whole fantasy aspect, orcs, elves, magic, being an everyday normal thing. They are probably going to do a sequel and hopefully they build upon the world more.

It was a very basic plot even with the whole fantasy world on top of it. They didn't end up doing much with it which is sad.

I'd give it a 6.5\10
Netflix has already green lighted a sequel even b4 the movie was shown :eek:
 

deustroop

Golden Member
Dec 12, 2010
1,859
310
136
The Foreigner--should have stayed away!

There are technical problems :a bunch of long and childish martial arts scenes wrapped around a very wrongly conceived political thriller.Secondly, yet another in the revenge fantasy genre of action movie in which a grieving father goes after The Man ( unfortunately the wrong man) and takes him down. Good old (and I do mean old) Jackie Chan limping along in yet another martial arts production in which believability is left at the opening credits. This is definitely not a movie for adults.

Secondly, there is a cultural problem.This chinese attempt to penetrate the NA market is a total failure. The production has an acceptable main character acting in a North American context but the plot is completely ignorant of how the culture here works. Chan loses a daughter in London to self described IRA terrorists. The Northern Ireland government tries to ID and shut them down but that does not satisfy Chan who terrorizes the government itself to identify the terrorists. Chan foolishly runs around, miraculously unharmed by the government's efforts to stop him from attacking it, thinking he can force out the ID of who kidnapped his daughter. Why do we care ? He is attacking an innocent party and a government friendly to the Brits.

This production team thinks all anti government terrorism is pleasing but fails to appreciate the notion of good guys/bad guys. As a result Chan is the bad guy.No drama here as the plot, fantasy failings and cultural ignorance doom this trite offering by the 20 minute timeline.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,235
115
116
Let me know what you think of the most recent season or two of Archer. I loved the first few seasons but the last two haven't seemed funny to me. I'm not sure if the writing has gotten lazy or if I've just gotten tired of the characters
I've just started the sixth season. So far I'm still liking it. I don't think it's as consistent as it used to be, that's for sure, but there are still very funny moments.

KT
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY