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

[lokiju]

Drive - 8/10.

Why not a 9 or a 10? There were a few movie goofs that really took me out of the movie. Most people will probably not notice, but I did and it's important to me.

Spoiler

Ryan Gosling hijacks the mustang, right? Gloves are on. Turn to another shot, immediately they're off. Now it's the chase scene with the Mustang and Chrysler. Dodging the cars, the cars change between shots. The car they just dodged (An old Yaris maybe?) turns into a Toyota Corolla S. Things like that can really bug me. Another thing: When in the Impalla, he is HAMMERING the hell out of that thing to get it going across the bridge. He never passes the cars that are in front of him. Every time the shot comes back, he is still the same 30ft away from an SUV and some other car. Again, I really like seeing the speed and not just assuming it. I understand this is beyond what most movies can do, but at least make me believe it's really happening with the visuals. When he drops the gear and makes it seem like he is really starting to go, the visuals do not match it. I was like, "Ok, it sounds like he is really revving. But he is not going anywhere..."

However, this has one of the BEST soundtracks I have heard. It also has a pretty decent story. A lot of people will not like this movie, but I understood it. It has elements of a modern western hero movie.

Wow I never even noticed those items you listed that took away from it for you.

I liked the movie though but agree it's not one for everyone.

 

[slayer202]

If I'm remembering correctly, Jan 30th Drive is out on DVD. I will be viewing again soon after. At a very loud volume

 

[lokiju]

Cowboys and Aliens - 8/10: I wouldn't of thought I'd give it a 8/10 before seeing it but I went into watching it thinking it wasn't going to be any good. I was entertained, thought the acting, story and visuals were all decent.

Overall one of those movies that going in with low expectations probably helped me enjoy it more.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Snowmageddon
2011
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1876446/

2/10
This movie sucked.
My Girlfriend likes to watch bad cheezy scifi movies. She suckered me into watching this on Saturday simply because it had the actor who played Saul Tigh in BSG.
The story was simply a collection of cliches.. essentially going along the generic disaster movie formula to the T. every single event in every scene of the movie was 100% predictable. The effects were crappy. The script was bad. The story was garbage.
The acting was passable IMO.

Overall, do not watch, even with very low expectations it is still a stinkturd.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Aftershock
2010
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1393746/
9/10

Very very good film, very powerful. Epic tragedy. Story was good, acting was good, effects were even good.


I Sell the Dead
2008
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0902290/
7/10

This one was a surprise. I hadn't really heard of it before, and wasn't expecting much from it, but it was hilarious and VERY well acted across the board. Story was very entertaining. Could have been made longer, but I suspect this was a case of "director ran outta money so wrapped things up" ....


Arahan
2004
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0404777/
6.5/10

Entertaining take on Superhero film... This was a good movie, but wasn't great. Some great action scenes.


Awakenings
1990
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099077/
8/10

I hadn't watched this before but it was recommended by friends. When I saw the cast I moved it up towards the top of my watch list.
Acting was magnificent, this movie is watching just for him alone, and DeNiro really did amazing too IMO. Movie was a bit too sentimental, but I guess given the context of the story, that is unavoidable...
Overall, I thought this was very very good.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Repo Men - 7.6/10 - Had elements of some other movies I really liked (Equillibrium, Total Recall, Children of Men). Great 'surgical' effects. Negatives for me would be underdevelopment of the characters (

Spoiler

Didnt feel like he connected very well with anyone, even wife and child

), and just some overall premise stuff (

Spoiler

If most of the repos are fatal, why were some of the people going out peacefully? Getting repo'ed is life or death, I would expect 99% of people to extremely freak out/get violent. The repo men definitely took it nonchalantly, which was a very cool attitude for the movie, but I don't see the 'customers' taking it like that.

. Positives would be the ending for sure (

Spoiler

I really didn't like the direction the movie started heading when he started writing his memoirs, got worse and worse as they just walk into the pink room, and it was a sweet scene how they reclaimed each other, but not really fitting for the movie. Then I was really pissed off when Whitaker's character turned against the boss. Should have seen the hookup to the dream machine a mile away, but the twist was actually pretty good... gradually take the plot to more and more ridiculous until you think its rubbish, then pull you back and then it all makes sense. So I liked that... the 'its all a dream' is still cliche, but in this case it makes for a nice bittersweet ending. I was just happy that the rest of the uncharacteristic stuff turned out to be just that.

 

[TridenT]

Yeah it depends on the details and the viewer. Whatever you do in your daily life, if you saw a movie that butchered it, you'd probably get taken out of the film.

With Drive, the primary thing that stood out to me were two scenes ..

The Mustang 5.0 GT vs. Chrysler 300C was incredibly ridiculous. That GT would have been gone so damned fast (particularly with a good driver like that) that the scene wouldn't have really even happened. They should have chosen a Charger SRT8 or something at least in the universe of believability.

The other was where he takes his old car and rams a car at a speed high enough to make it fly 50+ feet through the air, yet when he gets out of his car, it's unblemished, headlights still blazing. But I could buy that a tiny bit if this is some realm of magical realism or whatever, where the protagonist isn't entirely human or something. But that explanation doesn't jibe with that pile of crap 300 keeping up with a 412hp GT.

I really liked most of Drive though, and I love the director. His work on Valhalla Rising was supremely good. I think he excels with characters, but not technology or set pieces.

Exactly. I thought the same thing about that scene. I was like, "I've driven a Chrysler 300C and it ain't as fast as that Mustang... Unless that's the premium one with some mods or some highly modified version altogether, that thing is going to get smoked by that Mustang... Alright, just gonna assume it has some serious mods. Couldn't see any emblems..." Also he was supposedly a great driver and yet... whatever. One other nitpick: I hate it when it's obviously that the guys are gunning it on a relatively straight road for a while and yet it's obvious they're not going over 100mph when they should be easily for how long they've been hammering it. >.<

And I noticed that as well about the scene where he rams his car into the other car. I was like, "Uh... It doesn't even look like it has damage done to it? Maybe it's just bad lighting and that thing is seriously tanky?"

Good to know I am not the only one who noticed it.

EDIT: Goofed. I can't remember what the premium Chrysler 300 is called. I thought it was an SRT-8, but probably isn't. EDIT2: Apparently, it is. Ok, well. Still, a Chrysler 300C SRT8 shouldn't be as quick as that Mustang (I could be wrong as this might have changed). ESPECIALLY with a talented driver versus some thug.

 

[OutHouse]

i watched cowboys and aliens. it wasnt bad at all.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian: 4/10
The barest of plots and empty characters. I wasn't expecting a generic medieval war movie, but that's what it was.
It's not awful, but there's also nothing much going for it.

 

[shortylickens]

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian: 4/10
The barest of plots and empty characters. I wasn't expecting a generic medieval war movie, but that's what it was.
It's not awful, but there's also nothing much going for it.

This.
Also didnt help that two of the heroes were missing here. Of course, I have no idea what the book was like.

Sad thing is it started off good with the little troll cousin and that water painting.

 

[slayer202]

Bob le Flambeur - 8/10:
French new wave heist film from 1955. About what you would expect; beautiful french architecture, suave Frenchmen, a woman or two, and a crime. In my head, I was comparing it to Le Doulos and Le Cercle Le Rouge; I thought those other two were superior. Then I realized they are all Jean-Pierre Melville films Damn this guy is good. There are still a bunch more of him that I have to watch.

Being the first(I think) of his gangster movies, and being one of the starters of new wave(preceding even Rififi if I'm not mistaken), it's an important movie, even though it's probably not his best. It's about Bob the gambler, an up and down compulsive gambler. On his current down, he decides to pull off the job of a lifetime.

The movie has an unfortunate and familiar narration, thanks to the time period, in small doses thankfully. The characters aren't quite as well created as in the other films I mentioned, which is expected. The plot is classic Melville, which I am starting to realize.

I might be nitpicking because I've seen better examples of this genre, but Bob le Flambeur kicks the crap out of anything you might see today :thumbsup:

 

[Thebobo]

The Castle - 8 out of 10

Fun quirky movie -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118826/

 

[dingster1]

J.Edgar. 9/10. Very interesting movie

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Cowboys and Aliens - 8/10: I wouldn't of thought I'd give it a 8/10 before seeing it but I went into watching it thinking it wasn't going to be any good. I was entertained, thought the acting, story and visuals were all decent.

Overall one of those movies that going in with low expectations probably helped me enjoy it more.

Now I want to watch it. Dang nabbit.

 

[Schadenfreude]

The Lincoln Lawyer
2011
Wiki Article

8/10

Very entertaining film; well written with a fantastic cast, and it definitely beats the hardboiled/life-affirming courtroom drama cliche.

 

[Arkaign]

Exactly. I thought the same thing about that scene. I was like, "I've driven a Chrysler 300C and it ain't as fast as that Mustang... Unless that's the premium one with some mods or some highly modified version altogether, that thing is going to get smoked by that Mustang... Alright, just gonna assume it has some serious mods. Couldn't see any emblems..." Also he was supposedly a great driver and yet... whatever. One other nitpick: I hate it when it's obviously that the guys are gunning it on a relatively straight road for a while and yet it's obvious they're not going over 100mph when they should be easily for how long they've been hammering it. >.<

And I noticed that as well about the scene where he rams his car into the other car. I was like, "Uh... It doesn't even look like it has damage done to it? Maybe it's just bad lighting and that thing is seriously tanky?"

Good to know I am not the only one who noticed it.

EDIT: Goofed. I can't remember what the premium Chrysler 300 is called. I thought it was an SRT-8, but probably isn't. EDIT2: Apparently, it is. Ok, well. Still, a Chrysler 300C SRT8 shouldn't be as quick as that Mustang (I could be wrong as this might have changed). ESPECIALLY with a talented driver versus some thug.

The SRT8 is not a match for a 5.0GT, but the 300 in the movie was a regular 300C (you can tell by the wheels and exhaust), so at most it's 288hp (~258rwhp) on a platform that's close to 4,000lbs. Or something akin to a man with no arms or legs trying to race Usain Bolt in the 100m.

Of course, the film is largely quite good, particularly the scenes which don't involve driving at all. Which is a little disappointing for a film called 'Drive', with a main character known for being a great driver

On the flip side, I re-watched Gone in 60 Seconds a few weeks back, and it's REALLY well done in the car realism department outside of that ridiculously stupid jump scene. We're talking heel-toe shifts, perfectly executed throttle oversteer, realistic grip issues, etc. But the rest of the movie is your average hollywood shlock.

Maybe the moral is that nothing's perfect (and to hire good experts to help)

 

[slayer202]

the movie wasn't trying to be a car movie, so any car related "untruths" don't bother me.

 

[Arkaign]

the movie wasn't trying to be a car movie, so any car related "untruths" don't bother me.

That's like saying a movie isn't trying to be a 'gun' movie, but someone fires 20 shots from a 6-shot pistol without reloading. Details matter, and obvious huge errors shouldn't be so easily ignored.

 

[KeithTalent]

That's like saying a movie isn't trying to be a 'gun' movie, but someone fires 20 shots from a 6-shot pistol without reloading. Details matter, and obvious huge errors shouldn't be so easily ignored.

I disagree, if it's irrelevant to the plot of the movie and only discernible by enthusiasts of the particular thing in question, then it's not a huge error, it is a minor flaw in the background details. These quibbles you guys have posted are not integral to the story and are just minor annoyances for a select few, it does not indicate a flaw with film's narrative or overarching premise.

Not sure how many 'gun' movies I've seen. :hmm:

KT

 

[Arkaign]

That's not to say that things should really ruin movies, or it should be taken too far.

Using the gun example, there are some goofs for example in war movies that are usually pretty minor, but get spotted by ultra-experts in the field. For example, the wrong magazine used in a rifle that wasn't manufactured during that year in history. Where it crosses the line is say seeing M16s in a WW2 movie, or a film set in the 70s having a 1993 taurus drive by.

 

[busydude]

I've watched Flipped, Senna and Crazy, Stupid, Love on my flight to India.

I liked Flipped.. absolutely loved Senna and thought CSL was meh. For some reason.. I hate Emma Stone even more. :hmm:

 

[Arkaign]

I disagree, if it's irrelevant to the plot of the movie and only discernible by enthusiasts of the particular thing in question, then it's not a huge error, it is a minor flaw in the background details. These quibbles you guys have posted are not integral to the story and are just minor annoyances for a select few, it does not indicate a flaw with film's narrative or overarching premise.

Not sure how many 'gun' movies I've seen. :hmm:

KT

Well I agree and disagree. When making a film or decent TV show, one should be aware of the time and details as much as reasonably possible. It's because of good details and settings that the actors and story have a place to breathe. Minor errors are fine, major ones are problematic.

With Drive the issue is compounded because the film was marketed with the allure and idea of driving fast and the outlaw angle. Cars and driving feature in every poster and trailer, and the first scene of the film of which almost every review takes note of deals heavily with driving. The main character is known as 'Driver' by default of not even being given another name. It's not too much to ask to have consulted someone who knew better to make a couple minor changes before shooting.

It's not enough to make me go from liking a movie to disliking it, but it's jarring and distracting. And I'm far from the only car guy in the world, in particular the US.

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtes...tang-gt-it-cant-out-drive-a-chrysler-300.html

 

[Schadenfreude]

I disagree, if it's irrelevant to the plot of the movie and only discernible by enthusiasts of the particular thing in question, then it's not a huge error, it is a minor flaw in the background details. These quibbles you guys have posted are not integral to the story and are just minor annoyances for a select few, it does not indicate a flaw with film's narrative or overarching premise.

Not sure how many 'gun' movies I've seen. :hmm:

KT

I think it could be a case of both - for the general public it could be a non-issue; for enthusiasts it could really jar you out of your versimilitude; like for'nstance - why the hell does the bad guys in Iron Man 2 stay down/get KO'd when they are taken down by Scarlett Johanssen's character? It's not like she did anything that's particularly injuring outside of falling down. And if they have a condition where tripping is fatal, why are they hired on as security in the first place? And where did they find such a large group of people with the same condition? Were they just participants in a pharmaceutical test next door?

Of course it's not the best an example where a man in an iron suit can fly around, shoot balls of light at enemies and everything explodes, but you get the idea.

 

[KeithTalent]

Well I agree and disagree. When making a film or decent TV show, one should be aware of the time and details as much as reasonably possible. It's because of good details and settings that the actors and story have a place to breathe. Minor errors are fine, major ones are problematic.

With Drive the issue is compounded because the film was marketed with the allure and idea of driving fast and the outlaw angle. Cars and driving feature in every poster and trailer, and the first scene of the film of which almost every review takes note of deals heavily with driving. The main character is known as 'Driver' by default of not even being given another name. It's not too much to ask to have consulted someone who knew better to make a couple minor changes before shooting.

It's not enough to make me go from liking a movie to disliking it, but it's jarring and distracting. And I'm far from the only car guy in the world, in particular the US.

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtes...tang-gt-it-cant-out-drive-a-chrysler-300.html

But is that not a fault of the marketing department, not the film? There are examples of marketing misrepresenting films every month, I mean look at The American from last year, that one was grossly misrepresented in the marketing; it does not make it a bad film and it's not the fault of the film nor the Director.

Would you not agree that a film with a limited budget and time constraints, is better served by spending that time on making a coherent narrative and a satisfying film, rather than getting minor details correct?

While I agree you should always try your best to get as many of these things correct as you can, there are often limitations in place that prohibit those making the film from getting everything right. I have not looked at the numbers, but I have to imagine Gone in 60 Seconds had a much larger budget and more time to get those details correct, not to mention that was the focal point of that film and was really all it had going for it. Would you exchange the proper rims on a vehicle in that movie for a more gratifying story? I know I would.

KT

 

[slayer202]

LOL @ the advertising of Catfish