What's new
By:

What's The Last Movie You’ve Seen?

Saint Cy of JFC said:
The only real complaint towards the plot is that there was too much going on and they had to tie all the existing plot holes with exposition, but as far I could tell there were no plot holes left open.

You just seem to not be a fan of action movies.
Click to expand...

LOL ... I like action movies when it's within a certain realm of realism... i.e., trained secret agents CAN do some of those things. Otherwise it becomes a sort of Superhero movie for me.


But whatever man. Isn't it 5am in the East Coast right now? It's 11pm here.


Goodnight~
 
Actually lastly - I was thinking half way through it, 'this is actually pretty decent, I wonder if they'll make a sequel, I would actually watch that too'.


Then the 2nd half of the movie happened.
 
ONE LOVE said:
LOL ... I like action movies when it's within a certain realm of realism... i.e., trained secret agents CAN do some of those things. Otherwise it becomes a sort of Superhero movie for me.


But whatever man. Isn't it 5am in the East Coast right now? It's 11pm here.


Goodnight~
Click to expand...

They showed him being trained... If his dad was hiring martial artist to beat the **** out of his pre-teenage sons, you dont think he was getting trained harder and harder as he aged? I'm just trying to understand the holes in your logic.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
They showed him being trained... If his dad was hiring martial artist to beat the **** out of his pre-teenage sons, you dont think he was getting trained harder and harder as he aged? I'm just trying to understand the holes in your logic.
Click to expand...

Yeah but being trained by an Indonesian martial artist doesn't equate singlehandedly taking down 10+ 'special agents' level mercenaries with piles of heavy weapons though?


I mean had they said that he was once a special agent, yeah maybe,... but they didn't say that did they?
 
ONE LOVE said:
Yeah but being trained by an Indonesian martial artist doesn't equate singlehandedly taking down 10+ 'special agents' level mercenaries with piles of heavy weapons though?


I mean had they said that he was once a special agent, yeah maybe,... but they didn't say that did they?
Click to expand...
Good lord do you need every detail in a movies world to be explained to you in the movie or by exposition?

We see him being trained as a young boy, extremely harshly, to fight. You see he has a trailer full of guns. You see he can accurately shoot a sniper rifle. His father was in a special division of the military that caused them to move twice a year. You can put those pieces together to deduct he has had some special training. What do you want? A 15 minute training scene showing everything he has ever learned?

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Good lord do you need every detail in a movies world to be explained to you in the movie or by exposition?

We see him being trained as a young boy, extremely harshly, to fight. You see he has a trailer full of guns. You see he can accurately shoot a sniper rifle. His father was in a special division of the military that caused them to move twice a year. You can put those pieces together to deduct he has had some special training. What do you want? A 15 minute training scene showing everything he has ever learned?

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

They should have build it up so it's not too much of a jump. It's like 1 minute he was a kid being trained, then he's like a professional killer the next. It's a big jump in the plot. Makes the audience go 'wait what' and from that point on it just lost it's credence.


But whatever man, other people can watch it themselves and be the judge. I was actually rooting for it, it had such a good premise, but the 2nd half of the movie let it down for me.
 
ONE LOVE said:
They should have build it up so it's not too much of a jump. It's like 1 minute he was a kid being trained, then he's like a professional killer the next. It's a big jump in the plot. Makes the audience go 'wait what' and from that point on it just lost it's credence.


But whatever man, other people can watch it themselves and be the judge. I was actually rooting for it, it had such a good premise, but the 2nd half of the movie let it down for me.
Click to expand...
I just can't stand complaints where people feel the need to have everything explained. Part of the movie is suppose to be the jump from autistic and awkward accountant to killing machine, and how he has the tunnel focus to completion mentality on both. The thing that makes it kind of a unique action movie is that the 1st half is a slow burn. Then he gets thrown into the middle of the ****. Its an action movie that does a good job of disguising itself as a thriller.

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
I just can't stand complaints where people feel the need to have everything explained. Part of the movie is suppose to be the jump from autistic and awkward accountant to killing machine, and how he has the tunnel focus to completion mentality on both. The thing that makes it kind of a unique action movie is that the 1st half is a slow burn. Then he gets thrown into the middle of the ****. Its an action movie that does a good job of disguising itself as a thriller.

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

It clearly just needed a training montage scene.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Good lord do you need every detail in a movies world to be explained to you in the movie or by exposition?

We see him being trained as a young boy, extremely harshly, to fight. You see he has a trailer full of guns. You see he can accurately shoot a sniper rifle. His father was in a special division of the military that caused them to move twice a year. You can put those pieces together to deduct he has had some special training. What do you want? A 15 minute training scene showing everything he has ever learned?

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
Good post. He obviously had lots of training imo
 
Just checked and the accountant had a 51% Rottentomatoes approval rating from critics, obviously I'm not the only one who have issues with it.
 
ONE LOVE said:
Just checked and the accountant had a 51% Rottentomatoes approval rating from critics, obviously I'm not the only one who have issues with it.
Click to expand...

It's hysterical to me that movies are pimping their RT%'s on trailers these days. To me that's a very bad signal for the legitimacy of those %'s................. I suspect it will head the direction of Soundscan type of fugazi album sale #'s...

Saw a trailer for the Denzel Washington movie and they were pimping like an 84% rating.
 
PG_AB said:
It's hysterical to me that movies are pimping their RT%'s on trailers these days. To me that's a very bad signal for the legitimacy of those %'s................. I suspect it will head the direction of Soundscan type of fugazi album sale #'s...

Saw a trailer for the Denzel Washington movie and they were pimping like an 84% rating.
Click to expand...

Yah that's a questionable practice, if your movie's good it should be able to stand on its own merit and/or evident through in the trailer. I always try to avoid watching trailers though personally, I just don't like seeing snippets of movies I'm gonna be watching whole - the way the director meant for me to see it.


Having said that movies/books have always done that though with advertisement? Sundance Winner Best Director, Cannes People's Choice Award, etc, etc? I'm reading a book right now that's got 3 pages of excerpts from so called 'critics'. I mean, that's over the top to me.
 
RT% are not end all be all for quality of movies. For one thing, a lot of critics are complete copy cats and they just echo whatever the early critic opinions are. That or they sometimes grasp way to hard on a movies shortcomings instead of appreciating a movie for what it's good at.
 
Last edited:
Saint Cy of JFC said:
RT% are not end all be all for quality of movies. For one thing, a lot of critics are complete copy cats and they just echo whatever the early critic opinions are. That or they sometimes grasp way to hard on a movies shortcomings instead of appreciating a movie for what it's good at.
Click to expand...

My concern is newer movies ratings being compromised for the sake of strengthening a sales pitch.. That type of practice runs rampant thru most every media industry. Especially one where reviews often affect sales -- The video game industry (and magazines giving incomplete games 9/10 ratings) has been innundated with that type of **** for i'd say 20+ years...


The 400 Blows, which is in my top-2 movies of all time has a perfect 100% rating. which is legit. My other favorite movie Primer is at 71% which is obviously reflects that the story flew over many heads.. They're pretty good just certainly not always accurate..



I really like the Guy Ritchie movie Revolver which is at 17%... Again I feel like it flies over many heads tho..
 
PG_AB said:
My concern is newer movies ratings being compromised for the sake of strengthening a sales pitch.. That type of practice runs rampant thru most every media industry. Especially one where reviews often affect sales -- The video game industry (and magazines giving incomplete games 9/10 ratings) has been innundated with that type of **** for i'd say 20+ years...


The 400 Blows, which is in my top-2 movies of all time has a perfect 100% rating. which is legit. My other favorite movie Primer is at 71% which is obviously reflects that the story flew over many heads.. They're pretty good just certainly not always accurate..



I really like the Guy Ritchie movie Revolver which is at 17%... Again I feel like it flies over many heads tho..
Click to expand...

Yeah, Revolver is a good example of a laughable RT score that is by no means a bad movie.

Gone in 60 Seconds is another one, it's a 24% and it's a solid movie.
 
RT ratings are more or less about right in most cases though with a few exceptions that I can't think of off the top of my head.


If anything I think it tends to skew towards the high side. Captain America this year got 90% for example, not sure I would give it that high a score.


Looking at last year. Spotlight's got 96% .. I mean, it was good but was it really THAT good?


It Follows got 96% ... it certainly wasn't THAT good neither IMO.
 
ONE LOVE said:
RT ratings are more or less about right in most cases though with a few exceptions that I can't think of off the top of my head.


If anything I think it tends to skew towards the high side. Captain America this year got 90% for example, not sure I would give it that high a score.


Looking at last year. Spotlight's got 96% .. I mean, it was good but was it really THAT good?


It Follows got 96% ... it certainly wasn't THAT good neither IMO.
Click to expand...

Rotten tomatoes doesn't give scores out, it's either rotten or fresh. So if it has a 97% that doesn't mean it's a great movie necessarily, just that there is very little controversy that it is a good movie.

Or at least that's how I think it works. And It Follows was great.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Rotten tomatoes doesn't give scores out, it's either rotten or fresh. So if it has a 97% that doesn't mean it's a great movie necessarily, just that there is very little controversy that it is a good movie.

Or at least that's how I think it works. And It Follows was great.
Click to expand...
So The Accountant getting a 50% rating means half of all critics think it's rotten?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top