What's new
By:

What's The Last Movie You’ve Seen?

I agree. Oblivion was a 5 out of 10 for me. Edge of Tomorrow was better but it fell apart in the last act imo. I'd give it a 6.9. I'm not sure why his career has derailed so much so but since Collateral, his movies have pretty much sucked.
 
I've been in Berlin for the past few weeks, and I picked up a pretty severe case of gastroenteritis (don't trust every Turkish restaurant is my advice) that has had me locked in the hotel room for 3 days or so. It truly sucks, but I have caught up on a few movies I have been meaning to see.

Dallas Buyer's Club.

Great acting. I am starting to agree with some posters that Matt Machonogheyeey or however you spell his stupid name is really coming into his own as an actor. He has shaken off the need to be the snide know-it-all patronizing dick in every single role and actually brings some depth to the characters. Good to see. Overall found the movie to be alright. The story was ok, but seemed to be told too fast to really build any momentum and seemed to skim over a lot of the relationships that could have added depth to the film. Basically I didn't find myself really rooting for anyone when it felt like it should have been a kind of "underdog" movie. Acting A, Cinematography B, Story C+, Overall B-

Wolf of Wallstreet

Pandering pile of grabage, imo. Oh the movie was made well enough, and the acting was superb. Mcconogheyeyy all over again in a great role. All in all a good "movie", detestable story. Basically look at me, I did all this horrible ****, and I still came out smelling like a rose! Yay for American excess, that never has to end! You don't see many movies like this that play to one man's ego so strongly that the man himself makes a cameo to introduce "himself" as the greatest of all time. It was fairly entertaining, but at the same time it was kind of funny, very pathetic, and vomit inducing. Not recommended. Acting A-, Cinematography B+, Story F, Overall a D.

300 and then 300 Rise of an Empire

Sequel was about as good as the original. The tired device of telling the story by one woman reciting it to her army on a boat in the ocean was a little stupid. Only about 5 guys could even hear her, but damned if they all didn't cheer when she finished. And holy hell we are going to war but you feel the need to tell us a 2 hour story as a "pep talk"? And I am sure the other dudes on the countless other boats were like "what the hell, we gonna do this or not?" Other than that, the action was pretty good, and as far as I understand that part of history it was actually fairly accurate, which says something. The visuals were stunning, but I thought this time the use of slow mo was more haphazard and did less to emphasize the important moments than it did in the first 300 film. It felt like they didn't know how to use the slow mo so they were like "well we haven't had a slow mo scene in about a minute, let's slow down this part of the dude stepping in a puddle". I also think they could have told a better story if they didn't fabricate the greek woman general super soldier all powerful sword master of the universe thing. Not that that wasn't you know totally plausible. I would say if you were a fan of 300 then the sequel will be satisfying, if not you might still like it if you dig that type of film otherwise you won't miss too much if you don't see it. Acting B, Cinematography A-, Story B-, Overall a B+.

The Great Gatsby

So I watched it more or less to be able to discuss with my daughter, who loved it. I am not a fan of Fitzgerald, I always felt his stuff lacked depth and was more or less garbage that sounded pretty. But I don't mind the film adaptations of Gatsby, and the best I have seen so far was Robert Redford's version, and that still holds true. This one had too many weird devices going on to build any continuity and felt haphazard and disjointed. Even just basic shooting angles and progressions were distracting. Like when Gatsby gets shot, is the dude in front of him or behind him. They left it ambiguous enough by not sticking to any one shot in the scene long enough to let you get your bearings that it is confusing and takes you out of the moment. So the real climax of the story has far less of an impact than it should have had. Also, the relentless narrating by Toby Maguire, both voice and written words scrawled across the screen, and exasperatingly both at the same time, got very very old. He didn't handle the affected vocal tone and speech patterns well. They sounded rehearsed and not very well rehearsed. Really all of the actors trying to speak in "period speech" was mostly a failure, except for lots of the extras and the guy who played Tom Buchanan more or less stole the film from Jack...uh Leonardo. Leonardo didn't seem to really be able to get into the role of Gatsby the way Redford did back in the 70's. For example it was obvious that neither the director nor actor understood why Gatsby used the phrase "old sport" and so often it just felt tacked on, but Redford got it and made it work for the character. And the completely out of place rap music at the parties was more than distracting, it was flat out stupid considering how hard they were trying to keep everything period specific. Overall a pretty, but pretty lousy, rendition of Gatsby, which itself is a pretty lousy story anyway. Acting B, Cinematography A-, Story D, Overall C-.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I've been in Berlin for the past few weeks, and I picked up a pretty severe case of gastroenteritis (don't trust every Turkish restaurant is my advice) that has had me locked in the hotel room for 3 days or so. It truly sucks, but I have caught up on a few movies I have been meaning to see.

Dallas Buyer's Club.

Great acting. I am starting to agree with some posters that Matt Machonogheyeey or however you spell his stupid name is really coming into his own as an actor. He has shaken off the need to be the snide know-it-all patronizing dick in every single role and actually brings some depth to the characters. Good to see. Overall found the movie to be alright. The story was ok, but seemed to be told too fast to really build any momentum and seemed to skim over a lot of the relationships that could have added depth to the film. Basically I didn't find myself really rooting for anyone when it felt like it should have been a kind of "underdog" movie. Acting A, Cinematography B, Story C+, Overall B-
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear about the bout of stomach issues. Better you than me as they say.

In respect to DBC...what the ****. C+ on story? It was almost a 2 hour movie? What more did you want in regards to the relationships?
 
VINYLONE said:
Sorry to hear about the bout of stomach issues. Better you than me as they say.

In respect to DBC...what the ****. C+ on story? It was almost a 2 hour movie? What more did you want in regards to the relationships?
Click to expand...

Something with depth? Was there even a point to Mrs. Ben Affleck being in the movie? She seemed to just have a doctor-patient relationship with MM one second in the hospital to being wholly vested in their "relationship" the next (think the kitchen scene)...that scene with Garner being sooooo upset felt contrived because of the lack of development in her character, and specifically in her relationship with MM.
 
QuinSnydersHair said:
Something with depth? Was there even a point to Mrs. Ben Affleck being in the movie? She seemed to just have a doctor-patient relationship with MM one second in the hospital to being wholly vested in their "relationship" the next (think the kitchen scene)...that scene with Garner being sooooo upset felt contrived because of the lack of development in her character, and specifically in her relationship with MM.
Click to expand...

You thought the movie was depthless. I didn't.

In respect to Mrs. Garner, I don't think she needed anymore depth and I wasn't looking for it. There are principal actors and there are supporting. She was wholly supporting. I had no issues with her character like you did. The characters I wanted to know more about I did.
 
Last edited:
VINYLONE said:
Sorry to hear about the bout of stomach issues. Better you than me as they say.

In respect to DBC...what the ****. C+ on story? It was almost a 2 hour movie? What more did you want in regards to the relationships?
Click to expand...

I don't remember any hard fast rule that duration automatically = quality of story. I will have to let Water World know about that, as by that logic it must be an instant classic.

I thought they did a good job showing his transition and the changes he went through, but there was a lot to be told in how he built up his organization and did what he did that might have been better spent in other areas. I don't know I didn't analyze it that deeply, I just never felt connected to any of the characters, and to me a good story gets you to connect to the characters and care about them. I cared about MM's character, but the others were not enough part of it all for me to really care about. Maybe it just wasn't my kind of story, but I have seen other movies I didn't particularly care for that still made me care about the characters. This one just didn't. Maybe they tried to tell too much or maybe it would have been better started at a different point or something. I just never connected with it, and to me that is a problem in how they told the story.
 
VINYLONE said:
You thought the movie was depthless. I didn't.

In respect to Mrs. Garner, I don't think she needed anymore depth and I wasn't looking for it. There are principal actors and there are supporting. She was wholly supporting. I had no issues with her character like you did. The characters I wanted to know more about I did.
Click to expand...

Well that settles that. That scene will feel completely genuine in its' nature to me now.
 
VINYLONE said:
You thought the movie was depthless. I didn't.

In respect to Mrs. Garner, I don't think she needed anymore depth and I wasn't looking for it. There are principal actors and there are supporting. She was wholly supporting. I had no issues with her character like you did. The characters I wanted to know more about I did.
Click to expand...

Where did I say the movie lacked depth?
 
QuinSnydersHair said:
Something with depth? Was there even a point to Mrs. Ben Affleck being in the movie? She seemed to just have a doctor-patient relationship with MM one second in the hospital to being wholly vested in their "relationship" the next (think the kitchen scene)...that scene with Garner being sooooo upset felt contrived because of the lack of development in her character, and specifically in her relationship with MM.
Click to expand...

VINYLONE said:
You thought the movie was depthless. I didn't.

In respect to Mrs. Garner, I don't think she needed anymore depth and I wasn't looking for it. There are principal actors and there are supporting. She was wholly supporting. I had no issues with her character like you did. The characters I wanted to know more about I did.
Click to expand...

I gotta go with QuinSnydersHair on this one, and not just because it is so well-coifed. I think overall the story was so broad that it was hard to get very deep into any of his connections to people other than his partner dude/chick. See I can't even remember his/her name. His story alone took up so much of the movie it was hard to show the depth of his connection to other people. It seemed like he was the force of nature and everyone else was just swept along, kind of thing.

Like I said, I didn't analyze it that deeply, and I don't intend to watch it again to do so. We can agree to disagree on this.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I just never felt connected to any of the characters...I cared about MM's character, but the others were not enough part of it all for me to really care about.
Click to expand...

This sounds a little conflicting to me. You cared about MM's character but you never felt connected to his character? You didn't feel connected to either MM or JL's characters? Well, there's really nothing else to say. You had your reaction to the movie and I had mine.

I have yet to see WOWS but I've heard so much about it. Mostly black and white stuff. People either hated it or loved it.
 
VINYLONE said:
This sounds a little conflicting to me. You cared about MM's character but you never felt connected to his character? You didn't feel connected to either MM or JL's characters? Well, there's really nothing else to say. You had your reaction to the movie and I had mine.

I have yet to see WOWS but I've heard so much about it. Mostly black and white stuff. People either hated it or loved it.
Click to expand...

That was train of thought writing, so I mis-spoke somewhat and corrected myself. I didn't not relate to EVERY SINGLE character, I did connect to MM's because he did a superb job bringing the dude and his progression to life. But what I wrote at first was kind of my first reaction, it just didn't grip me overall so no, none of the characters really reached out to me, oh wait, except MMs character. Better?

Oh I also thought the ending was too sudden. Like he seems fine for the most part then boom he's dead.
 
LogGrad98 said:
That was train of thought writing, so I mis-spoke somewhat and corrected myself. I didn't not relate to EVERY SINGLE character, I did connect to MM's because he did a superb job bringing the dude and his progression to life. But what I wrote at first was kind of my first reaction, it just didn't grip me overall so no, none of the characters really reached out to me, oh wait, except MMs character. Better?

Oh I also thought the ending was too sudden. Like he seems fine for the most part then boom he's dead.
Click to expand...

Duly noted in respect to your post's miscommunication.

Again, you had your reaction and I had mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top