What was the last movie you watched?

[Ultron]

Sorry, but how the hell is an alien species that chooses to disguise themselves as our vehicles believable at all either? And there's a giant laser beneath the pyramids? And The government is hiding them in hoover dam? And there's a secret map on a pair of glasses? There's no logic whatsoever in that series either. I could go on and on and on. If superhero movies are the lowest grade of science fiction, the transformer movies are miles below them. And maybe superhero origins aren't too believable, but they at least make an attempt to make them seem plausible unlike Transformers. We're just supposed to magically believe an alien race came here and disguised themselves as our finest and fanciest cars. There's substance to (most) superhero movies, as for transformers, I couldn't care less about a single character, not to mention the blatant racism and sexism. I can't even name any of them except for Optimus Prime and Bumblebee. How good of a movie is that? I've learned more about them from the Grumpy Sparrows transformers game than I have from 4 overly long and dramatic movies.

If you don't like superhero movies, that's fine, but don't act like Transformers is based in science anymore than they are.

I'll end this debate once and for all. I think we can all agree that...

Both superheroes...

And Transformers...

Are better than...

Sci-Fi originals like Pirhanna-Conda or Super-Shark vs. Mega-Croc.

We now return you to the discussion of the last movie you watched.

Hey I actually like those. They're so bad that they're funny and the fact that they're aware of it makes them even better. The awful graphics add to the ambiance.

[Dinobrick]

Hey, we all have our opinions. (This is why i dont communicate with super hero fanboys.) Can we get back to movies now?

Edited November 8, 2014 by Dinobrick

[just2good]

Uh... so anyways, saw Interstellar. The last thirty minutes are pretty lame, but damn, the special effects in this film are amazing. The concept of the film is fantastic too, and interesting and pretty well executed until about the third act. For the effects alone, I recommend seeing this in theaters. Additionally, try not to spoil anything about the film. It was great going into the film blind of the plot, like I kind of did.

[tomdobs55]

I watched Olympus has Fallen last night. For what it's worth it was a great popcorn flick. A lot of action, and Morgan Freeman made it very watchable. I'm a sucker for movies with disaster effects and this one did not disappoint. I haven't seen White House Down, but this one looked as if it was the more serious of the two. Basically, Die Hard at the White House. I'd give it a solid 6.5-7 out of 10.

[Im a brickmaster.]

Hercules. Very intertaning, it had some pretty intense battle field scenes. And I mean, come on, it's Dwyane The Rock Johnson! That made the whole movie and the ending was pretty BA. Going to see Interstellar today too

EDIT: Apparently it changes, uh, bass to MegaBlocks!

Edited November 9, 2014 by Im a brickmaster.

[TheRedGuy]

Saw Interstellar. One of the best movies I've ever seen, without a doubt. Unlike most people, I thought the third act and ending was one of the best parts of the movie. Also, TARS for the win.

[Borador]

Hey I actually like those. They're so bad that they're funny and the fact that they're aware of it makes them even better. The awful graphics add to the ambiance.

Oh, I love them too, they are hysterical. But they are only funny because they are bad.

The last movie I watched was the second half of Scary Movie 3. Surprisingly funny, actually. 7.5/10

[Artanis I]

I'm a fan of the Transformers toy & story concept, but not the movies. I dislike the superheroes concept, but some of the movies are decent. The recent SH ones have been fairly well-made at least. I enjoy science-fiction, fantasy & mystery. Stuff that isn't real or isn't known. But I want to have a plot, character development or discovery, and tests or trials (but I don't want an easy "out" like SH seem to always have). Tests/trials includes fight scenes or chases but I can be happy with mind games. Some unexpected events are good, but there seems to be too much reliance on "I'm actually the bad guy, I was only pretending to be a good guy!" these days. I don't know the Trope name. It tends to introduce many plot holes too. I don't need humour or romance, sometimes it's better without, but sometimes it suits well.

Terrible movies can be fun to watch, for the "so bad it's good" factor. But sometimes they're so bad that they're just bad. Roll of the dice. The best situation is to watch with others and then crack jokes as you go.

Uh... so anyways, saw Interstellar. The last thirty minutes are pretty lame, but damn, the special effects in this film are amazing. The concept of the film is fantastic too, and interesting and pretty well executed until about the third act. For the effects alone, I recommend seeing this in theaters. Additionally, try not to spoil anything about the film. It was great going into the film blind of the plot, like I kind of did.

I went with some dudes, none of whom knew what to expect except for a 3 hour Nolan movie titled "Interstellar", not even the cast. So I was glad that it did eventually get to space... haha. Man, was it long though. Enjoyed it, but what's-her-name looked a bit like a rat-face. The "twist" if you want to call it that, yeah... maybe. He's done worse. The hospital & museum sequences though, not so sure we needed that plot direction. Reminded me of the boring & useless last 20-odd minutes of ROTK.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Artanis I

[Godtshep]

Million Dollar Baby- Terrific film. Eastwood's direction is perfect and the ending is gut - wrenching. 9/10

Slumdog Millionaire- Pretty good. Poorly paced in some parts, but still an interesting and often heartbreaking look into life in the slums. 8/10

[Jedi-Bendu]

The Godfather trilogy

(I lost track of how many times I've seen these)

[Kintobor]

A Muppet Christmas Carol- I was quite surprised by this one. Not only was this film good, it was really good! A strong, well written adaptation and a decent Muppets comedy. Quite atmospheric in tone, the movie understands that the original story was pretty dark at times, and embraces it when it can in some really cool puppetry, particularly the Marley and Marley sequence, which is both well lit and acted, but also legitimately chilling at times. Michael Caine is Ebenezer Scrooge. Seriously, Caine gives a legitimately great performance as Scrooge, despite the somewhat silly script at times. If you haven't checked it out, I'd recommend doing so, even if you are familiar with the original story.

[legofanatic12]

The Muppets: Most Wanted.

Very hilarious, but I don't know what happened to Kermit the Frog at the ending. Because at the end of the movie, all of them were performed in Siberia, Russia including the inmates and Constantin.

[K-Nut]

Finally got around to watching the film Stripes. Honestly, words cannot describe this film. Definitely recommend it to anyone looking for a good watch.

[Tariq j]

I watched The Imitation Game yesterday. A great film to watch, very interesting and gives a good insight into Coding and History.

[toatali]

Life Itself is really amazing. As a hug fan of Rodger Ebert I was moved to tears by the ending. A really great documentary for fans of Ebert, and those who've never heard of him. (sorry if this movie has already been mentioned loads, it only just came to a cinema near me!)

[fred67]

Saw Mockingjay Part 1 last Friday at a Studio Movie Grill; took the family...

It's been hit by critics and movie goers as being too slow; I think a lot of that has to do with the gripe of splitting the last book into two movies to milk that cash cow as long as possible, but honestly, I don't need constant action as long as the story holds, and for me it did. I wasn't disappointed at all. And yes, I read the books a few years ago (when the first movie came out).

[thestericho]

Guardians of the galaxy :)

Loved the film when it was at the cinema, so got it on blu-ray

[Ultron]

Saw Big Hero 6 (again!). It was so good! It and Wreck it Ralph are tied for my favorite animated movie.

[montgocloud]

I just saw a bunch of movies, more specifically Birdman, Interstellar, and The Theory of Everything.

Birdman (Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Diane Lane, Emma Stone), directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, is a truly special film. Keaton stars as Riggan Thomson, a washed up actor who made his career in the '90s as the iconic superhero Birdman. The film starts off in the days leading up to Thomson's Broadway debut, an adaptation of Raymond Carter's short story "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love."

I was immediately drawn to Birdman when it was first announced: I had seen (and loved) Inarritu's first film, Amores Perros, so I had total confidence that his ambitious single-shot style used for Birdman would pay off. My trust was not misplaced. Now, before I begin to analyze the cinematography of this film, I should mention that it is obviously not truly one shot; I counted a dozen or so subtle cuts throughout. This is not a criticism and it does not detract from the film, but it is worth mentioning. The unique cinematography of Birdman is not just a gimmick to attract moviegoers, rather, it is intertwined with and essential to its tone and themes. Thomson is delusional: he suffers from hearing paranoid voices in his head and hallucinations. The constant movement, the craning and rotating of the camera as it quite literally follows the characters through the confusing and claustrophobic web-like architecture of the theater gives the audience its own disorientation to match Thomson's. Also, on the subject of the connection between the cinematography and Birdman's setting, one could argue that a stage production, at its simplest, is a sort of single-shot film. The direction is so integral to the whole of Birdman, it is more than just a superficial technical achievement to keep the critics talking (*cough* *cough* Boyhood *cough* *cough*).

Another of Birdman's strengths is the score: I do not want to give too much away in fear of taking away from its effectiveness, so I will only point out that it is extremely unique in both its choice of instruments (or lack thereof) and its integration into the film. It greatly enhances the film's tone and atmosphere.

I could go on into the deeper meanings and layers of Birdman, its discussion of the stark contrast between being a celebrity and being an actor, its parody and seeming condemnation of the superhero genre, its blend of reality and fantasy as an insight into the egocentric thoughts and feelings of its titular character, but doing so would be to spoil this film for others, to lessen or diffuse its impact, something I would never wish to do. Birdman is a cinematic triumph, a sure contender for the best film of the year.

10/10

Interstellar (Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Matt Damon) is a bit of a mess; it tries to tackle more ideas than it can handle. An admirable effort for sure, I mean I would rather a film have too many ideas than not enough, but the end result is... well, I will get into that later.

First, a plot summary: the Earth is uninhabitable. Consumable crops have, for the most part, completely died out, and the remaining survivors have placed all of their endeavors on discovering and exploring other planets that could potentially support human colonization. The plot is classic science-fiction, which is where much of my praise stems from. When the film is entirely focused on the wonders of space exploration and the mutability of the space-time continuum, it is wholly successful. It is difficult to create a film for mass audiences that deals with complicated fifth-dimensional physics: if they don't immediately buy into the premise and setting, it could all fall flat. Christopher Nolan is a director who has mastered visual storytelling. Through some clever cinematography, he grounds the film in realism; he never shows the outside of the spaceship in a wide shot, as Star Trek and Star Wars often do, rather, he mounts the camera to the sides of the ship as done by NASA and other real-life space agencies. Subconsciously, the audience connects to this and thus makes a connection into the world. The visuals of Interstellar are simply stunning. The look, the feel, it is refreshing in a day and age of explosion-heavy, exhausting action blockbusters. If it had kept this and had not gotten bogged down in a stereotypical plot and schmaltz, then I would have probably loved this film.

But, alas, it did not keep this. Before I begin, be warned: there are spoilers ahead. Skip to the closing paragraph of this review if you plan on seeing Interstellar. Now, as I said before, the visuals and the highly accurate and complex science ground this film in realism, however, there is a point in this film when Nolan introduces the concept that love binds the universe together... really?! Love, a human emotion, binds the entirety of the vast, expansive universe? This is not even remotely believable. Note: I am not saying that this film should have been without an emotional crux, that it should have been all sterile, dull science, but perhaps the emotions should have been a little more quaint to contrast with the overbearing setting of outerspace. It could have played with the idea of how small humanity and all of our problems really are... I don't know. With the way it is now, Interstellar goes off the deep end. Nolan tends to do this: he takes a simple and straight-forward conversation, relationship, or element and magnifies it to such a ridiculous degree to make some overarching statement; he does not have any sense of restraint.

Next, I will quickly run through some of the other problems I had with the film: Matt Damon's character is completely out of place. Did Interstellar really need an over-the-top-James Bond-esque villain, let alone any villain at all? Also, a comment on the sound mixing: Hans Zimmer provides a booming, organ-heavy score to accompany the marvelous visuals, but there are times when the music is so loud that the dialogue is inaudible. It did not seem intentional or artistic, it seemed like a clumsy oversight.

I do not want to come off like I hated Interstellar. Its only major problem is that it is overstuffed with ideas. At its core, it is a film for science-fiction fans, but Christopher Nolan adds in elements that conflict with this core in order to appeal to mass audiences; it does not feel cohesive in the least. There is a great film hidden within this mess, perhaps even a somewhat successor to Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey, but unfortunately I cannot rate a film on what it could have been, I have to review what it actually is.

6/10

The Theory of Everything (Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones) is surprisingly terrible. I was not expecting it to be a grand masterpiece, but I definitely could not anticipate how infuriated I would feel by the end. Why is it so bad? Well, that might take some time to explain.

The film follows Stephen Hawking (Redmayne) as he meets his future wife, Jane Wilde (Jones), deals with his debilitating illness, and formulates his now famous theory concerning the conception of our universe. Its premise sounds like it could make for a great time at the theater, so what exactly went wrong? From the posters, The Theory of Everything looks like it wants to be about Hawking's relationship with Wilde, how his illness not only slowly deteriorated his connection to the physical world but also his connection with her. Unfortunately, however, it all falls flat on its face. This is mainly due to how the film is told; it feels like reading the Wikipedia article on Hawking: just the facts, devoid of any deeper emotional connection with the audience. Hawking and Wilde get married after sharing only five or ten minutes of screen time. They go from making awkward googly eyes at one another to having children far too quickly. The film does not establish their love, it skims past the good times in their relationship to allot more screen time to the bad; without a contrast between the two, the film turns into two hours of people being miserable. An example of this lack of contrast comes in their amount of communication: one would think that it would be a pretty powerful moment when Hawking loses his ability to speak, but the audience never sees Hawking and Wilde talk beforehand so it holds no impact whatsoever.

For a film about a scientist developing a theory about time, The Theory of Everything seems to have no concept of time at all. This is partly because of its obnoxious color filters (think Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) and because the actors never age. The same VistaVision color filters used to capture the 1960s are used during the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and when Hawking and Wilde are in their sixties, they look no different than they do in their twenties. No effort was made with prosthetics, makeup, or CGI to make them appear older. In addition, no context is given as to what year the film is in. This is made exponentially worse considering how many jumps in time this film has. When Hawking is diagnosed with ALS (not exactly, but the disease is related), we are told that he has two years to live. Half the time I thought the film was taking place inside that two year period, only to find out later that two decades had passed. I was waiting for the inevitable explanation of how he survives far longer than first anticipated, however, this is never explained or even addressed.

I have some minor nitpicks as well. First, there is a scene where Wilde is in a hospital in France talking to a doctor in French (as one might expect), but all of a sudden they start to speak in English for no reason other than that the dialogue is more important. If the doctor knows English, why are they not speaking in English when the scene starts? OK, maybe Wilde is not aware that the doctor speaks English... but if that is true, why does she start talking to him in English in the middle of the scene? Does Wilde have the script with her? Second, there is a great scene that takes place days after Hawking learns of his illness. He has been laying in his dorm avoiding the outside world. Wilde visits him and encourages him to get up and to live instead of withering away in his room. She takes off his glasses and cleans them, a symbol of her wiping off his disillusionment and allowing him to see his challenging situation more clearly. But then, at the end of the film, this moment is repeated, even though there is no deeper meaning behind it. It confuses the audience and makes me question whether there was any actual symbolism there in the first place. Also, why does Wilde wear teal all the time? Is there some sort of significance behind this? Or is it just because teal looks nice with the previously mentioned color filter?

Alright, I had better wrap this up. If I had one bit of praise, it would be the quality of performances. Redmaye's portrayal of Hawking is truly inspired. I only wish it was not wasted on this shoddy script. Felicity Jones is serviceable but overall as Wilde. The two had definite chemistry at the start but it never went anywhere due to the film's lack of focus.

The best word to describe The Theory of Everything is vague. It does not go into depth on any specific part of Stephen Hawking's life, rather, it presents the audience with a long drawn out summary. It leaves you asking questions at every turn. If it had focused on Hawking and Wilde's deep but strained relationship, if it had some semblance of a heart, it might have had some level of success.

4/10

[Steph 104th]

Got Guardians of the Galaxy on DVD and saw it for the fourth time, I was simply reminded why it is my favorite movie from the mcu yet. It is brilliant the special affects are amazing to the point where talking machine gun slinging raccoon is undoubtedly real.

[ZootyCutie]

Saw Penguins of Madagascar yesterday (its a Thanksgiving tradition for my family to go to a movie). It was pretty cute...humor was great, though. Especially if you love puns.

[arc]

Finally saw guardians of the galaxy tonight, and I have to say, it really lives up to all the hype! I Would definitely recommend seeing this if you haven't already.

[TheLazyChicken]

Just watched the whole Star Wars Saga last week.

[General Magma]

Just got back from "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies".

Great film, best of the trilogy. Shame it was so short, though.

Still great overall with a nice way to connect it to FOTR at the end.

[ZootyCutie]

Saw the documentary "Beauty Is Embarrassing" in my Painting class today. It's all about the artist Wayne White. It's really funny, and interesting, too (especially since he's one of the minds behind Pee-Wee's Playhouse).