What was the last movie you watched?

[just2good]

I haven't seen it yet, but is the scene all the way at the end? Cause I missed the shawarma scene at the end.

No, there's just one scene after the credits.

I missed the Shawarma scene too.

I went to see Ice Age 4, It is horrible compared to the first one. Is Madagascar 3 good?

Madagascar 3 was decent. For anyone seeing Ice Age 4, was the Maggie Simpson short any good? That's the main reason I want to see Ice Age 4.

Oh, and I saw The Help today.

Started off slow, but was enjoyable and had a lot of heart and great acting. A bit long though.

7.75/10

Edited July 5, 2012 by just2good

[Bilbo Baggins]

For anyone seeing Ice Age 4, was the Maggie Simpson short any good? That's the main reason I want to see Ice Age 4.

The Maggie Simpson short movie is kind of fun but it isn't worth to see Ice Age 4 for it. You should try watching the video in youtube

[Vindicare]

I went to see Ice Age 4, It is horrible compared to the first one. Is Madagascar 3 good?

I enjoyed Madagascar 3. How can you not love King Julien and the Penguins?!

No, there's just one scene after the credits.

I missed the Shawarma scene too.

I watched it on YouTube. It was alright, didn't miss much. Although, they was some dialogue, I think. The one video I found wasn't that great.

Oops. I should add I saw Ted yesterday. Was hilarious. If you don't care much for swearing you might want to skip it. Mila Kunis was a definite plus.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Legocrazy81

[Clone OPatra]

Well, I guess people like the Spider-Man film. More power to them. The company knows what it's doing, then.

I found it horrible. The more I think about it, the more I dislike it. The plot was riddled with holes. Far too many elements were illogical. Very little was explained (is that the trend now? Don't get me started on Prometheus... ). The relationship made very little sense. I wasn't a huge fan of the first Raimi Spier-Man, mainly because the plot was basic, but at least while basic the plot made sense. The Green Goblin fight scenes went on a little long for my taste, but again, at least the plot worked. I can't say the same for this one. I don't understand the reviews that are saying this one is darker and more character driven; maybe more of this film took place at night, but the thematic content was barely 'dark' at all. But then I rarely agree with the critic consensus.

Brave, on the other hand, was much better than I expected after hearing mixed reviews.

[def]

In the original, Parker was a cage fighter at one point and did a lot of crazy things before becoming Spiderman. In this version though, it was more true to the comics...

Actually, in the comics, Peter used his abilities to become a TV celebrity in order to make cash, before uncle Ben died, so, in that respect I thought the 2002 film was much more true. The new movie also has Peter learn the guy who killed his uncle was the guy he let go through the police, rather than Peter's vengeance mission. That sucked a lot of the dramatic weight out of it. The one thing this film got done more accurate to the comics was the web shooters. While I wasn't pissy about the organic web shooters, I didn't think webs shooting out the wrist any more plausible than a high school kid making them.

Overall, I still consider the 2002 film a lot closer to Spider-Man's comic roots. I don't hold it against the new one, but the new one is a lot more 'Hollywood' <Hey, Peter Parker is a science nerd, but he skateboards! And he broods! He's better than Twilight!>

Well, I guess people like the Spider-Man film. More power to them. The company knows what it's doing, then.

I found it horrible. The more I think about it, the more I dislike it. The plot was riddled with holes. Far too many elements were illogical. Very little was explained (is that the trend now? Don't get me started on Prometheus... ). The relationship made very little sense. I wasn't a huge fan of the first Raimi Spier-Man, mainly because the plot was basic, but at least while basic the plot made sense. The Green Goblin fight scenes went on a little long for my taste, but again, at least the plot worked. I can't say the same for this one. I don't understand the reviews that are saying this one is darker and more character driven; maybe more of this film took place at night, but the thematic content was barely 'dark' at all. But then I rarely agree with the critic consensus.

I didn't think it was horrible at all. But that half hour of him getting powers was almost distractingly stupid.

The way he gets bit is utterly dumb. As a viewer, I was asking, "Are you a moron?" Later on, he repeatedly publicly uses his powers, which is utterly dumb. Then, once in costume, he keeps taking his mask off.

It's dumb enough to take a viewer out of the action.

I did like the 'human drama' enough, Stone as Gwen was 95% perfect, and her and Garfield really seemed to want to get it on.

Don't know. The film wasn't perfect, but I have a hard time fathoming calling it horrible.

[Clone OPatra]

Don't know. The film wasn't perfect, but I have a hard time fathoming calling it horrible.

I'll happily admit that I'm largely reactionary to a lot of things, and especially when it comes to films, like to use strong words that are maybe a little too strong. I could've just said I greatly disliked the film, but that has a weaker ring to it. I could add extra qualifiers like 'it was horrible to me' which makes the 'horrible' part sound a little softer, but I was trying to be direct. Maybe just 'poor.' Perhaps I should say 'the plot was horrible,' which doesn't necessarily account for the overall viewing experience (which I didn't find enjoyable, besides for chuckling at many parts that I thought were done poorly).

I completely agree that the chemistry between Stone and Garfield was magnetic. I loved seeing their scenes together. They are both terrific actors. It's the basis for the relationship that made what I'd call just about 0 sense. I know, I know, it's a comic book film and things don't exactly have to make sense, but there was so little basis for her liking him so strongly. We get why he likes her - she's hot and he's a fairly typical if slightly nerdy kid. But why does she like him so much? That wasn't evident in the movie at all. I haven't read the comics where she's introduced, so maybe this is true to the comics, but I also believe in adaptation of material for movies and not straight lifting. Movies usually need a little more motivation than comics, says I.

I have read the original Spidey comics, but I'm in no way a devotee of comics, so understand that bit of my perspective. This film strove too hard to not do whatever the first one did, and in doing so the setup with him testing out his powers and creating the costume and whatnot felt totally unmotivated. The original with him wanting money for a car, needing a costume for the fight that he later made better, etc. just worked really well and flowed together. This one was just kind of 'oh, people see my face, let me make a mask, actually let me make a whole costume, I see a thing about webbing on TV so I'll spend two seconds of film time in a montage making webshooters, and on.' He didn't even seem like such a nerd in the school scenes; a somewhat scrawny attractive kid with Edward Cullen hair who we are told is into science, more like. The whole setup was poorly done.

One more point that made a big difference to me - I couldn't understand if the Lizard serum made Connors evil or if he was already like that and the serum just enhanced it. The way he acts before he injects the serum, and the way he acts while he's in human mode afterward makes it seem like he's still in control of himself. This made an impact on how I reacted to the ending (which I won't spoil), and it's just another thing that I thought was very poorly set up or explained.

There are many littler plot holes and logical fallacies that bugged me (hehe) about this film. I understand my tastes well enough to know that when I dislike the bigger plot points, all the little details that are out of place bother me more. Sure, there were some little problems in Avengers, but since the overall plot was solid and it was a very fun film I can overlook those. In Amazing Spider-Man, where the overall plot points and structure aren't working for me, it's harder to overlook everything else.

Hence, it all adds up and I use the word 'horrible,' with a healthy little dose of hyperbole employed.

Inevitably, I might sound like I'm ranting, but I'm not. I may employ stronger words than I mean sometimes, but I strive to form clear opinions about films and articulate them.

[just2good]

Well, I guess people like the Spider-Man film. More power to them. The company knows what it's doing, then.

I found it horrible. The more I think about it, the more I dislike it. The plot was riddled with holes. Far too many elements were illogical. Very little was explained (is that the trend now? Don't get me started on Prometheus... ). The relationship made very little sense. I wasn't a huge fan of the first Raimi Spier-Man, mainly because the plot was basic, but at least while basic the plot made sense. The Green Goblin fight scenes went on a little long for my taste, but again, at least the plot worked. I can't say the same for this one. I don't understand the reviews that are saying this one is darker and more character driven; maybe more of this film took place at night, but the thematic content was barely 'dark' at all. But then I rarely agree with the critic consensus.

Well, Amzing Spider-Man is really getting mixed reactions, so I respect your opinion.

[charlieboy]

I've watched a couple of great films this week-

John Carter- I thought this was awesome! I know it didnt do as well as Disney had hoped but I loved it from start to finish!

X-Men: First Class- Again I thought this was very good too, possibly my favourite X-Men film yet!

[Darth Lurtz]

Just saw The Amazing SpiderMan, the best out of all of the previous Spiderman movies.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Darth Lurtz

[Bilbo Baggins]

I just went to see "The Amazing Spiderman", the web-launcher and Gwen Stacy don't make this movie closer to the comics than the Spiderman movie released in 2002. But I still enjoyed it. But I didn't quite understood the scene after the credits, couls someone give me some background on this scene and what it means?

[Darth Nihilus]

I'll happily admit that I'm largely reactionary to a lot of things, and especially when it comes to films, like to use strong words that are maybe a little too strong. I could've just said I greatly disliked the film, but that has a weaker ring to it. I could add extra qualifiers like 'it was horrible to me' which makes the 'horrible' part sound a little softer, but I was trying to be direct. Maybe just 'poor.' Perhaps I should say 'the plot was horrible,' which doesn't necessarily account for the overall viewing experience (which I didn't find enjoyable, besides for chuckling at many parts that I thought were done poorly).

I completely agree that the chemistry between Stone and Garfield was magnetic. I loved seeing their scenes together. They are both terrific actors. It's the basis for the relationship that made what I'd call just about 0 sense. I know, I know, it's a comic book film and things don't exactly have to make sense, but there was so little basis for her liking him so strongly. We get why he likes her - she's hot and he's a fairly typical if slightly nerdy kid. But why does she like him so much? That wasn't evident in the movie at all. I haven't read the comics where she's introduced, so maybe this is true to the comics, but I also believe in adaptation of material for movies and not straight lifting. Movies usually need a little more motivation than comics, says I.

Agreed, but IMO, this movie differentiated itself from the comics quite a bit. Lizard was no longer a crocodile in a lab coat, who strives to be Spidey's equal in almost all ways (climbing walls, smarts, etc.), he's now a cold, calculating monster who has his own skillset that doesn't derive from the original, but he doesn't use it in the same ways. Also, just like the Dark Knight film series, I really loved how they upped the realism with the villains, making Lizard less of a dinosaur and more of a human/lizard hybrid, with the humanlike face and stance and reptilian scales, nose, eyes, and tail.

I have read the original Spidey comics, but I'm in no way a devotee of comics, so understand that bit of my perspective. This film strove too hard to not do whatever the first one did, and in doing so the setup with him testing out his powers and creating the costume and whatnot felt totally unmotivated. The original with him wanting money for a car, needing a costume for the fight that he later made better, etc. just worked really well and flowed together. This one was just kind of 'oh, people see my face, let me make a mask, actually let me make a whole costume, I see a thing about webbing on TV so I'll spend two seconds of film time in a montage making webshooters, and on.' He didn't even seem like such a nerd in the school scenes; a somewhat scrawny attractive kid with Edward Cullen hair who we are told is into science, more like. The whole setup was poorly done.

Yeah, I agree. Although I hate the new comics Spidey a lot more than I hated this one, so any sequels to this movie would be well recieved by me. I miss Parker already, because now we get a wannabe kid Spidey.

One more point that made a big difference to me - I couldn't understand if the Lizard serum made Connors evil or if he was already like that and the serum just enhanced it. The way he acts before he injects the serum, and the way he acts while he's in human mode afterward makes it seem like he's still in control of himself. This made an impact on how I reacted to the ending (which I won't spoil), and it's just another thing that I thought was very poorly set up or explained.

I tend to think of it as that Connors was forced back into the recessions of Lizard's mind by the animal intent of the creature he had become, but it was more like a splite personality situation, where The Lizard got Connors' smarts, but also some of his humanity, which caused him to give Gwen a chance and also to not kill Spidey near the end.

[horizon]

Ice Age 4

8/10

fun movie. :)

[Bilbo Baggins]

I saw "Paul" yesterady. It really made me laugh specially the Steven Spielberg's references.

[Vindicare]

I just went to see "The Amazing Spiderman", the web-launcher and Gwen Stacy don't make this movie closer to the comics than the Spiderman movie released in 2002. But I still enjoyed it. But I didn't quite understood the scene after the credits, couls someone give me some background on this scene and what it means?

The web shooters were way better in this. At least he actually made them and they didn't shoot out of his wrists.

I saw it today. I really enjoyed it more than the previous ones. I like Garfield(so far) better than Maguire. And you can't go wrong with Emma Stone. I didn't really like that there were so many differences from the first one, say, in the way he got his powers, or how Uncle Ben died. I get they don't really want to tell the same story over again... But, they could've kept it closer. I like his Spidey suit in this one.

Clone'O, I thought the serum Connors took enhanced the Lizard instead of suppressing it like I knew it to be. I remembered him taking serum to nullify the effects of the Lizard. It seemed like whenever he would stick himself, he'd collapse and turn into the Lizard. The Lizard did look pretty kick a** in the movie though.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Legocrazy81

[Jimbobulus]

I'm ashamed to say it, but i just watched the first Twilight movie... if anyone wants me to disappear into a hole for the rest of my days, then I completely understand!

[Cammo]

Prometheus, man what was that all about. It's one of those movies that you can't really like or dislike. The ending made the story pointless to watch.

Well I guess I'm not into Sci-fi...

[Walter]

I saw Amazing Spider-Man recently, and I can honestly say I think it was a good film. I enjoyed it pretty well, although I didn't think it was as enjoyable as it could've been. While this new trilogy will be entertaining to watch, I still really love the Raimi films. Spider-Man 2 had the best Peter Parker moments for me personally.

I just went to see "The Amazing Spiderman", the web-launcher and Gwen Stacy don't make this movie closer to the comics than the Spiderman movie released in 2002. But I still enjoyed it. But I didn't quite understood the scene after the credits, couls someone give me some background on this scene and what it means?

Marc Webb himself said that he wanted it to be very mysterious, but most people think that:

Norman Osborn is the man in that last scene, although it could just as well be somebody else. Only time will tell! Let's hope the sequel clears it up.

[just2good]

Ice Age 4

Predictable and with a bad sub plot, Ice Age 4 might be better than the two before it as it gets a few laughs. Also, the Simpsons short before it is pretty good.

7/10

Maggie Simpson in 'The Longest Daycare'

Being an ex-Simpsons fanatic, I really enjoyed it. The short is pretty fast and is very cute. The animation in it is gorgeous and I wish I saw it in 3D.

8.5/10

Edited July 15, 2012 by just2good

[Sisco]

but most people think that:

I'm putting my money on the Hobgoblin as the villain for the sequel. Would that be Norman Osborne? My Spiderman knowledge is a little fuzzy.

[purpleparadox]

I just saw The Amazing Spiderman. Now, nobody bite my head off, but I liked it better than the previous trilogy! I felt Andrew Garfield captured Spidey's sense of humor better than Toby did. 9/10. Can't wait for the sequel!

[Lothos]

My wonderful wife informed me that she had never seen Indiana Jones.

10 minutes later and 40 bucks poorer, I bought the trilogy. She enjoyed the heck out of it.

Also I took my dad to see Spiderman as my father got me into geekology in the first place. Andrew Garfield was a fantastic Spiderman. :) The movie just sucked. :D

[BasOne]

Convoy and M*A*S*H*

[Larrynautik]

I saw Twelve Monkeys, with Bruce Willis. It has not captivated me. The movie is a kind of maelstrom of scenes that are quite difficult to understand. And the end is not extraodinary too. What saves the movie from the disaster is the role Brad Pitt plays, excellent here !

[Walter]

I'm putting my money on the Hobgoblin as the villain for the sequel. Would that be Norman Osborne? My Spiderman knowledge is a little fuzzy.

I don't know if Osborn was ever the Hobgoblin (My Spidey knowledge was never that great either) , but he'd be a welcome villain for a sequel.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Walter

[just2good]

My wonderful wife informed me that she had never seen Indiana Jones.

10 minutes later and 40 bucks poorer, I bought the trilogy. She enjoyed the heck out of it.

So I'm guessing you don't like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?