Rate the latest movie you've seen.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Not a movie, but an obscure episode of the Twilight Zone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7n4LeRB6js&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[PickelledEggs]

Just watched Knights of Badassdom.

It's a (horror?) flick...  Although it was so poorly done that even I couldn't tell and I can't watch horror movies.

Anyway...  Review...

Story:sucked
Effects: not very good
10/10 would recommend. It was pretty funny

Sent via your mom.

[the_antithesis]

Death Machines (1976)

I've been going through those Mill Creek boxed sets of fifty movies for five bucks and on the last disc in the Sci-fi Invasion is a movie that I found to be special.

First of all, I don't know why it's on the sci-fi set. It's a martial arts movie. Supposedly there's mind control involved, but this is barely mentioned and unexplained. I guess they needed one more to make fifty, but they have plenty of sci-fi crap they could have put here. So I don't get it.

Second, and this is a personal thing since I watched every one of these shitty movies one by one, all twelve discs have the same DVD menu with the same music loop playing over and over until you want to chew your own face off. The music is the theme from Death Machines. So now I have Stockholm syndrome. Well, okay then.

But I realized this movie was special within the first few minutes where we see three sets of duded fighting using (fingerquotes) "martial arts" until one by one they slay their opponent. The third guy awkwardly reaches up the pant leg of his karate pants and just shoot his guy. That's good martial artin' right there. Usually with a cheesy movie like this, you get something like that and then nothing that good happens again. but then a few minutes later, the three mind controlled karate assassins take out a target with a fucking bazooka.

This movie is just bafflingly bad, but bad in an interesting way. This keeps it entertaining. It's actually a really good bad movie.

[EldonG]

Noah.

I'm an Aronofsky fan...seen 'em all.

5/10

Maybe his worst to date.  Clunky.

[Savior2006]

Edge of Tomorrow.

4 out of 5. A good film overall, but I think the alien design was a tad bit ridiculous.

[Notthesun]

The Fault in Our Stars - Grade: B+

[SGOS]

The Fault in Our Stars - Grade: B+

I've been thinking about going to that, but I'm not quite up for a tear jerker in a public theater.  Might have to wait for the disk, and watch it at home.

[SGOS]

Fault in Our Stars  9/10

A solid movie without special effects.  Not the tear jerker I expected, although that's how the critics were describing it.

[Notthesun]

22 Jump Street - Not as good as the first one, but still a great time!

Grade: B+

How to Train Your Dragon 2 - How amazing. I loved every minute of it. It may be the darkest American animated movie I've ever seen.

Grade: A

[Nam]

Quartet (2012) -- 8/10

-Nam

[GalacticBusDriver]

How to Train Your Dragon 2 - How amazing. I loved every minute of it. It may be the darkest American animated movie I've ever seen.

Grade: A

"How to Train Your Dragon 2"

Dreamworks has figured out how to make sequels. Boy, have they! I did not believe the few people I've heard saying that this one is every bit as good as the first, if not better. I won't say better, yet. Not until I've waited a couple days and maybe seen it again. But, it just might be! I'll give it a grade/rating in a few days.

I actually like that Dreamworks has decided to not follow the "Disney Happy Happy, Joy Joy" path of the last 15-20 years. The "dark" aspects of these films are, I think, what puts them over the top.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Edge of Tomorrow.

4 out of 5. A good film overall, but I think the alien design was a tad bit ridiculous.

They reminded me of the aliens in "The Darkest Hour."


Saw "Maleficent". Sixteen yo cutie made me feel pervy. And the plot was total revisionist history.

[Nam]

They reminded me of the aliens in "The Darkest Hour."


Saw "Maleficent". Sixteen yo cutie made me feel pervy. And the plot was total revisionist history.

As a cousin of mine says a lot: "Just 'cause she's off the menu don't mean you can't look."

-Nam

[the_antithesis]

The Fault In Our Stars.

Catching a matinee of this flick on a Monday afternoon, the old ladies who were the only other people in the theater were talking as they left. I overheard one of them say "That was very good. It was better than the book," reminded me why old ladies make terrible film critics.

The film wasn't bad, exactly. What it was is a note for note retread of the novel. It really didn't do anything spectacular to make it better than the novel. It wasn't spectacular as a film overall. Very workmanlike, but no real flair, I thought. There were a couple missed opportunities for the director to add flair, but I guess the director has no ambitions to be memorable. But that's okay. Not everyone has to try to be the next Spielberg, especially old fart Spielberg. But it does not a great movie make.

Part of the problem is the character that eventually dies of cancer by the end-- spoilers-- doesn't look very sick as their health is supposedly deteriorating. Maybe not every actor is willing to lose the amount of weight Christian Bale lost for The Machinist, but a little paleness added to those chubby cheeks would have been nice and keeping with the point of the novel, which is an unblinking look at young people living with cancer and how much it sucks. Having a character succumb to a version of Ali MacGraw's Disease (movie illness in which the only symptom is that the sufferer grows more beautiful as death approaches) was just a bad idea.

It seems to be a lot of little things like this that aren't necessarily important but they add up to a production that really didn't care as much about making a good film as just making a film. Another example is a character with eye cancer who eventually loses both eyes. One of his eyes is glass but it's obvious the actor does not have a glass eye. Reading the novel, I imaged the character had thick glasses which would have distorted his eyes enough to make the non-glass glass eye less noticeable. This was a simple thing that would have improved things, but they didn't do it because the stage glasses with perfectly flat lenses were good enough. "They could have, but they didn't" should be the tagline on the poster.

That all said, it's not a bad movie. Just a movie that does a pedestrian adaptation of a popular novel. I have read the novel, along with all of John Green's other works. I'll say it is his best book yet. His first novel, Looking For Alaska, was sort of like a semi-autobiographical first novel, as it's set in a prep school in Alabama and Green attended Prep school in Alabama, poor kid. His second, An Abundance of Katherines, was the typically indulgent sophomore effort where the main character is a child prodigy and therefore less likable. Paper Towns felt like the same formula in Looking for Alaska perfected and enjoyable as such, but hopefully he won't try to polish that formula anymore because it will get old. The Fault In Our Stars is his best novel because it's so unlike his previous works that were mostly the same characters in similar situations with a nerdy main character that is obviously based on Green himself. Hopefully he'll try bold moves like this in the future instead of going back to the old formula or worse, making a formula out of teenaged girls with cancer.

This is what the movie is built upon, but it never really adds to it or rises above it. it's good, but if you've read the book, you don't to see the movie.

On a personal note, the actress playing the main character, Shailene Woodley, reminded me quite a bit of my sister-in-law. The one whose daughter died. This made the view experience a tad spooky for me. Were I a more spiritual and therefore self-centered individual, I would say this casting was meant just for me on some level. I doubt it, but I find it weird that they didn't cast an actress that didn't make me think of my niece who'd died of cancer. I mean, jeez.

[Nam]

Lonely Hearts (1982) -- 6/10

-Nam