Rate the last movie you saw

[MarionBarberThe4th]

The dialogue seemed too forced at times. The dialogue between characters was just not as good as his previous movies, with the exception of death proof...I thought he went overboard in death proof.

Brad Pitt annoyed me with his over the top silly accent and constant cheesy facial expressions.

The Inglorious Basterds crew was kind of forgettable, could have had some more individual development. You remember Aldo and the bear jew, and Stiglit(sp?) and the only reason you remember the bear jew is the baseball bat scene and Stiglit(sp?) was because he killed so many **** officers. The others...you really don't know much, if anything, about.

The acting for the Shoshana character just did not work for me, for whatever reason I just was annoyed by her acting and that is rare for me.

The best character, and acting IMO, was the **** Colonel. He also had some of the best dialogue scenes IMO. He really was far and away the best acting and most interesting character in the movie. Actually the more I think about it the more I realize that his work in the movie was so much better than the others that it made all the others rather flat...of course that is not his fault but the fault of the other actors, the director and screen play.

I don't know...I just had really high hopes as I am a WWII films fan and QT fan so it was probably never going to meet my expectations but I have to say I liked all of his other movies, except death proof, better than this one.
But to be fair, if I watch it another time or two I might change my mind.

I agree w/ you about the Colonel. Every second of him on screen was awesome.

I heard QT say that he only had Brad Pitt in mind and no one else, but I think any no name could have brought what he brought. When I think about this movie I think about the Colonel.

I liked the dialogue. The 1st scene and the shootout were awesome.

8.5

Eli Roth as Bear Jew sucked

 

[Aikmaniac]

Just saw Terminator 2 in BluRay.

Simply the best sci-fi/action movie I've ever seen.

If you haven't already, do yourself a favor and purchase this one.

 

[Rampage]

Sex Drive - 8/10

very funny movie.

 

[DallasCowboysFan10]

The Temptations 10/10

 

[YosemiteSam]

Wow, I'm surprise how many people talk bad about Avatar. I thought it was a very good movie. It is a bit long of course, all movies over 2 hours are to long.

People are so critical of movies and how they are made. (same evil guy and good guy, blah, blah) What is it supposed to be? Good guy and average guy on the street? No. If there are not two sides, there is no plot.

You guys need to let it go. It's a movie, you know. Entertainment. Not how your life is going to play out. It's 1-3 hours of your time. Take it for what it is. A movie.

Avatar wasn't bad in any way. It had a few *stupid* parts, but it was overall an entertaining film and the CGI was great. I appreciated it for what it was and the hard work and detail that went into it. (saying the CGI was average is just plain lame and straight up grandstanding )

That aside, if you are a Starwars fan, you should enjoy Avatar.

 

[DIAF]

Saw Sherlock Holmes last night...pretty good flick. 8/10

 

[ajk23az]

Wow, I'm surprise how many people talk bad about Avatar. I thought it was a very good movie. It is a bit long of course, all movies over 2 hours are to long.

People are so critical of movies and how they are made. (same evil guy and good guy, blah, blah) What is it supposed to be? Good guy and average guy on the street? No. If there are not two sides, there is no plot.

You guys need to let it go. It's a movie, you know. Entertainment. Not how your life is going to play out. It's 1-3 hours of your time. Take it for what it is. A movie.

Avatar wasn't bad in any way. It had a few *stupid* parts, but it was overall an entertaining film and the CGI was great. I appreciated it for what it was and the hard work and detail that went into it. (saying the CGI was average is just plain lame and straight up grandstanding )

That aside, if you are a Starwars fan, you should enjoy Avatar.

You nailed it. 100% agreed.

 

[theogt]

Saw Sherlock Holmes last night...pretty good flick. 8/10

I've been surprised at the good reviews. I had very low expectations. I guess I'll have to check it out in the theater.

 

[DIAF]

I've been surprised at the good reviews. I had very low expectations. I guess I'll have to check it out in the theater.

Yeah, I had very low expectations too. I was pleasantly surprised.

 

[Kevinicus]

Wow, I'm surprise how many people talk bad about Avatar. I thought it was a very good movie. It is a bit long of course, all movies over 2 hours are to long.

People are so critical of movies and how they are made. (same evil guy and good guy, blah, blah) What is it supposed to be? Good guy and average guy on the street? No. If there are not two sides, there is no plot.

You guys need to let it go. It's a movie, you know. Entertainment. Not how your life is going to play out. It's 1-3 hours of your time. Take it for what it is. A movie.

Avatar wasn't bad in any way. It had a few *stupid* parts, but it was overall an entertaining film and the CGI was great. I appreciated it for what it was and the hard work and detail that went into it. (saying the CGI was average is just plain lame and straight up grandstanding )

That aside, if you are a Starwars fan, you should enjoy Avatar.

That's funny, here I was thinking everyone giving it glowing reviews had lost their mind. If you can't see the flaws with much of the CGI, that doesn't mean there aren't any. Much of it was great, but much of it was average at best as well.

And, I went into it hoping to be entertained by it. The problem was, the story wasn't interesting. I even said that just because it's simple doesn't mean it's bad, and that the story that was there was handled decently. That still doesn't mean it was interesting, because for the most part it wasn't. It was pretty boring. Add that to the fact that all of the characters except for one, have almost no personality to speak of, and those of us who care more about the story being engaging than the so called "wow factor," are left feeling a bit underwhelmed. Throw in some lame political crap that is just annoying and you have a very flawed movie.

And 2 hours+ is perfectly fine for a good engaging movie. In fact, if a movie is really good, then the longer the better IMO. Unfortunately it wasn't that good, it wasn't engaging, and I certainly wasn't wowed by the effects since I have seen, and will certainly see better.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Sherlock Holmes
7.5/10

Pretty good film but similar to The Pirates of the Carribean, the dialogue was a little hard to follow at times.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

That's funny, here I was thinking everyone giving it glowing reviews had lost their mind. If you can't see the flaws with much of the CGI, that doesn't mean there aren't any. Much of it was great, but much of it was average at best as well.

And, I went into it hoping to be entertained by it. The problem was, the story wasn't interesting. I even said that just because it's simple doesn't mean it's bad, and that the story that was there was handled decently. That still doesn't mean it was interesting, because for the most part it wasn't. It was pretty boring. Add that to the fact that all of the characters except for one, have almost no personality to speak of, and those of us who care more about the story being engaging than the so called "wow factor," are left feeling a bit underwhelmed. Throw in some lame political crap that is just annoying and you have a very flawed movie.

And 2 hours+ is perfectly fine for a good engaging movie. In fact, if a movie is really good, then the longer the better IMO. Unfortunately it wasn't that good, it wasn't engaging, and I certainly wasn't wowed by the effects since I have seen, and will certainly see better.

That's really the bottom line.

The only reason this movie has an 8.8 on imdb, which is higher than movies such as To Kill a Mockingbird, Citizen Kane, Lord of the Rings, Fight Club etc etc is because the special effects.

The movie was quite boring the first half and the 2nd half was only interesting because of the special effects.

Yes, I go to the movies to be entertained, but part of being "entertained" is to have a movie with interesting characters and a plot.

Avatar had a very uninteresting plot and I was not emotionally tied to any of its characters.

 

[theogt]

That's funny, here I was thinking everyone giving it glowing reviews had lost their mind. If you can't see the flaws with much of the CGI, that doesn't mean there aren't any. Much of it was great, but much of it was average at best as well.

And, I went into it hoping to be entertained by it. The problem was, the story wasn't interesting. I even said that just because it's simple doesn't mean it's bad, and that the story that was there was handled decently. That still doesn't mean it was interesting, because for the most part it wasn't. It was pretty boring. Add that to the fact that all of the characters except for one, have almost no personality to speak of, and those of us who care more about the story being engaging than the so called "wow factor," are left feeling a bit underwhelmed. Throw in some lame political crap that is just annoying and you have a very flawed movie.

And 2 hours+ is perfectly fine for a good engaging movie. In fact, if a movie is really good, then the longer the better IMO. Unfortunately it wasn't that good, it wasn't engaging, and I certainly wasn't wowed by the effects since I have seen, and will certainly see better.

None of it was "average at best." While I didn't like a lot of the CGI, that's not because it wasn't great CGI. It was. I just don't like even great CGI. I guess the technology just isn't there yet. But in terms of being at the forefront of technological advances and the industry, Avatar was most certainly above average.

Also, biggest clue as to when someone is talking our of their *** -- they use the phrase "at best." Has there ever been a phrase that is more pretentious and confined almost solely to *****y internet debates?

 

[Temo]

Avatar CGI was amazing, don't know what that debate is about. I'd still only give it a 6/10 because the characters were all boring and flat to me. Not a single character I found compelling in the entire movie.

But as far as the CGI and everything that went into that, it was well worth the 300 million or so they spent to make it.

 

[Kevinicus]

None of it was "average at best." While I didn't like a lot of the CGI, that's not because it wasn't great CGI. It was. I just don't like even great CGI. I guess the technology just isn't there yet. But in terms of being at the forefront of technological advances and the industry, Avatar was most certainly above average.

Also, biggest clue as to when someone is talking our of their *** -- they use the phrase "at best." Has there ever been a phrase that is more pretentious and confined almost solely to *****y internet debates?

If you think the CGI of the machines at the beginning when Jake was arriving at the base was great, then you're very easily impressed. If you didn't think the CG that was used for the masks they were wearing wasn't poor, then I think you need your eyes checked. I'm sorry, but a lot of the CGI was not "great." Jake's avatar didn't look very real when he first took control and was running around, it was not impressive. Much of it looked like it was video out of some high end video games. It was NOT photo realistic.

The 2nd half of the movie, however, was far better, and was far closer to being photo realistic. There is an extreme difference between the quality of the CGI during the earlier part of the movie and and the end of the movie.

To be really impressive would being having the Navi, looking as realistic as they did the 2nd half of the movie, in a real world environment.

Impressive CGI is CGI that you can't tell is CGI, or makes you forget that it's CGI. Avatar doesn't do that, or when it does make you forget, it too often reminds you at some point that it's not real.

 

[theogt]

If you think the CGI of the machines at the beginning when Jake was arriving at the base was great, then you're very easily impressed. If you didn't think the CG that was used for the masks they were wearing wasn't poor, then I think you need your eyes checked. I'm sorry, but a lot of the CGI was not "great." Much of it looked like it was video out of some high end video games. It was NOT photo realistic.

The 2nd half of the movie, however, was far better, and was far closer to being photo realistic. There is an extreme difference between the quality of the CGI during the earlier part of the movie and and the end of the movie.

Impressive would being having the Navi, looking as realistic as they did the 2nd half of the movie, in a real world environment.

Impressive CGI is CGI that you can't tell is CGI, or makes you forget that it's CGI. Avatar doesn't do that, or when it does make you forget, it too often reminds you at some point that it's not real.

When you're using that much CGI, there is no such thing as CGI that is photorealistic. There is no CGI that makes you forget it's CGI, in that much quantity. You can have sparing use of CGI that you don't notice, but once you start putting large chunks of CGI together, you're going to start noticing that it's CGI.

That's why I said it's "great" for what it is, because it's the best looking CGI for any movie that has ever had that much CGI in one place. Regardless, I can't stand CGI, because even the best CGI is noticeable.

There was no difference between the first half of the movie and the second half. There were parts in the second half that were very obviously CGI. The worst parts of the movie were when they showed large numbers of Navi from a distance and that happened almost exclusively in the second half.

I think he made it unusually tough on himself by causing the world and the people to be so colorful. The only way to make CGI more photo realistic at this point in time is to make it more dirty and gritty and when you have these large masses of vibrant colors that is impossible, or at least cost prohibitive, at this time.

 

[kmp77]

Especially when it's organic CGI like people or animals. They've masterd inorganic modeling/rendering like cars buildings. There's times I'm even 110% blown away when I realize something is fake. People and animals still have a ways to go. Mocap isn't that great..the movement usually gives it away. I guess golem in lord of the rings is the best digital creature so far.

 

[DallasCowboysFan10]

Vegas Vacation 10/10

 

[vta]

Especially when it's organic CGI like people or animals. They've masterd inorganic modeling/rendering like cars buildings. There's times I'm even 110% blown away when I realize something is fake. People and animals still have a ways to go. Mocap isn't that great..the movement usually gives it away. I guess golem in lord of the rings is the best digital creature so far.

That gorilla in King Kong was none too shabby neither. Exceptional work on that.

 

[vta]

Fearless Vampire Killers. 8/10

I love 60's-70's movies.