Author Topic: Review the latest movie you have seen  (Read 180538 times)

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.923
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1875 on: 12-09-2016, 00:09:46 »
I recently began watching   Stranger things


And my god, it is gooooooooooood

That was one of my favorite shows. I binged all 8 episodes or whatever in like 4 days. Can't wait for a 2nd season. Those kids are quite the actors too.

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1876 on: 12-09-2016, 10:09:20 »
I recently began watching   Stranger things


And my god, it is gooooooooooood

That was one of my favorite shows. I binged all 8 episodes or whatever in like 4 days. Can't wait for a 2nd season. Those kids are quite the actors too.
Season 2 is next year in the early summer!
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1877 on: 11-10-2016, 16:10:17 »
Magnificent Seven (2016) by Antoine Fuqua.
It stars Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D'Onofrio, and else

The plot is the same as before. Bad guys terrorise town, and the good people hired hands to help them. The hired hands pissed off the bad guy and finally did it for good.

The difference was the slight update on the plot and the character backgrounds. Of course, this isn't Seven Samurai, so you won't see 7 different people of the same ethnicity, we have Denzel playing the main guy, Chris Pratt being Irish gambler, a French ex-Confederate Cajun, an Oriental guy, a Mexican, a pioneer, and finally an Amerindian from Comanche tribe. Quite colourful, but still trying a bit hard to keep it realistic: a black cowboy (which is way more common than many thought), an Irish gambler and gunslinger (whatever), an ex-Confederate sniper (okay), an Oriental railroad worker who happens to be a very skillful knife thrower (quite hard), a Mexican outlaw who loves gun brawl (okay), a legendary tracker pioneer (okay), an exile Comanche warrior who happens to be a very expert bowman (yeah right). The cast is difficult to debate, of course, because Fuqua is quite careful, so he doesn't cast a random Southern Asian guy for example.

The storytelling itself is pretty flat, not much drama. Character development is best described as half-baked cake: it was there, just not enough to make you feel it. Acting is just rightly so that it just plainly ticks the good marks. The basic story just make the badguy as hateful as you can, so the audience can't wait to have this bad guy wrecked for good, and then let the cannon loose. It is the very basic entertaining format that has been very successful with the likes of The Raid and Pacific Rim: dumb movies that is just pure entertainment. The Raid uses martial arts, Pacific Rim uses giant robots, this iteration of Magnificent Seven uses western gun fights. The action is surely very intense and the highlight of this movie. I like it a lot: a movie that is not too pretentious and taking itself too seriously. Because we won't judge fun movie too harshly.

Overall it is another entertaining, but not so memorable movie. It was a good 7 out of 10.

Offline Mane

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1878 on: 15-10-2016, 08:10:28 »
Lately I watched a lot of old movies, but the last I saw was "Ekstase" (Gustav Machatý, 1933).

I gave it an 8/10. This film for me is quite peculiar and innovative (despite having many vestiges of silent film yet), although a bit run down.

Offline Mud Buddha

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 844
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1879 on: 25-10-2016, 14:10:29 »

I binged all 8 episodes or whatever in like 4 days. Can't wait for a 2nd season. Those kids are quite the actors too.

You know that's not binging, right? It's just 2 episodes a day, that's like 1 movie.  ;)


But recently saw 'Hell Or High Water'.  ****
Great movie, great actors. On the surface it's nothing special, but it's all about the execution. Really liked how stripped of all fluff it was: just 2 bankrobbers, 2 cops and a good script. Written by the guy who wrote Sicario and starring a.o. Jeff Bridges and Chris Pine. Well worth checking out, one of my favorites of this year.


Also: 'The Girl On The Train' ***
Good Hitchockian thriller, that tries a little too hard to be this year's 'Gone Girl', but solid enough. Emily Blunt plays a alcoholic commuter who gets involved in a possible murdercase involving a couple she's been spying on from the train every day. The more she delves into it, the more she starts to doubt her own reality (because, you know, alcoholism), but slowly she starts to unravel the mystery. It's all about Blunt in this movie (first proper lead role I've seen her in) and she more than pulls it off. Great actress.
« Last Edit: 25-10-2016, 14:10:38 by Mud Buddha »
FH2 is the game, DarklyDreamingDexter is the name.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1880 on: 06-11-2016, 16:11:48 »
Just watched Hacksaw Ridge (2016) by Mel Gibson, in local theatre.

It stars Andrew Garfield as PFC Desmond T. Doss, the first conscientious objector MoH recipient. He was assigned to 77th Infantry Division as combat medic. The movie depicts his action at Urasoe Mura, Okinawa, more popularly known as the "Hacksaw Ridge". The rest of it you history buffs knew better.

It is a good movie. Kind of Saving Private Ryan in quality. Very graphic, a lot of artistic shots in battle, and nuanced moments. The first part is a bit drama, showing the fictionalised background story of Doss family. Then the second part is full of humor and uplifting. The last part is suspenseful and action-oriented. The scenes were very tense, loud, gory, and gritty.

I can't comment on the realism. Apart from them buffing the Japanese weapons, especially their machine guns, Hollywood has done so much to tone down effects for realism. The battleship salvos don't produce that mind-blowing ripples on the sea surface. Also, they also toned down his almost superheroic moments near Shuri, so casual audience won't think it is an exaggeration. Now, that's small glitch in the overall brilliant packaging of the film. I like it. I'll give it 8 out of 10. It is a brilliant movie that is well-balanced between historical accuracy and dramatisation.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1881 on: 28-01-2017, 18:01:31 »
Netflixed and chilled with a bottle of Rioja's finest riserva Tempranillo grape wine after Chinese New Year temple rituals.

So the movie tonight was "Er Ist Wieder da" / Look Who's Back (2015) by David Wnendt
Featuring a lot of German actors and actresses who is rarely known outside Germany.

The Story (of course there are spoilers there)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_Who's_Back_(film)
Has some nice twists in it.

Production, artistic, and other stuff
It is a part Sacha Baron Cohen's like reality impersonation and part story and part documentary, it is mixed up. To be honest, it is bad. It came a little too early for the critics to appreciate, and that's about the timing. The artistic itself is subject to a lot of critic even from a barely knowledgeable history enthusiast like me. The eyes of real Adolf Hitler is lighting blue. His physician prescribed him narcotic eye drops, which turns it darker blue and less piercing as he aged. If this was part reality show, a lot of real-world Germans missed this striking detail in Hitler's impersonator. However, quirks, mannerism, and acting wise, I believe that is quite Hitler in public stage, at least that is what he looked and moved like, as taken from all available films and documentaries about him. However, at normal situation, Hitler does have a different voice and tone, as indicated by a recording of conversation between him and Finnish leader, C.G.E Mannerheim. It was not portrayed in this movie, it is just pure comical, in tune with the "dark comedy" theme. Some of the "real" encounters with cringe groups are iffy at best. The NPD chairman guy is clearly briefed, and does his best to look genuine. The local AFD leader surely looks friendly despite having some worrying agenda, at least. If they were real, you could really engage a dialogue with non-violent part of their movement for sure, they are far friendlier than some hardliner religious party down here.

The on screen Germans
They are quite indifferent, obviously they know it is fake, and I don't expect them to go on full SJW on Oliver Masucci. However, some of them doing the Roman salute in the open really is worrying. I know Germany is a socialist country with a nice prison cells or rooms as I should call it. But still, going to the jail for several months is not worth the risk if you are normal person with a productive and positive life. Are they really serious about that or is it a mock salute? I hope it is the latter. But they are impressively knowledgeable about Islamic mazhabs, like how some of those interviewed guys could pointed out Salafists / Wahabbis for bringing their fundamentalist problems, instead of generalising all Muslims. And no, you cannot get rid of them, Wahabbis is one of the big 4 Mazhabs, the recent move by one of the biggest Islamic organisation to denounce them is misplaced at best. But at least, it demonstrates that the Germans are much much more informed (perhaps from their normal Turkish friends) than average Americans and their president, both American extreme liberals and the KKK crowds alike.

The Message
Of course WW2 isn't that far off from our timeline, the memory and the horrors should be fresh. But it seems that a lot of people were already forgetting it. TV is one of the problem, and the media is an easy scapegoat. The returning Hitler utilises the sentiment to his agenda. The plot of the movie is then juxtaposed with the recent rise of the so-called "alt-right" movements like Pegida for instance. The movie Hitler claims that "he can work on this".

(rant = on)
It just falls flat for me. Even if some of the AFD or NPD people are not racists (which is quite unlikely, or very very rare), like those Latinos and Muslims voting for Trump, they, like some concerned leftists, are bound by the same problem: first world government, tackling third world problems with first world method. You know, the fallacy of logic. "Not all immigrants are bad, and therefore all immigrants are (falsely) good." The fear and the pressure not to disturb this status quo itself caused the sentiment of injustice amongst those at the recieving end. You know, all people should be equal, therefore they are entitled to be policed by governing law. Not wanting to get your hands murky, like abandoning them to a no-go ghetto inside Paris or Stockholm is the best a social justice leftist can do? A very rather simple example would be a random average Indonesian guy like me of my ignorant 15 years ago self, immigrated to some Western European or North American country? When I see a long line, and like most high-school educated people out of third world from experience, will try to bypass it with third world trickery, e.g. cutting it, and pretend ignorance. This works best with introverted Finns, who will just curse silently. Now, a real example would be a Vietnamese lady feigned lingual ignorance with Perth Airport immigration staff back then, it worked. It looked bad to every other Asian-looking law-abiding guy like me, whom the liberals are trying to protect. But the goal has been achieved: injustice has been committed, and some benefited. The guards won't throw out nor warn the tresspasser, because they were protected by both false anti-prejudice pretense and political correctness. The extreme elements of the victim groups are properly crossed.

The thing is, too many loud right wingers are uneducated racist by nature (e.g. Hitler's new army in the movie), so that's not helping them. But the legitimate concerns of similar nature are being unheard due to the prevailing generalisation nonsense (e.g. "you sound like those neo-nazis") and the unwillingness of the politicians to risk their image before retirement. Obama kept planting a nice face, China / Russia didn't buy it and claim themselves some new territory. Obama cannot risk drastic action, and therefore were left toothless in the face of those weaker bullies. But he can't help to play heroics when the bully is a skinny small kid like Libya and he intervened like hell. His popularity and statistic dressing journey has destroyed the whole Democratic Party after he left the presidency on a high note. That's how BS all the system is. A career politican like him is the root of the problem: they will sacrifice anything, including their own party / supporters to thicken their resume and conjures a nice autobiography. That is what's wrong and what needs to be addressed: leftists who were only brokering popularity. Done, kthxbye Dem's! Good luck cleaning up Trump's act, if you can survive. Surely, this so-called "alt-right" waves are just a balancing act, but still it is a problem that needs to be tackled from its root cause. The movie didn't conclude on anything besides pointing out that Hitler had returned, metaphorically. It should have been: where is the respect for individualism? Where our individual voices matter?

(rant = off)

(5/10) It falls flat, the message, the story, the realism part of it, all not supported by any decent research or thorough discussion on the subject that the movie tries to dig. Impressive acting by Oliver Masucci though.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1882 on: 18-03-2017, 10:03:10 »
Watched Logan (2017) just a few hours ago in a local theatre.
by James Mangold
Featuring Hugh Jackman, Dafne Keen, Boyd Holbrook, Patrick Stewart, Stephen Merchant, etc

Plot
Logan (Wolverine) is old and tired. He is the usual self-hater and live off as a limo driver, while hiding somewhere south of the border with Professor X (Stewart) and Caliban (Merchant). They all suffer from aging problems, like Professor X's repeatedly occuring seizures and memory loss. Since he has telephatic abilities, his seizure causes quite a damage to many people. So Logan plans to take Charles X away into the middle of ocean in a cozy boat. But the arrival of one girl changes their plan. Now Logan has to unravel the mysteries surrounding the girl and what are the evil tech companies are up to. Logan discovers more about himself, and found new meaning about being Wolverine that previously never occured to him. The plot concentrates on Logan's adventure with the young girl.

Cinematography
It is a gritty movie, cynical in tone, and gory without being too artsy. It is rated 17+ in Indonesia. There are quite a number of tastefully placed F-bombs throughout the dialogues in the movie. So, it aims for realistic portrayal and for the sake of story. There are a couple of Marvel humours thrown into the movie, makes it a nice package after all.

The tone is sombre, what we think is typical of old people with mid-life crisis that came just too late. As cynical and hateful Logan is, he is being portrayed nicely by Hugh Jackman. It stirs emotion, quite a rare feat for superhero movie. If only Logan wears his typical bright yellow Wolverine suit, the tone could be more nuanced for the LOLs. About Dafne Keen, she is also brilliant being the mysterious little girl. I won't spoil it, but I can't say she is your typical kid actress.

Product placement is also toned down to a tasteful level. They clearly are sponsored by Fiat-Chrysler, and several shots are quite in the money. But it is not as bothersome as Michael Bay's. There are no car-commercial 30 degrees abeam entire front side of the car shots. No closeups on the marque, except the dashboard emblems. There is FD Honda Civic (US version with ugly yellow signal), don't know why, but Honda seems to keen to show them surviving to 2029 in pristine condition. There are Pringles, Ford pickup trucks (driven by both good and bad guys). Inconsistency is the word. It is 2029, Logan is driving a 2024 Chrysler limo, when he met the young girl, she was driven in a jalopy Fiat 500L (perhaps to show how much the car aged). Then, when we arrive at a random town, there are many pristine F350s, Tundras, and items from our time. Of course it is fantasy universe with fictional companies, except the cars and snacks. Glad those auto unions can still find their morale compass when seemingly every other companies are being downright evil.

Verdict
No, this is not an grandiose, glorious, over-the-top, oscar-baiting movie like DC Comics tried to do. Nor this is an edgy try-hards like Suicide Squad attempted. This is a regular western movie, with the cowboys replaced by adamantium claw-sporting superhero instead of revolers and repeating rifles. This is a superhero movie to be taken seriously and won't come out disappointing. Definitely not for Flippy.

I give it a generous 8.5 out of 10 for the raw emotional stir I felt after exiting the theatre. There were some people left the cinema doors in tears for real.

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.923
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1883 on: 19-03-2017, 06:03:44 »
I just watched Hacksaw Ridge

I'm not sure how I feel about it. A lot of the parts we're very cliche and some parts of the battle scenes were almost comical. There were a lot of things that felt over-the-top.

Maybe I'm a bit cynical because I wanted it to be something that it wasn't trying to be. Maybe it was more stylized and I just didn't 'get-it'.' I don't think it deserved a 'Best Picture' nomination tho :-\ That being said, Andrew Garfield is really good in this movie and deserved the recognitions that he got.

I guess overall it really drives home Doss's story and uses a bit of exaggeration to help the audience understand the gravity of what he did and what he was going through. If nothing else, you should look up Doss's story and maybe watch his documentary "Desmond Doss: The Conscientious Objector."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE5VtIzXbCU

Idk 6/10 from me. Maybe I'll re-watch it and give it another chance some time.

Offline Slayer

  • Freeze Veteran
  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 4.125
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1884 on: 25-03-2017, 23:03:53 »
I also watched Hacksaw Ridge.

I was very afraid that it would be a Mel Gibson glorifying christianity kind of thing, and although there were moments where it went that road, it never became out and out propaganda for religion. That was a plus.

The battle scenes were a bit weird, I'd never think that the US Army (apparently not only Marines fought here, something I didn't know) would group their soldiers together and let them walk into MG fire in WW1 style. Also the fact that this ridge had to be taken and they needed seven times to do so sounded a bit weird, as if  there were no alternatives to take that ground other than stomping infantry over and over again.

The whole love-thing was to add extra drama of course and the cliches were piling on top of each other indeed. I was actually waiting for a bullet to be stopped by the Bible in Demond's chestpocket, but fortunately this movie didn't go that far.

Overall I kind of agree with Matt, although I think I'd give 55 out of 100.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1885 on: 04-04-2017, 13:04:18 »
Saw Kong: Skull Island (2017) by Jordan Vogt-Roberts at a local theatre last week.
Starring Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman, Brie Larson, John C. Reilly, Corey Hawkins etc.

The most interesting part is probably the Tencent Pictures, the one Chinese entertainment corporation who also sponsored Warcraft (2016) movie. So they planted one of their favourite talent: Jing Tian, who attracted a lot of criticism back in China due to various reasons, including her lack of talent, alleged insider connections to get her pass auditions, and so on. It kinda shows in Kong: Skull Island, Jing Tian's character is rather dead. Her hinted romance with Corey Hawkins is just thrown away like that. Basically, you looked at that Tencent logo, noticed Jing Tian, and then how her character is delivered and how she acted, you just know that she was only "planted". And selling movies in China is her only in-movie job. She did that while being in Skull Island, chased by monsters.

Anyway, yeah, so this is MONARCH back in 1973, remember that arseholes? The organisation with so much dead Asian characters like Ken Watanabe, and this time Jing Tian. The world nearly ended because of their lack of social skills. Gladly, John Goodman is not. He successfully lobbied a D.C. guy, well to fund his pet project of finding monsters. Because cold war, we got USSR as the budget justification. Got it? And what could be more fitting other than going to Vietnam, baby? The Nam! Now, everybody seems to be hyped about Vietnam war era music, from Creedence Clearwater Revival to Jefferson Airplane, and predictably, the movie is filled with high quality musics. But that doesn't excuse the hum-drum plot progression thereafter.

We get to Samuel L. Jackson, a helicopter assault squadron colonel who is war-struck. The plot device is pretty much used to excuse military incompetence at dealing with unfamiliar enemies of unknown capabilities, and later, to built tense. Well, this villainous military angle came after the Americans came to terms with spitting at Vietnam war veterans, and now ever-worshiping them with banal greetings and expression of neutral gratefulness. What an angle!

Then we have the world war 2 part, where the "Skull Island" was a big mystery back then. A Mustang with Normandy invasion markings crashed, and a Japanese with his "mentioned" Zero crashed into it and simply enrich the plot further.

Then there is the charming posh green-looking ex-SAS operative (played by Hiddleston with little make up) building on-screen romance with the anti war activists / reporter / token feminist character played by Brie Larson. Every hero character needs the audiences' sympathy, but Brie Larson's don't, she is a straight forced activist / feminist show off from the start.

In this movie, Kong is the king, Kong is the force of nature, and he is the act of "balance", remember this tune? Well, if yes, you should be curious about what is at the other tip of the see saw, what sort of balance are we maintaining? No spoiler there.

Then there is the Unfortunate Ones under Samuel L. Jackson's command. This movie were much more like Band of Assault Helicopter Crew Brothers meeting a P-51D camouflaged for Normandy Invasion, Pacific theatre fighting US Army Air Force veteran pilot. If it weren't for the meddling hodge podge of drama acting class of civilians, this movie will be just another military science fiction porn.

Why is this movie getting rave reviews even from the tight ones like Rotten Tomatoes? Well, perhaps because critics nowadays are easily impressed by good classic musics? But that's not the case, I think are we afraid that we might jeopardise another effort to balance the trade with China? Nope! I think it is because of 2017, and people are easily getting offended, and critics are too afraid to offend people nowadays. But I will give it a decent and fair 6 out of 10, why? It is good, but just not that "good enough". Everything falls flat, no shining stars, just too many people waiting for their turn to talk, and monsters fighting helicopters and other monsters.
« Last Edit: 04-04-2017, 13:04:24 by Zoologic »

Offline Captain Pyjama Shark

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.281
  • Captain of the Gravy Train
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1886 on: 06-04-2017, 02:04:58 »
No words for John C. Reilly? I have heard he is by far the best part of the film.

For what it's worth, I like Peter Jackson's take on King Kong the most. It is a bloated, slow, torturous film, but the journey through the island is excellently done. The scene where they fall into the bug pit is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time and a very good use of CGI for once. Although you may as well skip through everything set in New York!

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1887 on: 06-04-2017, 06:04:33 »
Peter Jackson's King Kong is still the best remake so far. My personal taste dictates that a movie should have parts or chapters or plot arcs that are memorable on its own. This film has a lot of it. But, I just don't get Jack Black's performance, or maybe it is just his off-screen persona overpowering his characterisation of Mr. Denton.

In Kong: Skull Island, John C. Reilly is a WW2 P-51D Mustang pilot in this film, as you saw him in the trailers. He is one of the best part in this film, yes. But there will be too much spoilers for the good part of this movie if I talk too much about it.

Is movie = American? Film = British? Funny, because in Indonesia we use the term "film" too, and consider "movie" to be the English translation.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1888 on: 07-05-2017, 16:05:32 »
The Fate of The Furious (2017) aka Fast & Furios 8
by F. Gary Gray
Starring Vin Diesel, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Jason Statham, Tyrese Gibson, Chris "Ludacris" Bridges, Kurt Russell, Charlize Theron, and Helen Mirren

Surprisingly entertaining. Just throw your brains out. If SPR is okay for you as a historical nut, this film should be more okay if you are an action junkie. It is ridiculous, the physics is so science-defying, that makes CoD and BF games looks like a documentary.

This is an easy 7 out of 10 for being so well-packaged, it is intense throughout the film. As an IT guy and semi-car guy, yeah there is nothing you can learn from this film about our world, but it doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

Guardians of The Galaxy volume 2 (2017)
by James Gunn
Starring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel (voice only), Bradley Cooper (voice only), Pom Klementieff, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Sylvester Stallone, Elizabeth Debicki, Kurt Russell
Other famous star not identified include David Hasselhoff, Michael Rosenbaum, Ving Rhames, and Michelle Yeoh.

At least you now know why it costs $200 million. Movies are super expensive, especially when they use American casts.

This film is the same old GoTG you love: light, entertaining, humorous, yet still serious enough to present at least a story. But this volume 2 is messy. Yes, messy. The plot is rather undercooked, and there is just too much sidedishes. Nevertheless it is still good and entertaining, but there is a big thing that is missing here and there. Like a party that just ends too soon and friends gone too soon.

It is ridiculously silly, there are a lot of realism introduced here (like people not boiling in outer space without space suits), but since the whole film's atmosphere is relaxed, most audience will disregard this. Two-edged sword there. On the other hand, this will also make the movie "okay" for not taking itself too seriously.

7.5 out of 10, "could have been better" is the word.

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1889 on: 07-05-2017, 17:05:27 »
GOTG Vol2 focusses more on humour and character development then Vol 1. wich is more story and politically themed. So its your personal pick

The only thing that really bothered me, is the constant shoving of baby groot in every scene. I would give it a good 8.5/10. But the first one was better
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.