Author Topic: Review the latest movie you have seen  (Read 123668 times)

Online Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.352
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1890 on: 08-05-2017, 16:05:05 »
The Fate of The Furious (2017) aka Fast & Furios 8

This is an easy 7 out of 10

I agree. :) This movie is over the top action and it makes it's characters borderline superheroes. (to rock rips a concrete sink off the wall of a prison and starts curling it :P) I think this franchise is completely self aware of what is has become and is creating it's sequels accordingly.

I went in the theater expecting to laugh at ridiculous scenes and I came away doing just that.

Quote
Guardians of The Galaxy volume 2 (2017)
7.5 out of 10, "could have been better" is the word.

I'm with THeTA0123, in that I give it a 8.5/10 I really enjoyed the movie as I expected to. I'm glad this movie didn't try to do too much and kept its theme of 'family' consistent throughout. +1 for Dave Bautista's comedic timing and the unexpected feels. The pacing was a little long, but it didn't ruin the movie for me.

This series is my favorite set of marvel movies. I love the cast and the dynamic between the characters. You can really tell that James Gunn puts a ton of care and time into create this world and story. It's drama doesn't come from 'saving the world' or any of the typical super hero tropes. It comes from more simple and grounded themes. Not to mention I love the music and world building that he does.

I didn't think there was too much baby Groot either. I guess it was just as much as I expected it to be. Idk if it was better or worse than the first one. For me it was right there with it and just as good.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.088
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1891 on: 09-05-2017, 10:05:39 »
Well, probably I have becoming too serious as a film critique. I want to sob when Drax said that "No, we are a family", but the story was too light-hearted to have any serious emotion going on. I want to sniffle when
Spoiler
Yondu let Rocket's insecurities out by telling his own miserable story.
I want to cry out loud when
Spoiler
Yondu is being cremated to
the tune of my favourite tear-jerking song from Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam), Father and Son.

It just didn't happen. To reach that 8.5 score in my book, which I gave to the likes of Captain America: Civil War, they need to successfully angers me, like when the non-superhero folks failed to realise that Captain America is right, and quickly come to conclusion about the bombing incident suspects. Or to feel bad when they show how Tony Stark's parent was murdered. However, that is also a testimony to how James Gunn has successfully kept the film "light hearted" throughout.

I still like it, and recommend it to everyone, even to Flippy, who hates Superhero movies. He liked he first one, he should like this sequel as well. It isn't as "fresh" as the first one, but it is still good.
« Last Edit: 09-05-2017, 10:05:15 by Zoologic »

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.088
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1892 on: 27-05-2017, 16:05:39 »
Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar's Revenge (2017) - also known as Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

by Jerry Bruckheimer
Starring Johnny Depp, Javier Bardem, Geoffrey Rush, and the rest of them.

Apart from the generic title, this film is actually very adventurous, as films about pirates should be. Sea warfare, cannon fire, wood splinters flying, boarding party screaming, including the legends, myths, and tales which is usual for Pirates of the Caribbean series.

Captain Jack Sparrow returns without a course, but fate has it that he met an acquintance of his old friend, so the adventure begins. Years of Captain Sparrow's adventure has produced a lot of enemies, one of them now was given his turn to take revenge, his name is Salazar, a captain of a Spanish ship of the line with great hatred for pirates.

The movie has several different converging plots, and it is laid out pretty well in the movie. If you are a fan of pirate movies, you should not miss this. Action-packed, thrilling, mysterious, surprise, all making up for the long duration (120+ minutes). It is worth your time, so go watch it.

8 / 10.

Online Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.352
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1893 on: 09-06-2017, 16:06:10 »
Wonder Woman

Went and saw this last weekend and it was really good. :) Honestly, it's the best DC film they've made so far (since they started their own DC universe). It didn't have any of the problems of BvS or Suicide Squad.

The plot was generic, but well done. It had it's cringey moments, but I have a lower standard for judging these DC movies since they've disappointed me so many times :P Essentially, the best thing about it was that it was more light hearted than the other DC films which made it feel fun. You found yourself laughing while also watching great action sequences.

Probably my favorite aspect was that the movie didn't try to be blatantly 'feminist.' (probably a better way to put that) Going into the movie, I had the fear that it could've easily gone the route of making a big deal about the superhero being a woman; portraying every man in the movie as narrow minded misogynists who need to be 'taught' that a woman can be powerful. Thankfully the movie didn't go that route, it let the character of Wonder Woman stand on her own and be the same type of super-hero protagonist that we see in all the other super-hero films.

That wins points from me and I really enjoyed the movie 8/10

Some cringey moments;

When Chris Pine's character is explaining no-man's land to Wonder Woman; emphasizing that no man can cross it before she proceeds to storm across and into the German trenches. I laughed pretty hard at how blatant that was.

The fight scenes in DC movies always seem to have overused CGI. There are times where you can tell that they put a full CGI model of wonder woman into a fight scene just to have her do something ridiculous. It seemed like there were times when they could've easily dumbed it down and shot it as a normal fight scene.

Spoiler
Having David Thewlis still look the same after transforming into Ares. Something about a small mustached British man doesn't scream 'God of War'

Also, a huge crush on Gal Gadot helped :D
bonus pic
Spoiler


I'm really sorry for those hardcore Palestinians that refused to see this movie ;)
« Last Edit: 09-06-2017, 16:06:27 by Matthew_Baker »

Offline Alubat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 508
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1894 on: 24-07-2017, 00:07:13 »
Dunkirk : 
Fantastic, what a blast. Loud plane sounds. Woman in cinema holding their hands on ears most of the film. The acting in this movie is mostly the look of faces in the moment like Son of Saul. Very good
Best sound production in a war movie for a very long time.
The background sound/music really pumps up the feeling in the situation to the max. Like deep subsonic bass from the organ pipe in a church banging on repeat. You dont hear it all, but you can feel it and it makes you feel stressed or kind of sick. Love it

I missed a litttle more drama while the boys were waiting inside the boat on the beach and I did not have the feeling of 300000 people waiting. Only a couple of thousands

I rate it 7 out of 10 bullets in a helmet
8 if longer and a little more conversation. Maybe in a future directors cut edition :-)
A good movie, but not sure if it will stand out the test of time.

Online Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.352
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1895 on: 29-07-2017, 19:07:02 »
Finally got around to seeing Dunkirk

If you wind up reading my opinion on the movie you should know that I am 100% a Nolan fan. I've enjoyed every movie he's ever made to some degree or another. And although a lot of them have their drawbacks, they're all made extremely well.

This movie was no exception. The movie was incredible and did a very good job of sticking to history and an even better job of showing the scale of Operation Dynamo. It had some drawbacks, but they were minor. Overall I'd give this movie a solid 9/10

I will say one thing; if you're going into this movie looking for a 'British Saving Private Ryan' you're going to be disappointed. This movie is done completely differently and is intended to get a different reaction from the audience. I think the very few people who came out of this film 'disappointed' were expecting it to be something that it wasn't trying to be.

If I could describe this movie in 1 word, it would be unsettling. The movie is paced, scored and structured in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable throughout the entire thing. You're always waiting for something to happen, some breaking point to be reached so that you can finally stop feeling uneasy but it never comes. It does a good job of making you feel the way the people on the beach felt, always under constant stress but not being able to control when it will stop.

No need to read further unless you're ok with another a wall of text:

Spoiler
One of the biggest things I enjoyed was the structure of the film. It's told in 3 parts, where each story arc unfolds over a different amount of time. I heard some complaints about people who had trouble understanding this concept and that they only figured out what was going on until way later in the film. I was ok with it. I picked up on it after the title cards, but maybe that's because I'd read a bit about the film's structure beforehand.

1. The Mole
Where we follow the story of Tommy and a group of British soldiers as they to escape the beach. This is told over the course of 1 week as they desperately try to catch one of the many ships leaving for home.

2. The Sea
Where we follow the story of Mr. Dawson and his kids as they take their 'weekend pleasure ship' across the channel to rescue some of the soldiers at Dunkirk. This is told over the course of 1 day.

3. The Air
Where we follow the story of Farrier and his group of Spitfires as they fly on a sortie over the Channel. This takes place over the course of 1 hour.

Throughout the movie, Nolan cuts back and forth between these 3 arcs as they unfold and converge towards each other. In my opinion this was a unique and clever way to show the scale of Operation Dynamo. It's hard  for people to truly appreciate all of the things that happened during Dunkirk, and all of the different types of fighting that made it a success. This movie gives you a better idea of the scale by putting 3 different  plots into one movie.

Overall I think this structure was really well done. I never got lost or had trouble understanding what was going on. There were a few times where we see the same thing happening twice (from 2 different perspectives). But when we see the same thing happening, the 2nd story arc offers more insight into what's going on. For example when Collins has to ditch his Spitfire in the channel. We see him waving from his cockpit as Farrier looks down only to find out later that he wasn't waiving, put slamming on his cockpit trying to escape.

I also really enjoyed the pacing of the film. 'Enjoyed' is a weird word to use because the pacing makes you feel uncomfortable. And it's meant to. Each time we see one of the story arcs reach a climactic point, it switches timelines and leaves us unsatisfied. We see the British soldiers in the boat trying to dodge the incoming bullets, but before that can be resolved we get switched to another timeline where Collins is trying to break out of a sinking Spitfire. And before that can be resolved we get switched back to the infantry in the boat to see it's resolution.

By doing it this way, Nolan ensures that you're always kept in suspense. You're always left wondering about the resolution of one of the timelines. You're never left fully satisfied until the end of the movie when all of the plots have reconciled.

This is helped along by the score. The constant clock ticking and use of a Shepard Tone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVWTQcZbLgY) keeps you feeling uneasy and in suspense. It's actually quite impressive that Nolan is able to keep up this pacing an hour and 45 min. There really weren't a lot of times that I felt comfortable in the theater.

Some of the main things that people had problems with;

Spoiler
The Characters:
Even I have a gripe with most Nolan films in that that I never really care about his characters. The focus is always more on the plot or something other than a connection with the character. This movie was the same way. The only time I ever felt emotional was when George's brother tells Cilian Murphy's character that 'the boy is going to be ok.' even after he's died.

However, I think Nolan is does this deliberately. Half of the characters don't even have names, but are instead described as 'shivering soldier,' 'irate soldier,' 'French soldier' etc... int he credits. Even the 'main' character's name is simply Tommy. so it's not much of a stretch to believe that these characters are being portrayed as every man. Our main carrier is every 'Tommy' standing on the beach waiting for a ride home. We're meant to project our own stories on these characters and realize that these stories are just a small fraction of what the soldiers experienced during Dunkirk.

The Scale:
I've seen complaints by a few people that the scale for this movie is too small. That the real Operation Dynamo had much more action and the beaches felt empty. Or that the opening scene showed the town untouched when in reality it should be in ruins. I've seen people claim that his 'hatred for CGI' or the fact that he used the real town of Dunkirk as a film location made it not feel like a war.

I think in some cases these people might be taking things a bit too literally. The few scenes on the beach when nobody but the main characters are standing around are meant to portray a lonely feeling. As if these men are stranded, staring at the water waiting for someone to come and get them.

When we see establishing shots of Dunkirk from the air, we see thousands of men standing in lines and the smoking ruins of Dunkirk behind them. Also, for history's sake; afaik there were never 400,000 people standing on the beach all at once :P 400,000 is the number of people trapped in the pocket. This includes the people fighting the rearguard actions and retreating to different defensive lines. As more and more soldiers broke from the line to fall back and be evacuated, you should only ever see a few thousand people queued up on the beach at a time.

Also, the opening scene where 'Tommy' is running from the town and onto the beach is also not meant to be taken literally. Imo it's more symbolic than that. Take the fact that he only runs a few feet to the beach after jumping behind the French line. The pocket was not that small at this point. This scene is meant to give a symbolic overview of the British situation up until this point in the war;

Tommy is caught off guard when he takes fire from the Germans. He goes into a full blown retreat as his friends get shot around him, until he finally has to fall back behind a french defensive line. From there he runs to the beach where we see the scale of Dynamo. The town that he runs through, being in pristine and colorful condition, is meant to be a stark contrast to emptiness and monotone colors of the beach.

The French:
I'm definitely seeing some hate from the French about their role in this movie. Overall I think it's a vocal minority and doesn't represent how the French feel. My view on the French representation is fine. They're shown just as much as they need to be. This movie isn't about the French. It's about the British and their attempt to bring their army home. As such, you're not going to hear a lot about the French stories, and that's fine.

The argument that the French were a huge part of Operation Dynamo is irrelevant. No one complains about Saving Private Ryan and the lack of British soldiers. Even tho the British played a huge part in Operation Overlord, the movie isn't about them. Their story can be told elsewhere.

In my opinion the French are portrayed very well in this movie. In the opening scene we see Tommy jump behind a French line and get dismissed by the French soldiers who give him scathing looks and push him along telling him to 'run-away.' This is symbolic enough of the French contribution to 'holding the line' as the British retreat behind it. And imo, it shows a pretty good general overview of the French feelings towards the British. Feeling abandoned by their allies while they're left to defend their home from the Nazi's.

None of the French are shown as cowards either. In contrast, every cowardly thing done by a character is done from a British person. And it's all shown with an understanding that these men are trying to get home in any way possible.


Historical Inaccuracies:
Spoiler
Imo none of these ruined the movie for me. Any historical inaccuracies were very minor, and they were all done for a reason.

One of the things that I didn't actually know was that the BF109's nose cone were not painted the characteristic yellow during Operation Dynamo. This yellow nose cone didn't come until after the battle. Nolan actually addressed this and mentioned that he gave them yellow nose cones as a way of better identifying them in the dogfight scenes.

Also, afaik none of the Allied ships were sunk by U boats during the Operation ??? I think the Kriegsmarine had about 7 smaller U boats, but they we mainly used in a defensive role. They didn't want to lose many submarines to the heavily mined and shoal ridden channel.

When the characters described the torpedo attacks I saw this as maybe a bit of 'tiger-fever.' In the sense that the characters might've assumed they were sunk by U-Boats when in reality it was the Schnellboots that did most of the sinking.

the biggest inaccuracy was the overall portrayal of the little ships. It's obviously a bit exaggerated. They didn't all show up over the horizon on the same day as the movie shows. Instead they were constantly ferrying people to the larger ships over the entirety of the operation. I understand that this movie is mainly about the British spirit and that this is exaggerated for effect tho :P

Overall the pacing and structure of the film made it great. It does a great job of putting you in the same emotional mindset as the soldier on the beach. And that's what a good movie does; manipulates you into feeling a certain way, even if that way is uncomfortable. Don't go into this movie looking for a 'British Saving Private Ryan.' The movie takes a completely different approach to making a war film and has many scenes that are more symbolic than a typical war film. :)

Offline Ragnarok1775

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1896 on: 20-08-2017, 23:08:25 »
The Terror Live (Korean), 7/10

Koreans make GREAT movies even if the plot is a bit far-fetched. It's about a news anchor who interviews a terrorist via phone, live, while the terrorist is threatening to blow up a bridge with the anchor's ex-wife on it, while making ridiculous demands of the anchor, which his producers and the police constantly interfere with. Very anxious and tense plot, somewhat morally-conflicting (none of the main characters are purely good).

Good, but not nearly as good as some of the country's other films. If you have Netflix and can bear subtitles, most of them are worth watching.

Dunkirk, 9/10

It's been reviewed enough. Great movie, enough said.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.088
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1897 on: 01-11-2017, 19:11:58 »
I've been in a lot of business trips recently. Thankfully, the airline, Garuda Indonesia has quite an updated list of movies in the AVOD IFE.

In the last 1 month and 12 1-hour each flights, I watched:

Deepwater Horizon
by Peter Berg
Starring Mark Wahlberg, Kurt Russell, John Malkovich, and Kate Hudson

Has quite balanced mix of dramatisation and reality. You all know mostly about the real event, and this is the Hollywood dramatisation of it. It doesn't try too hard to pass anti-corporate message, but yet, it is hard to not dislike corporatism culture that is going on. The overconfidence or arrogance, greed, and condescending attitude just matched my real life experience.

The movie does not discuss much about the scale of the damage and its massive impact on the environment, but focus on the disaster and its effects on the rig workers. So, it kind of a bit missing the mark.

The cinematography is typical contemporary Hollywood, full of angle action drama, tension when the bypass valves are failing, and explosive action when the disaster strikes. Pretty much standard.

I'll give it a passable 7 / 10. Definitely a movie worth watching. No time is wasted for waiting the drama and the disaster to unfold.

Wonder Woman
by Patty Jenkins
Starring Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Robin Wright, Ewen Bremner, David Thewlis, and many more

Where to start? I was bought by all the hype that this movie is receiving, so I just can't wait to watch this when the airline updated its AVOD list on October 2017.

The artistic is typical Zack Snyder movie, dark filters, with glary and overly bright shiny parts. Overally, there is no mistaking that Zack Snyder played a part in this movie. You'd expect something serious like most DC EU movies, or edgy like his work in 300 or David Ayers' take on DC's Suicide Squad. But Wonder Woman starts humble and pretty much subtle.

So, Diana "Prince" is characterised as a naive yet courageous hero with undying ideals she hold dear since the beginning. There is no judgmental overly philosophical smarty script-ridden characters that swamped the Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice movie. It doesn't try to sanctimoniously teach you about heroic morals or the script writer's own shallow academically unworthy philosophic materials. Wonder Woman is just a straightforward inexperienced hero tasked with ridiculous mission. I'm happy for Warner Bros. that they finally managed to hold back their edgy horses. I think they should hire more female directors.

Fight scenes is Dragon Ball-ish. Hero against hero, with the real life weapons having inconsistent effectiveness, which has been pretty much the theme of DC EU movies. Just like how anti tank mines have the right properties to kill Incubus when Hellfire ATGMs cannot, or how Enchantress' minions arbitrarily decided to take more damage from Will Smith's .45 cal pistol rounds than Joel Kinnaman's 5.56 mm rifle bullets, it is pretty much "hero does all the job and pay little attention to everyone else when fight scenes occur" DC EU's trademark. It is hard to not become a cynic with DC movies when Snyder keep presenting philosophical US senate preaching like Liberal Arts' public speaking class session, out-of-character villains trying to fetch Oscar when it is not his place, or when Amy Adams keep forgetting fact checks when he tried to outsmart smarty villains in smarty dialogues.

Patty Jenkins is able to create a more believable world, despite having to go back to early 20th century. It is almost as good as Captain America: The First Avenger, but I prefer Wonder Woman for the new approach. No, it doesn't have that "in your face feminism, man-tears drinking madness" that many red pill swallowers feared. This film should be labelled masculinity-safe for that sake.

For me, it is good enough to get 7 out of 10. Marvel movies has recenly taken the Dragon Ball path too, with main characters needing some kind of silly motivation to really end the dragging plot, so Wonder Woman shouldn't be too bad.

Cars 3
by Brian Fee
Starring Owen Wilson, Bonnie Hunt, Larry the Cable Guy, Nathan Fillion, Armie Hammer, Chris Cooper.
Real racing stars with in-film character name innuendo like: Jeff Gordon, Kyle Petty, Richard Petty, Darrel Waltrip, Ray Evernham, Daniel Suárez, and the obvious voice of Lewis Hamilton

I like cars and I like Pixar, but Cars franchise is just bad. Very bad. It is like a guilt trip for Pixar (and Disney) to rake as much advertising (or licensing) money as possible from auto industry trying to get into the children's subliminal programming, investing in their future.

The 3rd movie deals with Lightning McQueen's end of an era. So there is a lot of sadness and reflections going on here. Walt Disney studios showcased its ability to create heartwarming emotional story, while Pixar inserted a couple of chuckle-inviting jokes here and there. When you kids started asking, why Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo finally hang their shoes? Why can't Kobe Bryant just go on and continue? Yeah, they can start learning by watching this movie.

I'm not a picky person, I think this movie worth my 6.5 out of 10. Still below the mark for average Pixar Movies, but good enough to kill time.


I also found some time to visit the theatres a couple of times too:

Blade Runner: 2049
by Denis Villeneuve
Starring Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Dave Bautista, Robin Wright, Ama de Armas, and Jared Leto

This movie has a lot of hype, so I went in with some huge expectations. Of course I was partly diasppointed.

It is an arthouse film dream come true. Long dragging scenes, supposed to drag you into it. Denis Villeneuve made each cinematic shot long enough for you to sink into it, contemplate about what is it like to be in there, along with a relatively mute actor like Ryan Gosling. Every meaningful scene is accompanied by futuristic dystopian ambient music, the kind that usually plays in games like Mirror's Edge, No Man's Sky, Project:Aura, Anno 2070 or PlanetBase or Rimworld.

Looking at Ryan Gosling's face, you couldn't help but think of him when he played that mysterious driver in another arthouse cinema project, Nicholas Winding Refn's Drive. He seemed to be constantly contemplating about something deeply serious or trivial but consequential, or nothing, yes, just nothng going on in his head, it's just his default smug face. A feminist-friendly version of him would be Kristen Stewart without Twilight in the résumé to keep her cool factor real.

When he is smashed by Batista, the shock is real, because Gosling sucked you really deep into his blank stare blackhole, and force you to share the experience of being body slammed, absorb the pain. When we finally met Harrison Ford, the shock is real too, because suddenly you had this loud and mouthy scrawny old guy, breaking all the silence and generally toneless ambient music that has been the staple of the movie for almost 2 hours. Every other characters in this movie serve as a contrast to Ryan Gosling. He is literary paid millions of dollars to extremely hold back any discernable signs of emotion from his facial expression. It could have been 1 hour or so if you discount all the slow and dragging scenes that Denis Villeneuve generously presented through the entire film.

I really don't get this white male's cinematic obsession. It is almost too hipster for me. It is too heavy as an entertainment subject. It sucked my energy dry, I was very exhausted when the end credits finally rolled.

As an cinematic art critique piece, perhaps I can give it a generous 7.5 out of 10 I was literary yawning and almost fell asleep during the first couple of hours. I know, but for young European artsy readers, yes this movie is perhaps 9 to 10 out of 10 for you. There...

Thor: Ragnarok
by Taika Waititi
Starring Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Idris Elba, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, and Karl Urban

Thor:Ragnarok is different from every other serious Marvel movies, because they decided to "go full retard" this time, like fully exploiting Thor's doofus-ness. It looses all the Chris Evan's overbearing sense of heroic duty and "I am human too" boo-hoo old and stale heroic dilemma. Instead, it went on Chris Pratt's GoTG relaxed and carefree ways, "hero must be hero for the sake of superhero movie's sake" kind of hyper-awareness. It tries just a bit too hard to not taking itself too seriously, just like Ace Ventura or the cult classic Big Trouble in Little China.

You saw almost everything in the trailers, Thor meets Hela, Hela is strong, and Thor is exiled into gladiator planet, he met Hulk, and he fights Hulk to find the answer, then Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song plays. All the missing bits are fortunately, quite interesting to dig in this movie, with that MC EU's trademark sense of humour. The jokes will still be fresh and funny for everyone to enjoy.

So, the film itself is very colourful, the soundtrack are electronica, like early 1990s or end 1980s. Depeche Mode, Queen, and so on. It is quite confusing and crazy. The actors even got carried out, it is almsot like watching Tom Hiddleston having a real quarrel with real life Chris Hemsworth. They are just that hyper-aware about each other, and then Mark Ruffalo jumps in to finally add insult to the injury. It is, as if they were taunting us: are you a proud superhero nerds? Well, you shouldn't be. This is just embarassing.

Entertaining and fun, it gets 7.5 out of 10 from me. It is a high mark, but just for the entertainment part.
« Last Edit: 05-11-2017, 15:11:00 by Zoologic »

Online Hjaldrgud

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 988
  • Pronounced "Yaldergud"
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1898 on: 02-11-2017, 02:11:42 »
Don't worry. Original Blade runner is extremely boring. It was a chore to see. I recieved it on vhs from my cousin who said it is the best movie ever. No. It wasn't. Although I saw it when I was 15 so maybe I will like it now. From what I understand the sequel is pretty unnecessary .

"Generous and brave men live the best" -Hávamál

Offline Alubat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 508
    • View Profile
Re: Review the latest movie you have seen
« Reply #1899 on: 04-11-2017, 23:11:36 »
Blade Runner: 2049.
maybe the best movie I have seen for a very long time.
Ryan Gosling fits the role perfect for a blade runner.
I Also like all the female acting  :)