Author Topic: Review the latest movie you have seen  (Read 123363 times)

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.315
    • 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: 4.087
  • 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: 4.087
  • 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.

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.315
    • 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: 497
    • 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.

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.315
    • 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.