Rate the latest movie you've seen.

[SGOS]

Sully 9/10

An interesting movie for sure.  The one weakness was Clint Eastwood's direction.  He doesn't seem to understand subtlety, and it shows up in the scenes of FAA investigations of Captain Sully's handling of the disabled plane that did a water landing on the Hudson River that saved the lives of all 153 passengers and crew.  The panel of investigators all act like assholes, and Sully is the obvious hero, but Sully fixes everything and then the investigators stop being assholes.  This was so over dramatized and typical of Eastwood that I'm not going to give it a ten.  However, the incident itself is just too good to not make an excellent film, and it held my attention, with the investigation dramatization as a minor distraction.  Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart are very convincing.

[Blackleaf]

When are people going to learn? You NEVER travel with Tom Hanks. It's just asking for trouble.

[Nonsensei]

London  Has Fallen. Truly ridiculous in every way.

[Nonsensei]

Sully 9/10

An interesting movie for sure.  The one weakness was Clint Eastwood's direction.  He doesn't seem to understand subtlety, and it shows up in the scenes of FAA investigations of Captain Sully's handling of the disabled plane that did a water landing on the Hudson River that saved the lives of all 153 passengers and crew.  The panel of investigators all act like assholes, and Sully is the obvious hero, but Sully fixes everything and then the investigators stop being assholes.  This was so over dramatized and typical of Eastwood that I'm not going to give it a ten.  However, the incident itself is just too good to not make an excellent film, and it held my attention, with the investigation dramatization as a minor distraction.  Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart are very convincing.

Well beyond the event itself there was absolutely no drams whatsoever. But the crash alone wasn't enough to fill 2 hours and there's no villain in the real story. Solution? The NTSB are now ass holes questioning his decision in hindsight.

There was some speculation on whether or not he could have made it to the airport after the real event but it was more of a theoretical interest. Nobody ever suggested he made the wrong decision, at least nobody in the NTSB.

[SGOS]

Well beyond the event itself there was absolutely no drams whatsoever. But the crash alone wasn't enough to fill 2 hours and there's no villain in the real story. Solution? The NTSB are now ass holes questioning his decision in hindsight.

There was some speculation on whether or not he could have made it to the airport after the real event but it was more of a theoretical interest. Nobody ever suggested he made the wrong decision, at least nobody in the NTSB.

I knew form the previews about the investigators being out to get him.  One could argue they were just being presented as serious and stern, but it seemed to me they were there to get him.  I never recalled anything like that after the actual event, but a common theme in Eastwood movies is the fight between good and evil, and his good is usually saint like, while his evil can only be evil incarnate.  The weird part was that after Sully showed them they were wrong, it was like Eastwood waved a magic wand, and presto, they were suddenly all over flowing with gratitude and praise for Sully. 

Yes, the crash, which was technically a water landing, as pointed out in the movie, was actually a rather simple event, albeit an expensive event to be sure.

[Sal1981]

When are people going to learn? You NEVER travel with Tom Hanks. It's just asking for trouble.

Reminds me of the character Jessica Fletcher from Murder, She Wrote. Every time there's a dinner and she's invited, coincidentally, there is a murder. And she comes up with some elaborate scheme to blame it on someone else.

[SGOS]

Reminds me of the character Jessica Fletcher from Murder, She Wrote. Every time there's a dinner and she's invited, coincidentally, there is a murder. And she comes up with some elaborate scheme to blame it on someone else.

I remember being jarred by that series.  As a movie it would be a great idea, but as an ongoing series, I used to wonder how many people happen to run into a barely solvable murder once a week? 

Don't travel with Tom, and don't invite Jessica to your house, unless you like living on the edge.

[Mr.Obvious]

Rumble in the Bronx

8.5/10

Jackie Chan movies are a guilty pleasure of mine. I like even the bad ones. The fighting scenes are always a pleasure.
But this ain't one of the bad ones. Despite the awfull dubbing and the plot sometimes jumping ahead.
It's entertaining. It's funny. It's action packed. It's creative. And just at times it's disturbing enough to make you really feel the bad guys are bad guys, and not just plot-goons. (Kids getting beat up, woodchipper-murder, ...)
It's fun. Simple fun.

[SGOS]

Deep Water Horizon  5/10

The critics seemed to like it, but I thought it failed.  Perhaps the first 15 minutes set up a possible storyline; Hard working roughnecks dedicated to oil drilling come into conflict with BP bean counters over safety issues.  It's an old but tried and tested theme many movies have used to great advantage, but all plot development ends there, and it ends abruptly with finality, never to come into consideration again.  The entire remainder of the film is one continuous explosion and oil rig fire.  Fragments of dialog are continually repeated, "We gotta get out of here."  A couple of dedicated drillers in the control room push some buttons, and occasionally some platform worker will try to turn a wheel that does something or other, and the short scene ends in another explosion that becomes part of the bigger explosion.  Perhaps half the movie was filmed in shaky cam using stunt men where you could only see bodies being tossed or guys scrambling along on fiery catwalks in the dark, but backlit by bright flames.  There wasn't much need for the main actors (good ones by the way) to do much of anything.

The event in real life was certainly a disaster.  The film was bla, and the explosion got monotonous.

[Hydra009]

X-Men Apocalypse Rise of the Blue People  It wasn't quite the disaster I had heard from reviewers, but it was kind of a letdown.

I actually really liked the first half of the movie - the Stargate opening scene, the credits scene that I swear was copied from the Carmen Sandiego animated show's intro, the adolescence of some of the X-Men (though I hear it was a pretty big departure from their comics backstories), and a lot of the action scenes were excellent.  Primo special effects, though the green screen was obvious in some places.

What I didn't like:[spoiler]
Jean Grey (Sophie Turner was seriously miscast) and the sudden and contrived romance with Cyclops.
Magneto (he seemingly gives up the cause and goes off to raise a family didn't make a whole lot of sense)
Xavier mind-wiping Moira was a decidedly evil act for such a heroic character and she should've been much more upset than she was.
The Wolverine cameo felt forced (what are the odds that they'd run into each other?)

Also, the characters' powers are portrayed strangely.  Apocalypse himself had very different powers in the comics.  I can see why that was changed, since the costume makes it pretty much impossible for the actor to convincingly pull off any of that, but the sandomancy got old quick.  Quicksilver is extremely fast, but he's not stop time fast.  Psylocke's blade is seemingly 10 feet long, cuts through cars, and can change into a whip - almost completely unlike her comic powers.

The dialogue was unnaturally brief and uninteresting.

The final showdown was such a joke (I think my mind forgot most of it to protect itself) and really left me with a bad impression.

Edit - now I remember.  Oooh boy was that cheesy.

And what's up with Quicksilver never telling his dad the truth?  He tells practically everyone else but the person he needs to tell it to![/spoiler]

First half:  7/10
Second half:  5/10

[Munch]

X-Men Apocalypse Rise of the Blue People  It wasn't quite the disaster I had heard from reviewers, but it was kind of a letdown.

I actually really liked the first half of the movie - the Stargate opening scene, the credits scene that I swear was copied from the Carmen Sandiego animated show's intro, the adolescence of some of the X-Men (though I hear it was a pretty big departure from their comics backstories), and a lot of the action scenes were excellent.  Primo special effects, though the green screen was obvious in some places.

What I didn't like:[spoiler]
Jean Grey (Sophie Turner was seriously miscast) and the sudden and contrived romance with Cyclops.
Magneto (he seemingly gives up the cause and goes off to raise a family didn't make a whole lot of sense)
Xavier mind-wiping Moira was a decidedly evil act for such a heroic character and she should've been much more upset than she was.
The Wolverine cameo felt forced (what are the odds that they'd run into each other?)

Also, the characters' powers are portrayed strangely.  Apocalypse himself had very different powers in the comics.  I can see why that was changed, since the costume makes it pretty much impossible for the actor to convincingly pull off any of that, but the sandomancy got old quick.  Quicksilver is extremely fast, but he's not stop time fast.  Psylocke's blade is seemingly 10 feet long, cuts through cars, and can change into a whip - almost completely unlike her comic powers.

The dialogue was unnaturally brief and uninteresting.

The final showdown was such a joke (I think my mind forgot most of it to protect itself) and really left me with a bad impression.

Edit - now I remember.  Oooh boy was that cheesy.

And what's up with Quicksilver never telling his dad the truth?  He tells practically everyone else but the person he needs to tell it to![/spoiler]

First half:  7/10
Second half:  5/10

the cancer that is Fox can only be defended against by decent directors who are able to counter their plight on titles like the x-men with their integrity. Bad directors will just let the Fox effect seep into the x-men movies.

You know, I really can't decide who I hate more these days, Fox for being such petty, childish, money grubbing leeches who refuses to give back the marvel movie licences to marvel to create better movies from those licences, Or marvel themselves, seeing how in recent years, they are purposely killing off the x-men franchise in the comics, as a way of trying to force fox to conform to their demands on the licencing agreement. To go that far, both these companies are fucking petty.

[Solomon Zorn]

the cancer that is Fox can only be defended against by decent directors who are able to counter their plight on titles like the x-men with their integrity. Bad directors will just let the Fox effect seep into the x-men movies.

You know, I really can't decide who I hate more these days, Fox for being such petty, childish, money grubbing leeches who refuses to give back the marvel movie licences to marvel to create better movies from those licences, Or marvel themselves, seeing how in recent years, they are purposely killing off the x-men franchise in the comics, as a way of trying to force fox to conform to their demands on the licencing agreement. To go that far, both these companies are fucking petty.

I wrote off the X-Men franchise a long time ago, as being just what it is: another universe in the Marvel multiverse. There are enough heroes, villains and stories of earth shattering consequence, to be a universe in itself, separate from the rest of the Marvel lineup.

What really saddens me about Fox, is that they won't sell Marvel back the rights to the Fantastic Four, which would fit so perfectly into the Marvel cinematic universe. Along with the FF, they have the rights to all the related characters, like the Silver Surfer, Galactus and the Skrulls. Fox is fucking up that franchise worse than any. It gives me physical pain to see them releasing yet another movie of the Fantastic Fuck-Marvel. Fox sux.

[SGOS]

I wasn't aware of the X-Men franchise licensing agreement controversy.  But all in all, X-Men seems to have run the course of all such franchises.  It started out like a house of fire with a gripping story and excellent premise, but wore down after repeated attempts to capitalize on what made it good to begin with.  This may or may not have happened without competition and greed of two warring corporations.  Actually, it had a fairly good run with what?  Six sequels?  Although, in my mind, compared to any of the other Marvel scenarios, it normally would have died a natural death after movie number 3 or 4.  I keep going to see the films, of course.  Partly because I still have a wee interest, and partly to  see if they can actually redeem the series with something spectacular.  In my imagination, I can't comprehend why such a feat cannot be achieved, but the common progression always seems to be the same, with the franchises becoming of less and less interest until they finally die from movie goer reactions ranging from ho hum boredom to disappointment to mild disgust.

Star Trek has managed to beat the odds, but even the Treki generation is dying out now while being replaced by a younger generation which seems a little confused about what the original fuss was all about.

[Solomon Zorn]

I wasn't aware of the X-Men franchise licensing agreement controversy.  But all in all, X-Men seems to have run the course of all such franchises.  It started out like a house of fire with a gripping story and excellent premise, but wore down after repeated attempts to capitalize on what made it good to begin with.  This may or may not have happened without competition and greed of two warring corporations.  Actually, it had a fairly good run with what?  Six sequels?

I enjoyed all the X-Men movies, but I still see them as sub-par pseudo-Marvel creations, that could have been so much better.

I also enjoyed the Spiderman movies, but thought the same about them. Now that Marvel Studios has him back, we should be in for some really fun Spiderman movies, and cameos. 

Although, in my mind, compared to any of the other Marvel scenarios, it normally would have died a natural death after movie number 3 or 4.  I keep going to see the films, of course.  Partly because I still have a wee interest, and partly to  see if they can actually redeem the series with something spectacular.  In my imagination, I can't comprehend why such a feat cannot be achieved, but the common progression always seems to be the same, with the franchises becoming of less and less interest until they finally die from movie goer reactions ranging from ho hum boredom to disappointment to mild disgust.

I have yet to be disappointed with a Marvel Studios movie. I've been pleased with all of the character translations from the comics. They have captured the flavor of the whole thing. Starting with Ang Lee's Hulk, and including Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Ant-Man. For me, each one is better than the last(with the exception of Iron Man 3).

Which brings me to the latest movie I've seen: Captain America: Civil War. I just watched it on Blu-Ray. I enjoyed it immensely. It was a well done schism between the Avengers, that has Cap and Iron Man really going at it. I loved how they included almost everybody in the big battle scene. Just a lot of fun all around.

Dr. Strange is next. Then Guardians of the Galaxy 2.

[aitm]

Whatever its called with the Rock and the little black dude. CIA agent thingy, comical,,,some laughs…waiting for the hurricane so I was in for mindless laughs. I got some laughs…they were indeed mindless. 4. Probably funnier if you were on death row.