Rate the latest movie you've seen.

[SGOS]

I've always thought of James Bond films in general as satire.  They all use the same formula and all have the same ending.  Taking them seriously is difficult.  I've always enjoyed the more over the top ones (generally starring Roger Moore).  The more recent ones have had a more serious tone and I don't think that it helps the series.

The only reason I like the new Bond films is that I got tired of the same old same old.  Unfortunately, when you take out the tongue in cheek spy satire, they're just another spy series of the really same old nature.

Bond was a great franchise but it's seen it's best days.  Craig is a good enough Bond, but the new direction leaves me flat.

[WitchSabrina]

I've always thought of James Bond films in general as satire.  They all use the same formula and all have the same ending.  Taking them seriously is difficult.  I've always enjoyed the more over the top ones (generally starring Roger Moore).  The more recent ones have had a more serious tone and I don't think that it helps the series.

The only reason I like the new Bond films is that I got tired of the same old same old.  Unfortunately, when you take out the tongue in cheek spy satire, they're just another spy series of the really same old nature.

Bond was a great franchise but it's seen it's best days.  Craig is a good enough Bond, but the new direction leaves me flat.

I can't like it without Judy.  Can't.   She was the best part for years.
*pout*

[Notthesun]

Saw two movies this week!

This is the End - Well that was sure as hell one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. I loved it so much.

Grade: A-

Man of Steel - This is the Superman movie I had been waiting for. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The action scenes were epic!

Grade: A-

[Sal1981]

Skyfall ~ 8/10

[SGOS]

Cloud Atlas  6/10

Critics basically raved about this one, one saying, "This is not a movie.  It's a lifetime cinematic achievement."  Well... it was somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it had a point, or at least a point worth remembering.  Different strokes for different folks.  If artsy fartsy is your thing, go for it.

[Shiranu]

Cloud Atlas  6/10

Critics basically raved about this one, one saying, "This is not a movie.  It's a lifetime cinematic achievement."  Well... it was somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it had a point, or at least a point worth remembering.  Different strokes for different folks.  If artsy fartsy is your thing, go for it.

I thought I remembered the critics giving it a, "Meh.". Maybe I am thinking of wrong movie.

[SGOS]

Cloud Atlas  6/10

Critics basically raved about this one, one saying, "This is not a movie.  It's a lifetime cinematic achievement."  Well... it was somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it had a point, or at least a point worth remembering.  Different strokes for different folks.  If artsy fartsy is your thing, go for it.

I thought I remembered the critics giving it a, "Meh.". Maybe I am thinking of wrong movie.

[SGOS]

Cloud Atlas  6/10

Critics basically raved about this one, one saying, "This is not a movie.  It's a lifetime cinematic achievement."  Well... it was somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it had a point, or at least a point worth remembering.  Different strokes for different folks.  If artsy fartsy is your thing, go for it.

I thought I remembered the critics giving it a, "Meh.". Maybe I am thinking of wrong movie.

I don't read all the critics.  I may have two or three that praised it, and just made assumptions after that.  Meh, is a fairly appropriate review, I think.  It's not like the movie stunk, and it does have its clever moments, but it was just kind of "Meh".

[missingnocchi]

Man of Steel was awful. There were more holes than there was plot, the exposition was dull, and the only decent characters were Lois Lane and General Zod. It had fun parts, but they were few and far in between, and I'd rather just re-watch Iron Man if I want a fun movie.

A few questions that ran through my mind watching this movie:
[spoil:3aov3zfw]Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? Why is John Kent such a pussy? How come Kryptonian atmosphere fucks up Superman but Earth atmosphere doesn't affect Zod? Why do all these Kryptonians instantly have superman powers without exposure to the sun or breathing Earth's air? How does this scientist know that two colliding Phantom Drives will cause a black hole when he literally first heard about the Phantom Drive two seconds ago? Why do they still need to use the Phantom Drive collision after Superman fucks shit up and stops the World Machine? Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? WHY DOES ZOD WANT LOIS LANE ON THE SHIP?[/spoil:3aov3zfw]

[GalacticBusDriver]

Saw "Oz the Great and Powerful" and "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" over the weekend.

Oz - 5/10. Story was good, especially for an origins story, and the acting was decent but Disney's insane overuse of 3D (didn't even watch in 3D, just saw a lot [a whole lot] of stuff that was supposed to jump off the screen) made the film feel gimmicky. The latest 3D technologies can be used to truly enhance a movie experience ("Avatar," "Star Trek: Into Darkness") but Disney chose to make a what felt like, at times, a cheap 80's 3D movie.

H&G - 6.5/10. Do not expect a great film or an awesome story here. The plot was thin with few twists, what twists it had were badly telegraphed and the acting was meh. The movie's saving grace? They seemed to have spent 1/3 of their budget on fake blood and witch costumes. There's so much gore it could easily be classified as a slasher flick. This one doesn't even aim at horror, misses the cheap scare and goes directly for the gross-out.  :-D With a better story and better acting (which we should have gotten from Jeremy Renner & Gemma Arterton) this would have been a great movie.

[the_antithesis]

So I watched that fucking Superman movie and what can I say? As a spectacle, it's awesome. Some of the best fight scenes and use of super powered humans in a movie yet. I believe this one sets the bar and, yes, I have seen the Avengers, mother fucker. I mean, holy shit. Godzilla movies don't have this much destruction. And there are some nice touches, such as how it starts out with Supes only being able to super-leap, like he originally did in the comics, before learning how to actually fly and when the bad guys show up, they also start out leaping. The also do a couple things that I would have though would have looked goofy in live action but they somehow make it work. So marks for them.

The story, however, is a mess. It makes just enough sense to be disappointing that it doesn't hit it out of the park. It doesn't carry much emotional weight but is also trying too hard to be heavy. Lois Lane and the Daily Planet gang were probably not in original drafts of the script because they feel tacked on. If that's the case, I wish they had left them out and used whichever character fulfilled her main role as a plot McGuffin.

[spoil:27cc96p8]Thinking upon it, it would have made sense if Superman's mom played by Diane Lane was in this role where Zod insists she comes on board the ship and Superman slips her that thing that uploads his dad into the ship. There could have been an interesting meeting of the natural father with the adoptive mother. But someone said Lois Lane has to be in the movie, and ruined everything.

In fact, the original story probably had a theme of parenting with Supes not knowing which parents to listen to, and he has two sets of the fucking things, and finally making his own decisions. That might have helped the story immensely. As it is, it feels unfocused.[/spoil:27cc96p8]

So, ultimately, it's a disappointing movie because it reaches for greatness and almost, almost gets it. If they had trimmed the fat and focused the story a little tighter, it would have been everything it could be.

[SGOS]

The latest 3D technologies can be used to truly enhance a movie experience ("Avatar," "Star Trek: Into Darkness") but Disney chose to make a what felt like, at times, a cheap 80's 3D movie.

I was impressed with Avatar in 3D, although maybe it was because it was one of the first I saw in the new 3D format that I was so looking forward to, but since then, I have been marginally impressed (I watched Star Trek in 2D and can't comment).

Incidentally, the trade name for the new 3D is "Real 3D".  They had to name it something, and I suppose it sounds more appealing than "Half Assed 3D", which would actually be more accurately descriptive.

[the_antithesis]

Incidentally, the trade name for the new 3D is "Real 3D".  

Wait. What makes it new?

[SGOS]

Incidentally, the trade name for the new 3D is "Real 3D".  

Wait. What makes it new?

I don't know for sure, but I think it's the process used to render it.  What I remember in the 50's were movies photographed using double lensed cameras.  While that is probably still employed, it doesn't account for the entire process, because they can turn out old movies like the Titanic in 3D.  Those movies were filmed with one lens.  They must be rendered in 3D by some digital hijinks.  By the time Hollywood finishes the process, possibly mixing duo vision and the "hijinks", the final result is not quite right.  In fact, every movie I've seen in Real 3D appears to be compromised in some way, at least to my eye.

[GalacticBusDriver]

Incidentally, the trade name for the new 3D is "Real 3D".  

Wait. What makes it new?

I don't know for sure, but I think it's the process used to render it.  What I remember in the 50's were movies photographed using double lensed cameras.  While that is probably still employed, it doesn't account for the entire process, because they can turn out old movies like the Titanic in 3D.  Those movies were filmed with one lens.  They must be rendered in 3D by some digital hijinks.  By the time Hollywood finishes the process, possibly mixing duo vision and the "hijinks", the final result is not quite right.  In fact, every movie I've seen in Real 3D appears to be compromised in some way, at least to my eye.

The 3D movies from the 50's were all done post processing. It wasn't until the early 80's that they came up with a method of splitting the image using mirrors to simulate dual lenses. Late in the 90's the first dual lens cameras were produced. The cameras today are far more than just dual lenses. Each lens can swivel and focus independently, mimicking very closely the way stereoscopic vision works. Add to that the huge variety of things that can be done during post-processing and you can get some insanely good  and very realistic effects.