Rate the last movie you saw

[Stevenson]

We walked out of Dinner for Schmucks last night. Not terrible, but definitely not worth $24 for 3 people. A renter.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

The Other Guys - 8/10

Hilarious. Honestly the commercials made it look dumb and not that funny but I was pleasantly surprised. Mark Wahlberg is funny in such a unique but also normal way. Him and Will Ferrell went really well together.

 

[ABM]

I've rented Defendor for tonight.

Anyone seen it? I hear Harrelson does a credible job.

 

[Da_O]

I've rented Defendor for tonight.

Anyone seen it? I hear Harrelson does a credible job.

I've seen it, I'd give it a 4/10. The message is unclear and muddled, and the jokes are pretty deadpan. It's likable but nothing really great.

How did you like the White Ribbon?

 

[ABM]

How did you like the White Ribbon?

It was interesting. You're right, very slow. I'm not a real fan of subtitles. Still, it was fine.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Rented Green Zone and The Ghost Writer this weekend.

Both films take a premise from recent events and try and stretch a film out of it. Green Zone fails in doing that while The Ghost Writer succeeds.

Both worth watching, Green Zone starts strong and then gets muddled. I still think the Hurt Locker is the best gulf war movie.

The Ghost Writer is an intense political thriller by Roman Polanski. Not as good as Chinatown but better than anything he's done in years.

Green Zone - 6/10

The Ghost Writer - 8/10

Really? The twist at the end was awful. And it honestly made me feel like I just wasted 2 hours.

I feel ya, that's why I gave it an 8. I was reading some of the reviews over at the IMDB and they were acting like The Ghost Writer was a religious experience for them. According to the back story the writer was a reporter who used to be a huge Tony Blair supporter who became disillusioned with him over the gulf war. The ending I think was him inserting himself into the story and going out as a martyr.

I rented The White Ribbon for tonight. Hope it's good.

Recently watched The Ghostwriter. Not too bad. Maybe 8/10.

I liked it too and thought it was a 8/10.

 

[huevonkiller]

inception was a 7/10 as a date movie... too confusing for the wife to follow. I really enjoyed the storyline, but it was wholly predictable. Was it the exact same production team as Shutter Island?

These are close to my thoughts as well. I think the plot once again is not well thought out, the nice production value is what impresses people instead I estimate. Like "The Dark Knight" I did not enjoy the story nearly as much as I should have. So many scattered ideas, and aesthetically certain environments could have been far more creative.

Inception- 6.5/10

***spoilers***
The start of the movie is exciting and had beautiful dream scapes. When Ariadne (Ellen Page, the Architect Girl) is transforming areas of Paris, I thought that was pretty cool. But then the movie continues to get more ridiculous with the dream within a dream concept, and these list of silly rules that don't make any sense to anyone. Really, 50 years is a couple of seconds in the real world? Lol what? Nolan should have just cut that part out. Aesthetically the movie seemed to peak at that Paris cafe too.

And if that is the "real" reality like Mal (Marion Cotillard, Cobb's crazy wife) tries to claim, shouldn't she be old, not young like at the end of the film? Also how do they get that dreaming briefcase to appear in the second/third/etc. dreams? That's not explained perfectly. How do you materialize such elaborate equipment, I mean it is groundbreaking technology after all, and get a bunch of people to join you in another dream level?

Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the guy who stayed behind in zero gravity) uses the endless staircase paradox once, against an opponent. Why isn't this done more often, where they can just shift around other parts of the world? There's a guy that can change his face into anyone he wants, why is he limited to just this skill?

And basically, aside from the Dream with gravitational issues, this is just an action movie with some robbers trying to break into safes. Think of all the possibilities in a dream world, really that's the best they could do? A city, military base, house by the beach, and then a limbo world with a lot of buildings where the main character lived. It needed a more surrealist point of view visually.

 

[Shooter]

We walked out of Dinner for Schmucks last night. Not terrible, but definitely not worth $24 for 3 people. A renter.

It wasn't terrible, but you walked out anyway???

 

[MrSelfDestruct]

These are close to my thoughts as well. I think the plot once again is not well thought out, the nice production value is what impresses people instead I estimate. Like "The Dark Knight" I did not enjoy the story nearly as much as I should have. So many scattered ideas, and aesthetically certain environments could have been far more creative.

Inception- 6.5/10

***spoilers***
The start of the movie is exciting and had beautiful dream scapes. When Ariadne (Ellen Page, the Architect Girl) is transforming areas of Paris, I thought that was pretty cool. But then the movie continues to get more ridiculous with the dream within a dream concept, and these list of silly rules that don't make any sense to anyone. Really, 50 years is a couple of seconds in the real world? Lol what? Nolan should have just cut that part out. Aesthetically the movie seemed to peak at that Paris cafe too.

And if that is the "real" reality like Mal (Marion Cotillard, Cobb's crazy wife) tries to claim, shouldn't she be old, not young like at the end of the film? Also how do they get that dreaming briefcase to appear in the second/third/etc. dreams? That's not explained perfectly. How do you materialize such elaborate equipment, I mean it is groundbreaking technology after all, and get a bunch of people to join you in another dream level?

Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the guy who stayed behind in zero gravity) uses the endless staircase paradox once, against an opponent. Why isn't this done more often, where they can just shift around other parts of the world? There's a guy that can change his face into anyone he wants, why is he limited to just this skill?

And basically, aside from the Dream with gravitational issues, this is just an action movie with some robbers trying to break into safes. Think of all the possibilities in a dream world, really that's the best they could do? A city, military base, house by the beach, and then a limbo world with a lot of buildings where the main character lived. It needed a more surrealist point of view visually.

In response to the spoilers:


The 50 years in being seconds in real life isn't a crazy idea at all. In fact, "time dilation" has been studied quite extensively. There are theories that most dreams only last a few minutes, but I know I have had dreams that felt like hours. Basically, that isn't a rule Nolan made up just to help the story along. There is at least some validity to it. And basically, each level they went further down into dreams, the more this theory compounded. Thus, 50 years "in limbo" and minutes in the real world.

He and Mal grew old together when they were in limbo, not in real life. When they awoke, they were the same age as when they went to sleep. Upon waking (and before killing herself) is when she was convinced they were still dreaming.

As for the briefcase, they showed up the same way JGL's assault rifle and Tom Hardy's grenade launcher did: they were dreamed. As for the technology of it, I don't know the exact technology of how a lot of things work, but they can still appear in my dreams. I mean, I have driven cars in my dreams, but I couldn't strip down an car and build it from scratch. The same principle applies here, no?

The staircase paradox is explained in the Paris scene: The more you change, the more aware the dreamer becomes aware something is wrong. This is also why they couldn't just shift to other parts of the world.

As for Tom Hardy's "Forger" character, that was part of his skillset. Did you see anyone else doing that? It is a specialty of his, same with the Ariadne's architecture, Cobb's skill extracting the thoughts, etc.

 

[huevonkiller]

***More Spoilers***

In response to the spoilers:


The 50 years in being seconds in real life isn't a crazy idea at all.

The problem is that we go into the dreams of various DIFFERENT people, and yet they have the same hyperbolic time algorithms.

How many people have dreams within dreams, with those specific rules? This is the main problem with his movie. Yes it is silly, and amusing because Nolan put more effort into his rules than the actual movie sets. It is a basic action film with lame dialogue.

You're just bringing up "time dilation", that doesn't explain the sheer silliness of forcing this rule down my throat at each dream level.

In fact, "time dilation" has been studied quite extensively. There are theories that most dreams only last a few minutes, but I know I have had dreams that felt like hours. Basically, that isn't a rule Nolan made up just to help the story along.

Felt like hours, right.... I said Years dude. Nolan is a moron to me because he destroyed The Dark Knight as well. I don't trust him lately because he continues to approve the use of poor scripts in his films, and he absolutely murdered the Two-Face/Joker thing at the end of his other movie. Just a bunch of stuff crammed into that film at the end, and the boat scene in Batman was even more stupid.


A car falling off a bridge, is over 50 years in Dream time? And he made each second in real life EXACTLY so and so amount in the dream world. Dream time is not this precise... It is forced.

There is at least some validity to it. And basically, each level they went further down into dreams, the more this theory compounded. Thus, 50 years "in limbo" and minutes in the real world.

Dude, I understand what Nolan was trying to say... I understood what the plot was (at least in most instances, it is still confusing)

The problem is the plot spends more time establishing its strict and ridiculous rules, than worrying about the dream world. Why can't Nolan stick to how Dreams usually are? You feel a few hours in the dream world, and it is completely random, beautiful, scary, and surreal. Instead we get all these standard military/fighting scenes and a lecture about time.

He and Mal grew old together when they were in limbo, not in real life. When they awoke, they were the same age as when they went to sleep. Upon waking (and before killing herself) is when she was convinced they were still dreaming.

That whole limbo portion is sloppy. First because they were super old in that world, then when they were about to leave (on the train tracks) they turned young again? I shouldn't even try to get into this plot hole.

As for the briefcase, they showed up the same way JGL's assault rifle and Tom Hardy's grenade launcher did: they were dreamed.

...

As for Tom Hardy's "Forger" character, that was part of his skillset. Did you see anyone else doing that? It is a specialty of his, same with the Ariadne's architecture, Cobb's skill extracting the thoughts, etc.

Why can they dream something much more complex than a grenade launcher, but not a grenade launcher? Why can't they imagine an assortment of tools in fact? Arthur is mocked for not being more creative (rocket launcher scene), yet we see him expertly simulate gravity and use the staircase paradox.

As for the technology of it, I don't know the exact technology of how a lot of things work, but they can still appear in my dreams. I mean, I have driven cars in my dreams, but I couldn't strip down an car and build it from scratch. The same principle applies here, no?

You're not understanding the premise though. Supposedly the technology is extremely complex and groundbreaking (it has to be). And you can't just "dream" Cobb, Arthur, etc. into your dream, you have to have them connect via the briefcase contraption. So how can they all connect to the next dream world?



I'll leave you with a few more comments I found about the film

First of all, the main character’s motivation -- to be reunited with his children -- is completely bogus. Cobb is an international fugitive because he is supposedly being sought on murder charges in the death of his wife.

This seems plausible until we see the actual circumstances of her death: She committed suicide by jumping out a window of a building opposite where Cobb was when she jumped. There’s no way that Cobb would or could ever have been charged with her murder. (Memo to Nolan: police and forensic detectives can easily tell the difference between a suicide jumper and a victim who was pushed—especially when they are in different buildings.)

If Cobb had half a brain, he’d have happily returned to the States to have the murder charges laughed out of court. I haven’t seen a script with this level of ignorance about the legal system since 1998's Ashley Judd dud "Double Jeopardy."

When Cobb is testing Ariadne to see if she’s up to the task of creating a virtual new world, he gives her a test, asking her to quickly draw a maze that would take a person at least two minutes to solve. After two unsuccessful attempts at rectangular mazes on some graph paper that Cobb quickly and easily solves with a pencil, Ariadne turns the paper over and draws a spiral design on the blank page.

This impresses Cobb (and presumably the audience), as it shows her “thinking outside the box.” Except that according to Cobb (and what we see of the puzzle), Ariadne drew a labyrinth -— which would take mere seconds to solve, since a labyrinth has only one path.

It is the same path from the outside to the inside, and therefore isn’t a maze at all (that’s why labyrinths are popular among New Age devotees for meditation: no thinking or decisions are required to complete the pattern).

***(Spoilers in the link below too)***
http://news.discovery.com/human/inceptions-flawed-science-and-logic.html

 

[Sex Panther]

***More Spoilers***



The problem is that we go into the dreams of various DIFFERENT people, and yet they have the same hyperbolic time algorithms.

How many people have dreams within dreams, with those specific rules? This is the main problem with his movie. Yes it is silly, and amusing because Nolan put more effort into his rules than the actual movie sets. It is a basic action film with lame dialogue.

You're just bringing up "time dilation", that doesn't explain the sheer silliness of forcing this rule down my throat at each dream level.



Felt like hours, right.... I said Years dude. Nolan is a moron to me because he destroyed The Dark Knight as well. I don't trust him lately because he continues to approve the use of poor scripts in his films, and he absolutely murdered the Two-Face/Joker thing at the end of his other movie. Just a bunch of stuff crammed into that film at the end, and the boat scene in Batman was even more stupid.


A car falling off a bridge, is over 50 years in Dream time? And he made each second in real life EXACTLY so and so amount in the dream world. Dream time is not this precise... It is forced.



Dude, I understand what Nolan was trying to say... I understood what the plot was (at least in most instances, it is still confusing)

The problem is the plot spends more time establishing its strict and ridiculous rules, than worrying about the dream world. Why can't Nolan stick to how Dreams usually are? You feel a few hours in the dream world, and it is completely random, beautiful, scary, and surreal. Instead we get all these standard military/fighting scenes and a lecture about time.



That whole limbo portion is sloppy. First because they were super old in that world, then when they were about to leave (on the train tracks) they turned young again? I shouldn't even try to get into this plot hole.




Why can they dream something much more complex than a grenade launcher, but not a grenade launcher? Why can't they imagine an assortment of tools in fact? Arthur is mocked for not being more creative (rocket launcher scene), yet we see him expertly simulate gravity and use the staircase paradox.



You're not understanding the premise though. Supposedly the technology is extremely complex and groundbreaking (it has to be). And you can't just "dream" Cobb, Arthur, etc. into your dream, you have to have them connect via the briefcase contraption. So how can they all connect to the next dream world?



I'll leave you with a few more comments I found about the film



[/color]

***(Spoilers in the link below too)***
http://news.discovery.com/human/inceptions-flawed-science-and-logic.html

Suspended disbelief. Enjoy the film

 

[Rodolfo]

Stranded! The Andes Plane Crash Survivors....documentary about the survivors of flight 571 and their story. Was made into the movie "Alive" in 1992. 10/10

[video=youtube;jt0_dqWZ3A0]

 

[ABM]

The Losers.

7.85/10

 

[Rodolfo]

Walt Disney- "Secret Lives"

A douche on many levels.

7.5/10

[video=youtube;UXA2hWgvZKo]

 

[Colonel Ronan]

The Shawshank Redemption -- 9/10

Well, this is a classic if I've ever seen one. Nothing more to say, brilliant.

 

[Da_O]

Felt like hours, right.... I said Years dude. Nolan is a moron to me because he destroyed The Dark Knight as well. I don't trust him lately because he continues to approve the use of poor scripts in his films, and he absolutely murdered the Two-Face/Joker thing at the end of his other movie. Just a bunch of stuff crammed into that film at the end, and the boat scene in Batman was even more stupid.

Nolan wrote the script, he didn't just approve of somebody elses. If you should be mad at somebody for approving of it, then that would be the production company. My guess is you already knew that though in another attempt to bash Nolan. But I guess he's just an idiot for writing a stupid, illogical, and over the top movie that he should never make another film again.

 

[Rodolfo]

The Shawshank Redemption -- 9/10

Well, this is a classic if I've ever seen one. Nothing more to say, brilliant.

I still can't believe that movie didn't win Best Picture. Fuckin' Forest Gump.

 

[Da_O]

I still can't believe that movie didn't win Best Picture. Fuckin' Forest Gump.

Pulp Fiction or Red should have won over either Shawshank or Forrest Gump.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

The Losers.

7.85/10

So they didn't stick the ending?

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Pulp Fiction or Red should have won over either Shawshank or Forrest Gump.

I disagree that Red should of won it over Shawshank.

 

[Da_O]

I disagree that Red should of won it over Shawshank.

Shawshank is safe, predictable, and a tad melodramatic. It's also a little manipulative with it's music and it's message is a little unclear. Red is one of the most original screenplay's of our time and is easily the superior film.

 

[ABM]

So they didn't stick the ending?

Yes. In fact, it was comical.

 

[huevonkiller]

Nolan wrote the script, he didn't just approve of somebody elses. If you should be mad at somebody for approving of it, then that would be the production company. My guess is you already knew that though in another attempt to bash Nolan. But I guess he's just an idiot for writing a stupid, illogical, and over the top movie that he should never make another film again.

He did make a stupid and illogical film, with entertaining action sequences and a huge budget. Where did I say they weren't his scripts? I do not see the contradiction in "he continues to approve the use of poor scripts in his films".

I'm not mad at the production company, they should be able to make money off of overrated films with great production value. I'm disappointed in Nolan due to all the inconsistencies I explained in my previous post. I was entertained by both films, they still could have been far better.

 

[Da_O]

He did make a stupid and illogical film, with entertaining action sequences and a huge budget. Where did I say they weren't his scripts? I do not see the contradiction in "he continues to approve the use of poor scripts in his films".

I'm not mad at the production company, they should be able to make money off of overrated films with great production value. I'm disappointed in Nolan due to all the inconsistencies I explained in my previous post. I was entertained by both films, they still could have been far better.

Didn't say you contradicted yourself. I was confused by your wording, to me, it sounded like you thought he was approving of other people's scripts, because why wouldn't he agree with his own script? So you're saying that while he spent a long time writing it, he should've realized it was stupid and scrapped it?

I disagree that it was stupid, illogical probably, but definitely not stupid. As far as the Dark Knight goes I rated the film as one of my favorites of 2008, and that is in part due to its clear advancement of the genre and how it has changed perception of what can be done with superhero's as far as verisimilitude is concerned. Its truly groundbreaking. To each his own I guess.

 

[Rodolfo]

Pulp Fiction or Red should have won over either Shawshank or Forrest Gump.

You have to be nominated to have a chance of winning...

 

[Da_O]

You have to be nominated to have a chance of winning...

It was nominated under Best foreign film. The academy has a long history of snubbing foreign movies, i.e. City of God, Pan's Labyrinth. I already knew that it wasn't nominated for Best Picture, still thought it was the best movie of that year.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Shawshank is safe, predictable, and a tad melodramatic. It's also a little manipulative with it's music and it's message is a little unclear. Red is one of the most original screenplay's of our time and is easily the superior film.

I don't care much for your opinion.

 

[Da_O]

I don't care much for your opinion.

Okay, then why even reply?

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Okay, then why even reply?

Because I'm a troll.

 

[crandc]

I also agree Dinner for Schmucks was overrated. Some amusing bits but mostly silly and predictable. I get irritated in a world where everyone is rich, thin and white (one black guy in the whole flim) and people just don't behave like that.

Looking forward to Pat Tillman Story and Mao's Last Dancer.