Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen

[broodwars]

I had a friend over who had never seen it before, so I finally got around to watching Big Trouble in Little China from the beginning for the first time ever (previously, I had only ever caught it on TV, and I'd always missed the first 30-45 minutes or so).  I'm sad to say, though, that despite its status as a cult classic it really feels like most of the movie kind of sucks.  Like a lot of 80s movies, it seems to take a good 45-60 minutes to get going, and by then the movie's almost over.  The last half hour (which is the part I remember the most) is hilariously campy and Kurt Russell is great in that period with some really funny lines, but up until that point the movie's not very interesting; funny; or even altogether weird.  Not a bad premise, but it feels like a lot of wasted potential when the movie's best character, Kurt Russell's, barely gets to do anything interesting until nearly the end of the film.

[BlackNMild2k1]

That is the movie MFT ended on and probably the same movie it will restart on.... if it ever restarts.

[oohhboy]

You missed the point a little Broodwars, Kurt Russell is a main character, but he isn't the Hero, Wang Chi is. Jack Burton(Kurt) is the comedy relief, he isn't meant to do anything interesting action wise. He gets to tags along while everyone else does the heavy lifting, hence he only gets to be truly badass once in the movie, at the very end.

Without the build up (Something few movies these days do properly) from real to unreal, there would be no contrast, no understanding of the reality that is the BTiLC universe. You have to remember most of the "culture*" seen would be foreign to most of the audience, so you need to lead into it.

*Most of the "Culture" is hilariously BS, itself based on pulp fiction out of Hong Kong which is itself based on folktales.

[broodwars]

No, I definitely got the joke: Jack Burton is the guy who thinks he's the 80s action hero, but he's actually somewhat useless.  My problem is that he isn't really given the chance to be funny until very late in the movie, and none of the other characters are interesting enough to carry the movie.  The movie just takes itself too seriously for too long.

[oohhboy]

You are kidding right. It takes itself too seriously? There is no way the film takes itself seriously when the villain's primary goal is to get laid and has spent the last 1000 years trying to do it. He forgoes immortality to achieve this and the good guys do everything in their power to cock block him.

It's a self parody and a deconstruction of 80's wire fu action, I figure you wanted more of a straight comedy, but taking itself seriously is not something it does. It's a product of a different time, with slower pacing, more build up, more context, which means it might not mesh well with today's audiences.

[Khushrenada]

What about Minority Report? I think that might be Spielberg's best film in the past decade. That was PKD story also.

I'm partial to Catch Me If You Can when it comes to Spielburg films in the last decade.

That would be my number two choice and my number three choice would be The Terminal.

[BranDonk Kong]

Captain America: The First Avenger - 8.5/10
Just saw this movie (in 3D). I've got to say, it was pretty awesome - it may not have been 100% comic book cannon, but it was the movie that it needed to be. The special effects were probably the best I've ever seen, there's not a single point in the movie where something looks fake or it looks like someone is being superimposed on a green screen. I need to finish watching Iron Man 2 tomorrow and then soon I'll see Thor. If they do it right, The Avengers could end up being the best comic book movie ever.

[Ceric]

Captain America: The First Avenger - 8.5/10
Just saw this movie (in 3D). I've got to say, it was pretty awesome - it may not have been 100% comic book cannon, but it was the movie that it needed to be. The special effects were probably the best I've ever seen, there's not a single point in the movie where something looks fake or it looks like someone is being superimposed on a green screen. I need to finish watching Iron Man 2 tomorrow and then soon I'll see Thor. If they do it right, The Avengers could end up being the best comic book movie ever.

I agree.  I saw it in 2D yesterday.  The only point I could really tell was CG was the plane when it was diving down the lighting was off.  I have to say my biggest gripe is that a guy gets chopped up by and airplane propeller.  That's the bloodiest thing in it and it feels like the only reason its even in the movie was to get the movie to PG-13.  That scene should have been cut.  Beyond that very good movie.

[Morari]

I have to say my biggest gripe is that a guy gets chopped up by and airplane propeller.  That's the bloodiest thing in it and it feels like the only reason its even in the movie was to get the movie to PG-13.  That scene should have been cut.

Or more similar scenes added! Captain America could have teamed up with the Inglourious Basterds.

[BranDonk Kong]

That scene was awesome. I wasn't expecting it at all.

[Ceric]

It felt tacted on. 
I mean what where the little planes even suppose to do?  Be bombs?  I didn't see any weapons.

[BranDonk Kong]

The planes were the bombs, all of the Hydra agents committed suicide when captured, so the pilots would kill themselves too, since they all saw Red Skull as a god.

[Ceric]

The planes were the bombs, all of the Hydra agents committed suicide when captured, so the pilots would kill themselves too, since they all saw Red Skull as a god.

I thought that was the case but, its still sort of complicated for something you could just drop.  That much power your playing Horseshoe rules.

[broodwars]

Finally got around to watching Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland Underland, and I'm really not sure what to think about this movie.  On the one hand, maybe it's just lower expectations after well over a year of everyone saying it's crap, but just looking at the movie objectively I can't call it a terrible movie.  I wasn't bored watching it, there's a reasonably coherent (if uninteresting) story in play, and Tim Burton brings his twisted artistic look to the film like he hasn't in a long time.  And yet, I had a lot of trouble actually watching the movie, and I don't want to watch it ever again.

Maybe the problem starts with Tim Burton's look for the film.  The thing that always fascinates me about the best Tim Burton movies is that they make the Strange look Normal and the Normal look Strange, and regardless of whichever it is I always find myself interested in what's on-screen.  But in this movie, something just looks...off...about the look of the film, and it makes me increasingly annoyed to keep seeing it.  For instance, one of the central designs of the film is the Red Queen, who is extremely short but with a big head.  In another Tim Burton film, that contrast would be interesting, but there's just something about it here that makes me want to look away.  Ann Hathaway's White Queen is supposed to be a shining beauty, but her design is incredibly unappealing in this movie.  I dunno.  While some elements of the film look great (the Red Queen's castle), the film overall is just very grim and lacking in visual appeal.  There's also some weird continuity errors, like how the Red Queen's personal guard's heart-shaped eyepatch keeps changing colors between scenes.

Then there's Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter.  Man, I thought his Willy Wonka performance was terrible, but this is just on a whole other level.  For one thing, I'd really like to know what accent he's supposed to be using for this film, because he keeps changing it.  In some dialogue scenes, he's doing this quasi-Jack Sparrow voice, while in others he's doing this weird Scottish/Irish hybrid for no apparent reason.  I can't understand half the words he's saying because he half-mumbles them, but even when he is coherent he's just not interesting to see on-screen.  And like the others, he's just not visually interesting to look at, and his story's not exactly fascinating either.  That's just a bit of a problem for a character who's probably on-screen more than Alice herself once he's introduced.

The movie overall isn't a bad movie per say IMO, but it's a very unpleasant one.  It's very mean-spirited and never allows itself to bask in the epic splendor you'd think would be a GIVEN in a fantasy movie.  And what's with going to all the trouble to bring in Christopher Lee to voice a character who literally has TWO LINES in the entire movie?  At least the special effects are nice.  Amusingly, near the end of the movie we're shown a "flashback" to Alice's original adventures in Wonderland.  Why didn't they just make that movie, because that actually looked a lot more interesting?

[MaryJane]

I thought incongruity was intentional and added an unexpected layer to the movie. I really liked this film, the story itself was a little uninteresting, but I thought the presentation and the characters made up for that. But then again, I can also fully appreciate your take on the movie so, idk.

[Halbred]

@Broodwars

I think I said it before, but I didn't like one...single...art design decision in the entire film. I also don't agree, philosophically, with bringing any version of Alice in Wonderland and/or Through the Looking Glass onto the big screen and try to give it a coherent story or, God forbid, CONNECT the two books--which are entirely different books. Both are certainly meant to be noncohesive dream sequences, so when you try and get a big central narrative going, it's going to fail, at least for me.

Also for those of you who have fond rememberances of the ancient Disney movie, go back and watch it. You'll find that 90% is needless filler.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I'm on my 4th movie at the theater today.

1. Transformers 3
It was good, but there were some details that right make sense. I'll edit that in later.

2. Captain America
Marvel is on a roll if you ask me. I have full faith that The Avengers will turn out good.
This one ran longer than expected, so it threw my schedule off and I watched Horrible Bosses instead of Cowboys & Aliens.

3. Horrible Bosses
Entertaining, but not as funny i hoped. I was shocked to find out that Colin farrel was in the movie.

4. Cowboys & Aliens
Its about to start...... Hopefully soon, I can only watch the same ads and previews so many times.

[BranDonk Kong]

Colin Farrell is in all of the previews...not sure why you spoiler'd that.

[TJ Spyke]

He's even in the theatrical poster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horrible_Bosses.jpg

I plan to see Captain America eventually, but I thought Thor was pretty bad TBH.

[MaryJane]

Captain America: 7/10

Lots of action in this one. Mind-numbing, totally pointless, action of **** blowing up in the too often used montage. The story was terribly generic and they didn't go beneath the surface on anything they did. Didn't the serum they used to create Captain America actually have a name and not just 'the serum'? What about that box to Oden's Gate or whatever it was, they barely spoke of it. His shield, that took like two seconds, but him being a show-boy for an inconsequential senator took like ten minutes. To me, this movie, like Thor, was just terribly generic. It brought nothing new to the table, didn't even attempt to challenge you mentally, and lives off of action instead of substance. I don't regret seeing the movie, and I'd probably watch again (for free this time) but it was just so bland to me.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Colin Farrell is in all of the previews...not sure why you spoiler'd that.

I didn't watch the previews & I didn't recognize him until the credits. Thats why.

Edit: Cowboys and Aliens was.... ehhh
I font know what I was expecting, but it was easily my least favorite of the 4 movies today.

[BranDonk Kong]

Calling Captain America's story generic doesn't make any sense. After all, the story that it is based on started 70 years ago (when Captain America debuted in 1941), so lots of things have probably borrowed from it since then (though I can't exactly think of anything), but it's a little unfair to call it generic.

[Ceric]

As Brandogg said.  Its Captian America.  Everybody and their Brother have borrowed from it.  Its literally called the Super Soldier Serum.  Capt. is mostly action.  He's a soldier.  The comic rarely digs into the deeper why at the time.  At its heart Capt. is a piece of Morale Boosting Patriotism Media.  Capt. is another version of Uncle Sam. 

If your looking for a movie to focus on developing Depth of Character as a highlight instead of a side feature your looking at the wrong Genre in general.  Action first Character Second.  I won't say that Comic Movie don't have character development but its normally of the over time variety unless its absolutely necessary. 

Comic book Cartoons and Movies can be basically broken done to:

1. Introduce General Problem
2. Introduce Character Specific Problem
3. Triumph over Character Specific Problem
4.  Triumph over General Problem

[Morari]

At its heart Capt. is a piece of Morale Boosting Patriotism Media

It's a lot quicker to just say propaganda.

[MaryJane]

What made the story generic in my mind was the lack of depth. It's like the Hans Christian Anderson versions of the Brother's Grimm stories. Except that the only thing I liked about the movie was the amount of people who died/Cap. Am. killed.