Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen

[ThePerm]

the second morphed face is like 15 chicks put together

Michelle-Pfeiffer--Charlize-Theron--Brooke-Shields--Jessica-Alba--Salma-Hayek--Kristen-Stewart--Natalie-Portman--Winona-Ryder-and-Keira-Knightley--Kristin-Kreuk--Lucy-Lui--Megan-Fox--Michelle-Pfeiffer--Charlize-Theron--Brooke-Shields--Jessica-Alba--Salma Hayek, sometimes they are repeated

im thinking about just starting a thread about mixing celebrities

[broodwars]

Batman: Year One - I had a lot of hopes for this one after the last Batman animated movie, Under the Red Hood, turned out so well.  Sadly, this movie is crap.  The artwork is mediocre (and weird, like Catwoman being extremely butch), the animation is average, the voice acting is terrible (especially Batman/Bruce Wayne's), and the film is just boring.  They should have called this film "Jim Gordon: Year One", given that Batman/Bruce Wayne is only in this movie for all of about 15 minutes.  Anything remotely interesting about this movie has been done better in other Batman stories, particularly Batman Begins and Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, so go watch them instead.

[bustin98]

I'm sorry, but go read Batman Year One before watching Batman Year One. Yes, Selina is a man-hating butch prostitute. Yes, Jim Gordon is in the story more than Batman.

The thing I love about the DC Animated films is they try to emulate the artist that did the original story. Makes each one unique. I have found that I need a level of exposure to some artists before I appreciate their work. Keith Giffens is one, Mike Mignola is another. David Mazzucchelli falls in there too. But after reading 4 issues of Year One, you may find that his style works with the story.

[broodwars]

I'm sorry, but go read Batman Year One before watching Batman Year One. Yes, Selina is a man-hating butch prostitute. Yes, Jim Gordon is in the story more than Batman.

If I wanted to read a comic book, I'd read a comic book.  A movie should be able to stand on its own, and I wanted to see a good Batman movie.  Instead, I got a mediocre Jim Gordon movie where a not terribly interesting Batman occasionally appears.  And man, the writing is terrible, but I suppose I should have expected that having been penned by Frank Miller.  Listening to the dialogue, I can hear where his monologues in The Spirit come from.

Just finished finally watching Captain America, and it is certainly an excellent movie that's well-paced and has well-staged action sequences.  Aside from some corny writing in places (and a painfully bad final line before the credits roll), I really don't have any major issues with the movie.  I especially like that it's its own movie with a self-contained story, rather than a 2-hour Avengers trailer.

One thing that did kind of bug me, though, is that they never explain why Cap's shield always returns to him when he throws it.  I know it's a comic book thing, and it's something that doesn't really bother me in Cap's various animated and video game incarnations.  But for some reason, in a fairly-grounded live action movie like this, I do want to know why the shield will almost always return to the user when thrown.

[Halbred]

Just saw The Thing today.
The original (and by original, I mean the 1982 version) is by far and away one of my favorite movies, so I was both excited and apprehensive about this prequel. And I should comment here that, despite what the newspaper reviews might say, it really is a PREQUEL, and not a remake. Now then...

What made the 1982 movie so damn good was its sense of atmosphere and cabin fever. The music really helped set a tone throughout, and the special effects were great mostly for their practical nature (they didn't have CG in 1982) but also because you never really saw the whole Thing. A lot was left to your imagination, which, I think, is very important for a creature feature. I knew going in that the Pre-Thing would rely heavily on CG effects, so I was open to it.

I just didn't realize how much.

There are really only two, maybe three scenes in the original Thing where you really get a good look at the bloody, messy nature of the creature (the dog scene, the "head" scene, and the end). In this movie, the Thing is basically a supporting cast member. It's everywhere, and apparently there are multiple Things because they keep on killing Things and others come back. That bugged me--there were few places where you got an idea of when or how the Thing was absorbing these people, or how it was splitting off into multiple Things.
It looked great--don't get me wrong. The CG effects are horrific and bloody, and yeah, there's a practical effect or two thrown in for good measure, but the Thing is in the movie TOO MUCH, and you see TOO MUCH of it.

The Pre-Thing also follows many of the same beats as the 1982 movie. On one hand, how could it not? They play with the formula, though: instead of checking for blood, the team tries something else (ingenous) to see who's human and who's not. Ramona Flowers tries her hardest to be R.J. MacReady minus the beard and succeeds for the most part. The other actors seem like throwaway characters, though--most don't even get names, and are basically "Red Shirts" to be eaten by the Thing.

As a prequel, the movie does an admirable job of setting up key shots that will later be seen in the original film (stay for the credits--thank god they added that), with one BIG exception that I suspect everybody just forgot about. Can you figure it out?

The movie's final act is kind of silly (why didn't the Thing just do this in the first place?) and probably unnecessary. It's obvious they were going for the same "big moment" for the final confrontation as the original, but without Ramona Flowers yelling, "Yeah, well f*ck you, too!" it wasn't complete.
Still a good movie, though. I went into with perhaps too-high expectations, and I was basically looking for flaws the whole time. Despite a few, it's well worth seeing.

[broodwars]

I have to concur with Halbred.  My dad and I were out at the movies tonight, and basically I had a choice between The Thing and Real Steel/Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots.  Interestingly, despite being nearly twice my age, my father had never seen the original John Carpenter's "The Thing", so I thought it would interesting comparing what I thought of it (who had seen the original) with his impressions.

Overall, I walked out of the theater entertained.  Yes, there are plot holes everywhere.  Yes, the CG is mediocre.  Yes, I couldn't tell the difference between half the cast if you asked me to.  Yes, the movie goes for a more standard "monster movie"-type film than John Carpenter's more deliberate original.  That said, the movie certainly didn't bore me, and for what it was I enjoyed it.  I thought the pacing was good, and the movie did an excellent job of building tension and atmosphere.  It didn't seem to know what to do with that once it had it, but there's definitely an element of quality to this movie that you don't generally see in these horror remakes.

This movie was neither the best nor the worst I've seen this year, and honestly you can do far worse than this film.  Don't go in with overblown expectations of the original John Carpenter movie (which I've only seen once, so I don't have special attachment to), and you might just enjoy it.

And yes, I am going to rectify my dad's lack of having seen the original Thing very soon.  I'll be curious to see how he views the original film now having seen the Prequel first.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Lucky him.... he gets to watch them in order... the way they were meant to be seen

[ThePerm]

yeah, that is going to be a huge thing after MFTing it, im set to go with my mom later this week whose a The Thing fan. Right now though, iv watched the John Carpenter version so closely I know it inside and out. I watched the movie with commentary, i watched all the special features, i watched it about 3 times in a weeks period. I've seen the original Thing From Another Planet too which still holds up really damn well. I have to go into the theater and not be hyped at all and thats going to be difficult, but I think I can do it.  A bunch of movies have a bunch of shitty sequels and remakes, but hey there's an audience for them. This looks like a pretty good derivative product though.

you know what else im excited for? fucking Prometheus! So we have an alien prequel in the works, a thing prequel that looks decent, and they made a proper predator sequel. Shits pretty good for horror/sci-fi. Hope to get my contributions into the genre within the next 5 years.

[Ceric]

I was hoping someone did watch Real Steel.  I like Teleroboxer so I'll probably see this movie when it gets on Blu-Ray.

[broodwars]

So I just finished showing my father the original 1980s The Thing, and he liked it.  Actually, he thought that the new "prequel" helped some things in the original movie "make more sense".  As for me, I think the movies actually work together pretty well, especially since the ending credits of the prequel shift right into the beginning of the original movie.  There are definitely some incongruities between the two movies (mostly things involving the alien spaceship, which does not have the same design in the prequel and is still covered by ice in the prequel), but overall the two movies don't clash as much as you'd think they would.

Watching the two movies together, it's almost like there's an actual arc to the Thing's behavior: going all-out and obvious in the "prequel" didn't work, so it goes manipulation and subterfuge in the original movie.  Sure, that's definitely ret-con in play, but that's my impression watching the two movies on the same day.  There was an aspect to the original movie I'd forgotten, though, which for some reason doesn't pop up in the prequel: the Thing can infect victims with bodily fluids.  For some reason, the prequel ignored that.  Weird.

[Halbred]

Yes, the biggest incongruity for me was that in the original movie, the Americans watched a video of the Swedes ("Norwegions, Mac!") blowing up the ice cap, all standing in a row with the Norwegion flag. That didn't happen in the prequel, and it was a strange hiccup. I just figure they forgot about it.

Also, if Das Thing can just start up his spaceship to get the f*ck out, why didn't he do that 100,000 years ago? Just sayin'.

[broodwars]

Also, if Das Thing can just start up his spaceship to get the f*ck out, why didn't he do that 100,000 years ago? Just sayin'.

Indeed.  And for that matter, why...

...In the prequel does no one think of looking inside the Alien Spacecraft until the end of the movie?
...In the prequel does the Dog-Thing (which the movie sets up as the first thing the Thing infects) wait around the Norwegian base until the very end of the movie before attempting to leave for the American base?  What, did Campbell tell it that if it left it would create a Time Paradox?      For that matter, why does the Thing even bother with the Norwegian base when no one would have stopped it from taking the spacecraft before all the bloodshed started?
...In the original does no one look inside the Alien Spacecraft at all?

I also have issues with how utterly easy that spacecraft is dealt with in the prequel, too.  C'mon, there's no way that is going to do that, even when it's used there.

[Stogi]

I always figured that in John Carpenter's The Thing, why no one went into the spacecraft was because they were going to try and contact help before tempting to go in what could be a death trap. Also, The Thing made itself pretty well known early on, thus making it the priority.

[Halbred]

Also, if Das Thing can just start up his spaceship to get the f*ck out, why didn't he do that 100,000 years ago? Just sayin'.

Indeed.  And for that matter, why...

...In the prequel does no one think of looking inside the Alien Spacecraft until the end of the movie?
...In the prequel does the Dog-Thing (which the movie sets up as the first thing the Thing infects) wait around the Norwegian base until the very end of the movie before attempting to leave for the American base?  What, did Campbell tell it that if it left it would create a Time Paradox?      For that matter, why does the Thing even bother with the Norwegian base when no one would have stopped it from taking the spacecraft before all the bloodshed started?
...In the original does no one look inside the Alien Spacecraft at all?

I also have issues with how utterly easy that spacecraft is dealt with in the prequel, too.  C'mon, there's no way that is going to do that, even when it's used there.

We already saw the yield on those grenades in the original movie at the very beginning, when Lars was chasing the Thing-Dog. It's basically a cherry bomb.

[EasyCure]

Return of the Living Dead 5: Rave to the Grave

This is ALMOST one of those "so bad, it's good" movies but isn't. I knew going in that the "Return of the Living Dead" series are always cheesy zombie flicks, but this one.. wow. I can still watch the original RofLD and laugh my ass off, perhaps it's nostalgia, perhaps it's just more comical because it's from the '80s. Rave to the Grave, however, doesn't have this luxury as it came out in 2005.

There are a few good laughs in it, but the rest of the time I'm just fuming mad at how not one but two Interpol agents who are specifically meant to bring down the zombie threat don't seem to know a thing about zombies. In the very start of the movie, they serve up nothing but body shots to multiple zombies, and there's no follow up to show the threat has actually been eliminated (ie. no double-tap). Later on they seem to be perfect marksmen, nailing ghouls right between the eye. It's actually kind of pathetic considering they fall into the zombie movie cliche of untrained individuals becoming aces when it come's to headshots. Actually, it IS pathetic because unlike other films, when someone gollege punk who presumably has never handled a gun before is handed a firearm, he's pulling off single-fire headshots from yards away.

Ah well, in the end it was still somewhat fun; got to laugh my ass off at someone having their ass bit off (and yes the zombies yelled "brains!" before tossing that salad), or (for those not interested in watching) the scene when a zombie starts giving guy head. Oh and Tarman returned! That was nice to see, even though he did NOTHING at all.. besides ad some comic relief to an already cheesy movie (see: my new avatar).

Recommendation: If you like the FIRST Return of the Living Dead (because 2 sucked and 3 felt like an attempt to make it a more traditional horror movie, haven't seen 4 yet) then you may want to check this one out. Same premise really; stupid teens get wasted, then get laid to waste. This one just has a funnier set-up in that the drugs they're doing is what is turning them into zombies. If you're looking for a serious zombie flick, look elsewhere.

[bustin98]

Just watched Batman Year One and I give it a thumbs up as a comic book fan, you know, where Batman came from to begin with. This is an adaption of a book so you'll have to realize it has source material to stay true to. Selina Kyle is a prostitute with a cat fetish. Bruce Wayne is coming to terms of what it takes to do his job, and Jim Gordon is rocking the police ranks and its corruption. Its more a story of the crime in Gotham than a story of Gordon or Wayne.

There are little touches like a store advertising VHS and Betamax rentals. And bits of the original comic art displayed through out. I found it entertaining and a bit surprising of what they kept in.

Also surprising is the Catwoman story in the extras. Holy cow, very... titilating for a DC animation.

[Halbred]

Also surprising is the Catwoman story in the extras. Holy cow, very... titilating for a DC animation.

INSTA-BUY.

[bustin98]

You, for sure, would love it. Seriously, if they made a vinyl of a particular scene, you'd jump on it like a... well, bring tissues.

[nickmitch]

Moneyball - Brad Pitt is awesome. Sports movies are usually good. Jonah Hill is good in it too. Highly recommended.

[EasyCure]

Just saw The Thing
As a prequel, the movie does an admirable job of setting up key shots that will later be seen in the original film (stay for the credits--thank god they added that), with one BIG exception that I suspect everybody just forgot about. Can you figure it out?

No. Tell me!

Actually I just returned from seeing The Thing (2011) not realizing it was a prequel (damn media telling me it's a remake!) so I'm pretty interested in The Thing (1982) now and I'm loving the discussion that was going on here..

This is what I have to say about it:

On CGI: Normally I like monsters/creatures being left to the imagination. Signs went downhill fast with that closeup of the alien. Don't be Afraid of the Dark had the same problem with the dark fairies/goblins. The Thing though.. not soo much. I felt that most of the shots of it were quick cuts that, while showing detail, didn't show you for long, so for a good chunk of the movie the creature still felt very abstract and hard to comprehend, which I feel still leaves something to the imagination. It's ever changing, so even if you get a good shot of it on film, you can just imagine what it will look like after it assimilates more beings. Also, it reminded me of so many of those Resident Evil creatures, so much so, that I kept thinking "this would make a good survival horror game," then I read this

There are definitely some incongruities between the two movies (mostly things involving the alien spaceship, which does not have the same design in the prequel and is still covered by ice in the prequel)

Because I haven't seen The Thing (1982), I'm going to assume what you mean here is that the ship is NOT covered in ice, yet remains covered in the prequel..? Well at the end of the prequel, it doesn't appear to be covered. it's still buried but it isn't completely covered. (Just in case spoiler tag here: )when 'Ramona Flowers' and the American pilot are exiting the ice cavern, you can see an opening in the background with flashing lights, presumably from the explosion, that die off before they get to the vehicle

There was an aspect to the original movie I'd forgotten, though, which for some reason doesn't pop up in the prequel: the Thing can infect victims with bodily fluids.  For some reason, the prequel ignored that.  Weird.

Actually I think they do touch on it.. Now, I may be mistaken on this first example (because as someone said earlier, it was hard to differentiate between most of the characters) but.. After The Thing is found underneath one of the cabins, a limb reaches out and impales one of the Norwegian crew members as a second crew member watches. That second crew member has the firsts blood splattered all over his face. Now this can go one of two ways, again it's hard to tell who these people were half the time so bare with me here..

1. That crew member was the one who became ill and was going to be transported to the hospital via helicopter before it crashed.

2. That crew member was infected by The Thing and was the crew member that attacked from within that very same helicopter ;

either way, I was under the impression that it could infect via bodily fluids.

Another example of this is actually hinted at by Ramona Flowers when she and the American Pilot are out on the hunt. She has the flamethrower, he has a axe. After he slices the Arm Thing ? in two he's about to grab the axe embedded into the wall and covered in its blood before Romana sternly tells him not to grab it.

Also, if Das Thing can just start up his spaceship to get the f*ck out, why didn't he do that 100,000 years ago? Just sayin'.

True! Thought the same thing; why would it leave the ship to get frozen in ice if it could just start it up and leave? I was discussing this with my girl on the way home from the movie though, and in a fan-fiction esque way, I came up with an explanation..

(WARNING: retarded conjecture ahead)

At the start of the prequel, the head scientist states something along the lines of "we've discovered a structure [...] and a survivor" which can imply a few things. Did they go inside the ship and find other creatures? If so why were those bodies not studied? Perhaps they were too badly mangled thus making the frozen creature a prime candidate for research.

If they didn't discover other bodies, or couldn't access the ship to discover others, living or dead, it makes you wonder if the Thing we see, thawed from the ice, really was the only creature aboard. Did you see the size of the ship? That thing is massive, so is it wrong to assume one creature alone could pilot it? Even if it could, why would it need such a massive vessel for itself? You'd think no matter what it's purpose, there had to be even a small crew of some kind.

Then I started to think about the aesthetics of both the creature and the ship itself. The ship looks.. and you may not understand how I'm trying to describe it here, but.. it looks too clean cut for a creature of that nature. It obviously has some intelligence, being able to copy a human and speak the language with ease, but the look of that ship didn't fit with the look of the creature. I picture it in a ship that looks more, for the lack of better words, 'organic' looking.. picture the Cetan ship from Perfect Dark 64, or the Skedar weapons from the same game, even the Drudge weopons of the conduit. I picture the Thing having this type of technology.

Instead we have a ship that looks, inside and out, to be your classic Grey's vessel. Very sterile, very beyond your imagination high tech (what exactly was that pixelated-panel thing? Ramona got distracted by?). That's what got me thinking even more.. what would the prequel to this prequel be like;

What if there was a race of aliens, that fit the Grey's description, who had recently discovered a type of virus or parasie (the Thing) that started off small but grew exponentially as it infected/copied/assimilated the crew of the ship, causing it to crash land in our Antarctic, and in an attempt to feed/assimilate and grow, left the confines of the ship only to be frozen for thousands of years until found.. leading us to this prequel film?

Yeah.. think about THAT!

[broodwars]

Because I haven't seen The Thing (1982), I'm going to assume what you mean here is that the ship is NOT covered in ice, yet remains covered in the prequel..? Well at the end of the prequel, it doesn't appear to be covered. it's still buried but it isn't completely covered. (Just in case spoiler tag here: )when 'Ramona Flowers' and the American pilot are exiting the ice cavern, you can see an opening in the background with flashing lights, presumably from the explosion, that die off before they get to the vehicle

In the original movie, the Americans find VHS tapes showing the Norwegians using Thermite charges to obliterate the ice covering the spaceship.  There are group poses and everything.  In the prequel, that never happens and instead the movie insinuates that some movement of the ship caused a cave-in or something that uncovered it.

Also, it reminded me of so many of those Resident Evil creatures, so much so, that I kept thinking "this would make a good survival horror game," then I read this

Oh, I can link you to something much better than that Wiki entry when it comes to that PS2 Thing game. 

[EasyCure]

Because I haven't seen The Thing (1982), I'm going to assume what you mean here is that the ship is NOT covered in ice, yet remains covered in the prequel..? Well at the end of the prequel, it doesn't appear to be covered. it's still buried but it isn't completely covered. (Just in case spoiler tag here: )when 'Ramona Flowers' and the American pilot are exiting the ice cavern, you can see an opening in the background with flashing lights, presumably from the explosion, that die off before they get to the vehicle

In the original movie, the Americans find VHS tapes showing the Norwegians using Thermite charges to obliterate the ice covering the spaceship.  There are group poses and everything.  In the prequel, that never happens and instead the movie insinuates that some movement of the ship caused a cave-in or something that uncovered it.

Also, it reminded me of so many of those Resident Evil creatures, so much so, that I kept thinking "this would make a good survival horror game," then I read this

Oh, I can link you to something much better than that Wiki entry when it comes to that PS2 Thing game. 

Gotcha! Again, haven't seen the original film (yet) so I wasn't aware. Too bad they didn't include that, from everything I've read here it sounds like this was a good preceding story. Shame it would have such a big oversight.

[broodwars]

Just watched Batman Year One and I give it a thumbs up as a comic book fan, you know, where Batman came from to begin with. This is an adaption of a book so you'll have to realize it has source material to stay true to. Selina Kyle is a prostitute with a cat fetish. Bruce Wayne is coming to terms of what it takes to do his job, and Jim Gordon is rocking the police ranks and its corruption. Its more a story of the crime in Gotham than a story of Gordon or Wayne.

That's fine and all, but it doesn't excuse the major problem of the movie: there isn't a single shred of life to that film.  It's dull, it's plodding, and the way the story is told is extremely flat.  It's like the folks in charge were so afraid of pissing off Frank Miller's die-hard fanboys that they forgot that just transposing the comic into animated form isn't inherently interesting.  Compare this movie to the previous Batman animated film, Under the Red Hood, and there's a world of difference in emotion; pacing; editing; etc.  Batman: Year One is a collection of events and dates, and that's it.  There's no soul to the movie, no reason to care about the characters and want them to succeed.

This is probably a story that played better in the original comic because that's what that story was written and drawn for, and the events weren't compressed into just over an hour.  But as a movie, it's horribly boring to me as someone that never read and never will read the original comic.  And apparently, I'm not the only person who thought so.

[Adrock]

50/50
Great movie. It was funny and endearing. This is the second movie with Bryce Dallas Howard in it where I wanted to backhand the **** out of her. Cobra Commander was a joy to watch as usual and Seth Rogen knew well enough to back off when necessary. Highly recommended.

[Ceric]

I watched Lion King 1 1/2  last night.  I went in thinking it would probably be pretty bad.  I was delightfully surprised when they start by MST3King there own Movie to begin with.  This movie is the Lion King told from the perspective of Timon and Pumba.  Sort of.  Its really Timon's story throughout the whole thing.

It has different key scenes from Lion King that have had more context put into them.  Overall if you like Lion King even a little you'll probably get a kick out of this movie.  My family did. Oh and...

"Dig a Tunnel Dig Dig a Tunnel.  Dig a Tunnel Dig Dig a Tunnel."