Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Xprimentyl]

Watched MoonFall last night. Hard to describe. Its very entertaining, but the writing is just hilariously bad. I was thinking to myself that it was almost like the script was in another language and then someone came in and translated it the day of shooting and they just kind of rolled with it. Youll really notice some dialogue is just not how Americans or any westerner would talk. Not sure if theres a story behind that. Even his previous films like Stargate and Independence Day had pretty snappy dialog. I really think theres a story behind this bizarre script.

Aside from that they dont just ignore basic science they just throw it completely out the window, however it is filmed in such a way that it manages to be fairly exciting throughout. I have a feeling at least one person in the scientific community will point out the idea of the moon being knocked out if it orbit in a real scenario would be far more interesting and entertaining. A miss opportunity because in a way the stakes feel lower because this is so goofy.

Watchable, but I checked my phone three times so 2/5.

Sounds like it would be perfectly suited for the '80s when "reasons" are the premise behind most of what logic and science would dictate are impractical/impossible respectively. We need more movies like this. It's been almost 40 years, and I still don't know what constitutes the cut off for "after midnight," but Gremlins is still a fun romp. Just sayin', sometimes movies that cause brain damage are better than pretentious ones that try to root themselves in reality. An "entertaining" movie need not necessarily be a "good" one.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Sounds like it would be perfectly suited for the '80s when "reasons" are the premise behind most of what logic and science would dictate are impractical/impossible respectively. We need more movies like this. It's been almost 40 years, and I still don't know what constitutes the cut off for "after midnight," but Gremlins is still a fun romp. Just sayin', sometimes movies that cause brain damage are better than pretentious ones that try to root themselves in reality. An "entertaining" movie need not necessarily be a "good" one.

Hhm. Very true. There's a movie from 2007 called Sunshine that's about a crew of astronauts restarting the sun with a gigantic payload of nuclear material, which is ridiculous, but the movie does everything it can to run with it like not showing anything about how people came up with this idea or the science behind it and it actually manages to be a good film and has a real badass character in it I really like, I'm rambling.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Hhm. Very true. There's a movie from 2007 called Sunshine that's about a crew of astronauts restarting the sun with a gigantic payload of nuclear material, which is ridiculous, but the movie does everything it can to run with it like not showing anything about how people came up with this idea or the science behind it and it actually manages to be a good film and has a real badass character in it I really like, I'm rambling.

I've seen Sunshine, and yes, the "just go with it" mentality makes it a pretty good film. When "just go with it" becomes problematic is when producers mistaken moderate success (being tolerated) with "oh, people want more of this all the time," hence we're up to like 248 Fast and the Furious films and a couple spin-offs. I'll be ridiculous with you for a movie or two, but when you start taking you ridiculousness seriously, we've got a problem.

In sticking with my reference to Gremlins...

 

[Agema]

Hhm. Very true. There's a movie from 2007 called Sunshine that's about a crew of astronauts restarting the sun with a gigantic payload of nuclear material, which is ridiculous, but the movie does everything it can to run with it like not showing anything about how people came up with this idea or the science behind it and it actually manages to be a good film and has a real badass character in it I really like, I'm rambling.

What do you mean? How could a very large nuke fail to restart a nuclear fusion reaction in a body with 300,000 times the mass of the Earth, where nuclear fusion is occurring in the core 50 million kilometres from where the payload will hit?

 

[Mister Mumbler]

What do you mean? How could a very large nuke fail to restart a nuclear fusion reaction in a body with 300,000 times the mass of the Earth, where nuclear fusion is occurring in the core 50 million kilometres from where the payload will hit?

That's because it's a cover-up to protect the real people who fixed the sun and saved us;

 

[BrawlMan]

Ok what even is this movie all of you are talking about?

(Reads Wiki synopsis)

...What?...

​

 

[BrawlMan]

Just sayin', sometimes movies that cause brain damage are better than pretentious ones that try to root themselves in reality. An "entertaining" movie need not necessarily be a "good" one.

Yeah, but I rather have a good and entertaining movie, than one that is bad and bores me. Moonfall does not even fall in "so bad it's good" category. If I need something that is stupid good, I'll watch Promare. If it's something that is bad and entertaining, I got plenty of other options. One of them being Zombi 3 or Demoni.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I've certainly seen better plots involving the moon not being a moon. The Fate series had it be a giant memory crystal computer thing designed to observe Earth and the civilizations and people that lived on it.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

The latter half of Hacksaw Ridge. Man Desmond Doss is such a likeable dude, and Andrew Garfield is a hell of an actor. Genuinely made me tear up.

 

[Ezekiel]

Jacquot de Nantes (Agnes Varda, 1991)

About her husband's, filmmaker Jacques Demi, childhood through the late 1930s and '40s. The happy memories that inspired his movies (and his love for music) and what he had to do to get his first camera and make his first amateur movies, in a working class family. Found it moving. Only watched like three of his movies, but I got misty-eyed when the young kid who portrayed him played the first completed stop-motion short for his family.

First time I've seen Criterion place subs on the letterbox. Only in the Young Girls of Rochefort's segment.

 

[Agema]

The Bubble on Netflix. A Judd Apatow movie. I loved this guy. What a flipping disgrace. What happened to him. Fantastic cast with so much going for it... and yet... F. 0/10. Soooooo awful.

It's not great, but I actually quite liked it. Sort of 6-7/10 or so. Few huge laughs, but some nicely directed pokes at the absurdity and self-importance of actors and film production.

I also like it for giving a role to the guy who played the weird, evil Jesus in this glorious insane music video (directed by Peter Serafinowicz, who is the producer in The Bubble):

 

[Samtemdo8]

So I just watched Tim Burton/Michael Keaton Batman back to back......I'm gonna get hate for this but I was not liking either of these movies that much.....Because Michael Keaton is just such a boring Batman. And a boring Bruce Wayne.

Another problem I have is either Pacing or Direction. Because there are a plenty of moments in this movie where I feel it was just spinning its wheels with nothing too exciting or interesting happening. Like any scene with Bruce Wayne and Vikki Vale were on the screen I am almost bored to sleep. A lot of just moments of nothing in the first movie.

Among the two movies Batman Returns is the stronger one obviously, far better visuals, much more music, Penguin was far more interesting then Jack Nicholson Joker. But it has the same pacing issues I had with the first movie, like this movie is 2 hours long, but watching this felt like it was 2 and a half hours or 3 hours long that I was getting bored by close to the 1 hour and 30 minute mark.

The only thing I can appreciate with these movies is they did pave the way for Batman the Animated Series to be a thing. And that show is far and away superior to the Burton movies.

So yeah I'm sorry, but I don't see the hype for the Burton movies or Michael Keaton as Batman.

 

[BrawlMan]

So I just watched Tim Burton/Michael Keaton Batman back to back......I'm gonna get hate for this but I was not liking either of these movies that much.....Because Michael Keaton is just such a boring Batman. And a boring Bruce Wayne.

Another problem I have is either Pacing or Direction. Because there are a plenty of moments in this movie where I feel it was just spinning its wheels with nothing too exciting or interesting happening. Like any scene with Bruce Wayne and Vikki Vale were on the screen I am almost bored to sleep. A lot of just moments of nothing in the first movie.

Among the two movies Batman Returns is the stronger one obviously, far better visuals, much more music, Penguin was far more interesting then Jack Nicholson Joker. But it has the same pacing issues I had with the first movie, like this movie is 2 hours long, but watching this felt like it was 2 and a half hours or 3 hours long that I was getting bored by close to the 1 hour and 30 minute mark.

The only thing I can appreciate with these movies is they did pave the way for Batman the Animated Series to be a thing. And that show is far and away superior to the Burton movies.

So yeah I'm sorry, but I don't see the hype for the Burton movies or Michael Keaton as Batman.

Believe it or not, but I don't care that much for Returns. I still think Keaton makes an awesome Batman and Bruce Wayne. Not my favorite, but I have little issues with him.

 

[Samtemdo8]

Believe it or not, but I don't care that much for Returns. I still think Keaton makes an awesome Batman and Bruce Wayne. Not my favorite, but I have little issues with him.

Returns to me is closest to the look and feel of the Animated Series at least.

And I feel Tim Burton got to flex his "Tim Burton-isms" with the visuals because the first movie didn't even had his stamp on visual design that much. The second movie IS a Tim Burton movie. Penguin looks like something out of Nightmare Before Christmas or Corpse Bride.

 

[BrawlMan]

And I feel Tim Burton got to flex his "Tim Burton-isms" with the visuals because the first movie didn't even had his stamp on visual design that much.
The second movie IS a Tim Burton movie. Penguin looks like something out of Nightmare Before Christmas or Corpse Bride.

It's kinda why I don't care much for it. I like his animated stuff and Edward Scissorhands, but that's about it. I have nothing against Penguin's design and DeVito did an excellent job, but the movie drags on for way too long, and has too many villains. His visual stamp is in the first movie, but with much more restraint. I have 0 problems with that. Batman 89 has pacing and never felt slow for me. If anything, Batman Begins takes way too long to get going. I have to constantly hammer the skip button half the time. I rarely ever did that to 89.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Returns to me is closest to the look and feel of the Animated Series at least.

And I feel Tim Burton got to flex his "Tim Burton-isms" with the visuals because the first movie didn't even had his stamp on visual design that much. The second movie IS a Tim Burton movie. Penguin looks like something out of Nightmare Before Christmas or Corpse Bride.

Exactly, the first Batman is a Batman movie that just so happened to be directed by Tim Burton and Returns is a Tim Burton movie that just so happens to have Batman in it.

 

[Gordon_4]

Exactly, the first Batman is a Batman movie that just so happened to be directed by Tim Burton and Returns is a Tim Burton movie that just so happens to have Batman in it.

Which is similar to how I feel about the first two Nolan films.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Which is similar to how I feel about the first two Nolan films.

I can definitely see that. Begins tried to give the city a Gotham look to it, and TDK is just straight up Chicago. Plot-wise as well obviously.

 

[Ezekiel]

I can definitely see that. Begins tried to give the city a Gotham look to it, and TDK is just straight up Chicago. Plot-wise as well obviously.

Only thing that looked Gotham in Begins was the island with the slums and Wayne Tower. That's all. There was almost no attempt.

 

[Hawki]

I'm not fond of the Burton films either, though I prefer Returns (barely) to the original. And likewise, I'm not fond of Keaton as Batman. In the first film, as Bruce, he just seems to be wandering through, dazed and confused. Even when there's a mobster shooting, he just looks on in a daze. I get what the writers were going for, showing that Bruce just isn't all there thanks to his parents' deaths, but it doesn't make for an interesting character. And similarly, the film just sort of meanders through things.

Returns is a bit better for Bruce though - far more dynamic in his interactions with Max and Selina. I like to think that Bruce has been 'bettered' by his interactions with Vikki, that able to form a relationship (obviously one that didn't last), he's able to interact more naturally in his civilian form. I know none of that's established in the film itself, but it's my headcanon as to why Bruce is so different between the two films.