Jimbob Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 The Wrestler Stars Mickey Rourke. An epic movie about a washed up 80's Wrestler. What more to say, its one of them movies you have to see to be fair. 9/10
Solo Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Terminator Salvation Visually astounding but I felt the whole thing to be just unnecessary. A lot of fun, jut don't go expecting a classic. 7/10
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 Who Framed Roger Rabbit This is certainly not just a kids film, the plot nearly confuses me today. But the "special effects" are fucking genius. All hand-drawn animation and shit moving around in 1988. Bob Hoskins. Jessica Rabbit with a banging rack. This film practically has everything. I can't help but be fucking impressed by what this film does, I wish I knew who Judge Doom really was. Nine Shabba's
Paj! Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 Eyes Wide Shut Wowza. I personally loved it ; I know opinion is somewhat divided. Watching so late at night probably amped up the suspensey bits, but it was effective and and interesting and disturbing commentary on sexual desires/denials. or as the dvd calls it "a bracing psychosexual journey". There's a hugely effective build-up of sexual tension the whole way through, which, humourously, is in both the viewer and the characters. I was actually itching (not literally) for some sort of closure, but the ending hilariously suns it all up. 9/10 Luurved it.
Goafer Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 The Wrestler Stars Mickey Rourke. An epic movie about a washed up 80's Wrestler. What more to say, its one of them movies you have to see to be fair. 9/10 Yeah it's definately a great film. Did you find the ending a bit sudden?
Paj! Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 I'm not why everyone is/was so shocked by the ending. It was perfect.
Goafer Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 I'm not why everyone is/was so shocked by the ending. It was perfect. In The Wrestler? I agree it was a very good ending and I can't think of a single way it could have been done better (much like the rest of the film), but it was a bit sudden. Normally you can get a feeling for when a film is about to end, but in this it just kind of snuck up on me. Not that it's a bad thing, I just found myself thinking "oh, is that the end?".
Chris the great Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 apocolypse now: redux very good film, just wish it wasnt the extended version, as it seemed to drag. especialy the bit in the french plantation. 9/10
Haver Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 You always were a heathen Wes :P 10/10...like tears in rain.
Mundi Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 Terminator: Salvation The goods: Good visuals and action scenes That bad: Everything else that you can possibly imagine. Cheesy dialogue, plot holes wide enough to drive trucks trough and the the plot as a whole just feels stupid and unnecessary and just exists to steer us into the next action scene.
Wesley Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 You always were a heathen Wes :P 10/10...like tears in rain. I thought it was really good! Just... hyped, and not the greatest sci-fi movie ever. From now on I'm rating movies with a short sentence out of 10 and then a sentence saying "Good/Bad though." I'm so web 2.0 I'm beyond numbers.
Beast Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 Nightmare on Elm Street 2 Sucked....big time! 2/10 Also...
Konfucius Posted June 5, 2009 Posted June 5, 2009 Push Not as bad as the trailer made it out to be. It seems to be quite Heroes inspired. The powers were pretty cool, the storyline was extremely clichee though but well paced, so it was actually nice to watch. Somehow it seems that it's more or less a build-up to a second movie and also that Hong Kong as a location was chosen deliberately to cut back on costs. 5.5/10
dwarf Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 I had no plans to go to the cinema today but friends phoned up late and asked if I wanted to see the 9:00 showing of Terminator Salvation. Despite bad reviews I thought 'hec, why not?' and watched it and yeah it was pretty bad. Cheesey dialogue, clichéd plot and all of the action pieces a montage of ideas from other films show that the producers had no originality. However it was weird because when I was in the car on the way back I remembered the original Terminator was on BBC1 from 11:30 and by the time I got back and was ready I flicked it on and it had literally just started. Anyway, I watched the film and it was brilliant, I've never actually seen it (have viewed a couple of clips from one of them but very little) but I was astonished how good it was. The story made Salvation make sense and whilst Salvation would have still been bad had I of seen this first, it did make The Terminator much more interesting and 'aaaah' filled. Arnold was awesome as well, as were the other actors. It's kind of weird how a very old film could be 10 times better than the new sequel. I don't know in what sense I mean this but it's kind of emotional. Terminator Salvation: 5/10 The Terminator: 9/10 I guess the scores don't reflect my earlier comment but hey, exaggeration is good.
mcj metroid Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 It;s nice to know I wasn't imagining the averageness of the new terminator.. was ok 6/10
Goafer Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 Yup, the new Terminator was pretty average. The "I'll be back" bit was a bit shit, but it was immediately followed by a more subtle nod to the earlier films with the inclusion of "You will be mine". 6/10
Oxigen_Waste Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 Okay, I just lost a gigantic post about Salvation. Fucking IE... So Mundi, what are the plot holes? Because there weren't any... were you paying attention? Well, there was one (why would the machines just leave Marcus to rot for 20 years if he was that important and they knew were he was), but that one rendered the character important, so I guess it's forgivable. Other than that, the plot is very well thought out. But please, do enlighten me. Anyone, for that matter.
Goafer Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 Why did the machines not kill Kyle Reese the second they caught him preventing him from going back and saving/fathering young John Connor? They already knew his significance, or they wouldn't have used him as bait/had him at the top of the kill list.
Cube Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 Why did the machines not kill Kyle Reese the second they caught him preventing him from going back and saving/fathering young John Connor? They already knew his significance, or they wouldn't have used him as bait/had him at the top of the kill list. I haven't seen salvation yet. But I'm fairly sure that the machines don't know that Kyle is his dad. Only that he's John's right-hand man. Oh, and I have one question: Is Derek in the film?
dwarf Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 Thing is it seemed to me that Salvation could almost have been a direct sequel to The Terminator, so what happens in 2 & 3? There was a lot of unbelievable elements in the film (like th ball and change somehow clinging onto the bike thing and then swinging onto the ship) but it happens in all films in some form, usually more subtle. I can't remember the good line from the original terminator that was also in Salvation... I think it was a bit dumb of them to give Marcus Wright an unneccessary explanation of how good Skynet was and how it deceived him or whatever - it wasn't exactly hard for him to get down to where Connor was.
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 What is Skynets policy on sending back Terminators? Do they only have enough power to do it once every howevermany years? And can only send one back at a time? [in 2 & 3 both Terminators' were sent back by Skynet and another?]
Dan_Dare Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 It's not really clear. In the first film Reese says that after he went through time Connor was planning to destroy the time machine en route to destroying Skynet itself. It was supposed to be a last ditch attack by Skynet at the one point they could pin down Sarah as living in LA. Course, the second film changes that, though it's not clear how. It also introduces the idea of a changing future where variants of the skynet idea come back again and make a new Judgment Day. in the tv series there's several Terminators- each with particular missions in different times and places. So it's possible that given enough time, skynet can send as many as it wants.
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 I only ask because, although it might not make for a long running movie series, they could easily send 20 Arnies' in the first film. The film would've imploded under its own awesomeness I bet.
Recommended Posts