The movie has quite a few quality actors and actresses in it. The story line was atrocious. The fight sequences were boring and copied from many different movies. I could not find one redeeming quality about this movie.
I am one of the hugest martial art fans in the world. Its a str8 to bootleg watch only.
I totally disagree with Vragrant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vragrant
The Man With The Iron Fists
7.5/10
This film pays homage to the old school kung fu flicks in this ultra stylized modernized version produced by the RZA. The RZA plays an unassuming blacksmith forced to make weapons for rival clans and ancient China so he can seek his freedom. The stakes rise higher when a clan leader is assassinated and his chosen son seeks revenge. Meanwhile a mysterious soldier (played by Russell Crowe) enters the frey and an unlikely alliance is born.
If you like this genre like I do you'll love this film. The action sequences are unique, spliced with the grace and artistry of Crouching Tiger and the visceral appeal of a Kill Bill. Strong pacing and acting throughout with Lucy Liu/Russell Crowe/Rick Yune. Even Cung Le and RZA are solid. It went in knowing it would be impressive stylistically but it was better than I expected. Great debut from the RZA.
Saw Skyfall last night, and was really pleased with it. It's definitely got some flaws. But the some of the set pieces were excellent, and the it's really stunning to look at. It's probably the best looking movie I've seen all year. The Shanghai scene against the jellyfish backlight was incredible. The casino scene looked exquisite, even though the Gila Monster was absurd. The boat was gorgeous, and the island as well. It starts to turn kind of mucky after that when they get back to London, but it does pick up out in the swamps again, as far as visual appeal. And I'm not a huge Mendes fan in general, but I was really impressed with how this looked.
I thought Bardem was spectacular. The guy is always great, but he made some really unique choices that I just don't see other people making. I'd love to know if the homosexual vibe he was throwing out was directed, of if it was just a choice he made on his own.
My gripes are a few that I'm sure people have made before. They could've invested in a computer consultant, because their notion of the internet, and computers in general, seemed to come straight out of the 80s. It was like the same software being used in Weird Science and Wargames thirty years ago. Even physically they seemed to go with a series of racks with christmas lights on them for what I'm guessing were "servers".
It's more than fair to say that this movie is heavily "influenced" by other stuff. It's pretty much the same structure of the current Batman format. Right down to the Q character, and going back to the old mansion, the old carekeeper. The captured Bardem scene is obviously very Hannibal Lector. But I'm not mortified by any of that stuff. Just wish it was more innovative.
And honestly I could live with not innovative with more Bond feel than Batman. I could've lived without the dark orphaned background story. I like my James Bond cooller than cool. I don't need to feel bad for him. I just don't want to. They even make a couple inside jokes about it. Q saying that they don't go in for the exploding cigarrette gadgets these days ... why not? That's part my James Bond experience.
Overall it was a winning experience. I'd give it a mid 80s, and recommend it highly to action fans. And I could see this getting a cinematography nod easily. I'd go so far as to say it should.
Saw Skyfall last night, and was really pleased with it. It's definitely got some flaws. But the some of the set pieces were excellent, and the it's really stunning to look at. It's probably the best looking movie I've seen all year. The Shanghai scene against the jellyfish backlight was incredible. The casino scene looked exquisite, even though the Gila Monster was absurd. The boat was gorgeous, and the island as well. It starts to turn kind of mucky after that when they get back to London, but it does pick up out in the swamps again, as far as visual appeal. And I'm not a huge Mendes fan in general, but I was really impressed with how this looked.
I thought Bardem was spectacular. The guy is always great, but he made some really unique choices that I just don't see other people making. I'd love to know if the homosexual vibe he was throwing out was directed, of if it was just a choice he made on his own.
My gripes are a few that I'm sure people have made before. They could've invested in a computer consultant, because their notion of the internet, and computers in general, seemed to come straight out of the 80s. It was like the same software being used in Weird Science and Wargames thirty years ago. Even physically they seemed to go with a series of racks with christmas lights on them for what I'm guessing were "servers".
It's more than fair to say that this movie is heavily "influenced" by other stuff. It's pretty much the same structure of the current Batman format. Right down to the Q character, and going back to the old mansion, the old carekeeper. The captured Bardem scene is obviously very Hannibal Lector. But I'm not mortified by any of that stuff. Just wish it was more innovative.
And honestly I could live with not innovative with more Bond feel than Batman. I could've lived without the dark orphaned background story. I like my James Bond cooller than cool. I don't need to feel bad for him. I just don't want to. They even make a couple inside jokes about it. Q saying that they don't go in for the exploding cigarrette gadgets these days ... why not? That's part my James Bond experience.
Overall it was a winning experience. I'd give it a mid 80s, and recommend it highly to action fans. And I could see this getting a cinematography nod easily. I'd go so far as to say it should.
Roger Deakins (No Country for Old Men, Assassination of Jesse James) gets credit for that. He knows how to shoot a film.
And about Bardem's choices- I actually just read a feature about the making of the film and Javier said he had a discussion about the role with Mendes over dinner and he told him the key word for the character was 'uncomfortable'. So they aimed to create a more off beat villain who made you uncomfortable as opposed to scary, menacing, etc. And Bardem made the decision to go with the blonde hair.
Roger Deakins (No Country for Old Men, Assassination of Jesse James) gets credit for that. He knows how to shoot a film.
And about Bardem's choices- I actually just read a feature about the making of the film and Javier said he had a discussion about the role with Mendes over dinner and he told him the key word for the character was 'uncomfortable'. So they aimed to create a more off beat villain who made you uncomfortable as opposed to scary, menacing, etc. And Bardem made the decision to go with the blonde hair.
That makes a lot of sense, because those are two of the better looking flicks in recent memory. Jesse James is one of my favorite movies ever, and on the short list of best looking movies ever.
The hair was definitely an elements in Bardem's character. And the underlying sexuality. But there were also little elements that almost can't entirely be explained that are just something a guy that talented can come up with. Like the way he tossed the grenades at the end. His speech pattern. It was all just really unique. It was almost Heath Ledger Joker type stuff. I think he'd get more credit for the performance if the movie didn't feel so derivative of Batman in general, but it is a really great performance. It's just not quite as dense as the Joker role was, through no fault of his.
Paranorman - 8/10. Saw this at the dollar theatre the other night and was pleasantly surprised. A great "kid's" film with some very powerful messages at its core. Loved the fat kid and the bully, not to mention John Goodman's role for the uncle. The darkness of the film in regards to the curse and how the ending went down was brilliant. You really don't see that tone of seriousness much in these sorts of movies. Great ending and was entertained the whole way with lots of laughs.
Sure the acting was spotty at some parts and the effects sucked at times but the story was so great that didn't even bother me once.
To compare to other movies I've seen taking all things into consideration I would probably give it about an 8.5 out of 10.
Simply put I was completely and totally entertained by this movie. It's just an awesome movie to watch. What more can you ask for when you put on a movie?
Anything with Tarantino attached seems to be a winner in my book.
Saw Silver Lining Playbook this afternoon, and really loved it. It's got it's own twist on the romantic comedy. A really dark edge with a heavy focus on mental illness. I have quickly fallen for Jennifer Lawrence. Smart, funny, stunning, vulnerable. She's a lot of the things that I liked about Kristen Stewart, without being quite so melancholy.
It's got a sports angle that made me think of Jerry McGuire, even though it's not really the same thing at all. Bradley Cooper was more creative than I've seen him be in anything else to this point. And Deniro didn't phone this one in, with a couple really touching exchanges. And a surprising small role from Chris Tucker that was really well done.
I'd give it a low 80s and recommend it, especially if you're looking for something to see with lady company.
I'm on a prestige movie run this long weekend, and I'm enjoying the hell out of it. Went to an early morning show of Life of Pi, in 3D BTX, and there were maybe a half dozen people there.
It was excellent. Even got a little dusty in the theatre in spots. Knowing very little about the story going in was a real treat. I was going to read the book based on recommenations on here based on some other stuff I liked, but with the commercials coming fast, I knew I wouldn't beat the movie, so I never did read it, even though it's sitting on my shelf. I intend to now.
It did contain some of the most stunning images I've seen on film in years, and it deserves whatever awards it gets in those fields. It's sad and touching and joyous all at once, and among the very best things I've seen this year. You've certainly got to let yourself go to really enjoy it. It reminded me of Big Fish in that way, it's certainly a parable.
I highly recommend it, I'd give it a low to mid 90s.
I liked Skyfall and you pointed out the obvious flaws. But the ending left a lot to be desired. Muskets vs Automatic weapons
I really enjoy the human element of this Bond series without all the go-go gadgets. The background story wasnt that bad plus failing the Spy test made it more humane. IMHO Less Batman more Human.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorpesaurous
Saw Skyfall last night, and was really pleased with it. It's definitely got some flaws. But the some of the set pieces were excellent, and the it's really stunning to look at. It's probably the best looking movie I've seen all year. The Shanghai scene against the jellyfish backlight was incredible. The casino scene looked exquisite, even though the Gila Monster was absurd. The boat was gorgeous, and the island as well. It starts to turn kind of mucky after that when they get back to London, but it does pick up out in the swamps again, as far as visual appeal. And I'm not a huge Mendes fan in general, but I was really impressed with how this looked.
I thought Bardem was spectacular. The guy is always great, but he made some really unique choices that I just don't see other people making. I'd love to know if the homosexual vibe he was throwing out was directed, of if it was just a choice he made on his own.
My gripes are a few that I'm sure people have made before. They could've invested in a computer consultant, because their notion of the internet, and computers in general, seemed to come straight out of the 80s. It was like the same software being used in Weird Science and Wargames thirty years ago. Even physically they seemed to go with a series of racks with christmas lights on them for what I'm guessing were "servers".
It's more than fair to say that this movie is heavily "influenced" by other stuff. It's pretty much the same structure of the current Batman format. Right down to the Q character, and going back to the old mansion, the old carekeeper. The captured Bardem scene is obviously very Hannibal Lector. But I'm not mortified by any of that stuff. Just wish it was more innovative.
And honestly I could live with not innovative with more Bond feel than Batman. I could've lived without the dark orphaned background story. I like my James Bond cooller than cool. I don't need to feel bad for him. I just don't want to. They even make a couple inside jokes about it. Q saying that they don't go in for the exploding cigarrette gadgets these days ... why not? That's part my James Bond experience.
Overall it was a winning experience. I'd give it a mid 80s, and recommend it highly to action fans. And I could see this getting a cinematography nod easily. I'd go so far as to say it should.
Re: Rate the last movie you watched.
