[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I agree, Brad. I sit through and sometimes I’m surprised by the end.
Then there are those films which are fantastic UNTIL near the end. [/quote]
Such as 'arry pottah.
Why did he not die? I was hoping he would.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I agree, Brad. I sit through and sometimes I’m surprised by the end.
Then there are those films which are fantastic UNTIL near the end. [/quote]
Screw that. I walked out of that dumbass 1998 Avengers movie. Some movies will steal your brains if you sit and watch the whole thing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I agree, Brad. I sit through and sometimes I’m surprised by the end.
Then there are those films which are fantastic UNTIL near the end. [/quote]
Screw that. I walked out of that dumbass 1998 Avengers movie. Some movies will steal your brains if you sit and watch the whole thing.[/quote]
LOL
Dude, you should have seen that coming! I mean just LOOK at that lame poster!
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I agree, Brad. I sit through and sometimes I’m surprised by the end.
Then there are those films which are fantastic UNTIL near the end. [/quote]
Screw that. I walked out of that dumbass 1998 Avengers movie. Some movies will steal your brains if you sit and watch the whole thing.[/quote]
LOL
Dude, you should have seen that coming! I mean just LOOK at that lame poster!
[/quote]
The previews made it look legit. I mean, SEAN CONNERY was in it…in a role that made me cry for him and think he had jumped the shark.
This movie deserves to go into the pile of worst movies made in history.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I agree, Brad. I sit through and sometimes I’m surprised by the end.
Then there are those films which are fantastic UNTIL near the end. [/quote]
Screw that. I walked out of that dumbass 1998 Avengers movie. Some movies will steal your brains if you sit and watch the whole thing.[/quote]
LOL
Dude, you should have seen that coming! I mean just LOOK at that lame poster!
[/quote]
The previews made it look legit. I mean, SEAN CONNERY was in it…in a role that made me cry for him and think he had jumped the shark.
This movie deserves to go into the pile of worst movies made in history.[/quote]
I might have to watch it… just to witness the best of the worst!
lol
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]harrypotter wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]harrypotter wrote:
The walk out of the movie and get your cash back.
Most chains have a policy regarding this. Dont watch an hour and then come out. 20 minutes tops is a good call on whether a film is utter shit or worth the dollars you paid.[/quote]
I know what you’re saying, but I don’t do movies like that. The last movie I walked on was “A Good Man in Africa” in the Mid 90’s.
I stick it out, watch it through, write a review like I wrote above, and carry on. I so rarely make a mistake that big that it’s punishment for me to endure it the whole way through.[/quote]
I worked in a cinema for years and watched films for free.
I avoided films like the plague and even fell asleep in them sometimes.
You might not care for the cash and you may be stubborn but why waste precious hours on bad films that make you fed up and angry?[/quote]
Because then I’ll at least feel… SOMETHING
hahaha
I’m right there with you, it makes no sense, but that’s what I do. Last movie I hated this bad was Strange Wilderness which I believe was 4 years ago. I’ve got a pretty good track record, this kind of seething happens very rarely.
[/quote]
I find there’s a 20 minute cut-off point with me - if I don’t feel there’s going to be an entertaining payoff in the first 20 minutes then I switch it off. If, however, I get past that 20ish mark I often find it hard to walk away. It’s as if I’ve invested too much time in it already and may as well see it through.
Sadly, a lot of films spend the first half hour setting things up so I’m more often than not duped into watching mindless drivel. =/
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
I watched “Killing them Softly” last Sunday.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Three criminals decide to rob a poker game ran by a ganster (Ray Liotta) for gangsters. The gangsters who were robbed want the offenders taken care of, so they hire Brad Pitts’ character to carry out the operation.
I hated this movie. I’ll typically find things to appreciate about the vision of the director or an actors performance but this film is nothing short of hot garbage.
Here’s why:
Dull, overacted and way too much dialogue. The actors clearly weren’t allowed to go that far off the page, and the conversations inbetween characters were way too long. Single shot back and forth camera angles surely proved to be a challenge for the performers, but on screen it’s tedius to the point of the director making the statement of “I know this is uncomfortable for you the audience, but I don’t care and I’m not going to let you up for air.”
Many of these conversations take place in cars or in back room offices, and bars. There’s nothing else to look at while two actors banter back and forth. In key scenes where Brad Pitts’ character is speaking with the liaison, it’s literally taking place in a Lexus where half the screen at each angle is swarmed by the headrest of the driver or passenger seat. Very annoying.
None of the characters are anywhere near likeable. One might be relieved to see Brad Pitt finally come on screen, but it’s anticlimactic and too wordy for him. He’s best when he’s reacting, not when he drives the scene.
Though the story is supposedly taking place in New Orleans, everyone kind of sounds like they are from Boston. One of the main characters is a white unshaven brunette dude who drags on like an idiot, and clearly borrowed the essence of his character from Casey Affleck in Good Will Hunting. Later I learned that this director also did “The Killing of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” which leads me to believe that the director initially wanted Affleck because of his chemistry with Pitt, but Affleck told him “no thanks” and he found a direct replacement.
It seemed through casting that the producers intended on dissapointing it’s audience all together and trolling us into believing this is a heavy gangster movie being portrayed by lauded actors. Ray Liotta’s character turned out to be a humongous pussy, James Gandolfini played a slovenly alcoholic hitman 10 years past his prime who ultimately is removed from his duty because he can’t keep himself together. His storyline literally ends in the front seat of that fucking Lexus during a conversation ABOUT HIM and we never see him again.
Toward the end of the film, Pitts character carries out a complex execution of three of the characters in what critics are calling brutal violence and heavy action, but it’s not. It’s murder porn and not much more. Pitts character takes advantage of the bumbling so-called gangsters weakness and handles them accordingly. Zero payoff for the bullshit this movie puts the audience through up to that point.
Like I said, you can’t attach yourself to any one character, the hits that happen at the end aren’t based on anything personal, it’s strictly business, and the business that’s completed weren’t really even very high stakes. Just a bunch of low level gangsters getting payback for losing 100k at a poker game.
Lastly, the thing that bothered me most about this film is the less than subtle reminder of Americas financial issues in November of 2008, when this film takes place. In every scene where there was a TV playing in the background, President Bush was giving a speech about the economy or Obama was campaigning for office. In scenes in cars (which were abundant), the radio played news reports and talkshow discussions regarding the economy and the presidential race. One of the scenes even concluded with a character looking up into a bleak sky with a billboard half populated with Obama and the other half with McCain.
It’s as if the filmmaker was saying “Remember how fucked up 2008 was? Remember that financial collapse where people lost their homes and jobs? Remember? REMEMBER??? If not, it’s ok because we’re going to FUCKING BEAT YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH IT FOR TWO HOURS UNTIL YOU DO!!!”
I spend my movie going dollar to escape for a couple hours and have a good time with my wife, who also loves seeing movies. We don’t go to get bummed out or reminisce about bullshit from 4 years ago, ESPECIALLY during the Holiday season. This movie SUCKED man. Please save your money on this one. Rotten Tomatoes is WRONG. This movie is tanking hard and deservedly so. If I’ve kept at least one of you from spending your money, then I’ve done my job here. [/quote]
Seriously people ignore this post, great movie, I love movies like this were its just a “slice of life” one instance in peoples lives and what happens during that time. I liked the dialogue thought there were some really good scenes “restaurant scene” was good.
Also everything Brad Pitt does in this movie is so fucken smooth, from walking, talking, shooting, drinking whatever he is doing you just can’t help be in awe of the smoothness of his character lol.
[quote]Stern wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]harrypotter wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]harrypotter wrote:
The walk out of the movie and get your cash back.
Most chains have a policy regarding this. Dont watch an hour and then come out. 20 minutes tops is a good call on whether a film is utter shit or worth the dollars you paid.[/quote]
I know what you’re saying, but I don’t do movies like that. The last movie I walked on was “A Good Man in Africa” in the Mid 90’s.
I stick it out, watch it through, write a review like I wrote above, and carry on. I so rarely make a mistake that big that it’s punishment for me to endure it the whole way through.[/quote]
I worked in a cinema for years and watched films for free.
I avoided films like the plague and even fell asleep in them sometimes.
You might not care for the cash and you may be stubborn but why waste precious hours on bad films that make you fed up and angry?[/quote]
Because then I’ll at least feel… SOMETHING
hahaha
I’m right there with you, it makes no sense, but that’s what I do. Last movie I hated this bad was Strange Wilderness which I believe was 4 years ago. I’ve got a pretty good track record, this kind of seething happens very rarely.
[/quote]
I find there’s a 20 minute cut-off point with me - if I don’t feel there’s going to be an entertaining payoff in the first 20 minutes then I switch it off. If, however, I get past that 20ish mark I often find it hard to walk away. It’s as if I’ve invested too much time in it already and may as well see it through.
Sadly, a lot of films spend the first half hour setting things up so I’m more often than not duped into watching mindless drivel. =/[/quote]
I will even sit through a bad movie because of that one scene were you are like “WoW!”, every movie has a scene like that maybe its a action scene, dialogue, cinematography, character arc or whatever; EVERY movie has a scene that makes it somewhat worthwhile.
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Stern wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]harrypotter wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]harrypotter wrote:
The walk out of the movie and get your cash back.
Most chains have a policy regarding this. Dont watch an hour and then come out. 20 minutes tops is a good call on whether a film is utter shit or worth the dollars you paid.[/quote]
I know what you’re saying, but I don’t do movies like that. The last movie I walked on was “A Good Man in Africa” in the Mid 90’s.
I stick it out, watch it through, write a review like I wrote above, and carry on. I so rarely make a mistake that big that it’s punishment for me to endure it the whole way through.[/quote]
I worked in a cinema for years and watched films for free.
I avoided films like the plague and even fell asleep in them sometimes.
You might not care for the cash and you may be stubborn but why waste precious hours on bad films that make you fed up and angry?[/quote]
Because then I’ll at least feel… SOMETHING
hahaha
I’m right there with you, it makes no sense, but that’s what I do. Last movie I hated this bad was Strange Wilderness which I believe was 4 years ago. I’ve got a pretty good track record, this kind of seething happens very rarely.
[/quote]
I find there’s a 20 minute cut-off point with me - if I don’t feel there’s going to be an entertaining payoff in the first 20 minutes then I switch it off. If, however, I get past that 20ish mark I often find it hard to walk away. It’s as if I’ve invested too much time in it already and may as well see it through.
Sadly, a lot of films spend the first half hour setting things up so I’m more often than not duped into watching mindless drivel. =/[/quote]
I will even sit through a bad movie because of that one scene were you are like “WoW!”, every movie has a scene like that maybe its a action scene, dialogue, cinematography, character arc or whatever; EVERY movie has a scene that makes it somewhat worthwhile.[/quote]
Sure is!
Wow…That was shit!
After watching the Blair Witch project, a member of the audience stood up and said that very loudly.
Lets just say he had a lot of agreement.
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Stern wrote:
I find there’s a 20 minute cut-off point with me - if I don’t feel there’s going to be an entertaining payoff in the first 20 minutes then I switch it off. If, however, I get past that 20ish mark I often find it hard to walk away. It’s as if I’ve invested too much time in it already and may as well see it through.
Sadly, a lot of films spend the first half hour setting things up so I’m more often than not duped into watching mindless drivel. =/[/quote]
I will even sit through a bad movie because of that one scene were you are like “WoW!”, every movie has a scene like that maybe its a action scene, dialogue, cinematography, character arc or whatever; EVERY movie has a scene that makes it somewhat worthwhile.[/quote]
Lol, same. Mrs Stern finds it to be a most frustrating quirk. And I quote “Ahhh Dave…this is PISH, cmon now get it aff!”
B-Movies (intentional ones or not) are the best!
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
I watched “Killing them Softly” last Sunday.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Truncated for space
[/quote]
Seriously people ignore this post, great movie, I love movies like this were its just a “slice of life” one instance in peoples lives and what happens during that time. I liked the dialogue thought there were some really good scenes “restaurant scene” was good.
Also everything Brad Pitt does in this movie is so fucken smooth, from walking, talking, shooting, drinking whatever he is doing you just can’t help be in awe of the smoothness of his character lol.[/quote]
I still stand on my opinion. I hated it. I’m not a Brad Pitt hater either. There is a lot of his stuff I really enjoy, as well as “slice of life” style movies. But this one isn’t entertaining to me.
You’re right, Pitt does “look” and “act” cool, because he is. I mean, that guy looks cool as fuck eating nachos in Oceans 11. If that’s what you are looking for in this movie, then it’s there and you’ll enjoy it.
But I didn’t.
As for the “restaurant scene,” are you talking about the scene between Pitt and Gandolfini? I couldn’t dissagree with you more. Were you enjoying the fact that Tony Saprano was past his prime and a boozer? If so, then it’s a disingenuous feeling in my opinion. The movie is making you remember that Gandolfini was the ultimate image of a ganster from A DIFFERENT SHOW. It’s borrowing from the Sapranos character (in a way) to tell the backstory of this one, and it’s a cheap tactic.
Anyway, agree to dissagree. Glad you and Push found some value in this film, but I just simply did not.
went to see 7 Psychopaths the other night. It’s awesome!
between IN Bruges and 7 Psychopaths I may have to rethink my stance on Colin Farrell
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
went to see 7 Psychopaths the other night. It’s awesome!
between IN Bruges and 7 Psychopaths I may have to rethink my stance on Colin Farrell[/quote]
Yeah I don’t have a problem with Colin Farrell. He’s rangy, has a sense of humor that can be portrayed on screen, and in general does a pretty good job.
I generally like Colin Farrel and I loved In Bruges.
I ran out to Costco and bought Bourne Legacy last night. I really enjoyed it as well.
Saw The Hobbit twice in IMAX 3D yesterday. It’s a 10/10, easily. Better than the first LOTR movie. Go see it.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
Saw The Hobbit twice in IMAX 3D yesterday. It’s a 10/10, easily. Better than the first LOTR movie. Go see it.[/quote]
Did the doubled frame rate per second enhance the 3D?
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
Saw The Hobbit twice in IMAX 3D yesterday. It’s a 10/10, easily. Better than the first LOTR movie. Go see it.[/quote]
Did the doubled frame rate per second enhance the 3D?[/quote]
I don’t know but it did look really good.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
Saw The Hobbit twice in IMAX 3D yesterday. It’s a 10/10, easily. Better than the first LOTR movie. Go see it.[/quote]
Did the doubled frame rate per second enhance the 3D?[/quote]
I don’t know but it did look really good.[/quote]
OK. Thanks. P J claims that the increased frames p/s would show off the full potential of 3D with the effect being like staring through a hole in the wall.
It’s piqued my interest more than the movie itself.