Rate the last movie you saw

[gourimoko]

I don't judge action movies like the Academy.

The Academy? That first Star Trek movie was abysmal. The plot made no sense at all and the characters were awful.. The acting was terrible, the cinematography was worse... And what the fuck is with all these god damned lens flares?!

The next one was just an abomination... slightly better than the first, but it's like comparing having diarrhea to vomiting. I'd rather be shitting but still.

 

[Chris]

Aren't you a Trekkie?

The fuck cares about the plot? It's an action movie. :rofl: I mean, they clearly aren't great movies even by those standards, but to say they're awful and then cite things like cinematography and acting ...

 

[JSS2306]

Surviving the Game with Ice-T

8/10

I forgot how solid of an action movie this was. The casting is almost flawless.

 

[Shakalu M.D.]

To be honest, for me it wasn't so much that the original story doesn't translate as well to the modern day big-screen as well as Batman. I thought there was very little back story (which I would've expected for a reboot), the dialogue was poor, too much focus on fight sequence and special effects and I really did detest the ease to which they made Lois bend over backwards for Superman without any legitimate justification. Couple that with the fact that the entire planet was basically destroyed - the very thing Superman is suppose to prevent - and you've got too many things that just don't sit well with me AS a pretty big Superman fan.

:chuckles: I'll let you have your opinion on what you mentioned, not that out there. However the "Superman basically destroyed the planet" thing strikes me as odd. I mean it'a true, but how exactly was he supposed to stop 3 Kryptonians without collateral damage? The Avengers basically destroyed NYC.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Aren't you a Trekkie?

The fuck cares about the plot? It's an action movie. :rofl: I mean, they clearly aren't great movies even by those standards, but to say they're awful and then cite things like cinematography and acting ...

I enjoyed the hell out of the Star Trek reboots, particularly the acting of Kirk/Spock. The plots weren't the strongest point, but the characterizations and tone were perfect to me.

I personally don't care too much about cinematography, etc.., unless they're either really good, or really necessary to the plot/mood/story -- Gravity, Life of Pi, LOTR.

 

[WellYouNeednt]

Surviving the Game with Ice-T

8/10

I forgot how solid of an action movie this was. The casting is almost flawless.

Fucking love this movie.

The cast is pretty epic but, some turned pretty awful acting performances. In my opinion, Gary Busey was such an underrated actor. Prior to his accident and then subsequent craziness - i never saw a performance of his that i did not like.

Beat Busey moment in the movie was his story about his childhood dog, "Prince Henry Stout".


"BOOM, he is on me like flies of shit!"

 

[jonmchugh]

Any body ever watch premonition? I just watched it with the wife tonight and don't understand what I saw.

It stars Sandra Bullock. One day she wakes up and her husband is dead. The next morning she is alive. It's weird as fuck

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

Any body ever watch premonition? I just watched it with the wife tonight and don't understand what I saw.

It stars Sandra Bullock. One day she wakes up and her husband is dead. The next morning she is alive. It's weird as fuck

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Saw it when it came out, mainly for Julian McMahon (the husband) because I was on a drug induced Nip/Tuck craze.

 

[gourimoko]

Aren't you a Trekkie?

If I were does that mean my opinion somehow doesn't count. And to answer your question I am a 'Trekker'. :chuckles:

On a serious note, I love Star Trek. I think Roddenberry's first two shows were a great instrument to demonstrate moral values and ethics. The later shows devolved into garbage.

The fuck cares about the plot? It's an action movie. :rofl:

I guess... I just can't see Star Trek as being an "action movie" but a "science fiction movie." Sci-fi generally requires not only a plot, but a plausible and scientific/technologically feasible setting. Those movies are just pure nonsense. I mean, they didn't even try. It's like I'm watching Transformers.

I mean, they clearly aren't great movies even by those standards, but to say they're awful and then cite things like cinematography and acting ...

Again, you're looking at them as if you're watching Bloodsport. I'm judging them as if I were watching any other movie. I don't watch a lot of shit movies, and action is probably the genre I watch the least. I'm not really into pointless crashes and spinning cameras. I'd just put in an 80s movie for that.

Sure there are some exceptions, but those movies need to do something incredible to peak my interest, otherwise they just blend into the background tapestry of "Yet Another Action Movie." I movie like Dredd 3D is a great example of a modern action movie that was awesome. But even with that, I expect a bit more from movies that are so heavily based in science fiction.

But you do make a good point. If I step back, and think .. "this movie is going to suck REGARDLESS, just have fun with it." And rename it from Star Trek, to 'Lens Flares,' then maybe I would've enjoyed it a bit better. But like you said, it still wouldn't be a good movie.

 

[gourimoko]

:chuckles: I'll let you have your opinion on what you mentioned, not that out there. However the "Superman basically destroyed the planet" thing strikes me as odd. I mean it'a true, but how exactly was he supposed to stop 3 Kryptonians without collateral damage? The Avengers basically destroyed NYC.

Exactly. The movie was a remake of Richard Donner's Superman I/II which, for one was a single story split into two films. These movies basically rewrote the book on Superman. Donner's Superman IS canonical Superman. The movie was simply so popular and so well liked that DC pretty much used his interpretation of Superman as the backstory from there on out because that is what most people think when they think Superman.

In Donner's original story for Metropolis, Zod, Faora (Ursa in the Donner movie), and the other dude (Nob or some shit) basically destroy much of the city while Superman is fighting them in a seemingly hopeless battle. He is heavily outmatched and even if he could beat Zod, he probably couldn't beat Faora (she is the toughest of them all going back to the comics). When Donner was replaced by that asshole Richard Lester, that is when you see all of those ridiculous comedic scenes being thrown into the movie and Superman essentially saving everyone.

I'm not saying Donner's film would have been as dark as Snyder's, of course not. What I am saying is that it's preposterous for Superman to so easily defeat all three of them without anyone dying.

I do think they took it too far though (the level of destruction was enormous), but, when you sit down and think about it, what WOULD happen if two Supermen existed and they fought to the death in an open cityscape? I have a very hard time believing they would remain airborne the entire time, and that they wouldn't inflict considerable damage on their surroundings.

Other than that, I thought the movie was great. Zod being killed was questionable, but in the original comics though Superman does kill Zod and Faora though... Also a lot of people also seem to forget that Batman used to carry a pistol and yes, he's killed people too.

Overall I really liked the reboot because it did for Superman what Batman Begins did for that franchise. Begins isn't one of my favorite movies.. It was okay, but I thought it dragged on a bit. But it was infinitely better than the previous 3 movies in the franchise, and that's why I appreciated it so much. Same for this one. Without any doubt whatsoever, this is the best Superman movie there has ever been. So as a fan of Superman, I do appreciate that.

 

[Jack Brickman]

If I were does that mean my opinion somehow doesn't count. And to answer your question I am a 'Trekker'. :chuckles:

I think the point is that you're obviously going to hold the movies to a higher standard because you loved the show. It's the same with people who have read the Ice & Fire books before watching Game of Thrones, or fans of any other adaptation really.

For example, I never really gave a shit about Star Trek and I enjoyed the first film. It was basically just an action movie, and I knew it wasn't really much like the show, but since I never cared about the show that was fine with me. They made Star Trek accessible to the masses, which was the point of making it into a summer blockbuster. I can see why that would piss fans off, but it is what it is.

I did think the second movie was kind of lame, though. The previews implied a much more exciting movie than we ended up getting.

 

[Chris]

If I were does that mean my opinion somehow doesn't count. And to answer your question I am a 'Trekker'. :chuckles:

On a serious note, I love Star Trek. I think Roddenberry's first two shows were a great instrument to demonstrate moral values and ethics. The later shows devolved into garbage.



I guess... I just can't see Star Trek as being an "action movie" but a "science fiction movie." Sci-fi generally requires not only a plot, but a plausible and scientific/technologically feasible setting. Those movies are just pure nonsense. I mean, they didn't even try. It's like I'm watching Transformers.



Again, you're looking at them as if you're watching Bloodsport. I'm judging them as if I were watching any other movie. I don't watch a lot of shit movies, and action is probably the genre I watch the least. I'm not really into pointless crashes and spinning cameras. I'd just put in an 80s movie for that.

Sure there are some exceptions, but those movies need to do something incredible to peak my interest, otherwise they just blend into the background tapestry of "Yet Another Action Movie." I movie like Dredd 3D is a great example of a modern action movie that was awesome. But even with that, I expect a bit more from movies that are so heavily based in science fiction.

But you do make a good point. If I step back, and think .. "this movie is going to suck REGARDLESS, just have fun with it." And rename it from Star Trek, to 'Lens Flares,' then maybe I would've enjoyed it a bit better. But like you said, it still wouldn't be a good movie.

I don't know shit about Star Trek but I know just enough to realize that anybody who is heavily invested in the lore of that franchise is going to fucking loathe the reboots. It's like if Game of Thrones was adapted with Brad Pitt and The Rock as Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon and was just a fight sequence every five minutes with rock music blaring, people might find it enjoyable if they never read the books but I would make it my personal mission to find whoever responsible for that atrocity and destroy them.

Hence, why I asked if you were a Trekkie. Or Trekker. Whatever they are calling themselves now days.

I see now that Jack Brickman already clarified my own point for me, oh well.

I think both Star Treks were received positively, but probably not by Star Trek die hards. And I can respect that. Like I said I can tell it's nothing like what Star Trek is originally meant to be all about and I would hate it if I were a fan of the franchise, too.

 

[gourimoko]

I suppose the big difference for me would be that Star Trek shouldn't be an action movie. I also can't get past a lot of the core plot points... Like, why are these cadets operating the flagship? Where are all the people with tenure? Like, these are all cadets, even the captain... It's preposterous.

Imagine an aircraft carrier operated by a bunch of young teenagers and twenty-somethings, from the top-down. It's simply not believable. Why does the fate of the universe rest in this guy's hands (Kirk).. he's just another guy.. There's just so many points of the movie where you're questioning how any of this shit makes any sense.

The first movie for example. The entire premise is stolen from the concept of a red mercury nuclear device (a mini-nuke). But then they take that and say, oh wait, lets take this red stuff and make it cause a supernova (stolen from ST: Nemesis). Okay, cool.. But then.. how does this supernova threaten an entire GALAXY? Even my 12-year old daughter thinks this is extremely fucking silly. Supernovas happen all the time, it's a natural phenomena. So why does this supernova have catastrophic consequences for places that are thousands of light-years away? Like, it's totally fucking ridiculous.

See, here's the thing. You don't need to be a Trekkie.. You just need to be slightly scientifically inclined (or awake during the movie) to question the core plot points. The first movie made NO SENSE AT ALL... In so many parts, there are so many plot holes in both of these movies -- plot holes that have nothing to do with Star Trek canon..

 

[JSS2306]

The Star Trek movie I really enjoyed was Star Trek: First Contact from 96'. All the rest were kind of meh to me.

 

[Chris]

I suppose the big difference for me would be that Star Trek shouldn't be an action movie. I also can't get past a lot of the core plot points... Like, why are these cadets operating the flagship? Where are all the people with tenure? Like, these are all cadets, even the captain... It's preposterous.

Imagine an aircraft carrier operated by a bunch of young teenagers and twenty-somethings, from the top-down. It's simply not believable. Why does the fate of the universe rest in this guy's hands (Kirk).. he's just another guy.. There's just so many points of the movie where you're questioning how any of this shit makes any sense.

The first movie for example. The entire premise is stolen from the concept of a red mercury nuclear device (a mini-nuke). But then they take that and say, oh wait, lets take this red stuff and make it cause a supernova (stolen from ST: Nemesis). Okay, cool.. But then.. how does this supernova threaten an entire GALAXY? Even my 12-year old daughter thinks this is extremely fucking silly. Supernovas happen all the time, it's a natural phenomena. So why does this supernova have catastrophic consequences for places that are thousands of light-years away? Like, it's totally fucking ridiculous.

See, here's the thing. You don't need to be a Trekkie.. You just need to be slightly scientifically inclined (or awake during the movie) to question the core plot points. The first movie made NO SENSE AT ALL... In so many parts, there are so many plot holes in both of these movies -- plot holes that have nothing to do with Star Trek canon..

I must not be very smart because when I pop the movie in I just honestly don't think that deeply into it. Nor do I really give a shit. *shrug*

It's like the people who pick apart The Walking Dead. Some points are legitimate but they don't really "ruin" the product. It's fiction for fuck's sake. Right? Other points? Just plain nitpicking which I could do about any piece of fiction.