KI4MVP
formerly LJ4MVP
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2005
- Messages
- 31,276
- Reaction score
- 41,326
- Points
- 148
Yeah, it was well done.
-
Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.
Rate the last movie you saw
- Thread starter Typhoon
- Start date
Yeah, it was well done.
buzzdog
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 11,944
- Reaction score
- 17,509
- Points
- 123
I finally sat and watched it with my wife and grand-daughter. I thought it sucked greatly. (Although I didn't let on what my opinion was, I enjoy hanging and watching movies with them regardless of the quality of the show).
Hurl Bruce
Logmaster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Messages
- 14,687
- Reaction score
- 25,983
- Points
- 135
Saw it on a flight. It was a really well-acted movie with a decent story. Giamatti was as good as he always is. His costars were great as well.Back to the christmas movies.
USA Today had a list of 20 best Christmas movies
Top Christmas movies ranked: The 20 best from 'Home Alone' and 'Die Hard' to 'Scrooged'
Love Macaulay Culkin in \www.usatoday.com
The movie that has me curious in the list is The Holdovers, which they ranked at 8. It's a new movie in theaters and also out in the expensive tier of rent/buy. I was surprised to see a brand new movie so high on their list.
Has anyone see it?
Best line: “Fuckin asparagus!”
The Oi
Ahhhh chachachacha
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 50,876
- Reaction score
- 77,077
- Points
- 148
Home Team. 8.8/10.
Inspired by the true story of Sean Payton leaving the NFL to coach his son’s middle school football team. Supposedly it’s pretty dead on to the real story. I’d recommend it strongly, especially if you’re into sports docus.
Inspired by the true story of Sean Payton leaving the NFL to coach his son’s middle school football team. Supposedly it’s pretty dead on to the real story. I’d recommend it strongly, especially if you’re into sports docus.
Hurl Bruce
Logmaster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Messages
- 14,687
- Reaction score
- 25,983
- Points
- 135
Just finished reading Dune in anticipation of Part 2 coming out next weekend.
I re-watched Part One. Part One was a better viewing experience having read the books. They didn't change a ton in the first part. We'll see how the second part goes. It's getting great reviews. Evidently Part 2 finishes the book, but there's supposed to be a Part 3 coming which covers who knows what.
I also watched the original movie again. It is so bad and deviates so much from the book. I mean, what's up with that floating thing in the very first scene?
I re-watched Part One. Part One was a better viewing experience having read the books. They didn't change a ton in the first part. We'll see how the second part goes. It's getting great reviews. Evidently Part 2 finishes the book, but there's supposed to be a Part 3 coming which covers who knows what.
I also watched the original movie again. It is so bad and deviates so much from the book. I mean, what's up with that floating thing in the very first scene?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 21,120
- Reaction score
- 57,890
- Points
- 148
Frank Herbert wrote 6 Dune books in all, and the current Dune director has floated creating a movie based on the 2nd book, Dune Messiah.
the reviews for the part 2 Dune movie could not possibly be better.
Ohio
Woosah
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2011
- Messages
- 41,989
- Reaction score
- 48,935
- Points
- 148
I haven't seen Enemy either but yeah, the rest of those are bangers.
Can't wait for Part Two.
Hurl Bruce
Logmaster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Messages
- 14,687
- Reaction score
- 25,983
- Points
- 135
Dune Part 2 was so good. I just finished the book, so I had a lot of the plot in my head, so I'm not sure how it would be for the non-reader to follow. There were some differences from the book but not a ton. It would be difficult to get it all in like as it was with LOTR. Too much material.
The visuals and the soundtrack were awesome. The acting was superb.
I recommend sitting as close to the screen as you can handle. I was second row, and I felt immersed in it all. There were some scenes that were just WOW.
The visuals and the soundtrack were awesome. The acting was superb.
I recommend sitting as close to the screen as you can handle. I was second row, and I felt immersed in it all. There were some scenes that were just WOW.
Hurl Bruce
Logmaster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Messages
- 14,687
- Reaction score
- 25,983
- Points
- 135
The Oi
Ahhhh chachachacha
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 50,876
- Reaction score
- 77,077
- Points
- 148
Just invited this guy to my daughter’s preschool graduation.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 26,805
- Reaction score
- 56,137
- Points
- 151
MirORich
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 32,580
- Reaction score
- 57,442
- Points
- 148
Early betting favorite for FOTY
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 26,805
- Reaction score
- 56,137
- Points
- 151
Napoleon
0/4 Stars.
Review:
Shit sandwich.
@The Human Q-Tip @Marcus
0/4 Stars.
Review:
Shit sandwich.
@The Human Q-Tip @Marcus
This film was awful. Terrible casting. Terrible plot. Terrible handling of the history.
It is worse than Braveheart from an historical point of view. Without the actual wonderful story nor structure.
Awful cinematography with Scott's obsession with blue filters that renders sterile one of the most voluptuous and visually sumptuous eras of art and fashion in history. Completely loses the thread of the feeling of the era or the things that animated so many changes.
As a Brit, Ridley Scott has as much clue about the French Revolution and Napoleon as a North Korean has about democracy and baseball. This version of Napoleon is basically a History Channel treatment of events as conjured by British propaganda and 5th Grade Book Reports.
HE COULDN'T EVEN GET TALLEYRAND'S QUOTE RIGHT! HE GAVE IT TO THE BRITISH AMBASSADOR!
He can't even get the relationships right. How do you have a biopic on Napoleon without Jean Lannes in it? Or, but it has Ney because that is a name every British kid knows.
The sole highlight are the costumes. They look great even under the self-imposed austerity of the teal and orange filters Scott enslaves with every shot.
Just utterly, and holistically awful. Giant, steaming, pile of shit. Embarrassing. It is like making a biopic about Washington wherein they turn George a drag-queen.
It is worse than Braveheart from an historical point of view. Without the actual wonderful story nor structure.
Awful cinematography with Scott's obsession with blue filters that renders sterile one of the most voluptuous and visually sumptuous eras of art and fashion in history. Completely loses the thread of the feeling of the era or the things that animated so many changes.
As a Brit, Ridley Scott has as much clue about the French Revolution and Napoleon as a North Korean has about democracy and baseball. This version of Napoleon is basically a History Channel treatment of events as conjured by British propaganda and 5th Grade Book Reports.
HE COULDN'T EVEN GET TALLEYRAND'S QUOTE RIGHT! HE GAVE IT TO THE BRITISH AMBASSADOR!
He can't even get the relationships right. How do you have a biopic on Napoleon without Jean Lannes in it? Or, but it has Ney because that is a name every British kid knows.
The sole highlight are the costumes. They look great even under the self-imposed austerity of the teal and orange filters Scott enslaves with every shot.
Just utterly, and holistically awful. Giant, steaming, pile of shit. Embarrassing. It is like making a biopic about Washington wherein they turn George a drag-queen.