Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2024, 09:17:43 PM
:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Rate The Last Movie You Saw
0 and 7 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
: 1 ... 821 822 [823] 824 825 ... 1402
: Rate The Last Movie You Saw  ( 5063570 )
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11454


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


« #12330 : July 31, 2013, 05:40:40 PM »

Game of Thrones: Season 1 - 6/10
Really not that impressive. Decent entertainment. HBO's Boardwalk Empire is the far superior series.

Boardwalk Empire must have improved drastically since it's first season.



Saturday nights with Groggy
moviesceleton
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3938


The glance that makes holes in the silver screen


« #12331 : July 31, 2013, 10:54:27 PM »

But making one addictive is a sign of quality.
I wouldn't say so. Soap operas can be addictive and I wouldn't call them quality TV. In my eyes, GoT is a soap opera.

But just to make it clear: I'd rate the show around 7.5/10 maybe 8/10. So it's not total bullshit. It just makes me feel dumb every time I watch it.


"Once Upon a Time in America gets ten-minute ovation at Cannes"
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9953

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #12332 : August 01, 2013, 12:35:04 AM »

Raging Bull (1980) 10/10 (second viewing, first on blu-ray)

There are some classics that I don't think are all that great the first time around, but the second time I watch it, I love it and agree that it's a great movie, and this is one of them.
First time around, I guess I was just too disgusted by Jake LaMotta, couldn't stand him, there are some sexual scenes that are uncomfortable to watch, he just grossed me out in every way and I couldn't stand him - which, of course, is the whole point of the movie. It's not like I can't love a movie with a despicable lead character (eg. I love the Cagney gangster movies), but in this case some of it was disgusting and some of the sexual scenes are really uncomfortable to watch. But this second time around, I knew what a douche he was and that there were some nasty scenes so it was less shocking, and – not that I has an iota of sympathy for LaMotta this time around either  – I could just sit back and laugh and enjoy it for what it was. And indeed, this is a really great movie. I would not put this in my top 10 as many people do, but I'd definitely call it a great movie.
DeNiro's performance is legendary. And Moriarty is amazing as Vicky, and IMO, Joe Pesci delivers his greatest performance here. Pesci may be more famous for his role in Goodfellas (or more specifically, for one scene in Goodfellas), but I think his best performance is in Raging Bull).
And that scene with the broken TV is hilarious  ;D

« : August 01, 2013, 12:36:14 AM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3592



« #12333 : August 01, 2013, 12:57:00 AM »

I wouldn't say so. Soap operas can be addictive and I wouldn't call them quality TV. In my eyes, GoT is a soap opera.

But just to make it clear: I'd rate the show around 7.5/10 maybe 8/10. So it's not total bullshit. It just makes me feel dumb every time I watch it.

But that's a high rating for film you don't like that much.

To make me addictive a series must have quality. Quality is a major point for entertainment.


noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6654


Lonesome Billy


« #12334 : August 01, 2013, 01:46:10 AM »

I'd rate it somwhere between 6 and 7 (I give it a 6 now and I know I'd give it a 7 after a few more episodes because like MS says, it's far from being garbage and it's probably addictive) but here is the trick:

7 is enough to make me watch twice a movie (ie spend 2 hours a couple times over the course of a few years).
However, it's not enough to justify watching a whole season (8 to 10 hours for GoT, in a couple months).

It's also not enough to justify the buzz following every new episode if you ask me, but I can live with that: it's still decent entertainment.

« : August 01, 2013, 01:49:15 AM noodles_leone »

Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11454


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


« #12335 : August 02, 2013, 06:17:55 AM »

Five Easy Pieces - 9/10 - Easily Jack Nicholson's best performance. The rest of the film's pretty good, too.

Separate Tables - 8/10 - Another good Terence Rattigan adaptation. Opened up enough to give the story pacing and rhythm; it helps too that the source material's one of Rattigan's best. The main appeal is the all-star cast, with David Niven, Wendy Hiller and Deborah Kerr doing stellar work.



Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9953

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #12336 : August 02, 2013, 02:23:47 PM »

Five Easy Pieces - 9/10 - Easily Jack Nicholson's best performance. The rest of the film's pretty good, too.


Yeah it's a terrific movie; I gave it the same rating.

I love how -- SPOILER ALERT -- in that scene where he finally speaks to his father, he can barely get any words out before he bursts out crying and can't even finish. It would have been so easy to have a long shmaltzy deathbed speech  but this one was so much more real. And the ending was just unbelievable. What a movie!


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14242


easy come easy go


« #12337 : August 02, 2013, 03:39:44 PM »

Niagara 9/10


"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16795


The joy of loving is to live in a world of Mandom


« #12338 : August 02, 2013, 03:45:14 PM »

Niagara 9/10
Blu-ray?



"McFilms are commodities and, as such, must be QA'd according to industry standards."
PowerRR
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3373



« #12339 : August 02, 2013, 10:33:31 PM »

To the Wonder - 7/10
Second viewing and I liked it about the same. Malick's weakest aside from The New World. Still good obviously. Those are his only two I don't consider masterpiece.

Shoah
As a historical document, it's utterly perfect. As a film though, even with taking breaks, it's undoubtedly overlong and redundant. After about 4 hours I honestly feel it loses its power. Either I'm cold-hearted or everyone else is too afraid to admit it. I'm not saying Lanzmann should have shortened it, I just don't think this should be judged/rated/compared to other documentaries (it plays out more like a visualized historical text than a movie - no music, seemingly unedited interviews, slowly paced - though with amazing visuals). However, I believe Lanzmann made the right choice presenting it this way. He didn't turn the Holocaust into a melodrama (see: Oprah Winfrey/Elie Wiesel TV special: one of the many reasons I find Oprah to be the biggest, most disrespectful, fake cunt in the universe). Shoah is in its own class of documentary where I don't really consider it a movie. All educated people should at least watch some of Shoah, though I can understand how the whole thing may be a bit much for most.

But since fellows such as D&D find ways to call me out for not providing ratings.... 10 for a historical document, 8+ish for a film.

« : August 03, 2013, 08:42:55 AM PowerRR »
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9953

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #12340 : August 03, 2013, 06:59:31 PM »



Shoah
As a historical document, it's utterly perfect. As a film though, even with taking breaks, it's undoubtedly overlong and redundant. After about 4 hours I honestly feel it loses its power. Either I'm cold-hearted or everyone else is too afraid to admit it. I'm not saying Lanzmann should have shortened it, I just don't think this should be judged/rated/compared to other documentaries (it plays out more like a visualized historical text than a movie - no music, seemingly unedited interviews, slowly paced - though with amazing visuals). However, I believe Lanzmann made the right choice presenting it this way. He didn't turn the Holocaust into a melodrama (see: Oprah Winfrey/Elie Wiesel TV special: one of the many reasons I find Oprah to be the biggest, most disrespectful, fake cunt in the universe). Shoah is in its own class of documentary where I don't really consider it a movie. All educated people should at least watch some of Shoah, though I can understand how the whole thing may be a bit much for most.

But since fellows such as D&D find ways to call me out for not providing ratings.... 10 for a historical document, 8+ish for a film.

I actually am not much into ratings; I only called YOU out on it since you are the one that titled this thread  ;)

As for Shoah, I mentioned recently - in that film's thread - that I saw the first 5 1/2 hours or so of it.
I don't know whether you watched it straight or over a few days, but I don't know if it's supposed to necessarily be watched straight. As for length of time, there's really no right or wrong. On the one hand, there's a limit to how much of one movie people wanna watch; on the other hand, the extent of the horrors of the Holocaust can never be accurately presented even with a film that went on for a thousand hours. Or six million hours. So, why 9 1/2 hours, rather than 8 1/2 or 10 1/2? who knows. we know Lanzmann cut out the second half of his interview with Jan Karski, but Karski criticized him for it, and then Lanzmann released it as The Karski Report. Should the film have been even longer? Again, there is no right or wrong answer.

IMO, Lanzmann was correct to include lots of footage, and it is up to each viewer how long he/she wants to watch.

One problem I have with the film is how frequently, we hear an interviewee talking for a few minutes before his name and identity flashes on the screen. Now, I knew that the interviews consisted of survivors (the good guys) the Nazis (the evil guys) and local Poles (who for the most part were pretty bad), but you sometimes don't know who is who for a few minutes, so while you are watching someone talk, you don't know "do I hate him or do I pity him?" until his name flashes on the screen after a few minutes. I wish they put the name/identity of each interviewee up there right away. Also, the poster, which has this decrepit old man next to a sign that says "Treblinka," is really misleading; when you first see that poster, you pity the guy, figuring he must have been a survivor of Treblinka, till you watch the movie, and see that that is a fucking bastard who actually drove the trainloads of Jews to their death (and poor, poor him, he had to drink vodka to get through the day's "work," the piece of shit) and then you feel stupid for actually having pitied him when you saw the poster before you saw the movie.

Othwerwise, Lanzmann is to be commended for this work.


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11454


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


« #12341 : August 03, 2013, 08:04:44 PM »

Watched most of Ken Burns' Prohibition today. Liked it better than The Civil War.



Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9953

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #12342 : August 04, 2013, 12:29:06 AM »

Tokyo Joe (1949) 6.5/10


5 Against the House (1955) 8/10


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
PowerRR
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3373



« #12343 : August 04, 2013, 01:01:52 AM »

I actually am not much into ratings; I only called YOU out on it since you are the one that titled this thread  ;)

As for Shoah, I mentioned recently - in that film's thread - that I saw the first 5 1/2 hours or so of it.
I don't know whether you watched it straight or over a few days, but I don't know if it's supposed to necessarily be watched straight. As for length of time, there's really no right or wrong. On the one hand, there's a limit to how much of one movie people wanna watch; on the other hand, the extent of the horrors of the Holocaust can never be accurately presented even with a film that went on for a thousand hours. Or six million hours. So, why 9 1/2 hours, rather than 8 1/2 or 10 1/2? who knows. we know Lanzmann cut out the second half of his interview with Jan Karski, but Karski criticized him for it, and then Lanzmann released it as The Karski Report. Should the film have been even longer? Again, there is no right or wrong answer.

IMO, Lanzmann was correct to include lots of footage, and it is up to each viewer how long he/she wants to watch.

One problem I have with the film is how frequently, we hear an interviewee talking for a few minutes before his name and identity flashes on the screen. Now, I knew that the interviews consisted of survivors (the good guys) the Nazis (the evil guys) and local Poles (who for the most part were pretty bad), but you sometimes don't know who is who for a few minutes, so while you are watching someone talk, you don't know "do I hate him or do I pity him?" until his name flashes on the screen after a few minutes. I wish they put the name/identity of each interviewee up there right away. Also, the poster, which has this decrepit old man next to a sign that says "Treblinka," is really misleading; when you first see that poster, you pity the guy, figuring he must have been a survivor of Treblinka, till you watch the movie, and see that that is a fucking bastard who actually drove the trainloads of Jews to their death (and poor, poor him, he had to drink vodka to get through the day's "work," the piece of shit) and then you feel stupid for actually having pitied him when you saw the poster before you saw the movie.

Othwerwise, Lanzmann is to be commended for this work.

Yeah yeah I know I'm just messing around about the ratings thing.

I watched it in 1 to 2 hour segments and still tired of it in the later hours.

I agree I didn't like some of the choices with subtitling. One is what you mentioned. Another is how you don't get to see the subtitles for some speakers until the translator begins talking. I'd much prefer to see what people were saying before the translator says it, despite whether or not that's how Lanzmann initially understood them.

moviesceleton
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3938


The glance that makes holes in the silver screen


« #12344 : August 04, 2013, 02:10:53 PM »

Limelight (1952) - 8.5/10


"Once Upon a Time in America gets ten-minute ovation at Cannes"
: 1 ... 821 822 [823] 824 825 ... 1402  
« previous next »
:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
0.072158