Rate the last movie you've seen

[Neil]

What I enjoyed most about "Get Out" was there wasn't lazy plot progression. The story does not rely upon serial bad decisions to move the plot along. <<<cough>>>Prometheus<<<cough>>> The only bit I thought was a shame shame...   ...the chair fluff "broadcast" - I thought it was too obvious he was going to pull the fluff out to block his ears But a good "fun" flick over all

[shootemindehead]

'Hate Preachers' 7/10 Documentary on crazy "Christian" preachers in America. Quite obviously insane or complete grifters who channel an ugly sort of fire and brimstone type of bullshit and rail at the usual targets like Muslims and homosexuals in the most obnoxious way. Thoroughly awful folk devoid of any of the messages of love and forgiveness that Christ was supposed to have spread. Short and to the point. 'Passengers' 5/10 Intergalactic chic-flic about a couple that wake from hypersleep 80 odd years before they're supposed to on long voyage to a distant planet. Starts off very well, but goes off the rails about half way in. There's a good story in there somewhere and one that, in its own head, tries to compete with the likes of Kubrick or Tarkovsky, but fails to even shine their boots. There's some nice moments and Jenny Lawrence is never boring. Passes the time and tbh, I'll probably give it another watch in the future. Nothing great, but OK. 'I don't Feel at Home in this World Anymore' 8/10 Very entertaining mish mash of the comedic and the serious. Like a Coen brothers film that got bent out of shape in many ways. Two good performances by Melanie Lynskey and Elijah Wood lead the way and the support is well handled too in a story that follows Ruth and Tony who try to get her belongings back from the people who broke into her house and stole them. Ably directed by Macon Blair, from 'Blue Ruin' and 'Green Room', it's not as serious as those films, but also not a comedy in the traditional sense of the word.

[MinionZombie]

"Awkward Sexy People" - 6/10 Entertaining enough dirty-mouthed rom-com. You know exactly what'll happen to the two protagonists by the end of the film, but there's some nice business played out on the way there. Good supporting cast with a handful of "oh, it's them from that thing!" faces (e.g. two cast members from Veep). "Ghostbusters (2016)" Oh dear. Call it a "reboot" or "Answer The Call" as much as you like, but the fact remains that it's a remake of one of the greatest films ever made. The whole endeavour was a fool's errand, as ill advised as it would be if someone said "hey, let's remake Back to the Future ... or The Shawshank Redemption ... or Citizen Kane". There's some stuff in there I quite enjoyed - the use of folklore and 'urban myths' as the backdrop for certain buildings/ghosts was really cool (e.g. the opening tour around that old house with Zack Woods (Silicon Valley) as the un-named tour guide). Holtzman was pretty good fun (although a few times went way overboard on the 'crazy scientist' and 'wacky jargon' thing, and felt a bit too 'styled' for such a mind), and the first couple of ghosts (the daughter and the executed prisoner) looked pretty snazzy with that kind of 'neon glow' thing working well as a good visual distinction, kind of EC Comics-ish in a way ... however, the CGI nose dives come the climax with the final boss. But ... three dance numbers? Seriously? And three jokes about bloody soup?! *sigh* It felt like a very muddled film that had no idea what it wanted to do, or say, let alone how to properly express those thoughts. Every single time a cameo occurred it only served to remind you of the far superior original (Hudson and Weaver were crammed in under the wire). The villain was dreadful - barely in the movie, not menacing in the slightest, poorly drawn, and felt more like a smug sideswipe at Internet trolls than a properly realised bad guy with an armful of macguffins. Indeed, several moments in the film where Feig & Co go after the trolls betrayed a lack of confidence in their own venture - why feed the trolls, for one, and for two, concentrate on making a good movie rather than being a smart arse (the 'shoot it in the crotch' moment was a decided low point). I don't envy anyone tasked with remaking Ghostbusters - a fool's errand, as I've previously said - and as a bit of a nerd for the 'Times Square in the seedy heyday' period, the finale was both enjoyable but also irritating. The Victory theatre (on 42nd Street - still there to this day) is, for some reason, transported a few streets away, and the Pussycat is shunted from its original location on Broadway and reduced to just the sign slapped onto a generic modern day office building - the Pussycat had one of the most lively and garish displays in the area (see here: https://www.grindhousedatabase.com/i...e:Pussycat.jpg ), which would have looked fantastic on-screen ... I've no idea why they moved things around like that in such a half-assed manner. For example, in one shot with the Taxi Driver poster on the left there is a cinema marquee on the right ... they cut away, then when they cut back to that same shot, slightly closer, it's an entirely different marquee! The vast majority wouldn't notice these things, I understand, and I am a bit of a nerd for the area during the 70s/80s after all, but it just seems silly to do it that way. Beholden to what came before, but desperately trying to do its own thing (while self-sabotaging with numerous callbacks, cameos, and references), it turns into a bit of a shambles falling around the ears of a talented and game cast who are too often lumbered with crappy 'point out the obvious thing that just happened' lines - a worryingly common trend in modern American comedies of late. Certain subplots that are initially intriguing - e.g. Wiig's character trying to get tenure and break through a stuffy glass ceiling while trying to hide her prior obsession with the paranormal, and resulting rift with McCarthy's character is rapidly dispatched. Turning the finale into a shoot 'em up was a bit of a naff idea, too - shooting the ghosts like they were red shirts didn't make a lick of sense. Ultimately - and unfortunately - it was messy, unfocused, and lacked confidence and clarity of vision.

[shootemindehead]

[B]"Ghostbusters (2016)" Oh dear. More than anything, it comes down to the wrong idea given to the wrong people. I've nothing against Fieg or his troupe (given the right material they're fine) and, frankly, the whole internetty outrage on both sides was utterly lamentable, with nobody coming out of it clean. However, this whole reboot effort was rotten in both raison d'etre, planning and execution. A stupid idea by Sony who wanted so desparately to engineer a franchise, but never stopped to think if 'Ghostbusters' was really the franchise that could/should have been pursued. In short, a monumnetal fuck up that completely deserved to crash and burn.

[bassman]

Still to this day the most baffling aspect of the remake is why did they cram so many cameos and references to the original when their goal was to start fresh? I doubt it could've made another classic like the original, but part of me thinks they would have had more success with a "passing of the torch" sequel rather than stopping any potential investment into the plot every ten minutes to scream "hey remember the better version?!?". Coincidentally, I read today that they're still actively pursuing further Ghostbusters films. They conveniently avoided any mention of sequels to Feig's film...

[EvilNed]

The Homesman Western by and with Tom Jones. He plays a cynic old cowboy who is forced to help a young, lonely woman played by Hillary Swank. Rather long but interesting and definetly pretty. A strange setting for a film and the plot revolves around taking care of a group of 3 women, driven to insanity by harsh frontier life. Napola Life in a Napola school during the Third Reich was not always easy. Even for 1B grade Nordic-aryans. Spawn You know, the one from the 90's. Martin Sheen, Michael Jai White and John Leguizamo. The amount of precision shooting with submachine guns people did back then is amazing.

[MinionZombie]

More than anything, it comes down to the wrong idea given to the wrong people. I've nothing against Fieg or his troupe (given the right material they're fine) and, frankly, the whole internetty outrage on both sides was utterly lamentable, with nobody coming out of it clean. However, this whole reboot effort was rotten in both raison d'etre, planning and execution. A stupid idea by Sony who wanted so desparately to engineer a franchise, but never stopped to think if 'Ghostbusters' was really the franchise that could/should have been pursued. Each side of the debate had their scumbags, and each side had legitimate points to make. It's a shame that Feig, Sony et al refused to listen to the genuine, valid concerns that were being drowned out by the baity bollocks. The 'forced franchise' aspect is another thing that really irritated me about it. From the get go they were so desperate to make it one, boasting about it before trailers for Feig's film had even been released (the 'Ghost Corps' logo at the head of the film was another boastful reminder). The public dictates whether something becomes a franchise or not by stumping up their cash at the box office. You can had ideas for possible sequels if you're lucky enough to be successful, but Sony really made a hash of the whole thing. It came across like a conveyor belt set up, a board meeting decision, rather than any creative decision or as a reward for making a successful first film. Still to this day the most baffling aspect of the remake is why did they cram so many cameos and references to the original when their goal was to start fresh? I doubt it could've made another classic like the original, but part of me thinks they would have had more success with a "passing of the torch" sequel rather than stopping any potential investment into the plot every ten minutes to scream "hey remember the better version?!?". Coincidentally, I read today that they're still actively pursuing further Ghostbusters films. They conveniently avoided any mention of sequels to Feig's film... Aye. The theme song (which has an utterly horrendous cover version on Feig's film), the logo (again, clumsily implemented throughout Feig's film), Hook & Ladder 8, the cast, the car, Slimer, Stay Puft, Zuul, etc etc etc - it's all so intrinsically linked to the original. The 'no ghost' logo is one of the most recognisable symbols in the world - so it's both a pointless task trying to re-work those things, and the stupidest idea to put so many references to the original in it. Even the way they announced those cameos - like it was some sort of "see, they're blessing it, it's okay, our's will be good" (there's that stink of desperation again) - was in itself a bad move. I agree - a 'passing of the torch' film would have been a far better idea. To keep the originals as 'cannon' with some of those characters appearing as those characters, setting up a 'franchise' (ironically enough) would have been a better angle to come at it. Ghostbusters is an immensely iconic film, beloved by countless millions and millions of people of all ages, so to remake it was just a ludicrous idea. I know this is all a bit 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' in terms of talking about a movie you dislike on the Internet ... but I'm just trying to wrap my head around some of the baffling business and creative decisions that went into this film. Even just comparing the secretaries from the respective films - Janine versus Kevin - illustrates just how off the mark they were. Kevin is nice enough, but nobody is dumb enough to not know what glass is (the bit where he tries to grab the phone through the aquarium glass). Meanwhile, Janine is not only competent at her job, but is also simultaneously hard as nails (she cows Venkman of all people!) and wistful (her flirtations with Egon), with a sardonic wit to back it up. She was one of my earliest female icons as a kid growing up - and Venkman one of my earliest male icons - so their respective attitudes and interplay had a deep-seated effect on me. Spawn You know, the one from the 90's. Martin Sheen, Michael Jai White and John Leguizamo. The amount of precision shooting with submachine guns people did back then is amazing.

[JDP]

Spawn You know, the one from the 90's. Martin Sheen, Michael Jai White and John Leguizamo. The amount of precision shooting with submachine guns people did back then is amazing. The worst offender in this department was Peter Jackson's King Kong remake, the scene where Jimmy blasts the giant crickets off of Driscoll's body with surgical precision... using a Tommy Gun!!!

[shootemindehead]

I hate that film

[EvilNed]

The worst offender in this department was Peter Jackson's King Kong remake, the scene where Jimmy blasts the giant crickets off of Driscoll's body with surgical precision... using a Tommy Gun!!! Never saw it. Probably never going too. Anyway... Burial Ground (or Zombie 3, or Zombie Dead or Nights of Terror) Fascinated with this film, always have been. The soundtracks pretty eerie but the film itself is total trash. But it's not worthless. It's actually somewhat of an atmospheric zombie film. Also, the dead look and act great. Who saw her Die? George Lazenby tries to find out who murdered his daugther in this 1972 giallo. Pretty neat music, otherwise run of the mill giallo.

[MinionZombie]

Amuck! A giallo flick - although there's barely any murder in it for the most part. It's more of a psychological thriller (with quite a lot of slow motion rumpy pumpy going on), and the use of Venice for the locations is fantastic. Stars Barbara Bouchet and Rosalba Neri, as well as Farley Granger (from Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope"). More of a slow burn mystery; it looks great and the soundtrack is very good as well. Looks fantastic on the new HD release by 88 Films. Burial Ground (or Zombie 3, or Zombie Dead or Nights of Terror) Fascinated with this film, always have been. The soundtracks pretty eerie but the film itself is total trash. But it's not worthless. It's actually somewhat of an atmospheric zombie film. Also, the dead look and act great. Who saw her Die? George Lazenby tries to find out who murdered his daugther in this 1972 giallo. Pretty neat music, otherwise run of the mill giallo. 1) I've had it on DVD for years, but I still haven't got around to watching it yet! 2) I really dig Who Saw Her Die. Love the use of Venice, too - and a year before Don't Look Now was set there with a similar story (in so far as Venice + Loss of Child + the Parents' Love Story), interestingly. A case of Italy doing something before Hollywood (somewhat), for a change.

[JDP]

Burial Ground (or Zombie 3, or Zombie Dead or Nights of Terror) Fascinated with this film, always have been. The soundtracks pretty eerie but the film itself is total trash. But it's not worthless. It's actually somewhat of an atmospheric zombie film. Also, the dead look and act great. When I was in school I used to bring my videotape of that movie to parties just to make the half-drunk chicks puke It's a mind-boggling film. It's one of those movies that is so ineptly thought up (loads of plot-holes and unexplained points) and executed (ex: some of the zombie makeup was unfinished; I guess that they ran out of budget and just sent the half-finished zombies "as is" out of the makeup chair) that it's actually (paradoxically) pretty "good".

[MinionZombie]

High Rise - 8/10 Thoroughly enjoyed this. It's the sort of film that'll benefit from multiple viewings to strip back the various layers and ways to read it. Good idea to set the 'near future' of the novel in the 1970s in which it was written. It has a feel of the time that doesn't feel kitschy, but rather quite contemporary - but also true to the time (power cuts, stacks of big bags everywhere, class war) - and fans of David Cronenberg's "Shivers" will dig on the 'chaos in an isolated apartment block' vibe, too.

[EvilNed]

Vendetta for the Saint A charming, good time fun with Roger Moore chasing after (and being chased by) sicilian mobsters. Set in italy, mostly in Palermo. The Saint The one with Val Kilmer. Horrible. Could have worked, but the film makes absolutely no attempt to make the Saint into a "human being". As a protagonist he's completely inhuman. He's always in disguise. What's his agenda? Who does he serve? Himself only? Why? There's a weird prologue set in a christian orphanage but it doesn't jive with the rest of the film at all. This film is packed to the brim with actors speaking english with a russian accent. Also, Val Kilmer's disguises are all incredibly cliché cultural tropes... Makes it look like a kids movie. Johnny Mnemonic People had a funny idea of what "the internet" was back in 1995, which makes this film all the more fun. Pretty solid action scifi with some laughable details and acting. Ice-T... Come on. Seeking a friend for the end of the world Pointless romcom. Interesting backdrop, but in the end nothing we haven't seen before executed way better. Gil Grissom shows up for 5 minutes, which is kinda interesting. Turns out William Peterson is a pretty bad actor after all.

[LivingDeadGuy]

"Sausage Party" I give it a 10 out of 10. That was the funniest new movie I have seen in years.