|
Please title all your posts and rehost all images on Imgur |
On March 22 2016 18:11 Nyovne wrote:
Saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last friday. Enjoyed it a lot. 8/10
I also saw 10 Cloverfield Lane (I think I saw it the night it came out) and I thought it was fantastic overall. My only real issue with the movie is that it felt a bit disjointed and I think the last third of the movie was nowhere near as strong as the first two thirds. John Goodman's performance was fantastic though. The less you know about it going into it, the better in my opinion. Highly recommended.
|
On March 22 2016 22:40 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2016 18:11 Nyovne wrote:
Saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last friday. Enjoyed it a lot. 8/10 I also saw 10 Cloverfield Lane (I think I saw it the night it came out) and I thought it was fantastic overall. My only real issue with the movie is that it felt a bit disjointed and I think the last third of the movie was nowhere near as strong as the first two thirds. John Goodman's performance was fantastic though. The less you know about it going into it, the better in my opinion. Highly recommended.
Regarding the last third of the movie, which part did you feel was weak, I'm of the opinion that + Show Spoiler +after we learn everything and Goodman snaps, the break into the Cloverfield world was a nice break from the tension in the bunker.
|
On March 22 2016 22:46 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2016 22:40 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On March 22 2016 18:11 Nyovne wrote:
Saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last friday. Enjoyed it a lot. 8/10 I also saw 10 Cloverfield Lane (I think I saw it the night it came out) and I thought it was fantastic overall. My only real issue with the movie is that it felt a bit disjointed and I think the last third of the movie was nowhere near as strong as the first two thirds. John Goodman's performance was fantastic though. The less you know about it going into it, the better in my opinion. Highly recommended. Regarding the last third of the movie, which part did you feel was weak, I'm of the opinion that + Show Spoiler +after we learn everything and Goodman snaps, the break into the Cloverfield world was a nice break from the tension in the bunker.
+ Show Spoiler +I can suspend my disbelief and still enjoy a movie, but I thought that the transition was abrupt and not a logical transition from the rest of the movie. The part with Goodman was a psychological thriller, where we kept trying to figure out whether or not he was insane. I thought this was extremely well done and we were kept in suspense the entire way through. Then once she finally escapes, there's the obvious "Now what?" It would've been a little anticlimactic had the movie just ended there, but they continued it.
The first scene with the alien ship is pretty amazing. I had a sense of wtf when I saw the ship flying over to her. Subconsciously I think I knew it had to be aliens since it was a Cloverfield movie, but there was a lot of mystery surrounding the ship. It looked like it could've been a Russian helicopter or something, and I thought it kept up the suspense really well.
However, once the aliens are revealed I just felt underwhelmed. It felt almost like a deus ex machina. The writers had kept our attention so well with Goodman's exceptional performance, and it seemed like they were trying to scrape together a way to keep people interested. They couldn't just use jump scares because that would've been a cheap way to have ended a psychological thriller, but they went for somewhat corny action. The aliens themselves got very little screen time and although we can figure out what probably happened to everyone, they didn't really explain any of it and just kind of took it on faith that we'd go along with it. However, the alien died from a woman in a poorly constructed hazmat suit who threw a molotov cocktail at it. You want me to believe that they wiped out civilization for all intents and purposes? I think they tried to squeeze a bit too much out of the time they had in the movie and it felt like they spoiled the tension of the first two thirds with the last third. John Goodman's character was pretty terrifying, and the aliens just seemed a bit out of place and underwhelming in comparison.
Don't get me wrong, the movie was excellent overall. I think that the alien reveal itself was well done, but the last action sequence didn't fit with the rest of the movie, in my opinion.
|
On March 23 2016 01:29 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2016 22:46 ThomasjServo wrote:On March 22 2016 22:40 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On March 22 2016 18:11 Nyovne wrote:
Saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last friday. Enjoyed it a lot. 8/10 I also saw 10 Cloverfield Lane (I think I saw it the night it came out) and I thought it was fantastic overall. My only real issue with the movie is that it felt a bit disjointed and I think the last third of the movie was nowhere near as strong as the first two thirds. John Goodman's performance was fantastic though. The less you know about it going into it, the better in my opinion. Highly recommended. Regarding the last third of the movie, which part did you feel was weak, I'm of the opinion that + Show Spoiler +after we learn everything and Goodman snaps, the break into the Cloverfield world was a nice break from the tension in the bunker. + Show Spoiler +I can suspend my disbelief and still enjoy a movie, but I thought that the transition was abrupt and not a logical transition from the rest of the movie. The part with Goodman was a psychological thriller, where we kept trying to figure out whether or not he was insane. I thought this was extremely well done and we were kept in suspense the entire way through. Then once she finally escapes, there's the obvious "Now what?" It would've been a little anticlimactic had the movie just ended there, but they continued it.
The first scene with the alien ship is pretty amazing. I had a sense of wtf when I saw the ship flying over to her. Subconsciously I think I knew it had to be aliens since it was a Cloverfield movie, but there was a lot of mystery surrounding the ship. It looked like it could've been a Russian helicopter or something, and I thought it kept up the suspense really well.
However, once the aliens are revealed I just felt underwhelmed. It felt almost like a deus ex machina. The writers had kept our attention so well with Goodman's exceptional performance, and it seemed like they were trying to scrape together a way to keep people interested. They couldn't just use jump scares because that would've been a cheap way to have ended a psychological thriller, but they went for somewhat corny action. The aliens themselves got very little screen time and although we can figure out what probably happened to everyone, they didn't really explain any of it and just kind of took it on faith that we'd go along with it. However, the alien died from a woman in a poorly constructed hazmat suit who threw a molotov cocktail at it. You want me to believe that they wiped out civilization for all intents and purposes? I think they tried to squeeze a bit too much out of the time they had in the movie and it felt like they spoiled the tension of the first two thirds with the last third. John Goodman's character was pretty terrifying, and the aliens just seemed a bit out of place and underwhelming in comparison.
Don't get me wrong, the movie was excellent overall. I think that the alien reveal itself was well done, but the last action sequence didn't fit with the rest of the movie, in my opinion.
+ Show Spoiler +I talked with the fiancee on the way home from it about that, since I figured going in that it was known that aliens were the cause of them being in the bunker not a Misery situation or getting someone to love you because of doomsday. It is a bit Signs at the end, you're definitely not wrong, but it was pointed out to me by the fiancee that it was originally meant to be just the movie in the basement, and Cloverfield kind of got tacked onto the end of it. I get what you're saying though; I think the script origin does some good in explaining how that, 'transition," from bunker to surface came about so abruptly. Almost as if the staff said, "oh yeah, we're in a cloverfield movie. " http://logins.specscout.com/homepage.php?mod=screenplay&smod=coverage&cmd=cvgd&sp_id=287https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Cloverfield_Lane#cite_note-26
|
On March 23 2016 02:40 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 01:29 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On March 22 2016 22:46 ThomasjServo wrote:On March 22 2016 22:40 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On March 22 2016 18:11 Nyovne wrote:
Saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last friday. Enjoyed it a lot. 8/10 I also saw 10 Cloverfield Lane (I think I saw it the night it came out) and I thought it was fantastic overall. My only real issue with the movie is that it felt a bit disjointed and I think the last third of the movie was nowhere near as strong as the first two thirds. John Goodman's performance was fantastic though. The less you know about it going into it, the better in my opinion. Highly recommended. Regarding the last third of the movie, which part did you feel was weak, I'm of the opinion that + Show Spoiler +after we learn everything and Goodman snaps, the break into the Cloverfield world was a nice break from the tension in the bunker. + Show Spoiler +I can suspend my disbelief and still enjoy a movie, but I thought that the transition was abrupt and not a logical transition from the rest of the movie. The part with Goodman was a psychological thriller, where we kept trying to figure out whether or not he was insane. I thought this was extremely well done and we were kept in suspense the entire way through. Then once she finally escapes, there's the obvious "Now what?" It would've been a little anticlimactic had the movie just ended there, but they continued it.
The first scene with the alien ship is pretty amazing. I had a sense of wtf when I saw the ship flying over to her. Subconsciously I think I knew it had to be aliens since it was a Cloverfield movie, but there was a lot of mystery surrounding the ship. It looked like it could've been a Russian helicopter or something, and I thought it kept up the suspense really well.
However, once the aliens are revealed I just felt underwhelmed. It felt almost like a deus ex machina. The writers had kept our attention so well with Goodman's exceptional performance, and it seemed like they were trying to scrape together a way to keep people interested. They couldn't just use jump scares because that would've been a cheap way to have ended a psychological thriller, but they went for somewhat corny action. The aliens themselves got very little screen time and although we can figure out what probably happened to everyone, they didn't really explain any of it and just kind of took it on faith that we'd go along with it. However, the alien died from a woman in a poorly constructed hazmat suit who threw a molotov cocktail at it. You want me to believe that they wiped out civilization for all intents and purposes? I think they tried to squeeze a bit too much out of the time they had in the movie and it felt like they spoiled the tension of the first two thirds with the last third. John Goodman's character was pretty terrifying, and the aliens just seemed a bit out of place and underwhelming in comparison.
Don't get me wrong, the movie was excellent overall. I think that the alien reveal itself was well done, but the last action sequence didn't fit with the rest of the movie, in my opinion. + Show Spoiler +I talked with the fiancee on the way home from it about that, since I figured going in that it was known that aliens were the cause of them being in the bunker not a Misery situation or getting someone to love you because of doomsday. It is a bit Signs at the end, you're definitely not wrong, but it was pointed out to me by the fiancee that it was originally meant to be just the movie in the basement, and Cloverfield kind of got tacked onto the end of it. I get what you're saying though; I think the script origin does some good in explaining how that, 'transition," from bunker to surface came about so abruptly. Almost as if the staff said, "oh yeah, we're in a cloverfield movie. " http://logins.specscout.com/homepage.php?mod=screenplay&smod=coverage&cmd=cvgd&sp_id=287https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Cloverfield_Lane#cite_note-26
+ Show Spoiler +Yeah my friends and I talked about that after we saw the movie. I'm still very happy with the movie, but I think they would've been better off either making the movie slightly longer or changing the way they handled the ending.
Which leads to the discussion of what they're going to do with the Cloverfield franchise. Is it going to be an anthology of various movies that all have a common theme but are in unrelated universes? Are they going to make sequels that are set in the same universes? I'm interested to see what direction they go in.
|
On March 23 2016 04:26 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 02:40 ThomasjServo wrote:On March 23 2016 01:29 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On March 22 2016 22:46 ThomasjServo wrote:On March 22 2016 22:40 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On March 22 2016 18:11 Nyovne wrote:
Saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last friday. Enjoyed it a lot. 8/10 I also saw 10 Cloverfield Lane (I think I saw it the night it came out) and I thought it was fantastic overall. My only real issue with the movie is that it felt a bit disjointed and I think the last third of the movie was nowhere near as strong as the first two thirds. John Goodman's performance was fantastic though. The less you know about it going into it, the better in my opinion. Highly recommended. Regarding the last third of the movie, which part did you feel was weak, I'm of the opinion that + Show Spoiler +after we learn everything and Goodman snaps, the break into the Cloverfield world was a nice break from the tension in the bunker. + Show Spoiler +I can suspend my disbelief and still enjoy a movie, but I thought that the transition was abrupt and not a logical transition from the rest of the movie. The part with Goodman was a psychological thriller, where we kept trying to figure out whether or not he was insane. I thought this was extremely well done and we were kept in suspense the entire way through. Then once she finally escapes, there's the obvious "Now what?" It would've been a little anticlimactic had the movie just ended there, but they continued it.
The first scene with the alien ship is pretty amazing. I had a sense of wtf when I saw the ship flying over to her. Subconsciously I think I knew it had to be aliens since it was a Cloverfield movie, but there was a lot of mystery surrounding the ship. It looked like it could've been a Russian helicopter or something, and I thought it kept up the suspense really well.
However, once the aliens are revealed I just felt underwhelmed. It felt almost like a deus ex machina. The writers had kept our attention so well with Goodman's exceptional performance, and it seemed like they were trying to scrape together a way to keep people interested. They couldn't just use jump scares because that would've been a cheap way to have ended a psychological thriller, but they went for somewhat corny action. The aliens themselves got very little screen time and although we can figure out what probably happened to everyone, they didn't really explain any of it and just kind of took it on faith that we'd go along with it. However, the alien died from a woman in a poorly constructed hazmat suit who threw a molotov cocktail at it. You want me to believe that they wiped out civilization for all intents and purposes? I think they tried to squeeze a bit too much out of the time they had in the movie and it felt like they spoiled the tension of the first two thirds with the last third. John Goodman's character was pretty terrifying, and the aliens just seemed a bit out of place and underwhelming in comparison.
Don't get me wrong, the movie was excellent overall. I think that the alien reveal itself was well done, but the last action sequence didn't fit with the rest of the movie, in my opinion. + Show Spoiler +I talked with the fiancee on the way home from it about that, since I figured going in that it was known that aliens were the cause of them being in the bunker not a Misery situation or getting someone to love you because of doomsday. It is a bit Signs at the end, you're definitely not wrong, but it was pointed out to me by the fiancee that it was originally meant to be just the movie in the basement, and Cloverfield kind of got tacked onto the end of it. I get what you're saying though; I think the script origin does some good in explaining how that, 'transition," from bunker to surface came about so abruptly. Almost as if the staff said, "oh yeah, we're in a cloverfield movie. " http://logins.specscout.com/homepage.php?mod=screenplay&smod=coverage&cmd=cvgd&sp_id=287https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Cloverfield_Lane#cite_note-26 + Show Spoiler +Yeah my friends and I talked about that after we saw the movie. I'm still very happy with the movie, but I think they would've been better off either making the movie slightly longer or changing the way they handled the ending.
Which leads to the discussion of what they're going to do with the Cloverfield franchise. Is it going to be an anthology of various movies that all have a common theme but are in unrelated universes? Are they going to make sequels that are set in the same universes? I'm interested to see what direction they go in.
+ Show Spoiler +I didn't get the impression that it was in a different universe, just that they took it from NYC to Louisiana but that being said I didn't think about it very hard because the alien ship and weird foreskin monster fly in the face of the pure monster attack in the first one. So I don't know. I hope they keep it up, monster movies are great when showing the monster all the time isn't the lynch pin to the drama.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
|
|
|
Ip Man 3:
Lovely action, story is alright, nothing too fancy, but the execution is nicely done. Can't really rate it, cause it feels like a 9/10 movie, but it really isn't. I will watch it again, cause it's so fun to watch them fight. If you liked number 2, you are in for a treat
|
|
|
On April 01 2016 20:26 Pandemona wrote:Kung Fu Panda 3!Arguably the best of the 3, very good and funny. I found myself laughing a bit too much at it, but very good and worth a watch. Has good scores on IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes for a very valid reason, definitely worth a watch. 
I need to rent this over the weekend. Been wanting to see it for a while now.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
It is better than no2, although personally i thought the backbone of the story in number 2 should be way better. However number 3 is just great all round fun family film :D
|
Netherlands5981 Posts
On April 01 2016 22:20 Pandemona wrote:
It is better than no2, although personally i thought the backbone of the story in number 2 should be way better. However number 3 is just great all round fun family film :D
I haven't watched any of the Kung Fu Panda's. Is it fine to just watch 3 without watching 1 and 2 or should I watch all 3 chronologically?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Yeah you will need to watch 1 for sure, you could potentially skip number 2 if you wanted as no3 doesn't technically follow on. There is a link to 2 but it is not a major point of 3 and some people might have even forgot about that before they watched number 2.
But for sure you have to watch 1 and if you have the time anyway watch 1-2-3 they are all good but i would rated;
1=3 > 2
|
Jack and the Cuckoo-Clock Heart - Refreshing animation, interesting characters, touching story. Won't give away the plot but that everytime someone messes around with the clock it felt like your heart stops too. Mature themes in the story. Memorable songs. The dubbed English sometimes feels rushed. Someone posted the movie on youtube too.
|
Cloverfield 10 lane.
8.5/10
Watched it in iMax with a girl I like, and so might have biased bonus points somewhere.
But it's always going to have extra points for just having Mary Elizabeth and being cloverfield.
The good :
The acting is really solid, which is crucial for a movie having so little characters.
I also love the colors they used, not overly saturated and very pleasing to the eye. And combine that with good use of lighting, the overall result is phenomenal.
Scene editing is beautiful, especially the paramount and bad robot introduction, right off the bat I know this movie will not disappoint me.
The bad:
I didn't like the ending so much, it felt a bit rushed and could use around 15mins screen time to polished it a little.
I also find the story give Mary's character a little bit too much invincibility, she is smart, quick thinking and brave at almost all times.
The cgi could have been better. Imo this is one of the biggest issue I had.
To conclude, I think it is worthy of cloverfield sequel. It captures the fear of unknown very well and unlike the first one, it is more secondary and yet always being there.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 22 2016 22:46 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2016 22:40 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On March 22 2016 18:11 Nyovne wrote:
Saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last friday. Enjoyed it a lot. 8/10 I also saw 10 Cloverfield Lane (I think I saw it the night it came out) and I thought it was fantastic overall. My only real issue with the movie is that it felt a bit disjointed and I think the last third of the movie was nowhere near as strong as the first two thirds. John Goodman's performance was fantastic though. The less you know about it going into it, the better in my opinion. Highly recommended. Regarding the last third of the movie, which part did you feel was weak, I'm of the opinion that + Show Spoiler +after we learn everything and Goodman snaps, the break into the Cloverfield world was a nice break from the tension in the bunker.
I think the perfect ending would've been
+ Show Spoiler +When she was standing on top of the car and says, "you've got to be kidding me."
The rest might be set up for more movies or something, but if not it felt superfluous and that "god dammit" moment would've been the perfect note to end on.
|
United States22883 Posts
Batman v Superman might be my least favorite movie of all time.
I've certainly seen worse movies, but they didn't do it for so long.
I think everyone already knows what's wrong with it by this point so I won't explain it but yeah... it's incredible how boring and unlikeable that was. I didn't think Avengers 2 was very good but I'd watch it again because it was mostly entertaining. I will never watch this again.
And to be fair, I thought The Dark Knight Returns was a stupid comic book and Frank Miller's Batman is hugely overrated. But neither of those are my main issue with the movie.
Also, I'm kind of sick of Batman's origin story. I can't think of a more boring one these days.
|
BvS was good until the last 30 minutes or so imo. The finale was pretty weak, but other than that it was a fairly run of the mill superhero movie.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 24 2016 01:25 WarSame wrote:
BvS was good until the last 30 minutes or so imo. The finale was pretty weak, but other than that it was a fairly run of the mill superhero movie.
It wasn't, at all. The story was completely incoherent, no motivations were set up besides Batman wanting revenge on Superman + Show Spoiler +until he finds out their moms have the same name. Really?
80% of the dialogue comes in speech form, and the slow motion and closeups were gratuitous.
There was nothing run of the mill about it compared to Marvel, Sony or Nolan's super hero movies. There's literally 2 jokes in the whole movie, and 4 moments of levity. Batman's fights were exciting, but there were only the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
