What was the last movie you watched and how would you rate it?

• gport_tennis

  Girl at work: "I'm gonna see Pompeii this weekend, it looks really good.
  me, sarcastically: "I'm not real interested, I know how it ends."
  Her: "oh OK, well I don't, so don't tell me..."
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  gport_tennis;1583318 wrote:Girl at work: "I'm gonna see Pompeii this weekend, it looks really good.
  me, sarcastically: "I'm not real interested, I know how it ends."
  Her: "oh OK, well I don't, so don't tell me..."

  Girls are so stupid. Seriously.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Finally saw Thor 2. Ok, better than the first but nothing special. My wife thinks Hemsworth or whatever his name is, is super hot. 6/10.
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye;1583367 wrote:Finally saw Thor 2. Ok, better than the first but nothing special. My wife thinks Hemsworth or whatever his name is, is super hot. 6/10.

  Yeah, but Natalie Portman is really hot
• friendfromlowry

  Saw The Lego Movie last night. It was actually pretty funny. May see Pompeii tonight.
• O-Trap

  

  Watched the Lego Movie as well. More entertaining than I thought it would be. I'd say 7.5 or 8 out of 10.
• gut

  I'm going to dump on another good, but very overrated movie - Lone Survivor (5.5/10). I feel like they tried too hard to add drama making these guys superhuman, which the story really didn't need. Overhyped because it's based on a recent true story (I would guess the movie did the book a disservice).
  
  Long list of movies in the genre which I thought were much better - Blackhawk Down, Seal Team 6, Zero Dark Thirty, Saving Private Ryan, Special Forces (or go old school with Battle of the Bulge)....just off the top of my head.
• gut

  Continuing the trend...Wolf of Wall Street 6/10. Essentially a true-life version of "The Hangover", or Charlie Sheen if he had been a banker. Not remotely in the same ballpark as "Wall Street", and technically "Boiler Room" was a more accurate and realistic portrayal. Or "Trading Places" for a holiday spin.
• reclegend22

  

  gut;1583519 wrote:I'm going to dump on another good, but very overrated movie - Lone Survivor (5.5/10). I feel like they tried too hard to add drama making these guys superhuman, which the story really didn't need. Overhyped because it's based on a recent true story (I would guess the movie did the book a disservice).
  
  Long list of movies in the genre which I thought were much better - Blackhawk Down, Seal Team 6, Zero Dark Thirty, Saving Private Ryan, Special Forces (or go old school with Battle of the Bulge)....just off the top of my head.

  Outstanding movie. Probably my favorite military-related film of all-time. It was really well done.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1583521 wrote:Continuing the trend...Wolf of Wall Street 6/10. Essentially a true-life version of "The Hangover", or Charlie Sheen if he had been a banker. Not remotely in the same ballpark as "Wall Street", and technically "Boiler Room" was a more accurate and realistic portrayal. Or "Trading Places" for a holiday spin.

  Given the movie being based largely on the life of a real person, what made you think it was less accurate and/or realistically portrayed than Boiler Room?
  
  For what it's worth, I like all the movies you mentioned. And I actually was expecting more hookers and blow than were in the movie, based on what others said.
  
  I thought it captured his "assholery" well. Painted him like the slimeball sonofabitch he was (per a couple mutual acquaintances). I do think the last half hour or so was a little aimless, but all-in-all, it was still relevant to what happened to him.
  
  Having watched it a second time, I don't actually think they made it TOO unnecessarily long. I'm trying to recall an unnecessary scene, and I can't.
  
  What was it that stuck out to you?
• O-Trap

  

  reclegend22;1583522 wrote:Outstanding movie. Probably my favorite military-related film of all-time. It was really well done.

  Been wanting to watch this for awhile. Glad to know I've not been pining in vain.
• gut

  reclegend22;1583522 wrote:Outstanding movie. Probably my favorite military-related film of all-time. It was really well done.

  Would be 4th in the list I gave (which is no slight, it was a solid 8/10)....Blackhawk Down and Battle of the Bulge are on a different level, and then Special Forces was outstanding, but as a foreign film didn't get much love here.
• gut

  O-Trap;1583529 wrote:Given the movie being based largely on the life of a real person, what made you think it was less accurate and/or realistically portrayed than Boiler Room?

  It was more about Charlie Sheen than Madoff, if that analogy makes sense.
  
  Wall Street was also loosely based on a true story, and Boiler Room was a composite. In my opinion, I suspect DiCapprio's character was actually a composite (and a good one) of bad actors. There's a hedge fund manager who rather famously told his investors of his fraud via video conference from his yacht (I forget, but I think shortly before he committed suicide).
  
  Young, wealthy hard-working men on Wall Street party hard. Not a real revelation, they ARE rock stars in their own right. And that's the side the movie portrayed. Not a lot of depth otherwise.
• gut

  O-Trap;1583529 wrote: What was it that stuck out to you?

  The movie was fairly well done (and DiCapprio was excellent). It was not particularly compelling in terms of technicals or story.
  
  What really kind of annoyed me was how his right-hand men were portrayed as complete stooges (I assume, for comedy relief). That part was hard to swallow. Sure, they had a great "script" to follow, but you just don't cold-call someone and close a million dollar account over the phone. And no one would give those clowns money after meeting them.
  
  And my inclination is they made the bulk of their money on the pump-and-dump IPO's, which the movie sort of touches on but that's where the technical issues come in. The movie makes it seem like he made his multi-millions out of bamboozling mom & pop, and I will bet money that is not true.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1583535 wrote:The movie was fairly well done (and DiCapprio was excellent). It was not particularly compelling in terms of technicals or story.
  
  What really kind of annoyed me was how his right-hand men were portrayed as complete stooges (I assume, for comedy relief). That part was hard to swallow. Sure, they had a great "script" to follow, but you just don't cold-call someone and close a million dollar account over the phone. And no one would give those clowns money after meeting them.
  
  And my inclination is they made the bulk of their money on the pump-and-dump IPO's, which the movie sort of touches on but that's where the technical issues come in. The movie makes it seem like he made his multi-millions out of bamboozling mom & pop, and I will bet money that is not true.

  From my understanding, you're right that it was mostly penny stock IPOs. However, as I understand it, a large chunk of the investors he got were off mom-and-pop-level investors into those IPOs (people looking to fund their own retirements, often). I remember when penny stock scams were still in their heyday, and that was the MO (as both Wolf and Boiler Room showed).
  
  I agree, however, that his right-hand men were kind of boobs. I like Jonah Hill, but I didn't like him for this movie, at all. Didn't play to his strengths, and it cheesed the movie up, so I can definitely relate to you on that.
• reclegend22

  

  O-Trap;1583531 wrote:Been wanting to watch this for awhile. Glad to know I've not been pining in vain.

  
  Despite being three hours long with an ending that everyone already knows, the movie still delivers an intense and suspenseful story. If a movie can do that, then I feel it has accomplished its mission. The visuals are great as is the atmospheric score. Overall the film does an excellent job of providing a glimpse into the minds of the men and women at the CIA who were responsible for the decade-long manhunt that culminated in the capture of OBL. Kind of slow-moving at times, with a lot of set-up and dialogue, but the really big and dramatic scenes that are there are done on a grand scale.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  reclegend22;1583630 wrote:
  Despite being three hours long with an ending that everyone already knows, the movie still delivers an intense and suspenseful story. If a movie can do that, then I feel it has accomplished its mission. The visuals are great as is the atmospheric score. Overall the film does an excellent job of providing a glimpse into the minds of the men and women at the CIA who were responsible for the decade-long manhunt that culminated in the capture of OBL. Kind of slow-moving at times, with a lot of set-up and dialogue, but the really big and dramatic scenes that are there are done on a grand scale.

  I see a lot of what are you are saying, but we were completely underwhelmed. It seemed like an NBC Sunday night film that was advertised as an Oscar contender (and as an aside, I'm hardly prudish but it seemed like the F-bombs were dropped in just to make it more edgy - not sure that succeeded.) It just didn't work for us. 4/10
  
  --edit, for an Oscar nominated film a 7.5 IMDB score is very low...reading the first several highest rated reviews, I can't say I disagree. It just seemed low budget
• lhslep134

  

  I know this is an older movie but I got around to finally seeing 2 Guns.
  
  7/10 because I really like Denzel and Wahlberg. Story was OK, loved the final gun fight sequence though.
• End of Line

  

  The Monuments Men 6/10
  
  Loved the history aspect but the movie had no direction and was very dull.
  
  
  Red Dawn (2012) 2.5/10
  
  Trash. Josh Peck's overly dramatic acting throughout the movie was just completely laughable and the fact there was no timeline, just a horrible movie.
• GoPens

  

  Finally saw "The Desolation of Smaug"--7/10. Better than the first. Hated where it left off.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  GoPens;1583696 wrote:Finally saw "The Desolation of Smaug"--7/10. Better than the first. Hated where it left off.

  Glad to hear the second one is better, the first one was just so long and boring.
• reclegend22

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1583634 wrote:I see a lot of what are you are saying, but we were completely underwhelmed. It seemed like an NBC Sunday night film that was advertised as an Oscar contender (and as an aside, I'm hardly prudish but it seemed like the F-bombs were dropped in just to make it more edgy - not sure that succeeded.) It just didn't work for us. 4/10
  
  --edit, for an Oscar nominated film a 7.5 IMDB score is very low...reading the first several highest rated reviews, I can't say I disagree. It just seemed low budget

  Damn, 4 of 10? That's pretty harsh.
  
  I can sort of see your comparison to a History Channel mini-series in terms of how the film unfolds in an almost docu-drama format and its plodding pace at points. In fact, upon watching, the movie actually reminded me a bit of The Path to 9/11, which aired as a two-part miniseries on ABC several years ago.
  
  In terms of production value, however, I disagree with the contention that Zero Dark Thirty comes across as "low budget." The cinematography and score impressively capture the sights and sounds of the various locales of the Middle East about as well as any film I can remember, save for perhaps Syriana. And the acting was really top notch. I just don't see any comparison to a TV production in that regard.
• thavoice

  gut;1583519 wrote:I'm going to dump on another good, but very overrated movie - Lone Survivor (5.5/10). I feel like they tried too hard to add drama making these guys superhuman, which the story really didn't need. Overhyped because it's based on a recent true story (I would guess the movie did the book a disservice).
  
  Long list of movies in the genre which I thought were much better - Blackhawk Down, Seal Team 6, Zero Dark Thirty, Saving Private Ryan, Special Forces (or go old school with Battle of the Bulge)....just off the top of my head.

  I absolutely loved Lone Survivor and was the only movie I ever went to see more than once in theatre. With that said, I didnt really like Wahlberg in it. The guy who played Michael Murphy and Matthew Axelson were out-fucking-standing. I think the director could have done alot to build on the characters more. I think they banked alot of people knowing the story and the background a bit more (I had read the book fully twice, and the last 35 or so pages 2 additional times). They needed 20-30 more minutes to really build on everything. 0 dark 30, anotther great movie, was that long so why not this one?
  
  It stayed fairly true to the book, some differences.
  
  SEAL Team 6 was a very good made for tv version of 0 Dark, enjoyed it greatly.
  
  Saving Private Ryan is outstanding. No doubt about that. That story has a built in great moment of the D Day invasion. ANy movie that can have that in it has a leg up on every other war movie. SPR wasnt really a true story though. There WAS something similiar that happened, but the SPR was much, much further away from a true story than Lone Surivor was.
  
  Not familiar with Specail Forces. Battle of the Bulge...very good. Old though so the special effects arent the greatest. I alwayws really enjoyed Tora Tora Tora.
• thavoice

  Manhattan Buckeye;1583634 wrote:I see a lot of what are you are saying, but we were completely underwhelmed. It seemed like an NBC Sunday night film that was advertised as an Oscar contender (and as an aside, I'm hardly prudish but it seemed like the F-bombs were dropped in just to make it more edgy - not sure that succeeded.) It just didn't work for us. 4/10
  
  --edit, for an Oscar nominated film a 7.5 IMDB score is very low...reading the first several highest rated reviews, I can't say I disagree. It just seemed low budget

  IN reading alot of comments on FB on the LS site I heard some people complaining about it. One lady said she wanted to bring her kids, but because of the language she wouldnt. As if watching the killing of countless people is OK, but a word that their kids probably already use was sometthing just over th eline!!!
• gut

  thavoice;1583885 wrote:As if watching the killing of countless people is OK, but a word that their kids probably already use was sometthing just over th eline!!!

  LOL!
  
  I was just really turned-off by some of the gruesomeness of it, like they relied on visual/gore too much to play to your emotions and add drama. Little too Hollywood for me, which I found a bit offensive considering it's based on a true story. In other words, kind of like the story and heroism isn't enough on it's own without jazzing it up a little.
  
  But I'd say if you take away the true story aspect, that movie would be considered mediocre at best. Really wish I had read the book, instead.