The above is likely a Sad indictment of the quality of modern large scale sci fi to compare it to, it's fun but not a classic in my book 8/10 maybe.
What film did you watch last night?
- Thread starter Richeh
- Start date
The above is likely a Sad indictment of the quality of modern large scale sci fi to compare it to, it's fun but not a classic in my book 8/10 maybe.
I can see your point, however i'd say Suicide Squad at it's true core isn't far removed from the likes of Street Kings/Harsh Times with rogue police doing their own thing, it should have been a great fit for him.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
My favourite bit was the entire 'skip the New York' thing, where the last film ended.
It actually wasn't terrible, the first RE film was fine, the rest toss and dross.
When I started watching, I spend 30-45 minutes wondering if we were going to get flashback, or if I had in fact missed an entire film (possible still).
The obviously realised, that even with their own terrible plot and script issues, they couldn't even construct a finale mess from where the previous film left off, so they basically skipped it.
Probably for the best.
They could have made oh so much more form this.
It gets a Japanese led reboot later this year/early next year afaik.
Daughter 2 was away this weekend, so we let daughter 1 choose some films to watch that daughter 2 is too young for. On Friday night, we watched Spider Man, the first one with Tobey Maguire. I've not watched it in years, but it doesn't really hold up. The dialogue is very patchy and the green goblin is a pretty rubbish villain. The second one is vastly superior. On the plus side, Kirsten Dunst has jiggly and occasionally wet boobs, so that was good. Anyway. Last night we settled in for a long haul and watched The Fellowship of the Ring. It's excellent, just an amazing achievement. Looking forward to watching the sequels when we get the chance.
I watched the Abyss with my daughter last week...She thought the sea monster thingy was the abyss!
Kong: Skull Island.
I watched this movie for what it is; I judged it according to its genre. It was still ****.
2005 Kong was better. Yes it was corny, yes it was silly, but it knew what it was, and it didn't pretend to be anything else. That's why it worked. Pacific Rim was big, and dumb, and proud of it. That's one of the reasons it was so enjoyable.
Problems with Kong: Skull Island:
* generic script
* generic, stereotypical characters
* poor casting
* poor editing
* poor pacing
* tonal inconsistencies
* lacklustre acting by actors who clearly don't give a crap
* death by numbers
* inconsistent and totally unbelievable behaviour from characters
* seismic detonators that explode like giant fire bombs for no good reason
* journalist takes photos with the same lens throughout the entire movie: long distance shots, close shots, shots that would require zoom or telephoto; doesn't matter, she gets them all with the same tiny 35mm lens!
* helicopters continue to fly close to Kong for no apparent reason, even though they've already seen him smack several choppers out of the sky
* bloodless wounds and deaths, no matter how violent
* laws of physics casually ignored whenever they're too inconvenient for the plot
* plot elements introduced and abandoned arbitrarily
* inconsistencies of scale
I could go on and on.
The 1970s setting was pointless, and added nothing to the movie; it was just an excuse to drag in some unnecessary Apocalypse Now references.
I went into this movie expecting to love it. I was sorely disillusioned. John C. Reilly is the only person who emerged from the wreckage with his dignity intact, and that's only because he played a character that was tailor made for his shtick.
I rate Kong: Skull Island at 16.65 on the Haglee Scale, which works out as a pedestrian 5/10 on IMDB.
I watched this movie for what it is; I judged it according to its genre. It was still ****.
2005 Kong was better. Yes it was corny, yes it was silly, but it knew what it was, and it didn't pretend to be anything else. That's why it worked. Pacific Rim was big, and dumb, and proud of it. That's one of the reasons it was so enjoyable.
Problems with Kong: Skull Island:
* generic script
* generic, stereotypical characters
* poor casting
* poor editing
* poor pacing
* tonal inconsistencies
* lacklustre acting by actors who clearly don't give a crap
* death by numbers
* inconsistent and totally unbelievable behaviour from characters
* seismic detonators that explode like giant fire bombs for no good reason
* journalist takes photos with the same lens throughout the entire movie: long distance shots, close shots, shots that would require zoom or telephoto; doesn't matter, she gets them all with the same tiny 35mm lens!
* helicopters continue to fly close to Kong for no apparent reason, even though they've already seen him smack several choppers out of the sky
* bloodless wounds and deaths, no matter how violent
* laws of physics casually ignored whenever they're too inconvenient for the plot
* plot elements introduced and abandoned arbitrarily
* inconsistencies of scale
I could go on and on.
The 1970s setting was pointless, and added nothing to the movie; it was just an excuse to drag in some unnecessary Apocalypse Now references.
I went into this movie expecting to love it. I was sorely disillusioned. John C. Reilly is the only person who emerged from the wreckage with his dignity intact, and that's only because he played a character that was tailor made for his shtick.
I rate Kong: Skull Island at 16.65 on the Haglee Scale, which works out as a pedestrian 5/10 on IMDB.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,223
- Location
- North East England
Kong: Skull Island.
I watched this movie for what it is; I judged it according to its genre. It was still ****.
2005 Kong was better. Yes it was corny, yes it was silly, but it knew what it was, and it didn't pretend to be anything else. That's why it worked. Pacific Rim was big, and dumb, and proud of it. That's one of the reasons it was so enjoyable.
Problems with Kong: Skull Island:
* generic script
* generic, stereotypical characters
* poor casting
* poor editing
* poor pacing
* tonal inconsistencies
* lacklustre acting by actors who clearly don't give a crap
* death by numbers
* inconsistent and totally unbelievable behaviour from characters
* seismic detonators that explode like giant fire bombs for no good reason
* journalist takes photos with the same lens throughout the entire movie: long distance shots, close shots, shots that would require zoom or telephoto; doesn't matter, she gets them all with the same tiny 35mm lens!
* helicopters continue to fly close to Kong for no apparent reason, even though they've already seen him smack several choppers out of the sky
* bloodless wounds and deaths, no matter how violent
* laws of physics casually ignored whenever they're too inconvenient for the plot
* plot elements introduced and abandoned arbitrarily
* inconsistencies of scale
I could go on and on.
The 1970s setting was pointless, and added nothing to the movie; it was just an excuse to drag in some unnecessary Apocalypse Now references.
I went into this movie expecting to love it. I was sorely disillusioned. John C. Reilly is the only person who emerged from the wreckage with his dignity intact, and that's only because he played a character that was tailor made for his shtick.
I rate Kong: Skull Island at 16.65 on the Haglee Scale, which works out as a pedestrian 5/10 on IMDB.
Have to agree it was yet another missed opportunity and it failed on so many levels. There were some enjoyable scenes but as a whole, for me, it didn't work.
5/10 (switch your brain off)
Still 2 more films to go so will be interesting to see if they turn things around.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 4,285
- Location
- Gloucestershire
I got so annoyed at the helicopter scene. Why fly near the giant monkey when you're in a helicopter?! The one thing that could get away from it!!!
After that I didn't pay much attention to the rest...
After that I didn't pay much attention to the rest...
The Void - 0/10 I hadn't realised this film was like an 80s b movie/Grindhouse-ish homage but I was prepared to let it run. Mrs on the other hand wasn't having any of it.
A Cure for Wellness - not bad. Sort of a poor mans Shutter Island. 4/10
A Cure for Wellness - not bad. Sort of a poor mans Shutter Island. 4/10
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The absolute worst part was how they learned that Kong was actually the good guy and upon meeting up with Jackson didn't mention it even once. Didn't explain there is something worse, only later did it come up, genuinely stupid and ridiculous. The helicopter scene was insanely poor and right after the guy said that their people were spread out over 45 square miles even though all the choppers went down in basically the same small location. Even if they were hit and took a while to hit the ground, they weren't travelling 5+ miles. They would all have been in a tiny area at that point.
Nothing redeeming in the whole film, dire plot, poor action, poor acting, poor everything. 3/10 not because anything was good but there are even worse films around.
Seriously? I give it a solid 23.31 on the Haglee Scale. Best 80s horror tribute I've seen in years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,223
- Location
- North East England
The Great Wall
Oh wow that was terrible! I thought this would be a good switch your brain off and enjoy the fight scenes, but when the entire movie is one long fight scene boredom well and truly sets in.
The build up was non existent, the fight scenes were absurd, the characters forgettable, its like half the movie was left on the cutting room floor and instead they just crammed in one long battle.
edit: I just remembered Matt Damon's accent! I cannot remember watching a film where the lead character's accent kept changing from one scene to the next
3/10
Oh wow that was terrible! I thought this would be a good switch your brain off and enjoy the fight scenes, but when the entire movie is one long fight scene boredom well and truly sets in.
The build up was non existent, the fight scenes were absurd, the characters forgettable, its like half the movie was left on the cutting room floor and instead they just crammed in one long battle.
They had 60 years to prepare for battle and seemed incapable of fighting (they did have the suicidal crane corps !) plus they built the wall but no other defences on the approach to said wall!
!) plus they built the wall but no other defences on the approach to said wall!edit: I just remembered Matt Damon's accent! I cannot remember watching a film where the lead character's accent kept changing from one scene to the next
3/10
Last edited:
Probably my favourite film, must watch it again soon. They rarely make characters and scripts as good anymore.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 1,392
- Location
- Horsham
The Founder - 7/10 Kept me interested enough mainly for my love of McDonalds. Had to have a burger immediately after the movie finished
I thought I recognised that word from reviews on IMDb, and it turns out I was right and it's used exclusively by another bloke from Australia... which clearly must be you.
What on earth is the Haglee Scale?I thought I recognised that word from reviews on IMDb, and it turns out I was right and it's used exclusively by another bloke from Australia... which clearly must be you.
Correct.
An alternative metric for assessing movies. Some people use the */5 scale, some use the */10 scale, and Roger Ebert controversially used his own */4 scale. I use the Haglee Scale.
