What is the latest movie you watched and what did you think of it?

[IdolEyes787]

Freerunner (2011) A short review(more or less)

Note to self.
Just because the movie seems popular and the premise sounds interesting and you've heard of the lead actor and parkour is "cool" and the movie is highly rated by (presumably ) special needs children on IMDB, pause for a minute and consider that these are currently the top downloaded movies in btworld then step away from the computer.

2d1kak2.jpg

Seriously if I could grab the director and shove that shaky hand-held camera down his talentless throat.......
Doubly seriously in the realm of" race for your life for the pleasure of the unwashed masses "movies, Freerunner makes Death Race 2000 comparatively look like Shakespeare.

In fact it was so bad I momentarily considered watching Louie instead.

[mjmacky]

In fact it was so bad I momentarily considered watching Louie instead.

From that list, I actually liked Horrible Bosses, and to a small degree, Thor. Everything else I've simply refused to watch with the exception of Fast Five, which of course turned out to be as crappy as I expected it to be.

[IdolEyes787]

I think you should watch Arena since it has Samuel Jackson and modern day gladiators in it so clearly it can't be bad.

Also (God help me) I watched Spread with(God help me) Ashton Kutcher and Alfie it ain't.

Not even the remake and you have to go a bit to be that bad.

I mean any movie that ends with a shot of a toad being fed a mouse and considers that to be a profound statement on what has previously transpired.......

[megabyteme]

Freerunner (2011) A short review(more or less)

Seriously if I could grab the director and shove that shaky hand-held camera down his talentless throat.......

I, too, gave it a shot due to its popularity. I forced myself to stick with it for 10 minutes past the credits. That said, the credits were obnoxious enough to make me reach for the remote- not to hit "stop", but to THROW at the television. The first scene served as a reminder to not shake babies, and the remaining minutes of story outline (which had already repeated the "rules" of the chase game, for those who could not follow its complexity the first time, within 3 minutes) made me appreciate just how "exceptional" the plot and dialog were in Arena and Tactical Force.

This is, without exaggeration, worse than anything I have seen in the past 5 years- possibly longer. And not even watchable in terms of "bad movie" snickers. If a group of Down's Syndrome kids made this film, I would be disappointed in their "efforts".

[mjmacky]

If a group of Down's Syndrome kids made this film, I would be disappointed in their "efforts".

This earned an lol and that makes me think you stole it from me

[megabyteme]

I am reasonably sure they got a tax break for hiring a cameraman with Parkinson's.

[Glod]

Two words,space opera.
There is science ,there is fiction and then there is science fiction.Fine you didn't "buy into it" I can live with that but lambasting a movie especially a sci-fi one for being "unrealistic" is just silly.

On another wholly opposing note I believe that the characters are what carry the film and your criticisms speak only to the now dated nature of the movie and not to it's initial quality.
( An exceedingly small) Part of what was bad about the ensuing series(ie Episodes 1-3) is that unlike the original(s) the characters were basically unlikable and consequently no one ended up caring in the least about them.

Regarding the realism of the film, the characters portrayed are all humanoid and presumably have a fear response. When you are inches away from death, joking about it is beyond unrealistic, it's downright stupid, and the fact that humor was included at such an otherwise tense moment in the plot disappointed me and somewhat deflated the excitement, since few directors would follow that up with Han Solo's face being blasted off. When they joke around, you know they're going to escape the situation with a witty quip and several pats on the back.

A few of the characters were entertaining in spite of their complete one-dimensionality, but I can't see how you would consider them anything more than that. Luke Skywalker is the epitome of the boy becoming a man, to such a degree that he comes across as a caricature. He's like the All-American, go-get-'em, screw the consequences do-gooder with an enormously lopsided conception of personal responsibility. "Ooh, a princess?! Why, I must save her, obviously!"

I don't particularly care about a film's initial quality. I judge films based on their own merit, regardless of the time period or the intention of its creator. Star Wars: A New Hope is, to my mind, a big and dumb film for teenage boys, and no amount of consideration for its place in film history will change that conclusion. I fully agree that it was technologically impressive for its time, a triumph of the imagination, and extremely influential, but its merit as a film to be enjoyed and appreciated is quite weak.

To you, Artemis, I realize that individuals in that era behaved differently and films in general were drastically different in style. However, the characters compare unfavorably to those of later and earlier films. Two films from the same decade that spring to mind are Annie Hall and Deliverance. Those aren't space operas, but the characterization is clearly much deeper and involves great displays of emotion. Han Solo's motivation was obviously greed, and some others are easy enough to figure out, but the most important ones are markedly absent or painfully rudimentary; they aren't fleshed out, they're led along by invisible strings. Again, Luke Skywalker, the thoughtless protagonist. I attribute much of this to the shoddy writing, which limits the range of an actor's expression. As Harrison Ford said, “George, you can type this shit, but you sure can’t say it.”

Anyway, my judgement of A New Hope isn't preconceived. I simply place no value on historical importance or outdated innovations. The film, as you allude to, is very much part of the '70s, and while it can perhaps be viewed differently with such knowledge held in mind, that has no bearing on its overall quality when evaluated by itself, separate from the competition.

While a little less harsh about your summation than my mildly irritated Canadian friend (he still hasn't recovered from his trip to the woods), I think you need to take classic movies at face value for their time in order to enjoy them. Society has changed a great deal in the last 3 decades since the original Star Wars trilogy was produced, particularly morals and how people actually interact with one and other. For it's time Star Wars was cutting edge in so many ways and in terms of the acting the actors were actually far more emotional than in a lot of 70's and early 80's movies, where most of the time dark and brooding and saying not very much was a sign of being 'cool'. If you go back and look at most of the classic Sci-Fi movies from the 70's (which reminds me, time for me to review a classic) the acting did seem 'wooden' by modern standards and alot of the motivations are left unexplained.

This is as much to do with the style of movies being produced at the time as it does with the quality of the acting, and I would hardly say that Sir Alec Guiness and Harrison Ford are exactly slouches as actors. Also Star Wars was the first time that a robot was ever really imbued with a likeable personality for a movie, yet this was such a hit that many other movies within a few years had tried to emulate this feat (Black Hole, Buck Rogers etc.) so the character development overall (for the time) was far more in depth that we see from alot of movies from that era.

I find in general, in 70's movies that alot of motivations are simply left unexplained, I often find myself going huh ? but have accepted that this seems to be something to do with the style of the era in general. Charles Bronson made a massive career in the 70's out of wasting entire gangloads of baddies, while saying very little, looking deeply and smoulderingly around at every one, and with little or no dialogue as to why, the same with Chuck Norris. In these movies there is one or two cruel acts perpetrated on the good guy by the baddies, then he snaps and goes on a murder spree which we are supposed to cheer, while showing little emotion and explaining himself (themselves) not one jot.

Pithy witticisms were also par for the course for alot of movies of this time, once again Arnold Schwarzenegger made as much of a career out of pithy one liners as he did with his huge muscles dispensing hundreds of bad doodz in a single sitting.

I believe in general to truly enjoy movies from these era's you have to move past your preconceptions, and take them for the classics that they are, far more inventive and capable of transporting us to another world more easily and believably than the current crop of schlock, that is simply trying to out effect each other in a 'my one's bigger than your one' contest while sacrificing any real character development or depth and layering to the movie.

megabyteme: Agreed on Star Wars' contribution to special effects and film in general. Again, no bearing on the individual quality of A New Hope, at least to me. Influence on other directors doesn't translate to enjoyment by me as a viewer.

@Glod: One of Star Wars' greatest feats was how far forward it pushed special effects at the time. When comparing a classic to newer films, it is VERY important the viewer keeps in mind all of the new ground/next-level that film brings to the genre. One of the characteristics of the Sci-Fi genre is, of course, special effects. Lucas developed (or improved) so many techniques with these movies that he started Lucasfilm which is still one of the largest, most advanced production companies in the world. Not only were the SE's ahead of their time, but the creation of multi-channel theater sound resulted, as well.

Movies are remembered for what they contributed to the body of works as a whole, and Star Wars is undeniably one of those films that sent permanent ripples through the industry- and changed consumers' expectations as to what could be done from that point on.

[IdolEyes787]

No offense but you're amazingly eloquent for a retard.

Like the Indiana Jones films, the point was to merge the sensibilities and somewhat the structure of the old episodic matinee cliffhangers with the (then ) cutting age technical effects.
If you don't like it or don't "get it" fine but you are basically in effect arguing that just because you think so any music without a 3/4 drumbeat is inherently bad.

Again. Luke Skywalker stereotypical hero ,sort of the point.
Also it's not knowing or not knowing what is going to happen , as with a rollercoaster it's all about how enjoyable the predictable thrills are going to be.

On an end note ,I don't disagree about it being pure pulp or Lucas ( as later more evidently proven) being a hack of a writer but Skywaker was the only character in the whole thing to really have any kind of arc to his story so one dimensional no.Initially intentionality a bit too earnest, sure.

Ffs I wasted my 17th millionth post on arguing with an overly serious pseudo cinephile.
And I was really hoping to use that one to try and get laid.

[Glod]

I would appreciate some modicum of civility. The insults are unnecessary and don't substantiate your argument in any way. If it makes you feel better, go ahead, but don't expect much of a response.

No offense but you're amazingly eloquent for a retard.

Like the Indiana Jones films, the point was to merge the sensibilities and somewhat the structure of the old episodic matinee cliffhangers with the (then ) cutting age technical effects.
If you don't like it or don't "get it" fine but you are basically in effect arguing that just because you think so any music without a 3/4 drumbeat is inherently bad.

Again. Luke Skywalker stereotypical hero ,sort of the point.
Also it's not knowing or not knowing what is going to happen , as with a rollercoaster it's all about how enjoyable the predictable thrills are going to be.

On an end note ,I don't disagree about it being pure pulp or Lucas ( as later more evidently proven) being a hack of a writer but Skywaker was the only character in the whole thing to really have any kind of arc to his story so one dimensional no.Initially intentionality a bit too earnest, sure.

Ffs I wasted my 17th millionth post on arguing with an overly serious pseudo cinephile.
And I was really hoping to use that one to try and get laid.

[IdolEyes787]

Like I said overly serious.