Rate the Last Movie You Saw

[srboone]

A day spent at the movies (and what a day! What a lovely day it was).

Tomorrowland: Convoluted story with great special effects. OK until the last 30 minutes when it becomes preachy and really has nothing to say we haven't heard before in better movies. 2/5

Ex Machina: Cerebral sci-fi film that places ideas over flashy effects. Chilling and intellectually satisfying examination of the potential of AI. Destined to become a genre classic. 4/5

and i couldn't resist a second viewing of Mad Max: Fury Road:

This time, it was Nicholas Hioult as Nux, the War Boy who discovers the last vestiges of his humanity amid the chaos of the road, who stood out. In a genre that could care less about acting, Hioult's performance is exceptional. He is the heart of the movie. Then there are the cars. They are characters as important as Max, Furiosa and Nux. Some of them even have names!

Check out The Peaceamaker driven by The Bullet Farmer:

peacemaker-mad-max-fury-road.jpg

The Buzzard Excavator:

buzzard-excavator-mad-max-fury-road.jpg

The Doof Wagon, a mobile sound stage for the blind musician to play his flame-spurting guitar:

doof-wagon-mad-max-fury-road.jpg

And the Gigahorse: Immortan Joe's double chasised ride:

gigahorse-mad-max-fury-road.jpg

It's almost unfair that the the cars of Fury Road show more personality than characters in other movies.

[srboone]

Insidious: Chapter 3: Not as scary as the first two entries, but this prequel does as some truly terrifying moments--especially since silence is used as effectively as sound. Add to that some memorably grotesque imagery and two fine central performances (particularly by veteran Lin Shaye--I'm just starting to get past her "Magda" from There's Something about Mary) and I am willing to forgive the lackluster, though not anticlimactic, ending to the movie.

3.5/5

[mhatchett]

I finally watched Fury. It was OK. As a Tanker, just full of flaws and some of the film-making seemed Lazy. Basic Army stuff an SSG, Brad Pitt's rank, is not called "Top". The fire commands in the Tank scenes were jacked up, The battle scenes could've been so much better, Three Shermans charging a Tiger across a field = three piles of burning rumble. I applaud the attempt to make a tank movie, but neh! A great book to read about what American armor was up against in WWII, is Death Traps by Belton Cooper. Glad I waited for the DVD, it was OK.
Mike

[markgunnells]

Recently Craig and I have gone to see two action movies at the theater, the new Avengers and the new Mad Max. Got me to thinking about CGI and its overuse.
I know I sound all old fogie--movies were better in my day--but I really do feel CGI is used way too much, to the point that it becomes distracting and pulls me out of the movie. And these two movies really highlighted that.

CGI has its place, I admit that, but I think it works best when filling in or removing certain things. When you start creating entire environments and characters, it starts to look like a cartoon or video game.

The new Avengers was way too CGI heavy. And in places where I felt it wasn't even warranted. The opening sequence which had a car chase, people jumping on moving vehicles and being knocked off, it was all too video game looking, I expected to find a controller in my hand, and (here comes the old fogie) back in my day that would have just been done with stunt men and women. And it looked better and wasn't so distracting.

In contrast, Mad Max was 80 percent real practical effects, with car chases, explosions, people jumping to and from moving vehicles, and it was a much more visceral experience. And I read that it cost less to make than Avengers.

I just think in some ways CGI has made filmmakers lazy, it's always the go-to when practical effects and stunts would actually serve the film better.

[Dan Hocker]

Recently Craig and I have gone to see two action movies at the theater, the new Avengers and the new Mad Max. Got me to thinking about CGI and its overuse.
I know I sound all old fogie--movies were better in my day--but I really do feel CGI is used way too much, to the point that it becomes distracting and pulls me out of the movie. And these two movies really highlighted that.

CGI has its place, I admit that, but I think it works best when filling in or removing certain things. When you start creating entire environments and characters, it starts to look like a cartoon or video game.

The new Avengers was way too CGI heavy. And in places where I felt it wasn't even warranted. The opening sequence which had a car chase, people jumping on moving vehicles and being knocked off, it was all too video game looking, I expected to find a controller in my hand, and (here comes the old fogie) back in my day that would have just been done with stunt men and women. And it looked better and wasn't so distracting.

In contrast, Mad Max was 80 percent real practical effects, with car chases, explosions, people jumping to and from moving vehicles, and it was a much more visceral experience. And I read that it cost less to make than Avengers.

I just think in some ways CGI has made filmmakers lazy, it's always the go-to when practical effects and stunts would actually serve the film better.

In contrast to that argument, I don't think you can make a movie like The Avengers without all that CGI. It works for a movie like Mad Max and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, because at the end of the day those movies are pretty grounded in reality. Movies like The Avengers on the other hand are not. I don't think you can make a movie with characters like Iron Man, Thor, Vision, and Ultron and their power sets without heavy use of CGI.

At the end of the day though the problem with CGI suffers more from the over use of 3D in movie making today. The CGI is far less noticeable in a movie where the 3D wasn't part of the original design of the movie. Something about 3D and when a movie is intended / shot for 3D really makes the CGI stick out like a sore thumb.

Personally I don't think CGI has made filmmakers lazy, I think it's given them a way to do things that they couldn't before, and if it seems that it's made them lazy I think those particular filmmakers where probably lazy in the first place. At the end of the day I personally really liked Age of Ultron, but I think the CGI was the least of my problems with that movie. That and CGI has become so ubiquitous that I honestly just don't even notice it anymore.

[Sock Monkey]

Checked out Kingsman today and had a total blast with it. I had a hard time in the beginning getting a handle on the film's tone (mostly because I think I was expecting one thing and got something slightly different; didn't know that Mark Millar was involved, if I had I think this wouldn't have been a problem), but after I settled in, the solid script and direction along with Colin Firth in one insane action sequence added up for a really enjoyable experience. I also get a feeling that I'll enjoy it more the second time around. Grade: B+

[Tommy]

Checked out Kingsman today and had a total blast with it. I had a hard time in the beginning getting a handle on the film's tone (mostly because I think I was expecting one thing and got something slightly different; didn't know that Mark Millar was involved, if I had I think this wouldn't have been a problem), but after I settled in, the solid script and direction along with Colin Firth in one insane action sequence added up for a really enjoyable experience. I also get a feeling that I'll enjoy it more the second time around. Grade: B+

I saw it twice at the movie theaters and I never really do that but a friend was visiting and wanted to see a movie. I was glad to get to see it again. It is just as much fun the second time. Samuel L. Jackson steals every scene for me, hilarious!

Edit: Just read that there is a sequel in the works

[markgunnells]

In contrast to that argument, I don't think you can make a movie like The Avengers without all that CGI. It works for a movie like Mad Max and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, because at the end of the day those movies are pretty grounded in reality. Movies like The Avengers on the other hand are not. I don't think you can make a movie with characters like Iron Man, Thor, Vision, and Ultron and their power sets without heavy use of CGI.

At the end of the day though the problem with CGI suffers more from the over use of 3D in movie making today. The CGI is far less noticeable in a movie where the 3D wasn't part of the original design of the movie. Something about 3D and when a movie is intended / shot for 3D really makes the CGI stick out like a sore thumb.

Personally I don't think CGI has made filmmakers lazy, I think it's given them a way to do things that they couldn't before, and if it seems that it's made them lazy I think those particular filmmakers where probably lazy in the first place. At the end of the day I personally really liked Age of Ultron, but I think the CGI was the least of my problems with that movie. That and CGI has become so ubiquitous that I honestly just don't even notice it anymore.

Dan, but they were using CGI in places where they could have done it real, like the vehicle chase scene at the beginning I pointed out. I felt it was lazy and they just used it for everything even when practical effects could have been.

[mhatchett]

I think we can all agree that bad use of CGI can sink a movie as fast, maybe faster than bad acting or bad writing. On the flipside, I can't remember a movie being saved by good use of CGI. Maybe I'm wrong. Movie completely sunk by bad CGI and had potential, Van Hessling, completely ruined the movie.
Mike

[markgunnells]

Yeah, if a movie doesn't have good story and acting, nothing can save it for me.

[Theli]

I think we can all agree that bad use of CGI can sink a movie as fast, maybe faster than bad acting or bad writing. On the flipside, I can't remember a movie being saved by good use of CGI. Maybe I'm wrong. Movie completely sunk by bad CGI and had potential, Van Hessling, completely ruined the movie.
Mike

I agree for the most part, except that nothing could save Van Helsing, it was the most offensively absurd portrayal of Dracula ever.

[Dan Hocker]

I agree for the most part, except that nothing could save Van Helsing, it was the most offensively absurd portrayal of Dracula ever.

I think I liked Van Helsing, because it was bad.

[Dan Hocker]

Dan, but they were using CGI in places where they could have done it real, like the vehicle chase scene at the beginning I pointed out. I felt it was lazy and they just used it for everything even when practical effects could have been.

Oh I agree that Joss Wheadon got carried away with the CGI, but at the same time I barely noticed it in that scene you where talking about except when super powers where involved. I guess I also don't really put CGI or Visual effects that high on my priority list of what makes a movie good. Don't get me wrong I think it's important, but I honestly can't think of a single movie where the CGI is what ruined the movie for me. Story / acting has ruined plenty of movies for me though.

[mhatchett]

Dan, Dan, Dan LOL!!

[Theli]

I think I liked Van Helsing, because it was bad.

Which is a perfectly legit reason to like a movie. Some times you just need a movie like that.