Rate the Last Movie You Saw

[Sock Monkey]

MALIGNANT:

A woman finds herself experiencing waking nightmares of a monstrous killer’s violent acts in James Wan’s newest film.

I had high hopes. MALIGNANT is directed by James Wan who has given us the original SAW, INSIDIOUS, and THE CONJURING. While my love for those films vary from one to the next, all were entertaining, well-crafted horror films.

MALIGNANT, on the other hand, is a mess. From the over-the-top prologue that extinguishes any sense of mystery to some pretty bad CGI in one of the big set pieces the movie just doesn’t work. There are some pretty interesting ideas littered throughout and some genuinely creepy moments in the first third of the film, but for every one of those moments, there’s also jokes and tonal shifts that are laughably bad.

The actors do the best they can with what they’re given but there’s a sense in most scenes that they were acting at, instead of with, each other. Throughout all the emoting, there wasn’t a single earned emotion in the film.

If you like B-movies from the late ‘90s/early ‘00s you might find something to enjoy here. Unfortunately, I did not.

GRADE: D-

[Sock Monkey]

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL

I continue my trek through the MI movies with the fourth installment and it was definitely another step in the right direction for the franchise. This time around the entire IMF division is disavowed and Cruise and team are alone to stop all out nuclear war. Literally. There is some course correction addressing master-spy Ethan Hunt's marriage in the last film and the reaction by one of the characters to it seems a little to easy-going for my tastes, but the action sequences are good and it was a decent way to spend two hours. I wasn't bowled over by the film, but it left it with good enough feelings that if I'd seen it when it came out originally, I'd remember it was being "pretty good" and be inclined to watch the next one.

Grade: B-

[Sock Monkey]

2 is bad, but really after 2 they only get better and better IMO. Actually I should rephrase that. 2 isn't bad per say, it's just a product of it's time. It very much embodies the year 2000. It just hasn't held up well over time.

Yes, it is most definitely a product of it's time. And, boy, does it show. I had to stifle a groan when Cruise throws his sunglasses at the screen and they explode. I just don't think I'm the target audience for that one.

[Dan Hocker]

2 is bad, but really after 2 they only get better and better IMO. Actually I should rephrase that. 2 isn't bad per say, it's just a product of it's time. It very much embodies the year 2000. It just hasn't held up well over time.

[JJ123]

Cell was a bit odd. Can't remember much of it now, but I think I thought at the time that it was an okay adaptation. The book was cool, but also odd in its own way.

I think I've only seen the first two Mission: Impossible films. The first one - was that 1996? - I recall enjoying, but wasn't too enthralled with the second one. I do want to check out some of the later ones, but I am sort of gravitating toward different films these days. I do admire how Cruise has made this one heck of a business for himself...I bet he takes home a disproportionate amount of cash flow at this point on each poject.

Speaking of projects, I watched Project Almanac once again this past week. One of my favorite films. I enjoy the high-school energy of it. Always makes me feel younger than I am every time I watch it. I'm also a sucker for found-footage stuff. Speaking of which, when do we finally get a found-footage version of Friday the 13th or Halloween? Or, has that already happened?

[Sock Monkey]

Yet another reason that I am very glad to have passed on the Mission Impossible movies. They've always looked crappy to me. Same with his Jack Reacher movies. Have absolutely no desire to watch them. Weird thing is that I actually almost always enjoy Cruise's stand alone films.

I avoided them for a very long time myself. I impulsively purchased the first five movies in a Blu-ray box set because it was on sale for like $20-25. I have not been blown away. I have made a pledge to myself to not buy any more movies until I’ve gotten through my “to watch” stack (which I’m only partially sticking to…) so I’m doing my best to get through everything.

[sholloman81]

Mission Impossible 2: Man, that was two plus hours of my life I won’t get back. I thought the first was okay, but in hindsight it’s a masterpiece in comparison to this sequel. I’d go into details about how the plot makes no sense and how the characters are flat with no arcs, but let’s not waste more time on this.

Yet another reason that I am very glad to have passed on the Mission Impossible movies. They've always looked crappy to me. Same with his Jack Reacher movies. Have absolutely no desire to watch them. Weird thing is that I actually almost always enjoy Cruise's stand alone films.

[Sock Monkey]

Mission Impossible 3: After the absolute brain-melting waste of time that was Mission Impossible 2, I was hesitant to sit down with the third installment...but I have the stinking box set that I need to get through, so on with the show. And...I was pleasantly surprised.

Let's get one thing out of the way: this series has had an identity crisis every time it steps out the door. If Cruise and Rhames weren't in all three, one could think that these trio of films really aren't connected at all. It's odd and jarring and Brian Depalma is probably wondering what the heck this movie is since it is so far removed from what he established in his first film. I don't need MCU level of continuity, but the movies should at least feel like close relatives, not distant cousins three times removed.

J.J. Abrams directs what is a decent action movie bolstered by a flat out great cast of actors: Cruise and Ving Rhames return, but are also joined by Laurence Fishburne and Billy Crudup...?! Yep, along with Maggie Q, Keri Russell, Johnathan Rhys Meyers, and Simon Pegg. But let's talk about the all-stars: Philip Seymour Hoffman and Michelle Monaghan. Seymour Hoffman was such a great actor and his performance in the movie highlights that talent given he could have easily just phoned it in. I need to revisit more of his movies (Not HAPPINESS, though...I'm still trying to scrub the ick off my skin from that one over twenty years later). Now, Michelle Monaghan is so charismatic and down-to-earth that you can see why Cruise's Ethan Hunt would want to marry her and I actually enjoy her and Cruise's chemistry together.

Now is this a great movie? Nope. I doubt anyone is championing it as an underrated gem. This is more like a decent way to waste a Sunday afternoon. It's watchable enough to keep you engaged, inoffensive enough to not rile you up and let you get in with you day once finished, and only memorable enough that when the next sequel comes out you'd probably give it a shot.

Grade: C+

[Ben Staad]

Ughh. Sounds awesome.

Mission Impossible 2: Man, that was two plus hours of my life I won’t get back. I thought the first was okay, but in hindsight it’s a masterpiece in comparison to this sequel. I’d go into details about how the plot makes no sense and how the characters are flat with no arcs, but let’s not waste more time on this.

[Sock Monkey]

Mission Impossible 2: Man, that was two plus hours of my life I won’t get back. I thought the first was okay, but in hindsight it’s a masterpiece in comparison to this sequel. I’d go into details about how the plot makes no sense and how the characters are flat with no arcs, but let’s not waste more time on this.

[Ben Staad]

Mudbound. A historical drama set mostly after WWII. A slow burn of a movie which really didn't live up to the build up they created. However I enjoyed watching the slice of life they presented. The struggle and interconnections between race, cultures, and how hardship(s) can unite or divide people. That was well done and interesting.

Hard to rate this title but I'm leaning towards 3.75 out of 5.

Edit: I forgot to add that they used multiple characters to narrate over portions of the movie. Many of these were difficult to hear/understand and detracted from the movie for me. I am a little hard of hearing so I'm not sure if this was all me, the movie production, or a little of both.

[Martin]

I don't disagree that the book was middling but I thought it was straight action and felt a little like old school horror in many ways. They really screwed this movie up.

I agree with your assessment.

[Ben Staad]

I don't disagree that the book was middling but I thought it was straight action and felt a little like old school horror in many ways. They really screwed this movie up.

Yep, that was a middling book turned into a horrible movie.

[Martin]

Over the course of two days and multiple starts and stops I finished up CELL. This is a novel which, I think, would be a tough adaption however they made this easy on themselves. They shortened the story, jumbled it up, edited it poorly, and then crammed it all into something that makes almost no sense.

This movies serves as a good guidebook for others in what NOT to do when developing/adapting a movie.

I am very surprised this movie saw the light of day.

Yep, that was a middling book turned into a horrible movie.

[Ben Staad]

Over the course of two days and multiple starts and stops I finished up CELL. This is a novel which, I think, would be a tough adaption however they made this easy on themselves. They shortened the story, jumbled it up, edited it poorly, and then crammed it all into something that makes almost no sense.

This movies serves as a good guidebook for others in what NOT to do when developing/adapting a movie.

I am very surprised this movie saw the light of day.