Rate the Last Movie You Saw

[Sock Monkey]

As far as the goofy last few minutes of 28 YEARS LATER, it seems to have hit completely different for UK audiences, so I'd advise anyone interested to google JImmy Saville, which will explain a lot.

As far as JP, all I can think about these movies is "When the eff are they going to get away from these islands? FALLEN KINGDOM set up a world with dinosaurs running loose, and then the next movie was like "Nah, let's go back to an island!".....and here we go again.

Oh, thanks for the heads up regarding 28 Years Later. I only have a passing knowledge about Jimmy Saville, but the movie makes a lot more sense within that context. Still, all the leaping parkour stuff was little strange.

And I agree with these Jurassic Park films. They really just don't know what to do with them it seems like.

[dannyboy121070]

So I caught this a couple weeks back at the local drive-in (which I actually really enjoy going to; the video isn't as crisp as an actual theatre and the sound obviously suffers as well, but there's something so simple and unpretentious about it that I find appealing) on a double feature with Jurassic Park: Rebirth, which I'll get to in a bit. I absolutely agree with all the points you make in your post: the cast is great, including the kid playing Spike; the infected scenes are actually quite intense, and it builds on the first films without tarnishing it (though an argument could be made that 28 Weeks Later already did that). I also agree that the ending comes off as not just jarring, but almost ridiculous. After we get this very ponderous, melancholic time spent in the Bone Temple, the film ends on some silliness. There also was some great use of editing in the film with intercutting both sound and video that I really liked. Overall, I liked the film and was glad to see Danny Boyle back in top form. Grade: B

Jurassic Park: Rebirth, on the other hand, is probably the most impressively stupid movie I've watched in a long time. Now, to be fair, I didn't watch the previous two films in the franchise; I tapped out when Chris Pratt made friends with the raptors. To be fair, Gareth Edwards is a solid director and any of the scenes involving dinosaur action is executed very well. It's just that everything that is not an action set piece is just plain bad. Both Scarlett Johannson and Mahershala Ali are completely wasted in this film, but at least Ali seems to know what film he's in. Johannson, on the other hand, feels so tonally out of place and could have easily just been removed from the plot for how little she actually comes into play versus any of the other random characters. Then there's the family that gets rescued by the Johannson and crew, but consist of the single most unlikeable character ever that I hated more than the actual "human bad guy" of the film. On top of the this, the jokes don't land and it hits the beats of so many of its predecessors that I can't really recommend this beyond maybe a lazy Sunday between naps. Grade: D-

As far as the goofy last few minutes of 28 YEARS LATER, it seems to have hit completely different for UK audiences, so I'd advise anyone interested to google JImmy Saville, which will explain a lot.

As far as JP, all I can think about these movies is "When the eff are they going to get away from these islands? FALLEN KINGDOM set up a world with dinosaurs running loose, and then the next movie was like "Nah, let's go back to an island!".....and here we go again.

[Sock Monkey]

Saw 28 Years Later the other night, and understand why the movie is so divisive.

If you are looking for a non-stop zombie action movie, 28 Years Later isn’t it. The scenes with the zombies / infected are well used in the storyline when they are on screen, but 28 Years Later is as much, if not more, a coming of age story about a 12 year old boy growing up under difficult family circumstances 28 years after the fall of society as we know it.

The movie is well acted, especially the young actor who plays Spike (the boy).

The infected scenes are well handled, and there was an interesting sub-plot about the infected mutating and evolving.

My biggest complaint with the film is the ending, which was so jarring and out of context with the rest of the movie.

The ending did answer a lingering question from the beginning of the movie, but that question could have been answered in a less jarring manner.

Overall I enjoyed 28 Years Later, and most fans of the previous two movies will probably find enough to liked in this third installment, the last three minutes not withstanding.

B

So I caught this a couple weeks back at the local drive-in (which I actually really enjoy going to; the video isn't as crisp as an actual theatre and the sound obviously suffers as well, but there's something so simple and unpretentious about it that I find appealing) on a double feature with Jurassic Park: Rebirth, which I'll get to in a bit. I absolutely agree with all the points you make in your post: the cast is great, including the kid playing Spike; the infected scenes are actually quite intense, and it builds on the first films without tarnishing it (though an argument could be made that 28 Weeks Later already did that). I also agree that the ending comes off as not just jarring, but almost ridiculous. After we get this very ponderous, melancholic time spent in the Bone Temple, the film ends on some silliness. There also was some great use of editing in the film with intercutting both sound and video that I really liked. Overall, I liked the film and was glad to see Danny Boyle back in top form. Grade: B

Jurassic Park: Rebirth, on the other hand, is probably the most impressively stupid movie I've watched in a long time. Now, to be fair, I didn't watch the previous two films in the franchise; I tapped out when Chris Pratt made friends with the raptors. To be fair, Gareth Edwards is a solid director and any of the scenes involving dinosaur action is executed very well. It's just that everything that is not an action set piece is just plain bad. Both Scarlett Johannson and Mahershala Ali are completely wasted in this film, but at least Ali seems to know what film he's in. Johannson, on the other hand, feels so tonally out of place and could have easily just been removed from the plot for how little she actually comes into play versus any of the other random characters. Then there's the family that gets rescued by the Johannson and crew, but consist of the single most unlikeable character ever that I hated more than the actual "human bad guy" of the film. On top of the this, the jokes don't land and it hits the beats of so many of its predecessors that I can't really recommend this beyond maybe a lazy Sunday between naps. Grade: D-

[Sock Monkey]

Synchronic. A sci-fi, time traveling film, set in Louisiana. I liked pretty much everything about this one. There are some big gaps in the story but they did a great job of pushing the narrative forward and not providing much time to think about things. Straight forward and very watchable. Some nice dialogue, solid acting, and the visuals and music weren't bad either.

3.5 out of 5.

I caught Synchronic at Fantastic Fest a few years back and while I enjoyed it--as I do with all of Benson and Moorhead's stuff--I found the beginning of the movie with this almost post-apocalyptic Louisiana so compelling that I was a little bummed with where the film eventually went. I need to give it another watch to see if my thoughts change now that I know where the film lands.

[Ben Staad]

Synchronic. A sci-fi, time traveling film, set in Louisiana. I liked pretty much everything about this one. There are some big gaps in the story but they did a great job of pushing the narrative forward and not providing much time to think about things. Straight forward and very watchable. Some nice dialogue, solid acting, and the visuals and music weren't bad either.

3.5 out of 5.

[Ben Staad]

John and The Hole. I guess this is an art house style drama. Not much drama, hard to watch, and besides feeling a profound sadness for a disabled child and broken home there isn't much there.

1.5 out of 5.

[brlesh]

Saw 28 Years Later the other night, and understand why the movie is so divisive.

If you are looking for a non-stop zombie action movie, 28 Years Later isn’t it. The scenes with the zombies / infected are well used in the storyline when they are on screen, but 28 Years Later is as much, if not more, a coming of age story about a 12 year old boy growing up under difficult family circumstances 28 years after the fall of society as we know it.

The movie is well acted, especially the young actor who plays Spike (the boy).

The infected scenes are well handled, and there was an interesting sub-plot about the infected mutating and evolving.

My biggest complaint with the film is the ending, which was so jarring and out of context with the rest of the movie.

The ending did answer a lingering question from the beginning of the movie, but that question could have been answered in a less jarring manner.

Overall I enjoyed 28 Years Later, and most fans of the previous two movies will probably find enough to liked in this third installment, the last three minutes not withstanding.

B

[Sock Monkey]

Saw Sinners the other night, which I liked quite a bit.

Stylistically and format-wise, it was very similar to From Dusk til Dawn, and fans of the early movie will probably like Sinners.

Visually the movie is stunning, and for the most part well acted.

Michael B Jordan is great in the lead role (I would go so far as to say it’s worth seeing Sinners just to see him in dual role of the twin brothers Smoke / Stack). He was incredible.

Jack O’Connel was also very good as the lead vampire.

Is Sinners a great vampire movie? Probably not, as it is certainly style over substance (also an argument you could make about From Dusk til Dawn).

But, IMO, it is well worth the viewing time.

B

I really enjoyed Sinners, though I do think my viewing suffered from all the praise of it being a "masterpiece." Now, to be fair, I do think Coogler is a fantastic director--Fruitvale Station is a great film--and I think the cast for Sinners is stacked (no pun intended) with great actors, including one of my favorites, Delroy Lindo. I also love that it was so successful. However, I also think the film is a little messy. There are more than a few moments of plot machinations at work that don't hold up under much scrutiny (why, for example, the juke joint must open that night, or why the dubious dealings of those who sell the twins the building for the juke do so in such a manner), though the film is otherwise so well constructed it's easy to overlook these contrivances while in the midst of a viewing. This messiness, in my opinion, bleeds into the film's thematic elements about creativity and cultural assimilation/appropriation, which are very compelling to chew on, but lose their bite (again, no pun intended) considering how the film pretty much borrows the structure and various other elements of the Kurtzman/Tarantino-penned From Dusk Till Dawn. I've only seen it once and I do plan on watching it again once the film is out on Blu-Ray, so my opinion might shift in either direction after the subsequent viewing, but I'm currently settled on it being "very good" versus it being a "masterpiece."

[brlesh]

Saw Sinners the other night, which I liked quite a bit.

Stylistically and format-wise, it was very similar to From Dusk til Dawn, and fans of the early movie will probably like Sinners.

Visually the movie is stunning, and for the most part well acted.

Michael B Jordan is great in the lead role (I would go so far as to say it’s worth seeing Sinners just to see him in dual role of the twin brothers Smoke / Stack). He was incredible.

Jack O’Connel was also very good as the lead vampire.

Is Sinners a great vampire movie? Probably not, as it is certainly style over substance (also an argument you could make about From Dusk til Dawn).

But, IMO, it is well worth the viewing time.

B

[Ben Staad]

It's What's Inside.

Not a bad little film. Characters were all obnoxious, plot was interesting enough, however I don't know if it's my age, or what, but I don't get surprised often by plots. This one was not an exception.

That being said I enjoyed this, thought it moved along briskly, and had a mean spirited ending which I liked.

3.5 out of 5 likes.

[brlesh]

Man, Barbarian did not work for me at all. I mean, like you, I really thought the first act was cranking, but by the end, it felt like the director/writers just lost control of the tone and it slid into ridiculousness. I know I'm in the minority on this one, and I surely don't begrudge anyone for loving the film, but it just was not my jam.

I completely agree with you on Barbarian.

Really liked the first half, but didn’t care for the second half at all. It just felt like a completely different movie.

And the last 15 to 20 minutes was nothing more than a rehash of every Friday the 13th movie you’ve ever saw.

B

[Sock Monkey]

Talk to Me. This was a solid horror film. Decent acting, had a little shock factor, and had a little Jacobs Ladder or Flatliners feel to some of it. The ending is what I think hurt this film for me. The ending wasn't a shock to me and didn't feel like a twist. It felt more like an inevitable outcome. I'm not sure what I was looking for but maybe it could have been executed in a different way or let me feel more emotion(s) towards the protagonist.

Overall enjoyable.

3 out of 5 whatchamowhos

I'm glad you found it to be a decent watch. I don't think it's a perfect film--if I remember correctly the film's mythology is a little shakey and I agree the ending isn't my favorite--but I thought it was pretty darn creepy and wound up enjoying myself quite a bit. Looking forward to seeing their new film.

[Sock Monkey]

Barbarian. I liked the first act a lot. It had suspense, decent dialogue, and a made you wonder what is going on. The rest of the movie was freaky but pretty generic.

2.3456789 thumbs in the eye out of 5.

Man, Barbarian did not work for me at all. I mean, like you, I really thought the first act was cranking, but by the end, it felt like the director/writers just lost control of the tone and it slid into ridiculousness. I know I'm in the minority on this one, and I surely don't begrudge anyone for loving the film, but it just was not my jam.

[brlesh]

Saw Dangerous Animals the other night, which was, at best, an OK movie.

A serial killer feeds his victims to sharks, as he records their deaths and keeps as a collection of VHS tapes.

Should have been more fun than it was.

The filmmakers tried to play it too seriously, where I felt it would have benefited at a little more tongue-in-cheek.

Jai Courtney was good as the eco-serial killer, but the lead actress couldn’t pull off the tough girl / bad ass they tried to make her out to be (though there is a scene with her thumb which made me in equal parts squirm and laugh out loud).

And not really a shark movie (though there are a couple of shark kills). Dangerous Animals is much more of a girl kidnapped and held hostage by a serial killer. Jai Courtney has one definite scene of homage to the Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs that left me grinning.

Overall, Dangerous Animals wasn’t bad, but could have been so much better.

B

[dannyboy121070]

dannyboy121070 I remember laughing and laughing at Benny Hill as a kid. I was able to watch a little somewhere not that long ago and it didn't do much for me either.

"After YEARS of fruitlessly searching the streaming channels for anything related to THE BENNY HILL SHOW, Amazon just added THE BEST OF THE BENNY HILL SHOW, which most certainly was NOT the best. I barely chuckled once. Not only was I disappointed, but now I'm questioning: WAS Benny Hill as funny as I remember from my childhood? I'll probably never know, since he seems to have largely been forgotten in the streaming age."

This is depressing to hear, lol!