Gwailofilms Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 and as for me saying 'it was well made', i was talking from a technical standpoint, it's a slick piece of movie making, i don't think anyone can deny that. I just did. If the FX are bad, then it's not well made. Â If you bought, say, a pair of shoes online and one had a hole in, would you say they were "well made"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted May 7, 2009 Paid Members Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) the effects are leagues ahead of the FX in the first X Men movie (as they should be, considering a nine year gap), is that movie badly made too? Edited May 7, 2009 by Ebb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Au Posted May 7, 2009 Paid Members Share Posted May 7, 2009 They're really not Ebb. The effects are atrocious and whilst they are better in places than the first X-Men film there's a load that are just really, really awful. Â I think the only time I really liked the effects was the fight between Wraith and Viktor. The rest were considerably sub-par given the $150million budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila_Boy Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I saw 17 Again. Surprisingly enjoyable and Efron is surprisingly good in the role. Â And I swaer theres a conspiracy in Hollywood of casting teenage boys who all look the fucking same. Â http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1573253/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2241512/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1080974/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Au Posted May 7, 2009 Paid Members Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) Watched two films last night. Â Firstly - The Three Burials of Melaquiades Estrada. This was Tommy Lee Jones first foray into directing and I'd say he did a pretty good job, although he did have a great story and cast to work with which probably made it easier. There's a random bit of slow-mo towards the end that seemed a bit out of place though. It's quite a slow paced movie and to me felt a bit like an old western despite being set in the modern day. As the title may suggest, it's about a guy who works with Tommy Lee Jones' character who gets accidentally killed and buried in a shallow grave. When the body's discovered he gets buried properly until Tommy discovered that he was murdered and wants to get him back to Mexico so his family can bury him. Barry Pepper is absolutely tremendous in it. Â My only real gripe is that we watched it as a big group and I really don't think it's suitable for a social watching type thing. Â Secondly - The Uninvited. Now, I absolutely love the film this is based on and whilst the trailer really put me off of watching it, there was a lot of morbid curiosity as to how badly they'd mangle the story. As it turns out, they mangled it quite a lot. Pretty much a by the book Hollywood teen horror and, given the source material, terribly dumbed down. The guy who said it had a Hide & Seek/Secret Window type ending is absolutely right and, whilst the original film also had a similar reveal, the film is far better structured and so you're never completely let down by the use of that plot device. In short, don't watch this, watch A Tale Of Two Sisters instead, it's far better. Edited May 7, 2009 by elegia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Justice Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Watched Unforgiven last night. It's a bit wishy washy really. Quite forgettable and I'll probably never watch it again. Eastwood was his usual self, and a young Morgan Freeman with a buff body was quite odd to see. A bit meh overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwailofilms Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 the effects are leagues ahead of the FX in the first X Men movie (as they should be, considering a nine year gap), is that movie badly made too? You're doing this just to piss me off now, aren't you? Â Which bits are better than the first X-Men? Â The bits on the motorbike that look like 1940s rear projection? The bits where his CG claws wobble off their tracking markers on his hand? Patrick Stewart's de-aged, badly tracked, poorly comped face? The "claws-in-the-tarmac" motorcycle 180 where what appears to be a still frame of Hugh Jackman judders around into position? The "My First Greenscreen" shots of the kids running for the helicopter, where everything is in the wrong proportion, there's no perspective and you can see the green fringing around everything? Â I've made some films that include VFX shots. These films will never be seen by anything like the audience that, sadly, will see Wolverine, but I would embarrassed to put work as bad as any of the above on the screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted May 7, 2009 Paid Members Share Posted May 7, 2009 Watched Unforgiven last night. It's a bit wishy washy really. Quite forgettable and I'll probably never watch it again. Eastwood was his usual self, and a young Morgan Freeman with a buff body was quite odd to see. A bit meh overall. Â I hate you. Unforgiven is one of the greatest films ever made. And if you think Eastwood was his normal self you pretty much missed the point of the entire film. Â I saw Star Trek yesterday. It wasn't exactly The Greatest Film Ever Made but it was a fun movie which didn't insult the audiences intelligence (eg. Wolverine) and the special effects were really good. Also the guy who played Kirk was a strong lead. I went in knowing fuckall about Star Trek but this was actually a cool film and not totally lame and nerdy like the Star Trek stereotype. If I was a kid this would be the type of film I would have loved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted May 7, 2009 Paid Members Share Posted May 7, 2009 Watched Unforgiven last night. It's a bit wishy washy really. Quite forgettable and I'll probably never watch it again. Eastwood was his usual self, and a young Morgan Freeman with a buff body was quite odd to see. A bit meh overall. Â I hate you. Unforgiven is one of the greatest films ever made. And if you think Eastwood was his normal self you pretty much missed the point of the entire film. Â I saw Star Trek yesterday. It wasn't exactly The Greatest Film Ever Made but it was a fun movie which didn't insult the audiences intelligence (eg. Wolverine) and the special effects were really good. Also the guy who played Kirk was a strong lead. I went in knowing fuckall about Star Trek but this was actually a cool film and not totally lame and nerdy like the Star Trek stereotype. If I was a kid this would be the type of film I would have loved. Â I think you should watch some of the older Star Trek films if you think that's the stereotype. Most non-Trekkies love The Wrath Of Khan, The Undiscovered Country First Contact and Nemesis, because they're actually quite good films themselves. My particular favourite's First Contact, but Khan'll always be a classic, and Nemesis featured some of the best acting I've seen in any movie, let alone any sci-fi movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Watched Unforgiven last night. It's a bit wishy washy really. Quite forgettable and I'll probably never watch it again. Eastwood was his usual self, and a young Morgan Freeman with a buff body was quite odd to see. A bit meh overall. Â I hate you. Unforgiven is one of the greatest films ever made. And if you think Eastwood was his normal self you pretty much missed the point of the entire film. Â This. The scene where he grabs the whisky bottle after SPOILER - Highlight the black box to read hearing Ned has been killed and stops pretending to be who is isn't is fucking stunning. (I don't really hate you, Steve) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted May 7, 2009 Paid Members Share Posted May 7, 2009 I really should watch Unforgiven again. I enjoyed it immensely and thought it was a damn good movie, but I remember so little of it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) I agree with Steve. Â I also didn't like Raging Bull because it was black and white (couldn't afford colour film? cheapskates), and thought De Niro's performance in Taxi Driver was a bit over the top for an action hero movie. Â Plus, how come in Reservoir Dogs you don't even get to see the heist? I know it was low budget, but that's ridiculous. Edited May 7, 2009 by Loki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted May 7, 2009 Paid Members Share Posted May 7, 2009 I agree with Steve. Â I also didn't like Raging Bull because it was black and white (couldn't afford colour film? cheapskates), and thought De Niro's performance in Taxi Driver was a bit over the top for an action hero movie. Â Plus, how come in Reservoir Dogs you don't even get to see the heist? I know it was low budget, but that's ridiculous. Â Very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Well played, Loki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Justice Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Watched Unforgiven last night. It's a bit wishy washy really. Quite forgettable and I'll probably never watch it again. Eastwood was his usual self, and a young Morgan Freeman with a buff body was quite odd to see. A bit meh overall. Â I hate you. Unforgiven is one of the greatest films ever made. And if you think Eastwood was his normal self you pretty much missed the point of the entire film. Â Maybe I missed the point. But what niggled me was this. Â Why the writing at the begining and eld of the film about his wife? It was pointless and added nothing extra to the film. Â The news coming from the whore was that she had been cut up, eyes poked out and tits cut off. Yet when they met her they didn't question any of the parts that were untruthfull. Â Why did Ned lose his bottle? Â Why didn't they just call Gene Hackmans Character Lex Luther, cus that's essentially who he was playing but with a slightly nastier side. Â Sorry for shitting on a favourite of yours, I just found it a bit... well, shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts