Rate the Movie You Recently Watched

[PunkNinja]

Use the Ninjas for rating (copy and paste)

Half Ninja = Terrible

1 Ninja = Poor

2 Ninjas = Ok

3 Ninjas = Good

4 Ninjas = Very Good

5 Ninjas = Excellent

Spoiler

 

[C.C. 95]

Haha the CGI was awesome! I just wasn’t really involved in the story. Still worth a watch for the special effects though.

The moment when start watching movies for "special effects" is when you should just start playing video games instead.

 

[Sigill]

The moment when start watching movies for "special effects" is when you should just start playing video games instead.
View attachment 394009

Fair point but I must admit to having watched a few films just because the CGI has been amazing! I’m into cinematography so if it keeps me entertained visually it’s worth a watch. Off course I wouldn’t mind having a decent story there aswell! Haha!

I definatly would take a good story over visuals any day of the week though. Case in point my favourite horror film of all time is The Shining, not a bit of CGI to be found. Not one single horror film no matter the amount of special effects has even come close.

 

[C.C. 95]

Fair point but I must admit to having watched a few films just because the CGI has been amazing! I’m into cinematography so if it keeps me entertained visually it’s worth a watch. Off course I wouldn’t mind having a decent story there aswell! Haha!

I definatly would take a good story over visuals any day of the week though. Case in point my favourite horror film of all time is The Shining, not a bit of CGI to be found. Not one single horror film no matter the amount of special effects has even come close.

CGI is simply the newest tool in the bag. And, Like with all new tools - it gets overused because it is new.
Every new tool gets overused because directors wanna play with them!
Example:
Do you ever wonder why 70's films have so many zoom shots? Answer: The Zoom lens had just been invented.
Why do mid- 70's to early 80's films have so many insane steadycam shots? Yep: The Steadycam had just been invented.
What never gets old: solid scripts. I miss the days when they would hammer away at draft after draft of a script until 2 years later they have Chinatown, or The Godfather. The art of honing a script is practically dead.
But, sure- everybody loves a good spectacle picture - but, put a great script with the effects - and you end up with Close Encounters instead of Independence Day, and Raiders of The Lost Ark instead of Cowboys vs. Aliens.
Old adage: "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage."

*if great cinematography is your bag just follow everything shot by the great ones! (Roger Deakins, Emmanuel Lubezski, Dharius Khonji, Robert Richardson, Hoyte Van Hoytema, Janusz Kaminski, etc.)

 

[Sigill]

CGI is simply the newest tool in the bag. And, Like with all new tools - it gets overused because it is new.
Every new tool gets overused because directors wanna play with them!
Example:
Do you ever wonder why 70's films have so many zoom shots? Answer: The Zoom lens had just been invented.
Why do mid- 70's to early 80's films have so many insane steadycam shots? Yep: The Steadycam had just been invented.
What never gets old: solid scripts. I miss the days when they would hammer away at draft after draft of a script until 2 years later they have Chinatown, or The Godfather. The art of honing a script is practically dead.
But, sure- everybody loves a good spectacle picture - but, put a great script with the effects - and you end up with Close Encounters instead of Independence Day, and Raiders of The Lost Ark instead of Cowboys vs. Aliens.
Old adage: "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage."

I can’t disagree with any of that mate. What really annoys me about today’s current fad is the shaky cam. I can’t stand that, as you said just another tool which has become popular but just allows sloppy directing. I miss the days when you could actually see what was happening on screen, now with some action scenes it is literally impossible to follow. The sooner that dies out the better!

 

[C.C. 95]

I can’t disagree with any of that mate. What really annoys me about today’s current fad is the shaky cam. I can’t stand that, as you said just another tool which has become popular but just allows sloppy directing. I miss the days when you could actually see what was happening on screen, now with some action scenes it is literally impossible to follow. The sooner that dies out the better!

Agree with you 100%!
Again - another tool in the bag....BUT, it got hijacked by untalented directors who realized that they could mask their lack of talent by using shaky cam and quick cuts to hide the fact that they have no clue how to block or shoot scenes. (And this leads to the audience being completely discombobulated because the director has created ZERO sense of Spacial Geography in a scene).
Remember - even the weakest of directors used to at least spend some time in film school and learn some basics.
Now, we have directors who don't even have basic knowledge other than the "cool shot" (and damn - am I tired of the "cool" shot. Marvel and DC films dine on the "cool shot". I turned off Wonder Woman after 30 minutes because I said "it's 20 minutes in - and if they do another freakin slow mo "cool shot" I'm bailing. And they did.....).
One of the coolest shots ever? In Smoke, Wayne Wang did a 10 minute slow dolly creep on Harvey Keitel as he was telling a story. Starts as a medium shot. You don't even notice the creep. By the time he gets to the end of the story your realize you are in close up for full impact and it was like a subliminal camera move.... THAT's cool.

Can I vent about Speed Ramping now?!

 

[Sigill]

Agree with you 100%!
Again - another tool in the bag....BUT, it got hijacked by untalented directors who realized that they could mask their lack of talent by using shaky cam and quick cuts to hide the fact that they have no clue how to block or shoot scenes. (And this leads to the audience being completely discombobulated because the director has created ZERO sense of Spacial Geography in a scene).
Remember - even the weakest of directors used to at least spend some time in film school and learn some basics.
Now, we have directors who don't even have basic knowledge other than the "cool shot" (and damn - am I tired of the "cool" shot. Marvel and DC films dine on the "cool shot". I turned off Wonder Woman after 30 minutes because I said "it's 20 minutes in - and if they do another freakin slow mo "cool shot" I'm bailing. And they did.....).
One of the coolest shots ever? In Smoke, Wayne Wang did a 10 minute slow dolly creep on Harvey Keitel as he was telling a story. Starts as a medium shot. You don't even notice the creep. By the time he gets to the end of the story your realize you are in close up for full impact and it was like a subliminal camera move.... THAT's cool.

Can I vent about Speed Ramping now?!

I better not get you started on 300 then! Haha! I totally agree, just directors copping out and taking the easy road by shaking the camera. A lot easier to that than actually frame the picture so it looks as it should.
I must admit I don’t mind slow motion if it’s done correctly. That may be just because I’m that used to shaky cam it’s nice to see what going on for a change! Lol.
As you said everything Roger Deakins shoots is always good to look at. Luckily there are still a few directors out there who still value quality visuals over camera tricks. They are getting fewer and fewer though. Hopefully the craze moves on soon and they get back to shooting films as they should do with skill and care!

 

[C.C. 95]

I better not get you started on 300 then! Haha! I totally agree, just directors copping out and taking the easy road by shaking the camera. A lot easier to that than actually frame the picture so it looks as it should.
I must admit I don’t mind slow motion if it’s done correctly. That may be just because I’m that used to shaky cam it’s nice to see what going on for a change! Lol.
As you said everything Roger Deakins shoots is always good to look at. Luckily there are still a few directors out there who still value quality visuals over camera tricks. They are getting fewer and fewer though. Hopefully the craze moves on soon and they get back to shooting films as they should do with skill and care!

Slow motion is fine as a tool. Like any other effect, I just get annoyed when it is overdone. When you do something too much, it becomes common, and expected and not special. Also - there should be a narrative reason: why are you slowing this down? Is there something you need the audience to see? Images, just like words- should have a narrative reason for being there.
You mentioned 300 (ugh.) - does the slow mo and speed ramping serve A) a narrative purpose or B) Zach Snyder thought "f**king hell, that looks badass, man!"? Again - as tool, nothing inherently wrong with it. Problem is- he ends up using it every five seconds! I think if 300 were brought back to regular speed, the film might clock in at 70 Minutes! The way it is with all the speed ramping and awful green screen- I just can't watch it because it just looks like a pretentious French perfume commercial crossed with a Car commercial by using slightly better Weather Channel Chroma Key! ("Expect rain, clouds and look out for a front of Spartans pushing up from the south")

The tools of SFX are fine, but people are abusing, and overusing them. Remember when destroying a city was a HUGE thing?
Now, it's every other blockbuster, not special (actually, kind of a yawn). And does anyone really need to see one more killer Tsunami wave knock down a city? Been there. Yawn. The special ceases being special and becomes maudlin through sheer repetition.
Too much of anything special makes it less and less "special". Ice cream is awesome- but you can't make a meal out of it.

 

[Sigill]

Slow motion is fine as a tool. Like any other effect, I just get annoyed when it is overdone. When you do something too much, it becomes common, and expected and not special. Also - there should be a narrative reason: why are you slowing this down? Is there something you need the audience to see? Images, just like words- should have a narrative reason for being there.
You mentioned 300 (ugh.) - does the slow mo and speed ramping serve A) a narrative purpose or B) Zach Snyder thought "f**king hell, that looks badass, man!"? Again - as tool, nothing inherently wrong with it. Problem is- he ends up using it every five seconds! I think if 300 were brought back to regular speed, the film might clock in at 70 Minutes! The way it is with all the speed ramping and awful green screen- I just can't watch it because it just looks like a pretentious French perfume commercial crossed with a Car commercial by using slightly better Weather Channel Chroma Key! ("Expect rain, clouds and look out for a front of Spartans pushing up from the south")
View attachment 394159
The tools of SFX are fine, but people are abusing, and overusing them. Remember when destroying a city was a HUGE thing?
Now, it's every other blockbuster, not special (actually, kind of a yawn). And does anyone really need to see one more killer Tsunami wave knock down a city? Been there. Yawn. The special ceases being special and becomes maudlin through sheer repetition.
Too much of anything special makes it less and less "special". Ice cream is awesome- but you can't make a meal out of it.

Haha yep! I totally agree about the city being destroyed. That’s been done to death now, every other film destroys the city so they need to move on to some fresh ideas!

 

[AlienKing]

Ice cream is awesome- but you can't make a meal out of it.

You wont be able to say that after you meet me buddy

 

[Lollard2002]

Slow motion is fine as a tool. Like any other effect, I just get annoyed when it is overdone. When you do something too much, it becomes common, and expected and not special. Also - there should be a narrative reason: why are you slowing this down? Is there something you need the audience to see? Images, just like words- should have a narrative reason for being there.

The director I hate the most in recent years and whom I consider a one trick pony is Abrams. I haven't liked anything he does and he always uses the same CGI tools. Camera flare and shaky camera work so you never know what's going on. As soon as you think you might see something interesting the camera pulls away. The same garbage Spielberg used on War of the Worlds.

 

[Noodles]

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)

Bumped it up to the full 5 stars! I'm beginning to think I should only rate films once I've rewatched them from now on, because my ratings pretty much always change after a second viewing lol.

 

[Lone Crusader]

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
View attachment 394269View attachment 394269View attachment 394269View attachment 394269View attachment 394269

Bumped it up to the full 5 stars! I'm beginning to think I should only rate films once I've rewatched them from now on, because my ratings pretty much always change after a second viewing lol.

That good huh? I can’t wait to see it then.

 

[Noodles]

That good huh? I can’t wait to see it then.

I was somewhat disappointed when I saw it in cinemas, but I enjoyed it so much more on rewatch! I hope you have fun with it dude.

 

[Lollard2002]

Ministry of Fear 1944

This is a Fritz Lang film based on a Graeme Green novel.This is the plot.

Stephen Neale played by Ray Milland has just been released from an asylum during World War 2 in England when he stumbles on a deadly Nazi spy plot by accident, and tries to stop it.

The villain of the piece is not what you expect but unusual for a Lang film it's feels very much like a Hitchcock film.
Was it intended? No idea but certainly not Lang's usual fair. Not top tier Lang but still a very very good film.

 

[C.C. 95]

You wont be able to say that after you meet me buddy

 

[C.C. 95]

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
View attachment 394269View attachment 394269View attachment 394269View attachment 394269View attachment 394269

Bumped it up to the full 5 stars! I'm beginning to think I should only rate films once I've rewatched them from now on, because my ratings pretty much always change after a second viewing lol.

I pretty much have always believed that you cannot truly have an informed opinion until you see a movie at least twice.
The first viewing you are taking in everything that is thrown at your eyes an ears and missing subtler things.
Plus - we all know the downside to having anything hyped beforehand: sometimes it leads the viewer to watch the movie with an arms crossed, "prove it" attitude

- other times it leads one to see greatness that isn't really there (but reveals how mediocre it is on a repeated viewing).
Some movies don't reveal how clever they are until repeated viewings.
It can go both ways, but I just don't think a single viewing is sufficient to analyze, and truly judge a film.

 

[Lollard2002]

I pretty much have always believed that you cannot truly have an informed opinion until you see a movie at least twice.

I disagree. I watched The remake of Robocop on TV one night and I knew I was watching a serious turkey after 10 minutes. Didn't need to watch it a second time.

 

[Lone Crusader]

I pretty much have always believed that you cannot truly have an informed opinion until you see a movie at least twice.
The first viewing you are taking in everything that is thrown at your eyes an ears and missing subtler things.
Plus - we all know the downside to having anything hyped beforehand: sometimes it leads the viewer to watch the movie with an arms crossed, "prove it" attitude
View attachment 394300
- other times it leads one to see greatness that isn't really there (but reveals how mediocre it is on a repeated viewing).
Some movies don't reveal how clever they are until repeated viewings.
It can go both ways, but I just don't think a single viewing is sufficient to analyze, and truly judge a film.

I have to agree with that assessment, second time around on most movies is almost always going to be a better viewing experience just because you missed the subtle details that you overlooked on the first viewing. Not all movies though, some movies are trash no matter how you look at it or how many times you watch it.

 

[virkia]

I always watch films with commentary tracks twice ... nearly always back-to-back.

 

[Noodles]

I pretty much have always believed that you cannot truly have an informed opinion until you see a movie at least twice.
The first viewing you are taking in everything that is thrown at your eyes an ears and missing subtler things.
Plus - we all know the downside to having anything hyped beforehand: sometimes it leads the viewer to watch the movie with an arms crossed, "prove it" attitude
View attachment 394300
- other times it leads one to see greatness that isn't really there (but reveals how mediocre it is on a repeated viewing).
Some movies don't reveal how clever they are until repeated viewings.
It can go both ways, but I just don't think a single viewing is sufficient to analyze, and truly judge a film.

I couldn't agree more, and the way you explained it makes complete sense!