Rate the last movie you've seen

2021-12-08 21:27:41

#12101

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

Dilbert_X wrote:
You're the one who spends literally all his time pissing on things he doesn't think are 'valid' or whatever, when typically you're going on other people's opinions having not experienced them yourself.

Good luck.

You're pissing on people's opinions about your horrid cat movie, because we haven't watched it (yet are aware of just what makes it terrible due to exhaustive coverage, or in zeek's case dislike for the genre).

Meanwhile, you won't watch another movie because of a passing comparison to The Lighthouse. Do you not see a problem here? Honestly I wouldn't expect you to bother, but then you have to make comments about how people who watch this stuff are miserable bastards (says the guy who's convinced that his Indian cab driver was trying to case him out).

2021-12-08 21:37:09

#12102

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
horrid cat movie

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
haven't watched it

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
passing comparison

uziq wrote:
equivalent

Fuck Israel

2021-12-08 22:58:31

#12103

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

Your point?

It's good enough for you to, over and over again, make sweeping judgments against drama movies you don't watch anyway, but for us already completely aware of the myriad problems with Cats '19 (or a dislike of the IP), all of which you completely ignore by the way, you're all like "b-but you didn't watch it!"

If a restaurant sold literal shitburgers, would you be like "uh guys, you need to taste it before casting aspersions!"

NO PROBLEM HERE, rofl. "Cats = stainless steel. I've got a pinup of the sexy cockroach dance number."

2021-12-08 23:09:01

#12104

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

Whats weird is you guys obsessing about a film from two years ago you haven't seen.

All I've said is there are some films I can't be bothered seeing, I haven't filled multiple pages of a forum with walls of text about how awful they were, how terrible the CGI was etc. when I haven't seen them.

Fuck Israel

2021-12-08 23:30:08

#12105

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

It's a tantalizing point of contrast. I've been done with the movie's terrible reputation for awhile now, but the person on the forums who liked Cats '19 has something to say about the credentials of film critics. Fresh out of the theaters from Spiderman 34, wants to invalidate Shakespeare adaptations as rehashes. Also we're not allowed to use your own arguments against you.

Devs fix plz.

2021-12-09 00:54:49

#12106

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

Having not seen portrait of a lady on fire, here is my hot take.

Beautifully filmed but otherwise dull and unoriginal

I had high expectations from this movie but I was disappointed by it because it was not interesting and I believe that it's a very overrated movie.

The movie started mysterious, but whole mystery was gone after 10 minutes. Followed by a boring lesbian love story, of course features tons of female nudity for male gaze, how cheap.

18th century France. A young painter, Marianne, arrives on an island to paint the portrait of Heloise, a woman soon to be married. Heloise does not know a portrait is being made of her. Over time the relationship between the two young women deepens.

A fairly predictable French arthouse offering. Being French, being arty, involving two beautiful young women, you pretty much know where this is going to go. Hardly revolutionary - there have been plenty of same-sex romantic dramas before and this is no different. In fact, it's just another romantic drama, full stop.

A strange glacially slow art house movie with an abundance of lengthy meaningless looks, questions asked and an eternity before anyone responds etc etc.

It feels as the plot is stretched, losing elasticity and energy, and the narrative is chopped into pieces, making it harder to concentrate for a long time. Overrated and not recommended. It is also hard to find a romance and chemistry between a couple.

At best this is a weak 3 outta 10, meaning why was this movie made wasting millions of euro on a poor result.

Fuck Israel

2021-12-09 01:36:37

#12107

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

Dilbert_X wrote:
Having not seen portrait of a lady on fire, here is my hot take.

Beautifully filmed but otherwise dull and unoriginal

I had high expectations from this movie but I was disappointed by it because it was not interesting and I believe that it's a very overrated movie.

The movie started mysterious, but whole mystery was gone after 10 minutes. Followed by a boring lesbian love story, of course features tons of female nudity for male gaze, how cheap.

18th century France. A young painter, Marianne, arrives on an island to paint the portrait of Heloise, a woman soon to be married. Heloise does not know a portrait is being made of her. Over time the relationship between the two young women deepens.

A fairly predictable French arthouse offering. Being French, being arty, involving two beautiful young women, you pretty much know where this is going to go. Hardly revolutionary - there have been plenty of same-sex romantic dramas before and this is no different. In fact, it's just another romantic drama, full stop.

A strange glacially slow art house movie with an abundance of lengthy meaningless looks, questions asked and an eternity before anyone responds etc etc.

It feels as the plot is stretched, losing elasticity and energy, and the narrative is chopped into pieces, making it harder to concentrate for a long time. Overrated and not recommended. It is also hard to find a romance and chemistry between a couple.

At best this is a weak 3 outta 10, meaning why was this movie made wasting millions of euro on a poor result.

Yawn, you didn't even watch it.

2021-12-09 01:37:19

#12108

uziq: Member; +497|3709

except it’s none of those things. and certainly doesn’t service the male gaze, lmfao. you are projecting there. adults with actual sex lives are capable of watching a movie without drooling over the actresses and hyperventilating. it’s a movie directed by a woman about the female experience, not soft core porn for losers like you.

2021-12-09 01:42:43

#12109

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

Aren't theatrical releases of comic book movies like three hours now, with another 30 minutes for the director's cut? Yes, dramas "drag on and on and on, so much wasted screentime."

2021-12-09 01:47:43

#12110

uziq: Member; +497|3709

i also love how dilbert is so inexperienced with art house movies that he thinks they’re all ‘glacially slow’. try watching some gaspar noé. ‘enter the void, boring slow twaddle’. lmao.

portrait of a woman on fire is very well paced, as is minari. every scene furthers the plot and there are some quite hair-raising and challenging moments, in the former especially. it made a pretty big impact with critics upon launch for several pretty merciless abortion scenes, for instance. because graphic depictions of abortion really tally with ‘glacially slow art house twaddle’.

i’d love to spend a day inside your head, sure i’m right about everything whilst being a totally dysfunctional idiot. but i’d be sure to get out and return to the land of the joyously living very soon.

2021-12-09 01:48:33

#12111

uziq: Member; +497|3709

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Aren't theatrical releases of comic book movies like three hours now, with another 30 minutes for the director's cut? Yes, dramas "drag on and on and on, so much wasted screentime."

you can be sure dilbert got excited about the ‘snyder cut’ or whatever. because we need another 3 subplots about space monsters and more 40 minute CGI action scenes of computer-generated buildings being demolished.

2021-12-09 01:50:02

#12112

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:
except it’s none of those things. and certainly doesn’t service the male gaze, lmfao. you are projecting there. adults with actual sex lives are capable of watching a movie without drooling over the actresses and hyperventilating. it’s a movie directed by a woman about the female experience, not soft core porn for losers like you.

LMAO All those lines were from actual reviews.

Fuck Israel

2021-12-09 02:59:34

#12113

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:
you can be sure dilbert got excited about the ‘snyder cut’ or whatever. because we need another 3 subplots about space monsters and more 40 minute CGI action scenes of computer-generated buildings being demolished.

Actually Zac Snyder had to step down because his daughter committed suicide and it was edited a lot shorter by someone else.

My god you're a miserable creep.

Fuck Israel

2021-12-09 03:12:11

#12114

uziq: Member; +497|3709

actually there's since been a 'snyder cut' of the movie released, according to his wishes, which had nerds all in a pother.

nice try in making stuff up though and trying to make out i'm somehow being insensitive to the father of a dead girl. and i'm a creep?

why don't you go have a nice lie down.

2021-12-09 03:13:01

#12115

uziq: Member; +497|3709

Dilbert_X wrote:
uziq wrote:
except it’s none of those things. and certainly doesn’t service the male gaze, lmfao. you are projecting there. adults with actual sex lives are capable of watching a movie without drooling over the actresses and hyperventilating. it’s a movie directed by a woman about the female experience, not soft core porn for losers like you.
LMAO All those lines were from actual reviews.

can be sure they're not from reviews of actual critics, in the main. well done at cherrypicking some uncharitable comments from rotten tomatoes though. 'no chemistry between the actresses' LMAO. if you watch 5 minutes of the movie you'll realise how tone-deaf this comment is. dilbert thrusts forward 'the everyman' for his own dishonest purposes yet again. there's a word for it, dilbert ... philistine.

Last edited by uziq (2021-12-09 03:22:47)

2021-12-09 03:39:50

#12116

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

RT at a glance is sometimes a bit dissonant between linked critic review content and the fresh/splat rating system. Sometimes (though not usually) a positive quote gets a splat. Negative quote, fresh (RT discussion in probably like 2-3 threads here).

Even with this in mind though, Portrait has a 98% out of 300+ reviews. Cats '19 has a 19% out of 300+ reviews .

Additional strikes against Cats not just from critics but from graphics, genre, storytelling voices as well as from fans of the IP. Very ample "watch-at-your-own-risk" vibe to work with here. We've been over this plenty. Cats '19 is much memed. Even if you know little-to-nothing about Cats the Musical, if you were hanging around the internet at the time you were probably aware on some level that Cats Was Bad. Enough evidence besides to overcome the bandwagon theory and then some.

Meanwhile on Portrait you have to kind of squint to find many negative comments even from RT's audience category.

Anyway dilbs, we all know why you're into the cats movie: CGI catgirls. I doubt there's many other redeeming traits, even for you.

2021-12-09 03:46:20

#12117

uziq: Member; +497|3709

portrait is a critically acclaimed movie, no question. as is minari. both movies are low-budget with minimal staging and scenery. the focus is entirely on the actors' performances and the tension maintained by the script. the performances are superlative: if they weren't, the films would surely have bombed hugely. there is nothing else to support the intrinsic drama of the thing.

linking a review saying that the chemistry between the actresses sucks is laughably off base. at least when we refer to cats' mindbogglingly bad CGI and questionable art direction, we are referring to something that is by all accounts self-evident.

Last edited by uziq (2021-12-09 04:32:56)

2021-12-09 05:14:16

#12118

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

"The negative reviews for Cats are obviously all bandwagoning. It stands to reason that the positive reviews for Portrait are also all bandwagoning. Also, you are a hipster."

2021-12-13 17:53:47

#12119

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +642|3976

This looks awful. Weird comments on the article saying it looks good. It looks bad.

2021-12-13 18:29:59

#12120

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

There are going to be so many photoshops of him sparkling in the daylight.

2021-12-13 18:34:55

#12121

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

I think at this point this kind of Batman movie has been made literally every single time. Barring Batman Forever and B&R, every single time.

It would be nice to see a revival of some of the corniness, even if it angers some of the fans. Not every Batman movie has to be so awfully grim.

2021-12-13 20:01:21

#12122

uziq: Member; +497|3709

the father - 7/10. painful topic but this one is formally slick and captures the whole thing rather well. anthony hopkins delivers a great performance in this.

2021-12-13 20:17:31

#12123

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

Man that's tough material, ngl.

2021-12-17 14:54:27

#12124

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +642|3976

I read the plot synopsis of the new Spider-Man movie. Actually a very clever thing they pulled off with it. To a billion dollars it goes.

2021-12-17 15:30:25

#12125

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

With great power comes great profitability.

BF2S Forums Rate the last movie you've seen

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

uziq wrote:

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

Board footer