rate the last movie you saw

[Eric Paddon]

Another film I can easily avoid with no qualms though I can think of one group of "Christian" film critics who will go ga-ga over it (the people who made me cancel my subscription to Christianity Today after a number of years).

[jkholm]

Another film I can easily avoid with no qualms though I can think of one group of "Christian" film critics who will go ga-ga over it (the people who made me cancel my subscription to Christianity Today after a number of years).

There is indeed a positive review of the film on the Christianity Today website in which the reviewer implores readers not to dismiss the film so easily.

On the other hand, a review showed up today on another Christian site with this paragraph:

Exodus: Gods and Kings had the potential to be one of the greatest films of all time; instead it’s one of the worst movies of the year. Director Ridley Scott aspired to produce the next Ten Commandments (1956) and instead gave us a revisionist version of the story that is almost as lame as the justifiably forgotten Wholly Moses! (1980).

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/artic ... oses-movie

[Eric Paddon]

I'm not surprised about CT and the film because while the specific individuals who caused me to cancel with them are no longer there, their influence remains. For a number of years, they employed a guy named Jeffrey Overstreet who has written a lot about films and he is without question, the most condescending, arrogant jerk I have ever come across in so-called "Christian" circles. He has a peculiar standard in which the supposedly "discerning" Christian should look beyond what are usually elementary points of judgment like a film's content and take a "closer look" to see their merits. As a consequence this approach has made him a darling of a lot of entertainment establishment critics because he serves the purpose of de-emphasizing points a lot of religiously faithful look for, plus he is a reliable basher of all things in the conservative Christian community, especially those who think a film's content should come first when it comes to evaluating things.

What's worse about this guy and a lot of his likeminded followers is how he isn't content to let people have their own subjective personal standards for evaluating something. Instead, he carries it one step further and condescendingly suggests that those who evaluate films based on the content level and who would dislike a film based on its pushing of an agenda that is not in accordance with what the individual thinks represents sound Biblical standards, are nothing more than ignorant hicks who have no ability to appreciate so-called "art". Even worse is how this guy will frequently unload poison pen darts at the critics on his right he has a hang-up with, but as I found from personal experience, he has a thin-skin when it comes to having his own words subjected to the same standards of lofty judgment he reserves for others in the Christian community. It wasn't that I necessarily agreed with all the words of those he was bashing, but that he came across as a preening hypocrite and setting himself up as a superior "Christian" and that if say, something like "God Is Dead" was successful that was bad for the Christian community as a whole because he felt it was a case of the stupid having too much influence.

[Jedbu]

On a lighter note....

BIG HERO SIX: 8/10

A big, sweet movie with a big, sweet hero-Baymax, an inflatable robot who is designed as a medical robot to diagnose and treat the sick. He is designed by Tadashi, a brilliant young man who is the older brother of Hiro, another highly intelligent kid who is a bit reckless but loves his brother, and when that brother is killed in an explosion, Hiro is left Baymax, the proverbial innocent but who also becomes the ultimate hero. Hiro and his brother's tech-school nerd friends team up to find out who or what is behind the terrible event that took Tadashi away, becoming superheroes in the meantime while Hiro finds out more about the man he and his brother looked up to and finds out more than he probably wanted to know. The superpowers that the friends take on are offshoots of what they specialize in at the school, with one of the friend's getups being the DAMNDEST costume you have ever seen.

Based on a somewhat obscure Marvel comic and set in a not-too-distant future San Fransokyo (the mashup of American and Japanese is nicely done), BIG HERO SIX is a film that never drags and never wears out its welcome-the characters are never obnoxious and even the protagonist's parental figure is a normal, nice person who is a bit eccentric but not certifiable, like most films of this genre seem to be. While the main character is Hiro, the star of the film is Baymax, a sort of benevolent Stay-Puft marshmallow man who feels like a cross between E. T. and Sully from MONSTERS, INC. Directors Don Hall and Chris Williams are obvious fans of Chuck Jones and have mastered those wonderful eye expressions that Jones' characters would have when just watching something and waiting until just the right moment to react yet letting the audience see them take it all in (best example-Hiro tries to explain to a world-weary cop what he and Baymax have seen and the cop just expressing everything with his eyes-you've seen it in the ads and it is even funnier in the film).

The only quibble I have is with the last 20 minutes, which feels like someone felt that they had to have a big, epic finish with personal sacrifice in order to win the audience (Hey-news flash-we were won over when Baymax's battery ran low and he acted like he was drunk) when it really was not necessary. Otherwise, I really fun, sweet movie from Disney Animation with the best new character added to the studio's line up since WALL-E. Curious that among all the huge balloons over the city one did not look like Totoro...

Also, the short on the front-FEAST-which is about a puppy and his master as seen through the food he eats, is a little gem with a great ending.

[Monterey Jack]

-Friday The 13th franchise: 0/10

What garbage. Of course, this is my first time going through these films, so there's zero childhood nostalgia clouding the issue, but these films are uniformly terrible, with zero style, suspense or wit on display, just the same naked teenage torsos getting run through by the same dripping machete, over and over and over. At least the first two Halloween movies were good, and the Nightmare On Elm Street films are consistently imaginative and visually clever (even the crummy ones), but the Friday films are 100% Moron Movies, with no skill or passion devoted to them, just depressing, bandwagon-jumping greed. Freddy vs. Jason is the only tolerable movie to feature Mr. Voorhees, and it's still just passable (mainly just for the presence of Robert Englund). Crappy McCrap.

[Eric Paddon]

A Christmas Carol (1951) 9.5 of 10

-Still the best version of the story for me. The script's only flaw is that it doesn't have Scrooge meeting the gentlemen of charity again after his transformation. It ends up leaving that the only incomplete business of the whole story.

[mkaroly]

-Friday The 13th franchise: 0/10

What garbage. Of course, this is my first time going through these films, so there's zero childhood nostalgia clouding the issue, but these films are uniformly terrible, with zero style, suspense or wit on display, just the same naked teenage torsos getting run through by the same dripping machete, over and over and over. At least the first two Halloween movies were good, and the Nightmare On Elm Street films are consistently imaginative and visually clever (even the crummy ones), but the Friday films are 100% Moron Movies, with no skill or passion devoted to them, just depressing, bandwagon-jumping greed. Freddy vs. Jason is the only tolerable movie to feature Mr. Voorhees, and it's still just passable (mainly just for the presence of Robert Englund). Crappy McCrap.

I grew up watching these films back when I was into horror movies, so I have a soft spot in my heart for them. I really liked the first one - it was effectively creepy visually and otherwise (the mother was just downright scary and it was a good twist for the times), and the gore was good too at that time. There is that late 70s documentary style vibe (a la TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE) that added to how disturbing things were (and the score too now that I think about it).

I was also a fan of the fourth one (the Final Chapter...or so it was called...lol...); both of those film had grit and were disturbing. I agree that substantively they left a lot to be desired, especially the sequels (Part III in 3-D was fun for what it was but pure stupidity to be sure). The films became a parody of themselves as they moved forward, and while I would never insist that they were masterpieces I think at least the first one was influential in what came afterwards. Maybe FRIDAY THE 13TH influenced more bad slasher films than good ones, but I can still sit and watch them to this day as they are fun to watch for me (having grown up on them) and remind me of younger days.

I agree that NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and HALLOWEEN were both far better than any of the FRIDAY THE 13TH movies.

[AndyDursin]

I'm not a big slasher fan by any means and never have been...that said, I grew up on the HALLOWEEN films and preferred them over FRIDAY THE 13TH big time. Of course only HALLOWEEN 1 is really good -- everything else is diminishing returns and that includes HALLOWEEN II which isn't scary at all and becomes plodding and dull after the first 20 minutes. III is interesting though it doesn't really work; 4 and 5 just meh and 6 was a fail in any cut you watch. Some fans like HALLOWEEN H20. I thought it sucked when it was released and it's dated as hell now, even if it's better than the garbage that came after it (Rob Zombie yuck)

As far as Voorhees goes, oddly the only one of the original group that retains my interest is JASON TAKES MANHATTAN, which people hate, but it actually a) attempts to tell a story and b) has a conclusive ending that kind of wraps up the original Paramount run. It's not good -- but it's better than most. If 3D was in 3D it'd probably be a lot of fun, but sadly it's not (at least not "real 3D").

I do enjoy FREDDY VS JASON because I think it goes hand in hand with Ronny Yu's brilliant, subversive BRIDE OF CHUCKY, but those films were way late after the fact so I don't even count them in the run of their respective series.

What makes the NIGHTMARE films a lot more entertaining than the FRIDAY movies is their sense of humor and imagination, especially where VFX goes, like MJ said. Plus you had decent directors getting going there like Renny Harlin, Chuck Russell and Stephen Hopkins working on various installments, whereas the FRIDAY films were almost universally produced by hacks.

For the most part, though, I've always liked my horror mixed with fantasy, like POLTERGEIST, or sci-fi like THE THING, etc. The gory R-rated stuff didn't appeal to me a whole lot back in the day, with notable exceptions like THE EXORCIST, obviously.

[AndyDursin]

GONE GIRL
6/10

Well made, well acted adaptation of a vapid book filled with narcisstic, unlikeable characters. Watchable but populated with people you could care less about and capped with a groan inducing, lousy ending. Its strong commercial in take speaks to how little adult content there is in theaters these days, not so much a reflection of the material which I found slickly delivered but unappealing.

Two additional demerits for the horrifc sound design (certainly not music by any definition of the word) which in several places sounds like a stuck note on a keyboard. Atrocious.

[mkaroly]

THE HOBBIT - BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES - as I said with the previous film, if you liked the other two installments (which I generally did), although this film doesn't add anything new visually or otherwise and I imagine you will like it. If you didn't like the previous films, there's nothing much here that will make you change your mind. Just a couple of comments:

1). I wonder if the extended release DVDs will make the ending a bit more seamless and less rushed. I was a bit disappointed in how Jackson tired TH and LOTR together - I guess I was expecting something else.

2). Musically I think Hoard Shore had some moments in this three film arc but I have to admit I am a bit disappointed with the scores which don't quite leave me as satisfied as the LOTR scores. I wonder again if he is going to release complete editions like he did with LOTR since these 2 disc scores don't seem to tell the whole story.

3). The death of Thorin reminded me a little of the death of Boromir in FELLOWSHIP; where this particular film went wrong was in its love story between the elf and the dwarf...their on-screen moment at the end seemed to be out of place and not impactful in the way I imagine Jackson wanted it.

I generally liked TH series but prefer the LOTR series.

[esteban miranda]

EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS - 2/10. Visually impressive, theologically empty. Very disappointed as it seems the filmmakers chose to basically use the Old Testament as an outline and jettison the rest. There is a lot I had problems with; I realize Scott is an atheist (at least I believe he is last time I checked), but the way the PRIMARY source material was treated (Exodus in the Old Testament) was just uncalled for. To explain what I mean I have to give a couple of "spoilers": for example, first off, Moses' encounter with God at the burning bush comes about due to a landslide that knocks Moses out...was what he saw really God or just a "delusion"? It's actually a funny scene because he is encased in mud with a broken leg and can't move. Upon somehow being found and retrieved from the mountain, his wife tells him whatever he thought he saw on the mountain was a "delusion". Ultimately Moses is portrayed as a somewhat emotionally unstable person, perhaps a bit schizophrenic (something I must admit liberal scholarship has a tendency to do...read some of what people have said of Ezekiel).

Secondly, Moses comes across as a product of the Enlightenment (anachronistic to the hilt); and his faith doesn't come to fruition until the Red Sea. In addition, there is a lack of relationship with God (who, by the way, manifests Himself as a little child) - yes, they have discussions here and there but in the Biblical account the relationship Yahweh develops with Moses is one where Moses learns to trust Him and in the process becomes a leader - that was all missed in the film (and there is other stuff I had problems with there but I will let that go for now). Thirdly, the plagues that come about have nothing to do with Moses confronting Pharaoh (he does so twice in the movie) and Pharaoh hardening his heart; nor is the whole Ancient Near Eastern "honor challenges" between gods (Yahweh and Pharaoh who was considered a god) present; rather, God brings the plagues it seems as a means of building up Moses' faith as well as bringing Pharaoh down. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work well in the film and is somewhat confusing. The "miraculous" aspect of it is missing because there are no confrontations between Moses and Pharaoh, except in dark stables and empty throne rooms.

All of that I can sit through and just roll my eyes and move on. However, the biggest offense of the film is its making Moses out to be a "terrorist" (as well as Yahweh); once Moses receives his "commissioning" from Yahweh he goes back to Egypt (without his new wife and son) and engages in guerilla warfare, training the Israelites how to fight (and how to blow up things). Much of it brought to mind pictures of training camps over in the Middle East; maybe I am dead wrong on that, but the whole thing just felt uneasy and inappropriate. Once the Israelites have their freedom, there is no sense of joy; frankly, there is no sense of joy at all in this film. To repeat, I realize who made the film and I was not expecting another TEN COMMANDMENTS by any means; however, the latter film AT LEAST took the PRIMARY source material (the Old Testament) and reverently incorporated it into its narrative with a result that was respectful to Judaism and Christianity. This film was neither in my opinion, and it's a shame. Maybe I am overreacting, but it was very disappointing.

I agree with the above but I was not "disappointed" in the film; it was what I had expected.
I only attended because my wife wanted to see it, she keeps hoping for some Biblical accuracy in current Hollywood "Biblical" movies. Good luck!

[Monterey Jack]

Two additional demerits for the horrifc sound design (certainly not music by any definition of the word) which in several places sounds like a stuck note on a keyboard. Atrocious.

What happened to David Fincher's taste in music? He went from working with legitimate composers like Elliot Goldenthal, Howard Shore, David Shire and Alexandre Desplat (Benjamin Button is one of his most beautiful scores) to...Trent Reznor? It'd be like if Steven Spielberg hired Steve Jablonsky for his next movie.

[esteban miranda]

THE HOBBIT - BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES - as I said with the previous film, if you liked the other two installments (which I generally did), although this film doesn't add anything new visually or otherwise and I imagine you will like it. If you didn't like the previous films, there's nothing much here that will make you change your mind. Just a couple of comments:

1). I wonder if the extended release DVDs will make the ending a bit more seamless and less rushed. I was a bit disappointed in how Jackson tired TH and LOTR together - I guess I was expecting something else.

2). Musically I think Hoard Shore had some moments in this three film arc but I have to admit I am a bit disappointed with the scores which don't quite leave me as satisfied as the LOTR scores. I wonder again if he is going to release complete editions like he did with LOTR since these 2 disc scores don't seem to tell the whole story.

3). The death of Thorin reminded me a little of the death of Boromir in FELLOWSHIP; where this particular film went wrong was in its love story between the elf and the dwarf...their on-screen moment at the end seemed to be out of place and not impactful in the way I imagine Jackson wanted it.

I generally liked TH series but prefer the LOTR series.

I like this new trilogy with reservations.
I never read the book so I can only react to what I see on the screen.
I think the story would have been better told if it was one movie of around 3 hours or maybe two movies of two hours each. The total time of the three movies combined is nearly 8 hours! Way over-kill.
The way it was structured into three movies made the final installment seem, to me, like one long video game. Much of the running time was mostly just huge armies clashing.

[Jedbu]

I get the feeling that the only way Jackson could justify the budget he felt he needed to tell the story required him to make this into two films (his original plan), then three. I wonder if that is where he and Del Toro differed and then the latter walked away from it. When a movie adaptation of a book takes longer to watch than it takes to read...you have to wonder-I read the book in high school for an English class and enjoyed it immensely, but 8+ hours is a bit longer than it took me to read it back then. Jackson does have a good visual eye but you have to wonder if he were given a children's book to adapt, he would include the writing of the book and its publication in the story, as well.

[mkaroly]

I like this new trilogy with reservations.
I never read the book so I can only react to what I see on the screen.
I think the story would have been better told if it was one movie of around 3 hours or maybe two movies of two hours each. The total time of the three movies combined is nearly 8 hours! Way over-kill.
The way it was structured into three movies made the final installment seem, to me, like one long video game. Much of the running time was mostly just huge armies clashing.

Yes!!! That is exactly what I was thinking during the third film - that it looked more like a video game than a movie. I have read that Ian McKellan was unhappy to an extent because there was so much green screen and so little interaction with the other actors...I think that came across in this one more than the other two.

I agree that the story would have been better told over a two film arc...that's why I was a bit disappointed in the ending because I thought the third film would be more detailed in its tying things up to LOTR, showing more of the backstory that led up to Gandalf revisiting the Shire. To be fair though, TROTK is the actual climax to the whole lot of stories, and Jackson and Shore delivered the goods in that one.

Jackson definitely took liberties with the book and the Appendices from LOTR; that didn't really bother me as much as it has some hard-core fans. Jebdu, I did not know Toro walked away (I must be living in a cave or something) - did he do that at the beginning or for the third film?