Disagree. I found the love between the two leads in Princess Bride to have a glossed-over, fabricated feel to it. It didn't feel authentic. The whole 'first chapter' where we see how they fall in love looks staged with bad actors. Doesn't help that they didn't have much chemistry between them. On the other hand, the main actor in Stardust (sorry can't remember his name) had this slightly bumbling, but innocent and sincere demeanor about him. Instantly likeable dude. And while it may be cliched, the hate-develops-into-love angle works here, thanks to the good writing and great chemistry between him and Claire Danes.

Maybe it isn't a great film, but better than The Princess Bride it is.

My two sens

Inigo Montoya was awesome, I'll give you that. Also, I didnt know thatw as Billy Crystal until the end credits. Even my dad was "THAT was billy crystal?!".

He was great in Primal Fear, boring in Red Dragon. The guy is a bit hit-or-miss for me, althought there are more hits than misses.

I'm so easy to please, all they have to do is please me.

How dare you sign (sic) and roll your eyes at the truth! I would cut Norotn some slack in 25th Hour though, not his best, but pretty good.

His really good roles are in AHX and Primal Fear. Really fun in The Italian Job and Fight Club too.

How to Train Your Dragon

It's good. I liked it. But Pixar have nothing to worry about at the moment, the gulf is still pretty big, though I have to say.... judging by the trailers, Toy Story 3 looks like it could be a dud.

Don't flatter yourself... and I didn't watch it in 3D.

I don't think the visuals are anything special, just the usual Dreamworks dullness. The crap projector in Cineleisure Damansara Hall 9 probably contributed a little bit to this as well.

You mean

Daybreakers.

Highly flawed but a good movie. Just about.

This post has been edited by QuickFire: May 16 2010, 09:20 AM

The Wolfman (2010)

Good movie. I liked it quite a bit. Ending was disappointing though.

4 posts in a row, lol.

Yeah I like Speed Racer too.

The Road - Overall a good movie with a few (too few) great scenes.

I watched all three Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I only planned to watch the first, but after that ended I couldn't bring myself to not watch the remaining two. I'm not ashamed to say this has become one of my favourite trilogies. The movie get progressively worse, but that's only because the first is utterly brilliant, the second is great, and the third "merely" very good. I cant think of any modern series that has such a great sense of fun, and some terrific action sequences to boot. I think many people lost interest in the second movie because it just seemed so unfocused. But I think, having watched it like 10 times now, it simply has a total disregard for set rules. It doesnt care that this particular scene doesn't further the plot, all it wants is some... no, A LOT OF GODDAMN FUN AND MADNESS. f*** the plot, I dont give a shit, it says. This is Jack Sparrow, he's mad, why should the movie be different? Which is why the third movie is easily the worst, what with its convulated plot, double backstabbings, triple backstabbings. Still, it preserves the fun, and the last hour is pure epic spectacle. Oh, and all three are hilarious. Seriously, each movie has at least two jokes that make me howl with laughter.

Cant bloody wait for POTC 4. The worry is that Rob Marshall wont be up to the task. I want Verbinski back!

Yeah mine was the unrated one. The gore was yummy.

The Lovely Bones. What a mess. What a snoozefest. Practically nothing in this movies works. The acting is subpar all round (maybe except Tucci, who is pretty good), and Purgatory, or the in-between, or whatever that place was, looked like lazily patched together wallpapers downloaded from the net. Unnecessary and totally unconvincing CGI. And some of the worst voiceover narrating you are likely to ever hear. Avoid.

Wait, how old are you?

I watched The Relic when I was a kid, but cant remember much about it. I think it took place in a museum, and had some kind of monster, but that's about it.

All this while I've thought n00b13 was 20 something! Btw mov_freak, you play Wii games, you can't be that old.

I haven't really seen much of PJ's work to be a good judge of him, but the ineptitude on display in this movie is pretty baffling. One scene near the beginning, where the main character's brother is suffocating. It's a deadly serious scene, and I thought the little guy was gone. She goes to get the keys to the car to take him to the hospital, and suddenly, just SUDDENLY, the movie shifts from a serious tone to a light comedic one. There's one more scene later, where the family is dealing with what happened to the death of the main character, and the grandmother comes to help them cope, and again, SUDDENLY, from a serious tone, the movie switches to comedy, showing how much fun the grandmother is having. It absolutely does not work, at all.

I really think somewhere in there was a potentially good movie about how a family deals with tragedy and learn to move on, but Jackson preferred to swamp us with pointless images of the afterlife. Pretty much every scene in the In-between was utterly pointless and boring to look at, adding nothing to the movie. I didn't appreciate the supernatural elements in the movie either. Another addition which I thought was badly handled and pointless, again. Not to mention I can't at all agree with the message at the end of the movie.

Oh yeah, watched The Losers. Passable I guess, but I think I saw a very similar movie a few weeks ago. It's called The A-Team.

This post has been edited by QuickFire: Jul 10 2010, 10:26 PM

I've seen FOTR, which I liked, but the LOTR kind of fantasy has never really been my kind of thing, so I didn't watch the other two. Not saying they are bad films, just not my cuppa.

Back to The Lovely Bones. I didn't care about how and why she was in limbo because I've seen enough stuff like that. The spirit who can't let go because her loved on is down there. Because she is framed and justice hasn't been served. It feels like I've been through this many times before. On the other hand, I thought the family-trying-to-move-on part was interesting, and wanted more of that. The thing is, the movie juggles way too much than it can handle, so everything falls smack on its own face.

When I said I couldnt agree with the ending, I was talking about (SPOILERS!!!) how the other sister refused to produce the evidence she found to her parents or the cops. I know she didn't want to because her mom was back and dad had finally learned to let go and she didn't want this to change again, but c'mon, letting a murderer go, that's just wrong.

lol what? Jason Patric was easily the worst thing in that movie, and Chris Evans the best.

Sunshine Cleaning. Funny and heartwarming, I think it's great.

John Carpenter's classic horror Halloween. Actually it bored me to tears.

You like every damn movie. Your scale of movies goes from Not Bad to Brilliant. There's no This Movie Sucks is there?

But I can't say I remember much of Lost in Space, except it had one big-ass explosion right?

This post has been edited by QuickFire: Sep 13 2010, 01:26 PM

Sometimes falling in love with a movie when you're a kid can affect your perception of it as an adult. Like Jurassic Park, seen objectively it has big flaws, but it's one of my favourite movies because it was one of my favourite movies when I was a kid.

lol yeah I haven't been posting much.

Last movies watched eh...

Clash of the Titans. Boring

Prince of Persia. Boring.

Iron Man 2. Hey I thought it was passable entertainment. There wasn't a whole lot of progression and after 2 hours you realize not much has actually happened, but I didn't find it boring (largely due to Downey Jr, his charm is slightly on the wane though), the action scenes were pretty good although bogged by too much CGI. It's inferior to the first (which wasnt that good anyway) but it's one of the better movies this year. Needed Jeff Bridges.

Funny Games U.S. Odd film. SPOILERS ahead. On the one hand I think it's absolutely effective as a sadistic horror-thriller, up to a certain point. On the other hand, Haneke becomes a bit too clever in breaking the fourth wall. I dont mind the character talking directly to the audience, but that one scene when he uses a TV remote to rewind what just happened... is hard to accept. I know Haneke wants us to know this isn't a conventional horror movie where the bad guys torture the good guys and the good guys kill the bad guys, but it would have been better if he went ahead and shot it straight without any overt manipulations. Plus, he seems to be making a message that you don't need on-screen blood and violence to make a horror movie stick, but again that scene, although eventually rewound, is exactly what the gore-lovers salivate after. Anyway, before the first character dies the movie is utterly effective. In other similar movies you are always aware you are watching a serial killer/torture movie, you set your expectations on what is going to happen next, your expectations are met, etc etc. Not so here, the movie is shot in a very personal manner and unlike other similar movies and it just swallows you and disturbs you. The movie loses its stranglehold on you midway through the movie after a character dies, and never really gains ground after. Still a good movie, and a pretty unique one.

No Rouke was a disappointment. His character was poorly written and developed (the whole movie was actually). That's why I said the movie needed Jeff Bridges.

This post has been edited by QuickFire: Sep 13 2010, 05:34 PM