What general film/series have you just seen.. marks out of 5

luckystars · Post by **luckystars** » 21 Mar 2009, 23:43

Not for me.

1 A low number meaning awful
2
3 Average in the middle.
4
5 A high number meaning you know what it's good.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 21 Mar 2009, 23:50

Clearly you prescribe to the Hung film rating school of thought

. His make absolutely no sense either

.

3 out of 5 is fairly good/average in my book. There are only 5 ratings to start with, not enough scope to make 3 out of 5 a stinker. It's why I dislike such a restrictive rating, 10 out of 10 is much more suitable.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 22 Mar 2009, 00:20

bradavon wrote:There are only 5 ratings to start with

9 if you learn the desimals. 81 if your name is Grim.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 22 Mar 2009, 02:37

luckystars wrote:A film that is ok and no better is a 3/5 for me. Totally average.

A 3/5 from a Director like Scott is a WTF stinker.

That's so illogical I can't even be bothered arguing with you about it.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 22 Mar 2009, 02:44

BUG *.5

Funny how this turned up on TV tonight so soon after Romero's recommendation. Anyways -- a film of two halves (as they say). First half - southern domestic drama - I thought was very good thanks to strong performances and dialogue; second half - WTF????? Friedkin looses the plot big time - although it's the fault of the material really. A psychodrama about bug delusions? I should have known better than to watch this. I only have myself to blame. Absurd doesn't begin to describe a grotesque final act that that actually had me laughing (a crack-smoking army doctor anyone?) No wonder this slipped by unnoticed. Probably saved it a critical savaging. Ashley Judd is a great actress and needs to show off her hot body in a better movie.

Best line: "I'm the mother Queen!!"

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 22 Mar 2009, 09:30

81 ratings Hung? Really?

luckystars · Post by **luckystars** » 22 Mar 2009, 10:52

Markgway wrote:
luckystars wrote:A film that is ok and no better is a 3/5 for me. Totally average.

A 3/5 from a Director like Scott is a WTF stinker.
That's so illogical I can't even be bothered arguing with you about it.

Then you don't get my point...and why argue anyway?

@ Brad - we do mark out of 10 no? 2.5/5 is five out of ten, 3.5 is seven out of ten etc.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 22 Mar 2009, 14:00

Markgway wrote: Best line: "I'm the mother Queen!!"

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Mar 2009, 15:23

HungFist wrote:9 if you learn the desimals.

You shouldn't have to learn how a rating system works, it should be obvious

.

This reminds me of my electricity bill. It's so complicated they include a 2 page instruction guide to tell you how to read it. Madness!

APPINESS · Post by **APPINESS** » 31 Mar 2009, 14:08

American Gangster 4/5

A great gangster flick. The performances from Crowe and Washington were first rate. The action scenes were great too, especially where they bust into the drug distribution centre with bullets and naked chicks flying everywhere. It was a little slow moving but I suppose it had to be to try and stay as real as it could be.

What makes the film all the more shocking is that it was based on a true story and it said they arrested 3/4 of the narcotics police department for bribery and corruption. It really restores your faith in the police.

At least the film showed that there are some good police officers as well.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 31 Mar 2009, 14:32

I thought it was decent too. I don't know why most people think it's pants. I've only seen the shorter DC.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 31 Mar 2009, 17:48

Decent, but the story about police corruption is just begging for an epic 70s style cop movie. Hollywood hasn't done a great gritty cop thriller since the 80s! I'm stunned that Ridley Scott picked up this project and then decided to just concentrate on a generic cop-gangster storyline and glossed over the police angle in the 2nd half of the film!

If only Sidney Lumet was covering the subject!

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 31 Mar 2009, 18:11

Shingster wrote:Hollywood hasn't done a great gritty cop thriller since the 80s!

Narc?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 31 Mar 2009, 18:15

The Fast and the Furious?

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 31 Mar 2009, 18:53

HungFist wrote:Narc?

Good film, i'd hardly call it great though. It's no Serpico. Now that I think of it Hollywood has created one great cop thriller in the last 20yrs or so: L.A Confidential.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 31 Mar 2009, 19:13

Narc is excellent IMO.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 31 Mar 2009, 19:14

I thought it was very good too

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 31 Mar 2009, 19:23

Ahh but a 5 star classic? not even close

I borrowed that dvd to a friend and he watched it gave it back to me and complained that I had given him an old film

DICK ALERT

if I had gave him Star Wars do you think he would have thought that was new

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 31 Mar 2009, 19:43

romerojpg wrote:Ahh but a 5 star classic? not even close

Who said it had to be

?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 31 Mar 2009, 19:45

Exactly. I just said it was "very good"

diceman · Post by **diceman** » 01 Apr 2009, 15:54

Shingster wrote:Hollywood hasn't done a great gritty cop thriller since the 80s!

Max Payne

:albino:

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 03 Apr 2009, 16:31

THE MIST 4/5

A horror movie with intelligence and balls.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 03 Apr 2009, 18:33

Did you watch it in black and white or colour? I haven't seen the film at all but I seem to recall reading that the DC is in B&W?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 03 Apr 2009, 19:45

Markgway wrote: intelligence

You watched a different film from what they made then. Its a dumb assed monster film.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 03 Apr 2009, 23:51

romerojpg wrote:
Markgway wrote: intelligence
You watched a different film from what they made then. Its a dumb assed monster film.

...Says the forum's biggest fan of STARSHIP TROOPERS

Now THAT is a dumb monster movie.

THE MIST was an intelligent study in human behaviour under extreme circumstances. Fear, paranoia, religion, survivalism all play a part. The monsters are merely the catalyist and I preumse therefore that the inclusion of CGI monsters has confused Romero into assuming that this was "another dumb monster movie". But read between the lines.

I think most intelligent people would "get it".