Bullets 'n' Babes

Flight of the Conchords, Season 1 (3 out of 5)

Bret and Jemaine are quite amusing, but the series plays more like a SNL skit dragged out too long. Some of the laughs are quite good, but when compared to their stand-up/live performances, they pale in comparison. I'd MUCH rather spend an evening in the audience, watching these two perform with no sets than sit through episode after episode of filler material between the songs.

Seems I'm not in line with most critics, though, as the show is a hit and supposedly begins S2 in March. I hear BBC has picked this up from HBO as well, although I don't know when it will air in the UK (or if it already has aired).

AV (2005 - Hong-Kong - Pang Ho-Cheung): 2,5 / 5

" We make a lot of movie. Big movie ! Big movie ! With, huh... Big titties ! "

Typical Edmond Pang comedy. Cute, interesting and pleasant but also flat and predictable.
Almost boring at times (10 minutes too long, I'd say).

1 point for the idea, 1 point for Chin Kar-Lok's cameo and half a point for the cute japanese girl. The rest is just average.
Might buy the Asian Star DVD when it comes out in march.

The Simpsons Movie 3/5
Amusing, kept me entertained, but neither as sharp nor as hilarious as it would have been if made 15 years ago.

Match Point 3/5
Change of pace drama-thriller for Woody Allen. I thought it was well done with good acting.

I heard mixed things about Match Point. I have the DVD as I think Scarlett Johansson is a decent actress.

Predator (blu-ray) 4.5/5

Still a classic movie that's aged well over the years. the transfer is less than stellar imo, the opening few minutes is pretty rough but things improve when the squad arrive in the jungle. certainly a lot better than the sd and the audio is ace but this isn't something you'd use to show off hd to it's best advantage.Fox can do better that's for sure.

If the film is only 2.5/5 Tom why would you buy it?

2.5 / 5 is average.
I've got nothing against average films, as long as they don't have any fatal flaws.

tom2681 wrote:2.5 / 5 is average.

Finally someone with a rational rating scale. I thought I alone...

The Odd Couple (Hong Kong, 1979) – 4/5
I’ve never been the biggest fan of Sammo Hung's old schoolers, but this film I’ve always liked. The casting is ingenious. Sammo plays the master of sword, whose duels with the master of spear (Lau Kar-wing) always end up with a draw. Therefore the old masters decide to settle the score by taking young students (Sammo again, as the student of Lau Kar-wing, and Lau Kar-wing again, as the student of Sammo Hung) who will do the fighting for them. The fight choreography is fantastic, and the comedy scenes (usually with Dean Shek) are insane enough to be funny.
- dvd / HKL

Tenkousei (Japan, 1982) – 4/5
My previous experience of Nobuhiko Obayashi has been hit somewhat close to the target (The Little Girl Who Conquered Time, School in the Crosshairs) or miss (Hausu). I decided that unless Tenkousei can win me over I’ll give up on the man, more or less. Gladly I can say I’m a newborn Obayashi admirer now. In Tenkousei the beautiful visuals don’t get the upper hand over all the substance that has been the problem in many of Obayashi's films. The story of two young students who after an accident realize they have switched bodies is funny and charming, but never cheap. I don’t think any other country than Japan could have handled a subject like this so well. The two leads are both excellent.
- dvd / R2J

2.5 out of 5 to me is poor. 3.5 out of 5 is average or 6 out of 10. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think most people consider 2.5 out of 5 poor, meaning it's you guys who're off . Not to mention confusing for those reading your comments. I'd also say most people consider 3 out of 5 (or 3.5 out of 5) average too.

Personally I dislike ratings out of 5 as it's way too limiting. In my book a rating of 7 out of 10 or above means it's worth seeing. 6 out of 10 probably and below be wary. If 2.5 out of 5 means it's average that must mean half the films you see are average, not exactly good odds.

p.s - There's nothing "rational" about differing ways to rate Hung, what a dumb thing to say.

No Country For Old Men - 3/5
Ho-hum, the novel it's based upon sounds considerably better. It has its moments but they're not moments of any poignancy, they're just centred upon the villian of the tale.

bradavon wrote:3.5 out of 5 is average or 6 out of 10.

What kind of mathematic formula are you using when converting these ratings? 3/5 being 6/10 would make sense, but 3,5/5 being 6/10? The scale was doubled, but the original rating was multiplied by 1,714286

bradavon wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I think most people consider 2.5 out of 5 poor, meaning it's you guys who're off . Not to mention confusing for those reading your comments. I'd also say most people consider 3 out of 5 (or 3.5 out of 5) average too.

Well, most people consider bad movies good, too, so I don't really give a shit if I confuse somebody. It's their problem having the wrong rating scale anyways.

bradavon wrote: If 2.5 out of 5 means it's average that must mean half the films you see are average, not exactly good odds.

You're gonna have to explain the logic behind that.

bradavon wrote: p.s - There's nothing "rational" about differing ways to rate Hung, what a dumb thing to say.

Of course there is.
2,5/5 = average = rational
3,5/5 = average = stupid

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

HungFist wrote:What kind of mathematic formula are you using when converting these ratings? 3/5 being 6/10 would make sense, but 3,5/5 being 6/10? The scale was doubled, but the original rating was multiplied by 1,714286

None. These are film ratings not the mathematical equation for sending a rocket to the moon. 3.5 out of 5 and 3 out of 5 are so close it really doesn't matter.

HungFist wrote:Well, most people consider bad movies good, too

Touché

HungFist wrote:so I don't really give a shit if I confuse somebody. It's their problem having the wrong rating scale anyways.

How nice.

HungFist wrote:You're gonna have to explain the logic behind that.

2.5 out of 5 is half. Whereas if everyone else's average is 3 out of 5 then it's higher than your average of only 50%

Understand?

HungFist wrote:Of course there is.
2,5/5 = average = rational
3,5/5 = average = stupid

They're film ratings!

Rambo - 5/5
Man, this movie was brutal!
WARNING: If the thought of seeing Burmese thugs shredded like hamburger meat makes you feel like vomitting, do not watch Rambo.

bradavon wrote:

HungFist wrote:What kind of mathematic formula are you using when converting these ratings? 3/5 being 6/10 would make sense, but 3,5/5 being 6/10? The scale was doubled, but the original rating was multiplied by 1,714286

None. These are film ratings not the mathematical equation for sending a rocket to the moon. 3.5 out of 5 and 3 out of 5 are so close it really doesn't matter.

ok, no comments

bradavon wrote:

HungFist wrote:You're gonna have to explain the logic behind that.

2.5 out of 5 is half. Whereas if everyone else's average is 3 out of 5 then it's higher than your average of only 50%

Understand?

ok, now I think I know what you mean, but that's not how it works. 2,5/5 only indicates the quality of the movie. It's not the average rating for all movies I see (as in 50% of movies I see being above it and 50% being below it).

Then why agree with Tom when he says a blanket statement that 2.5 out of 5 is average?

RickyTheDragonSteamboat wrote:Rambo - 5/5
Man, this movie was brutal!
WARNING: If the thought of seeing Burmese thugs shredded like hamburger meat makes you feel like vomitting, do not watch Rambo.

Has this movie really been titled Rambo? I thought it was called John Rambo.

The first one was known as Rambo. How dumb.

Rebel Intruders (1980)
Dir: Chang Cheh
Starring: Phillip Kwok, Chiang Sheng, Lo Meng, Lu Feng, Sun Chien, Wang Li

Flatly directed but extremely entertaining Venoms film. The period setting and costume designs is flat and uninvolving, but the acting from the leads is first class, and the fight choreography blisteringly effective, with Phillip Kwok's mastering of the 3-section staff second to none! The limited comedy is, for a change, actually funny. Sun Chien is limited to one fight but it's the finest of his on-screen carrear. Lu Feng, sadly, is under-used for the most part - not to mention rather cross-eyed. I wonder if someone took out his right eye at some point?

bradavon wrote:The first one was known as Rambo. How dumb.

The first one was called FIRST BLOOD. Always has been.

THE WEDDING CRASHERS 2.5/5

Not as many laughs as I'd hoped, and at 2hrs it's too long; surprisingly the romance kept it going.

My ratings system:

* = Absolute Cat Shite
*.5 = Bad
** = Below average
**.5 = Fair
*** = Good
***.5 = Excellent
**** = Masterpiece

Markgway wrote:

bradavon wrote:The first one was known as Rambo. How dumb.

The first one was called FIRST BLOOD. Always has been.

And then part 2 was 'RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART 2'.

Casino Royale - 4.5/5
Easily, easily the best Bond movie yet. Loved the opening foot chase.

Markgway wrote:The first one was called FIRST BLOOD. Always has been.

Note where I said "known as" instead of "titled"

I had a feeling someone would bring that one up. Regardless it's still confusing calling Part 4 Rambo, especially when Part 3 was called Rambo 3.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I thought YOU thought that the first film was actually called RAMBO. I've never called it anything other than First Blood.

VACANCY 3/5

A divorcing couple are terrorized in a secluded motel by its psychotic, snuff-tape making owners.

Suspenseful horror pic; worth a look for fans of high-tension thrillers. The violence and scenes of murder place it as a borderline '18', but it values character and shocks over explicit gore.

bradavon wrote:Then why agree with Tom when he says a blanket statement that 2.5 out of 5 is average?

Because 2,5/5 means average.

Ah, we're running circles in here... and my arguments are getting so thin it's better call his a draw

I wanna have a business arrangement with Brad someday.

I'll tell him it's 60 for me and 40 for him.
And he'll say "Sweet, that's fifty-fifty !".

70 to you and 30 for me and we have a deal