Give YOUR Movie review

M

Mrs Gil-Galad Took

New member
Don't know if there is already a trhead like this. If it is mods merge this ;) But I don't see one and maybe the former one is aged by now.

Well let us write NOT a what did tyou watched last topic but a give your review topic instead. The purpose is to write YOUR OWN review of a movie and tell briefly about the plot so people have a bit of idea what it is about and then rate it and write your review. Try to be as honest as possible about why you like/dislike the movie. Not because it has a certain actor/actress in it but just about the movie.

Let me start with the first Movie:
Title: The last samurai
Year: 2003 (if I am correct)
Plot: An american soldier fights in Japan where he is supposed to help the Emperor's army to defeat the Samurai. They were seen as a serious threat to the Land of japan. He gets captured by the Samurai but instead of being treated as an enemy he is welcome to walk around and learns the way of the samurai. He ends up fighting by their side.

Rate: 9,5
My review: This movie is great in many ways. It is not a typical war movie or a movie in which you see a small group of rebellions win against 10.000's of soldiers. It is realistic. It doesn't contain nudity or very bad swear words. The cast is amazing and it shows a good view on the rituals and morals of the Samurai
 
I looked, and as of what I saw, there were no other "Movie review" threads!

As a movie nerd, I am SOO excited to see this thread!

This is a great idea and I REALLY like your review. It makes me want to see it really bad now!

Although I have no movie to review (as of now) I would just like to let you know I approve :)p) and subscribe!

Can't wait to see this thread grow ;)
 
Iron Man/Iron Man 2 (Spoilers)

Iron Man (2008) with Robert Downey, Jr. Jeff Bridges, and Gwyneth Paltrow

Plot: Tony Stark, genius and CEO of Stark Industries is kidnapped by a group of terrorists that are being sold his company's weapons. He, while in captivity, constructs a suit powered by a miniature arc reactor, a device he invented to keep stray shrapnel from entering his heart and killing him. He escapes and returns to America, where he plans to shut down the weapon manufacturing branch of his company, resulting in Obadiah's [Jeff Bridges] disappointment and ultimate betrayal. Stark eventually becomes known as Iron Man.

Review: 7.5/10. I would give this a higher rating if it weren't for the first 15-20 minutes. Honestly, Thor was plenty enjoyable without the sexuality. But, the bright spot in this movie is the fact that Tony [kinda sorta] reforms after being captured. He realizes his company is dealing under the table with terrorists, and aims to do something about it. The battle scenes and banter between Stark and Pepper is pretty enjoyable.

Iron Man 2 (2009?)

PLOT: Stark is now considered a superhero, and has constructed several different suits. However, he is told by Jarvis [his computer] that he's on the verge of dying because the arc reactor keeping him alive is killing him. This drives Tony to become self-destructive, drinking heavily and becoming out of control. This, in turn, drives his friend Col. Rhodes to intervene, even battling it out with Tony in his own suit (Rhodes steps into a spare Iron Man suit, and Tony has to fight against his own technology; something I see as story-significant). Through a series of events, Tony not only constructs a new source of power/life for himself, but also battles an enemy from his and his father's past, Ivan Vanko (sp?). The movie concludes with Nick Fury, S.H.I.E.L.D. director, doubting his [Tony] ability to be a part of the Avengers Initiative

Review: 7.5/10 While this movie had the sexuality in it, it wasn't quite as pronounced as the first one. I found Mickey Rourke's character laughable though; maybe it was due to the fact that I couldn't understand half of his dialogue. Anyway, in that area it felt like they were desperate for a villain and it wasn't a very good one. But it was nice that Pepper and Tony actually "fell" for each other in this movie instead of hinting at it like they did in the first movie. Looking forward to seeing Stark in The Avengers.
 
The Impressionists (2006)

Plot: The Impressionists is a factual drama miniseries chronicling the life of the Impressionist Claude Monet played by Julian Glover from an interview during his later years in life. It goes back to the start of the Impressionist movement, and Monet meets up with fellow Impressionists Edgar Degas, Eduoard Manet, Bazille, Renoir, and Cézanne.

I give it 10 paint brushes/stars because it truly captured the spirit of each individual artist, and the period of time that they lived in. It is worth seeing. Especially if you’re an art lover like me. And if you really love the works of the impressionists like I do. It also has the actors go to locations where the paintings were actually painted. The bonus 55 minute documentary about Monet is a wonderful added treat.
 
Movie Title: Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

Review: I, limited being that I am, cannot fathom what possessed anyone to actually make this film. The book is barely over 100 pages, and there is hardly a plot. Most of the book is given to saccharine preaching, and was more of a religious tract than a book.

I supposed, then, that the movie might be better. After all, for a movie to be watchable, there must be some semblance of a plot. Alas, I find this film even worse than the book, for no other reason that the film wasted an hour and a half of my life, while the book wasted about twenty minutes.

Like the book, it tells the story of Jonathan Seagull, who wants to fly better than anyone else. The movie has many, many problems. First and foremost: the plot. Or rather, the lack of plot. The first twenty minutes or so actually have a loose plot, but as soon as Jonathan is kicked out of his flock, it disappears in favour of preaching, pretty birds flying, and, perhaps worst of all, Neil Diamond.

I will admit that the scenery was gorgeous, but it's hard to enjoy that as the worst music Neil Diamond has ever written blares obnoxiously in the background. Worse than, it includes some of the worst voice-over work ever seen in a movie. They don't attempt to make the birds look as if they are speaking, instead, they play a voice in the background and hope the audience will buy it. This audience isn't buying it.

This might work, if the birds had anything interesting or insightful to say, but ninety percent of the dialogue is preaching. Not only does it make for a boring movie, it's also rather insulting. No matter how free and perfect you believe yourself to be, everyone has limitations. It's part of being human. Moreover, the preaching is about as subtle as a walrus that has painted itself bright green and is dancing on a harpsichord, singing "The Subtle Song".

Perhaps even worse, it was painful to watch the birds be thrown around. In some cases, in the scene in which they were fighting over a garbage heap, I could swear I saw real blood. Even if this were a good film, it'd be disturbing to see these birds get hurt.

This is a mind-blowingly bad movie, which has thankfully faded into obscurity.

Zero stars.


I didn't like it very much.
 
Thank you ahyperdude!! I look forward to see you reviews. I really love to see the opinions of others about movies. And hurry up and spoil me with reviews :p

Titel: Fright Night 2011
Cast: Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, David Tennant, Imogen Poots

Plot: Charlie (Yelchin) is a young boy who lives in a normal neighborhood when one of his best friends tells him his neighbor Jerry is a Vampire. He don't believe him and his friend gets killed by the same Vampire. Charlie starts an investigation and discovers Jerry (Farrell) is indeed a Vampire. He seeks help and goes to a weird magician Peter Vincent (Tennant) who runs a show in Las Vegas called Fright Night. Of course the magician doesn't believe him but later it will be revealed he did believe him but he tried to run away from his own past with the same Jerry who killed his parents when he was a kid. There is a confrontation and Jerry and his family are running away trying to get rid of the Vampire and then Charlie and Peter Vincent try to find a way to destroy the Vampire for once and for all

My rate: 5,4
My review: People who love David Tennant as the Tenth Doctor will not recognise his Doctor character in this move. He swears like a sailor (F bombs all the way) and drinks heavily. The movie itself is not that bad though. I have a feeling they could have done more with it if they would have skipped the amount of swearing and drinking. Farrell plays not the usual sexy vampire who chases all the girls. In fact he is a normal guy who observes humans and thinks they are so stupid and full with themselves. he is calm and quiet and calculated. Tennant gives a very good protrayal of Peter Vincent and gives the movie a very comical mood. He convinces as the pseudo slayer who in fact is nothing more than a coward and realizes in the end he has to fight to let go of his devastating past. Yelchin is very convincing as the teenage boy and makes the story believable. However the plot is a bit exaggerated and like I said before something is missing in this movie. It turns out a bit predictable. So if you want to see it rent it. It is not worth the money to buy the dvd.
 
Mrs Gil-Galad Took said:
Thank you ahyperdude!! I look forward to see you reviews. I really love to see the opinions of others about movies. And hurry up and spoil me with reviews :p

Titel: Fright Night 2011
Cast: Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, David Tennant, Imogen Poots

Plot: Charlie (Yelchin) is a young boy who lives in a normal neighborhood when one of his best friends tells him his neighbor Jerry is a Vampire. He don't believe him and his friend gets killed by the same Vampire. Charlie starts an investigation and discovers Jerry (Farrell) is indeed a Vampire. He seeks help and goes to a weird magician Peter Vincent (Tennant) who runs a show in Las Vegas called Fright Night. Of course the magician doesn't believe him but later it will be revealed he did believe him but he tried to run away from his own past with the same Jerry who killed his parents when he was a kid. There is a confrontation and Jerry and his family are running away trying to get rid of the Vampire and then Charlie and Peter Vincent try to find a way to destroy the Vampire for once and for all

My rate: 5,4
My review: People who love David Tennant as the Tenth Doctor will not recognise his Doctor character in this move. He swears like a sailor (F bombs all the way) and drinks heavily. The movie itself is not that bad though. I have a feeling they could have done more with it if they would have skipped the amount of swearing and drinking. Farrell plays not the usual sexy vampire who chases all the girls. In fact he is a normal guy who observes humans and thinks they are so stupid and full with themselves. he is calm and quiet and calculated. Tennant gives a very good protrayal of Peter Vincent and gives the movie a very comical mood. He convinces as the pseudo slayer who in fact is nothing more than a coward and realizes in the end he has to fight to let go of his devastating past. Yelchin is very convincing as the teenage boy and makes the story believable. However the plot is a bit exaggerated and like I said before something is missing in this movie. It turns out a bit predictable. So if you want to see it rent it. It is not worth the money to buy the dvd.
Click to expand...

I want to see it, because it has to do with vampires. I usually rent movies when they come out dvd, unless its something that I really want to see. Thanks for giving a review about it, because I was wondering how it was.
 
It is not a typical vampire movie like Twilight. In fact there is no vampire romance in it at all. It is dark and to be honest Colin farrell makes Jerry a believable vampire. Be aware of the large amount of swearing in it ;)
 
True Grit (1969) starring John Wayne, Kim Darby, Robert Duvall and Glen Campbell

Plot: Mattie Ross wants revenge for her father's death. More specifically, she wants to see Tom Chaney hanged for the act of betrayal and she recruits Marshal Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn to find Chaney and bring him to justice. Along the way they're paired up with Texas Ranger La Boeuf [pronounced "La Beef"] who is also after Chaney for crimes committed in Texas. They eventually discover that Chaney is riding with the Ned Pepper Gang, and so it becomes less about just Chaney and more about finding the entire gang.

Review: I had to watch this one again after seeing the 2010 version several times over. I dislike the music in the 1969 version, for it seems much too similar to other John Wayne movies [namely The Sons of Katie Elder and The Comancheros], and to me it doesn't have the emotional tug that the music for the 2010 version has. I will say, however, that I think Wayne makes a much better Cogburn than Jeff Bridges. I find it funny how both Wayne and Bridges were nominated for Best Actor at the Oscars for their respective versions, but only Wayne won his [his only Oscar of his film career]. I dislike Kim Darby as Mattie. To me, I liked how Hailee portrayed Mattie and I think Hailee brought more of an emotional depth to her role. And Matt Damon is no Glen Campbell [thank goodness!], and so the role of La Boeuf was better played by Damon. I did notice that there was a lot of dialogue that remained the same from the '69 version to the '10 version.
 
Aravis Kenobi said:
I dislike the music in the 1969 version, for it seems much too similar to other John Wayne movies [namely The Sons of Katie Elder and The Comancheros], and to me it doesn't have the emotional tug that the music for the 2010 version has.
Click to expand...

Strange, I have never heard either score, but I would have thought Elmer Bernstein's (The Ten Commandments, The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape, and the National Geographic theme) score would be better than Burwell's (Twilight).

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

Plot:
The Third film in the Star Trek Genesis Trilogy, is a throwback to the time travel and humorous episodes of TOS, which sees Earth again under threat, this time by a probe (again.) sending a signal that matches those by humpback whales, en route to a trial for his actions in the previous film, Kirk learns of the probe and decides to go back in time and collect whales and bring them back to the future, but it as easier said than done...

Review:
This is one of the funniest of the Star Trek films, however, there is some language that hurts the enjoyment factor a bit, the score is very good (though some may argue that it may not fit in the Star Trek sound, though usually they forget that The Trouble with Tribbles and Shore Leave had comedic music as well) Leonard Rosenmans Trek motif is quite good, and his alternate main title (here: http://www.intrada.net/sound/StreK4_16.m3u) is an interesting arrangement of the Alexander Courage longlined melody, and Chekovs theme is a step in the right direction to fleshing out the background characters.

The "PETA" message is a bit hard to stomach, and the film looks very 1986, but all in all, it is an enjoyable film 95/100
 
Last edited:
oh I'm so going to post this thread to death! :D
From FB, here's my review of 'The Smurfs' after seeing it.

Here are my thoughts on the smurfs (2011) after just leaving the theater.

This movie was... Disapointing. Considering over 60 years of Smurf comics, on top of the medieval comics they are a spin off of you would expect a better movie. Even, if we go by the 10 season Hanna-Barbera cartoon series that most of us are familiar with , there were much better possiblities to work from. I think the first weakness the movie has is it's set up. The film starts in a beautiful birds eye view of the Medieval land the Smurfs live in, from the near by town (where the Human characters from the comics and cartoon live, sadly absent in this film), to the forest and smurf village. It's nicely done and really, I would have rather spent the movie here instead of NYC. Going back to the film's first issues is our introduction to the smurfs themselves, which are narrated by that 'trailer voice' we all know all to well. Instead of letting us experience the surfs ourselves and maybe gain an emotional attachment to them, we fly by in a confused rush. In fact it ends up our Narator is a smurf himself (though not even named until at least 20 minutes into the film!), leading to a bit of confusion. Well anyway it seems that a Festival of the blue moon is on, and everyone is getting ready for it. Unfortunately this doesn't include Clumbsy Smurf (our Woobie) who is proven to be too much a hazard. Going over to Papa Smurf, we find him mixing a potion that aparently predicts the future of the smurfs for the following year, once finished we find out that smurfs are to come to some kind of peril, that frightens Papa. Suddenly Clumsy appears and we find he's interested in getting some smurf salve to help the injuries he's caused on others. Despite being warned , Clumbsy goes out to find smurf root , and makes the mistake of meeting Gargamel and his cat, and leading them into smurf village... *sigh* This is the next problem with this movie is that the plot really doesn't start until we get 15 minutes into the film. The Characters wander about, and even when we get to NYC, with Gargamel and our blue friends, you are still wondering were all this is going. Ends up we add some human characters in the mix and we have our main cast.... of 8. We have 8 main characters, 5 of which have only one personality trait to define them. This is bad , very bad. Not only does this film have rather underdeveloped characters, but it seems to fight against the plot (including adding sub-plots that disapear un-resolved) to be able to constantly catch up with them. The humor is very punny and aims low, I really only laughed at the scene where Gargamel interupts a facial cream demistration for Executive to insult the founder's mother's hagged apperience. A lot of the humor is sourced from the many uses of the word 'Smurf', to the point it seems that 'Smurf' is used only to hint a obscene language. Other Humor (I'd guess aimed at the Adults who brought there kids) leave you a bit uncomfortable in a film that aims it sights at an elementry age. Smurfette (voiced by Katie Perry), makes the comment 'I kissed a Smurf and I liked it' a refrence to her Lesbian themed song 'I kissed a Girl and I liked It', and one smurf mentions that the air vent under him provides ' A fresh breeze to his ''Enchanted Forest'' MOVIE! really? *tisk, tisk* There is also this scene where Gargamel mistakes an ice bucket for a Chamber Pot and uses it in front of a whole Diner (he's behind a counter and we see his releif and hear it too), not to mention the extremely efeminant male executive at the Make-up office. the Film drags on untill it's climax, which feels overblown and empty and goes on longer than it really should. It's sad too, that a film boasting beautiful animation, should have such a sucky script. Even the ending, the film is trying to convince you that these Characters grew and developed but it's so vague that it fails itself. The attempts at emotion feel hollow through out the film, due to the fact that we are never given a chance to actually see any developement. I know I'm jumping around a bit, but in one scene the smurfs are going to bed on their first night in NYC, and talk about how they miss home, where just around the corner our Human character (who is so bland I don't even remember the name) is crying. WHY? they crash into your house tear up your home, and have probably lost you your job! But, since the film feels you should relate to the characters they force it upon you. In effect sloppy movie making.
rent it if you must, but it'd be a waste the actually buy it.
 
Faleel said:
Strange, I have never heard either score, but I would have thought Elmer Bernstein's (The Ten Commandments, The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape, and the National Geographic theme) score would be better than Burwell's (Twilight).

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

Plot:
The Third film in the Star Trek Genesis Trilogy, is a throwback to the time travel and humorous episodes of TOS, which sees Earth again under threat, this time by a probe (again.) sending a signal that matches those by humpback whales, en route to a trial for his actions in the previous film, Kirk learns of the probe and decides to go back in time and collect whales and bring them back to the future, but it as easier said than done...

Review:
This is one of the funniest of the Star Trek films, however, there is some language that hurts the enjoyment factor a bit, the score is very good (though some may argue that it may not fit in the Star Trek sound, though usually they forget that The Trouble with Tribbles and Shore Leave had comedic music as well) Leonard Rosenmans Trek motif is quite good, and his alternate main title (here: http://www.intrada.net/sound/StreK4_16.m3u) is an interesting arrangement of the Alexander Courage longlined melody, and Chekovs theme is a step in the right direction to fleshing out the background characters.

The "PETA" message is a bit hard to stomach, and the film looks very 1986, but all in all, it is an enjoyable film 95/100
Click to expand...

I tend to find most of the Western soundtracks of the 60s to be emotionally lacking and they sound like each other. I didn't realize Burwell was tied in with Twilight. :rolleyes: Naturally. Gag.

I love ST 4! You're right about the language; it would've been so much more enjoyable without it!
 
Wow, this thread REALLY caught on!


Here's my review:

Movie: "Driving Miss Daisy" 1989

Prominent Actor's: Jessica Tandy and Morgan Freeman

Story:The movie starts off with "Miss Daisy" accidentally crashing her car. Her son decides that she can't drive anymore because the insurance can't cover it (because of the crash). Thus her son hires a guy (Morgan Freeman) to drive her. It takes him 6 days to finally win her over, and once he does, they become friends by the end of the movie.

Positive elements: I liked how they incorporated the black a white skin racism issues, it seemed historically accurate, and was very interesting seeing both cultures. It had GREAT characters. The acting was phenomenal and so was the ending! I loved how they also incorporated the Southern Georgia accents! The story-line was creative.

Negative elements: Although the story-line was creative, it still lacked health. It ran smoothly, but for most of the movie, they just drove around. "Miss Daisy's" attitude was obnoxious for almost all of the movie until the end (her character was an old stubborn widow). I didn't like the 80's/90's music either.

Other thoughts: I tend not to like older movies and this movie came out in 1989 which isn't too old but some of the directing styles were a little weird. I would not watch it again (although it was still enjoyable).

Summary: Overall I give this movie a 8-10. It made you feel joyful, and although lacking flavor, it has some humor which helped it to be more interesting.
 
Last edited:
ahyperdude said:
Wow, this thread REALLY caught on!


Here's my review:

Movie: "Driving Miss Daisy" 1989

Prominent Actor's: Jessica Tandy and Morgan Freeman

Story:The movie starts off with "Miss Daisy" accidentally crashing her car. Her son decides that she can't drive anymore because the insurance can't cover it (because of the crash). Thus her son hires a guy (Morgan Freeman) to drive her. It takes him 6 days to finally win her over, and once he does, they become friends by the end of the movie.

Positive elements: I liked how they incorporated the black a white skin racism issues, it seemed historically accurate, and was very interesting seeing both cultures. It had GREAT characters. The acting was phenomenal and so was the ending! I loved how they also incorporated the Southern Georgia accents! The story-line was creative.

Negative elements: Although the story-line was creative, it still lacked health. It ran smoothly, but for most of the movie, they just drove around. "Miss Daisy's" attitude was obnoxious for almost all of the movie until the end (her character was an old stubborn widow). I didn't like the 80's/90's music either.

Other thoughts: I tend not to like older movies and this movie came out in 1989 which isn't too old but some of the directing styles were a little weird. I would not watch it again (although it was still enjoyable).

Summary: Overall I give this movie a 8-10. It made you feel joyful, and although lacking flavor, it has some humor which helped it to be more interesting.
Click to expand...

A big 10 for you!! I saw that movie a couple of years back and it is okay but not a movie I would see again. I would give it the same rating
 
Paranormal Activity

Plot: Kate is haunted by a demon that won't let her go, so her husband is setting up cameras.
The movie is filmed with a handheld camera, as the pair looses slep caused by the hauntings.

Review:
The perfect start of a new generation of handheld camera movies, and deserved some Oscars. 9/10
 
Mrs Gil-Galad Took said:
A big 10 for you!! I saw that movie a couple of years back and it is okay but not a movie I would see again. I would give it the same rating
Click to expand...

Wow thanks! I was hoping people would read and appreciate my review!

Narniabeaver2005 said:
Paranormal Activity

Plot: Kate is haunted by a demon that won't let her go, so her husband is setting up cameras.
The movie is filmed with a handheld camera, as the pair looses slep caused by the hauntings.

Review:
The perfect start of a new generation of handheld camera movies, and deserved some Oscars. 9/10
Click to expand...

Interesting! I want to see it now! That kind of stuff freaks me out, but I still like watching it :p (Love hate thang :p)
 
Star Trek (2009)

We all know the plot. I don't want to spend time typing it up. ;)

Review: 7/10, 8/10 for effects and dialogue. I'm still pretty conflicted about this movie. it's an enjoyable movie, with routine Trek-esque dialogue and scenarios. I mean, how many times in the past has Kirk had to save the universe from a bad guy or some form of destructive force? This movie had potential as well. But where it lacked was in 4 places: the villain Nero, death of Kirk's father, death of Spock's mother, and the destruction of Vulcan. I say the movie lacks because if you tear away the last 3 things, you've destroyed the entire fabric of the Star Trek universe. Who Kirk was in TOS was based on the influencing power of his father. Spock was who he became in TOS because of his human mother's presence in his life. Vulcan was always Earth's first ally in the Federation, and without Vulcan, much of what happened later after this movie's date couldn't have happened. Abrams seemed to ignore the rule of alternate universes: if you change one thing, it will change the future. With Nero coming back in time (essentially, Nero ruined the space time continuum by destroying the Kelvin), he changed the future of the characters. I understand that part and I also understand the need not to strictly copy what Shatner, Nimoy, etc. did originally. HOWEVER, if you're going to claim that the movie is a PREQUEL, you must follow canon eventually. If that meant destroying Nero then returning to the beginning where the Kelvin was, then it should have been done. You cannot claim to have a prequel if your characters are not essentially the same as those they're representing.

Okay, getting off my nerd soapbox. Karl Urban is the only shining star in this movie, as his portrayal of young Dr. McCoy was perfect. I can say this happily because McCoy is my favorite TOS character, so you know that if they had gotten him wrong, I would be upset. Kudos to you if you understood any of my last paragraph. :p haha
 
Back
Top