Bricks in Motion
We are a friendly filmmaking community devoted to the art of stop-motion animation using LEGO® and similar construction toys. Here, you can share your work, join our community of other brickfilmers, and participate in periodic animation contests!
A place to discuss, share, and create stop motion films.
Ad
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Iron Man 3
This wasn't the last movie I watched, but I have to say, it was by far the best Marvel Movie I've seen!
4.9/5
The Impossible (2012)
One of my parents' friends recommended it. But, I had already known about it before. Anyways, it was a good--a really good--film. I loved the cinematography, the acting, and the story. At many points in the film...I cried. Yeah, I did cry. 
It's one of those films.
10/10
Ed Wood
I've only just realised this is possibly the most bipolar film ever made. Its like: "Be careful: you might think what your making is brilliant when its actually rubbish. But, it doesn't matter if what your doing is rubbish...except it does because everyone laughs at you and you die broke. But you'll be famous...for sucking. But dreams are worth fighting for....even if they only amount to ridicule and, again, dying broke"
I still love it though. The entertainment industry is brutal but rewarding (often at the same time) - so this film is a perfect example of making the best of your situation. I think the line "Worst film you ever saw? Well...my next one will be better!" sums Ed Wood up as a person. I've always seen the moral of the film as: "If your going to suck, at least be really cool about it"
Thor
This film, I like it. ANOTHER!
Out of all of the Marvel films leading up to Avengers, this one is my favourite.
It's packed with slanted angles, sparkly stuff, explosions, lens flare, cool costumes, and other epic stuff. Just what I like in a film. I'm also very fond of Loki as a character. He's a particularly interesting villain in that he isn't actually trying to be bad, just trying to protect his home.
I've watched a few films recently, so lets just cover them all:
Iron Man 3
This film is definitely one of my favorites of all the Marvel films. The story is a great mixture of the comedic and the serious, and ol' Robby gives one of his best performances. The film has great action, characters, twists, and everything else. The best of the trilogy, and highly recommended!
Terror of MechaGodzilla
I haven't watch a Godzilla film in a long time (read: 2 months), so this film was a nice re-introduction to the series. While the plot may be almost paper-thin, you don't watch a Godzilla film for the gripping story. You watch it for the monsters. And this films 30 minute climactic battle is more than enough for me to recommend it!
Interstella 5555: The 5tory of the 5ecret 5tar 5ystem
I absolutely loved this movie! I'm already a Daft Punk fan, so of course I think the film was great in the music department. But it actually has a really great story, told very well, despite having no dialogue. The animation is also very well done. A must watch for any Anime/Daft Punk fan!
The Great Gatsby
Despite many reviews say it's bad or mediocre...I thought it was great. I didn't really like the kind of music he chose, hip hop, rap, whatever that thing was, but that's ok: it works to show the kind of mood of those parties. The sets, cinematography too, were incredible. The actors were amazing. And, despite what many critics say, there was some feeling.
I never was a fan of Baz Luhrman's style, but that didn't stop me from liking it. 4/5
Star Trek: Wrath of Cumberbatch
(Seriously, 'Into Darkness' is a terrible title. It sounds lame, and they didn't really go into darkness. At least 'The Phantom Menace' concerned a menace that no-one could see...until it appeared)
I'm always embarrassed with myself when I say that Star Trek 2009 was one of the best films of that year. I'm quick to mention other less embarrassing films like Where The Wild Things Are (one day people will realise just how good that film was), Moon, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Inglorious !@#$%^&*, and The Hurt Locker.
This film was absolutely incredible apart from the ending. The film kept me guessing and in genuine suspense throughout the duration (*glares angrily at Doctor Who*). I was utterly absorbed, never confused, and at every single plot-point bought up I was thinking "Nicely done Abrams! Star Wars Episode 7 might actually be tolerable at this rate...". This must have been an extremely difficult film to write and construct, and so its incredible that this film manages to surpass 2009's Star Trek easily.
And then it kinda screwed up. It was like a boy who had constructed wings out of cereal boxes, but it somehow manages to fly. And the kid is an outstanding flier. He is the most elegant thing anyone has seen in years. Everyone is ready to call him a god and shower the kid with gifts...but then he crashes into a wall and dies.
The ending was exceptionally over-ambitious. It could have worked, but it just didn't. Benedict's character (who is incredible) doesn't get the closure he deserves, a huge plot-point is dropped, and the whole thing ends in a very similar way to the first one. I wouldn't be surprised if the ending was changed by the studio at the last minute.
Pity...
Iron Man 3
http://funmismoviereviews.blogspot.ca/
My review of the film at the top.
Django Unchained
In recent years, Tarantino has been having problems with his pacing. It started with Jackie Brown, which no-one remembers because it moved too slow and didn't really have anything to make it worth sitting through. (I'm fine with slow paced affairs, but you need to have some sort of emotional payoff lest the film be forgotten instantly. Zodiac is a good example of this) Kill Bill was probably as bombastic as Tarantino is ever going to get, but Kill Bill 2 was kinda like "Sorry we cut out all the character development and exposition in the first one. How about we make Kill Bill 2 nothing BUT that?" Inglorious !@#$%^&*, on the other hand, was basically a mini-series. If it wasn't for the film being so clearly cinematic, I would have sworn it was a HBO series strung together into one long film because the plot kept stopping and starting like an unusually exciting train journey.
Films, television shows, books, and even games are all like runners. Some are expert marathon runners that can run at a good pace for many miles. Some are lightning-fast sprinters who finish before they run out of energy. Some can cope well enough during middle-distance races. Some are clumsy and crash into walls before they are done. Some run so fast that they become overwhelmed by the end. Some deliberately walk the entire way just to annoy everyone, and some are fat kids who desperately wheeze throughout.
Django Unchained is a sprinter trying to run a marathon. It fares really well at the start, but halfway through it collapses. This being said, the runner does comes back to life and manages to finish the thing nicely after being out cold for a bit. Leonardo DiCaprio seems to realise that he's losing the audience and turns up the insane dial to get our attention back. Good call sir.
Speaking of the cast, it is - as is expected from a Tarantino film - sublime. This is partly due to excellent performances all round, but also because of Tarantino's outstanding dialogue. Unfortunately though, the cast is a little too good. Django kind of fades in the background, and its only during the last 10 mins or so when he's given the chance to shine.
Oh, and the use of contemporary music was unbelievably jarring. When it grudgingly uses a traditional orchestral score, its much more effective than blaring a rock song that just doesn't fit with the 19th century setting. I'm fine with Johnny Cash and the James Brown song used in the trailer - but when you include rap of all things, that's just being ridiculous. In ten years time, this film is going to be very dated indeed, which is a shame because judging from the title-sequence and the quick-zooms, Tarantino is doing all he can to make this a timeless homage.
But, despite all my complaints...its a Tarantino film. It may be flawed, but its still one of the most interesting things out there. And sometimes I like it when something is flawed, because the flaws make the whole thing more interesting. I would much rather date a three-armed guy than a handsome jock. Jackie Brown wasn't flawed - it was just bland. This meanwhile is completely off its rocker, and if you can tolerate a few minutes of plot-stoppage and badly-chosen music then the payoff is worth it.
Quentin Tarantino has reached that sweet point where he's so successful that can make whatever film he wants, and I love it when this power is given to a good director who cares more about storytelling than profit/critical praise. Ignore my pathetic complaints sir - just keep doing what you love doing....
Sherlock Holmes; Game of Shadows
Amazing movie, not perhaps quit as good as the first, but enjoyable all the same. I would also recommend watching HISHE's take on it, absolutely hilarious. 
And sometimes I like it when something is flawed, because the flaws make the whole thing more interesting. I would much rather date a three-armed guy than a handsome jock.
What makes you think three-armed people are intrinsically flawed?
Took advantage of the extended weekend and had a Back to the Future marathon. I rented all the movies in the trilogy and watched them.
Back to the Future (1985)
Good, good. It was good. I liked the overall idea (I'm fascinated by time travel) and the storyline. A few technical aspects of the film looked kinda weird though. But, it was a good one.
9.4/10
Back to the Future: Part II (1989)
A good sequel. Hollywood filmmakers back then had a strange idea of how life would be in the early 21st century.
Flying cars? We're nowhere near that!
. Also, I couldn't stop laughing at the part where
the old Biff Tannen gets out of the taxicab when the driver reveals the price: more than $120!
I guess people in the 1980s had the idea that prices for things today would be high. They were kinda right; I mean, take a look at the prices for petrol!
9.6/10
Back to the Future: Part III (1990)
Not to keen, I gotta say, on the whole Western idea. I don't care for "Western cowboy" shtuff. But, I liked
the references to Clint Eastwood
. Overall, it's a swell conclusion to the Back to the Future trilogy.
9/10
If you're an "Easter egg" kind of guy, you should look out for any foreshadowings and references to other films in this trilogy. They're not too hard to find. For example, the reference to
Doc Brown's passion for Jules Verne leads to him naming his children after him.
Max Butcher wrote:And sometimes I like it when something is flawed, because the flaws make the whole thing more interesting. I would much rather date a three-armed guy than a handsome jock.
What makes you think three-armed people are intrinsically flawed?
Their not. Your right - that was a bad example. Apologies if any three-armed people are browsing this website whilst eating lasagne.
'Flaw' was a stupid word. How about...um...'unorthodox'. Yes, Django Unchained didn't have a traditional narrative structure, but at least Tarantino was being different. It only sorta worked, but he at least tried. Although, there is the good kind of unorthodox and the bad kind. The bad kind is when someone is like "I'm tired of breathing oxygen. Its just so cliché. I'm going to be original and unorthodox by not breathing. That'll show everyone!" Bad unorthodox is basically being unorthodox for the sake of it, rather than because your trying to make a statement (aside from "I'M SO ORIGINAL") or because that's just who you are.
I'm fine with Johnny Cash and the James Brown song used in the trailer - but when you include rap of all things, that's just being ridiculous.
Ugh, not another "This movie would have been so great without the rap!" quote 
I think rap music can enhance movies when used in the proper context (i.e. 'Fast and Furious'). I do agree with you in general about the music, though; they should have stuck with the orchestra instead of using modern music such as rap and rock, as it just didn't fit the theme of the movie.
I have no problems with rap in films when they fit....I was just using rap as an example of a modern piece of music that doesn't fit in with a period piece. There are many films where rap works very well, my favourite example being Do The Right Thing.
Speaking of badly-fitting music:
The Great Gatsby
By far Baz Luhrmann's best film...but that's really not saying much.
I get the appeal of Luhrmann's style, but I just think its obnoxious. Like Tarantino, its admirable that he's actually trying to be original, but unlike Tarantino - it was never good, and Luhrmann should just drop the act and label it a failed experiment (I would hate Romeo and Juliet less if Luhrmann . Its OK to experiment, and its OK if the experiment goes wrong...but the man who invented the wheel didn't take his shoddy first attempt and just carried on using it regardless of how bumpy the ride was.
I think I only enjoyed this film because I haven't read the novel (I will fill in this gaping hole as soon as my 'To Read' pile has thinned somewhat). If I'd read the novel, I would be complaining about how Luhrmann ruins the subtlety of the piece - as I do with almost every single Hollywood adaptation. Heck, I'm avoiding V For Vendetta like the plague because I love the graphic novel and I know I'm just going to be annoyed like I was when I saw that terrible Watchmen adaptation (what is it with Hollywood and Alan Moore. I read Watchmen when I was 15, and I perfectly understood its ambiguity. Why can't fully grown screenwriters?)
Because I hadn't read the novel, it meant I could actually enjoy the plot. And the plot is naturally excellent. Surprisingly, Luhrmann also knew when to stop all the gimmicks and focus on the drama. In fact, only once or twice does he go all Moulin Rouge, and he never reaches Romeo and Juliet levels of bombast. Not a terrible film, but if you've read the book then avoid it. If you were forced to sit through it like I was, then you might be pleasantly surprised like I was. I know I shouldn't have liked this...but I just did.
Speaking of badly-fitting music:
The Great Gatsby
By far Baz Luhrmann's best film...but that's really not saying much.
I get the appeal of Luhrmann's style, but I just think its obnoxious. Like Tarantino, its admirable that he's actually trying to be original, but unlike Tarantino - it was never good, and Luhrmann should just drop the act and label it a failed experiment (I would hate Romeo and Juliet less if Luhrmann . Its OK to experiment, and its OK if the experiment goes wrong...but the man who invented the wheel didn't take his shoddy first attempt and just carried on using it regardless of how bumpy the ride was.
I think I only enjoyed this film because I haven't read the novel (I will fill in this gaping hole as soon as my 'To Read' pile has thinned somewhat). If I'd read the novel, I would be complaining about how Luhrmann ruins the subtlety of the piece - as I do with almost every single Hollywood adaptation. Heck, I'm avoiding V For Vendetta like the plague because I love the graphic novel and I know I'm just going to be annoyed like I was when I saw that terrible Watchmen adaptation (what is it with Hollywood and Alan Moore. I read Watchmen when I was 15, and I perfectly understood its ambiguity. Why can't fully grown screenwriters?)
Because I hadn't read the novel, it meant I could actually enjoy the plot. And the plot is naturally excellent. Surprisingly, Luhrmann also knew when to stop all the gimmicks and focus on the drama. In fact, only once or twice does he go all Moulin Rouge, and he never reaches Romeo and Juliet levels of bombast. Not a terrible film, but if you've read the book then avoid it. If you were forced to sit through it like I was, then you might be pleasantly surprised like I was. I know I shouldn't have liked this...but I just did.
So, you're saying you never read the book and liked the film only because you never did so, but say people should avoid this film if they have read the book as they will undoubtedly be disappointed... except you've never actually read the book so you cannot know for sure how accurate this movie adaptation is in the first place, or how subtle the book actually is? This seems like pretty flawed reasoning to me.
Also, liking or disliking something is subjective and based almost completely upon opinion, so how can you say that you "should" or "shouldn't" like something? Sometimes (but not always) I enjoy films that were panned by critics (such as The Tourist), while others that were favourably reviewed by critics I find horrible (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, I'm looking at you).
Star Trek Into Darkness
I've never watched star trek before, so I went in without any knowledge of the characters or anything. I found it very good..its pretty cheesy at moments, but that makes it entertaining and I really liked Scotty (I think that's his name) played by Simon Pegg. Great film, go watch it.
I haven't seen Gatsby yet but I heard some of the soundtrack on the radio and I didn't like it. Not that I have anything against rap but the artists they chose were just some of my least favorite musicians out there.
Now, I think it's cool that they chose sort of modern party music, but if they were ambitious enough to recruit all these famous people maybe they should have set the film in the 2010s. There was no autotune in the 20s and these sorts of anachronisms bother me.
The Hobbit
It was pretty good but I did not enjoy it as much as the other films of the series. I felt like they were trying to hard to be Star Wars, making The Hobbit into an epic prequel trilogy and such, when in reality it would be best as a simple adventure film. Maybe I would like the Soviet one better.
Strictly Ballroom
when this film started I expected it to be one of those creepy comedies (like Airplane) but it just turned out to be a romance. Still there was good cinematography throughout and I was entertained much. Plus, it's *AUSTRALIAN!*
The Hobbit
It was pretty good but I did not enjoy it as much as the other films of the series. I felt like they were trying to hard to be Star Wars, making The Hobbit into an epic prequel trilogy and such,
May I inquire into as how many times have you watched "The Hobbit"? Personally I believe it's one of those films you enjoy second time round, knowing what to expect.
Peter Jackson's original intentions was to produce "The Hobbit" however for reasons that I cannot recall he didn't own the rights. Thus the "Lord of the Rings" was made and years later he redeemed the rights and we now have "The Hobbit. Martin Freeman fit the role really well, and I personally think it lived up to the novel. Azorg isn't originally in the novel, but it's added an interesting twist to the story.
So, you're saying you never read the book and liked the film only because you never did so, but say people should avoid this film if they have read the book as they will undoubtedly be disappointed... except you've never actually read the book so you cannot know for sure how accurate this movie adaptation is in the first place, or how subtle the book actually is? This seems like pretty flawed reasoning to me.
Also, liking or disliking something is subjective and based almost completely upon opinion, so how can you say that you "should" or "shouldn't" like something? Sometimes (but not always) I enjoy films that were panned by critics (such as The Tourist), while others that were favourably reviewed by critics I find horrible (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, I'm looking at you).
Its fairly obvious, judging from when the film actually quotes the book, that the book has a subtlety to it. What is probably a party where many stand around drinking, the film turns into a modern rave. Unless I'm seriously misjudging 20's literature. The juxtaposition between the narration and what was actually going on shows that the novel has obviously been sensationalised. Perhaps the narration has been deliberately rewritten to stand out like a sore thumb (except the ending. That was actually quite well done I thought), but this is the guy who did Romeo and Juliet, which might have worked slightly better if they removed Shakespeare's language - but if they did that then the film would merely be bad rather than fascinatingly painful.
I wasn't saying that you should or shouldn't like the film. I'm saying that purists won't like the film because its clearly slapping about the source material a bit, but if you have no idea what the novel is about then your more likely to enjoy it because you won't be constantly yelling "THE BOOK DID IT BETTER", like I was throughout the majority of The Hobbit.
Posts [ 7,261 to 7,280 of 8,881 ]
