Fallout Studios Forums

AJ, on 19 Dec 2009, 17:27, said:

The Terminator is already a hard one to beat, but you're talking about beating Aliens here. Are you sure you don't want to revise that statement?

If not, I have to go see it immediately.

I was supposed to see that movie today at a Cinema but the security guards didn't let me in because we were a group of guys, so we were considered troublemakers. WTF? They made us miss out on what I knew would be the highlight movie of my life! I am so incredibly pissed off right now.

Is there only one cinema in your entire city or something? Go somewhere else

It was the only chain near enough. I wasn't going to pay a taxi to take us elsewhere when I didn't know the times for the movie in the other cinema which we probably would have missed. Who cares, I'll watch it some other day.

I've just seen Avatar (going to the cinema on Christmas eve... its like a ghost town D:) and I can only echo what Aj has said. It is a brilliant movie.

I think Avatar is far more enjoyable if you cheer for the 'bad' guys. Especially because it reminds me of this:

I recently watched District 9 on DVD.

Other then over 9000 F-bombs dropped every scene, I really like the movie. There were a few points where I was slightly confused about the plot, but still it's a very brilliant film. I've already watched in, six times in a matter of a few days and I'm not bored of it at all That, and the Prawns are just so adorable! :3

I would recommend seeing it.

Avatar - 9/10

I still say it doesn't beat Aliens . However, it is one hell of a movie.

James Cameron did one good job on this. He couldn't resist throwing in a bunch of Alien and Aliens references in, and even put in Sigourney Weaver (who has a quite nice role, btw). Despite it being quite predictable at times and ever so slightly over-the-top with action or treehugging, the movie plays out in a really charming way. I can recommend it to everyone.

Did you watch it in 3D?

No, unfortunately. Even without, the visuals are very impressive, though.

Chyros, on 4 Jan 2010, 13:27, said:

3D makes it so much better, adds at least another point to any score. It's really not the same without it :S

AJ, on 4 Jan 2010, 15:29, said:

I didn't rate the movie upwards, instead I did it downwards. The point I deducted was not for visuals . But I guess I'd have to rewatch it in 3D sometime, then.

Chyros, on 4 Jan 2010, 0:23, said:

Yup watched it in 3D yesterday and I'd give it a 10/10, really impressive movie.

The Book of Eli. 9/10

Very good post apoc movie. Denzel carries his role perfectly, superbly supported by Gary Oldman doing his impression of Jack Nicolson. And Mila Kunis is never a bad starlett to have in any movie.

Saw Avatar yesterday, and what have you people been smoking? Its just another CGI fest, visually it looks stunning and damn near flawless. But apart from that its a kids movie.

I must be the only person who didn't see Avatar here yet
And since we don't have 3D cinemas in here, I pretty much won't watch it especially after having heard that the story is a copy of Pocahontas and a kids movie. (even though I'm pretty sure it's exaggerated, I just never liked fantasy movies)

Also remember : Blue cats with boobs suck
Edited by Argetlam, 19 January 2010 - 14:29.

Sherlock Holmes: 8/10

Man what a film, had me gripped the entire time. I usually hate jude law, but he was brilliant as Watson. Downey Jr as usual never fails to impress, as a damaged but utterly brilliant Holmes. Whole time I was thinking "man this OST is pretty good" turns out it was none other than the amazing Zimmer. Lots of fun, looking forward to the sequel.

Pav3d, on 19 Jan 2010, 14:11, said:

ACtually I have got to disagree with you there. It has the usual trademarks of a Cameron-fest. Superb characterisation and characters with some actual depth, enough time and room for the plot to grow (although I admit the plot isn't particularly original given that it's based on another story), a distinct lack of cheesy/dialogue, superb direction, cinematography is awesome considering 75% of it CGI (and that isn't easy to pull off) and as you say, visually orgasmic. This movie will win Oscars, not for acting, but for everything else it's entered for.

In terms of being a good movie, this one ticks every box you want.

Lucky Number Slevin - solid 10/10

I have no idea why I hadn't seen this movie until yesterday, but it now ranks among my favorite movies of all time. Very clever Tarantino style plot twists without the arrogant excessive dialogue. Good filmography and great acting by Josh Hartnett, Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis, and Ben Kingsley. All in all, my type of movie

Got to agree with you on that one Scope, it is a heck of a film, and has all sorts of suberb twists. Plus, I love Bruce Willis' name

Legion: A very solid 3/10... :(

I am extremely disheartened to see this film flop so spectacularly badly, I would have liked to have seen it prove quite the hit, as the premise (God sends angels to exterminate humanity, Angel Michael goes rogue, tries to stop it all etc) was quite good.

But it was predictable from the start. Furthermore, it fell happily into the niche of survival movie genres, and if you replaced the possessed with zombies, Angel Michael with Alice, and the Angel Gabriel with Nemesis, well, you'd have Resident Evil Apocalypse all over again. It just didn't deliver anything that hadn't been done before, bar a few very minor script alterations to make it the wrath of God, instead of the wrath of a plague/virus/etc.

The acting was also PDP (Pretty Damn Poor). Dennis Quaid was massively stereocast, playing the usual gruff arseholish character with the heart of gold and a trigger finger quicker than Neo. The rest of the supporting cast were also pretty shoddy, Lucas Black (of Tokyo Drift fame) was oh so very dull, and the girl he had a crush on, Adrianne Palicki (yes, I don't have a bloody clue who she is either) who was bearing the son of God nonetheless, was a useless character, portrayed with little flair, and on a script that could have been used so much better (AKA I Don't Want The Responsibility syndrome). The ONLY redeeming character amongst the cast was Michael, played by Paul Bettany. He captured the whole 'silent warrior' thing very well, and could have truly made you believe he was angelic, due to his compassion, but also his hardiness. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of his 'evil' counterpart Gabriel. Frankly, if they had just given up the damn kid instead of prolonging the fight the movie might have been better, as Gabriel wouldn't have been in it. Dull, uninteresting and like every other bad guy the world has ever seen, except this one has bulletproof wings.

And he doesn't die. Yeah, I know, it's fantastic having a film where nobody wins. Gabriel can't die, Michael can, but doesn't, and humans galore die, and half of the supporting cast does so without you even knowing how, they're just written off in pathetic dialogue. And that is my major gripe with this film. Dialogue. Yes, we all know that every film needs someone talking (thus why they were originally called talkies). But at the end of the day, did you go to see an apocalyptic film of doom, only to be entered into a twenty minute relationship saga which at the end of the day resolves itself without so much as a blink, and the only people who could understand that happening are women. So yeah. For every 10 minutes of action that you get, you are laboured with at least double that in dialogue that makes no difference to the film at all. I could gripe about how other survival/horror/action films have too little dialogue, and too little character building. But for God's sake (literally), I now know more about Tyrese Gibson's gun-toting, but really emotionally deep and in-tune with white teenage girls' character, than I do about my Aunt Carol.

So I leave you with this question:

In a film featuring Paul Bettany (Master & Commander, A Knight's Tale, Iron Man, Firewall, The Da Vinci Code), Tyrese Gibson (2 Fast 2 Furious, Transformers 1 & 2, Death Race) and Dennis Quaid (Jaws 3, Battle for Terra, The Day After Tomorrow, Flight of the Pheonix, GI Joe)......

Where the bloody hell is the action?! Or did they not have enough action stars to really put any action in? As, for a post-apocalyptic action/horror film, it is sure lacking in apocalypse, and action. And horror. And pretty much anything else bar a reasonable performance by Bettany in what is an absolutely underwhelming film.

Oh, and beware this steaming turd of a film here: Priest (2011). It has the same writer, the same director, the same lead (only bit I am happy about), and stars him bouncing off as a warrior priest to fight vampires in this "The post-apocalyptic horror thriller". *Repeatedly bashes head into desk in despair*

Yeah I'd heard about Legion failing. Shame as it could have been a very interesting concept. Also I heard from a friend that Wolfman was less than spectacular.

old school very nice 9 out of 10

The Lovely Bones 7/10

The Lovely Bones is an adaption of a book into film. It centres around the main victim of the film who describes her murder and the ordeal surrounding it. I won't go much into plot, but to be honest, thats pretty much it.

It is a decent tear-jerker, but I feel it doesn't do enough to draw you into the movie to become attached to the girl so that you feel sad about the girl dying (I'm usually the type of person to be drawn into characters to be honest) and I feel this lets down the movie emotionally; thats just me however.

All-in-all I'd reccommend watching it, but only if you're a fan of a no-action dramas.

I Love You Man 8/10

We've all said it once. Hell, most of us have multiple times. We all know of bro-mance. So what does that mean for this film? Paul Rudd plays an interesting person. He's never had a best friend. He's barely ever had any male friends at all. He has however had tons of girlfriends, and is settling down with an exceptionally hot girl, whose name I do not know but I wish I did . Then he realises he hasn't got a best man. So begin the man-dates. They do not go well. Then, by sheer accident, he meets Jason Segel's character, a bit of a layabout investor, who swiftly becomes Rudd's best friend.

The gags aren't perfect. The lines aren't always quite as snappy as they can be. But the guy-love is fantastic, and the chemistry between these two actors is quite spectacular, something you probably haven't seen since Scrubs' JD and Turk, or Friends' Ross and Rachel, or Joey and Chandler. It's that good. The supporting cast also increases the film's awesomeness, with a great cameo by JK Simmons, and one of Rudd's spectacularly awful man-dates, Barry, being a fantastic addition. Jon Favreau is also incredibly funny as the overweight arsehole with, I quote, 'A really small dick.' There are some down moments in the film, the plot occasionally flails around looking for a reason to increase the film's length, but for the most part, it's fun, and it's a great story for blokes to go and see - platonic man love has never been so acceptable.
Edited by AJ, 28 March 2010 - 19:19.

GI Joe 2/10

If it hadn't been for the fact that there were two rather attractive actresses in this film I would have given it nothing. A perfect way to ruin a much loved childhood series, from which I personally owned every single toy they produced. Horrific storyline, some of the most atrocious acting I have ever seen (honestly I've seen porn with better performances), overused special effects, terrible production values and some of the worst lines in a movie.

Avoid at all costs.