Summarize and Rate the Last Movie You Saw

  • Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!

    I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register

    Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board


Pete

Active Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,282
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Alton, England
^Anna Paquin as a teenager? She was already a teenager two decades ago in that geese movie (where she was actually in her teens), then again on X-Men, which was a full ten years ago. She must be well in her 30s by now. Oh, Hollywood...

EDIT: She's 29. Playing a teenager. Bloody 'ell.
 
Last edited:

Keith

WCW Halloween Phantom
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,640
Reaction score
2,878
Points
113
^ Yes but that is part of the point of acting, don't forget Michael J. Fox was in his 30s when he was in Back to the Future. That is what is so great about Paquin's performance that you totally believe that she is a teenager.
 

Keith

WCW Halloween Phantom
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,640
Reaction score
2,878
Points
113
Coraline (2008) 7.5/10
Dark, scary and visually inventive film which will challenge but also entertain the right age group. The end behind the story is also cleaver and there some fun voice over performances, althrough at time the plot does wonder about a lot and is a bit confusing. As a experience its a sheer marvel however.
 

Killswitch

Active Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
2,127
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
The "Winners" Circle
Savages - Oliver Stone is back! Starts out slow and idyllic. Cartel gets involved. Great cast. Good action. Blake lively is hawt. Selma Hayak is great as the queen drug lord. Drugs, sex, violence. What more does a growing boy need? 7/10
 

Pete

Active Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,282
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Alton, England
Tangled 3/5
Lusciously animated and frantically paced, this CGI throwback to the traditional Disney princess movie is nevertheless the definition of "throwaway entertainment", and will sadly not hold much interest for anyone not of the female persuasion and/or over the age of eleven. In a day and age where Cars rules the kiddy market and The Incredibles (literally) kick ass at the box office, there is precious little space for this sort of little-girl wish-fulfillment porn, all pink dresses and shiny tiaras and a hunky animated McDreamy to swoon over. The intended demographic will lap it up, of course, but that is not saying much, considering they are the same kind of people who unironically enjoy Barbie movies.

Stylistically, Tangled is such a pastiche of the typical Disney-princess movie, it borders on parody. Where Princess and The Frog got away with rehashing the genre due to interesting visuals and a unique approach to the music, Tangled feels much more stale and hackneyed, revisiting all the tropes people came to mock in the animated genre. Here is a film which unironically presents a cute, mugging animal sidekick (in 2011, no less!), where people burst into song at every turn, and where the beautiful princess ends up with the hunky bad boy who is really not so bad... Yes, it's THAT sort of movie. The only things separating it from the likes of Sleeping Beauty or The Little Mermaid are CGI animation and several rungs in the quality ladder.

Which is not to say Tangled is totally devoid of merit. There are at least two great voice performances, by Donna Murphy as the mustache-twirling Mother Gothel (well, she would, if she had a mustache) and Mandy Moore as Rapunzel herself. The latter, in particular, nearly runs away with the movie, and contributes to rank interest up a few notches by making the captive princess with the magic hair a believable, fully rounded character. Rapunzel initially strays dangerously close to Belle or Ariel (from those far superior, ageless, sexless movies from two decades ago), but quickly asserts herself as her own character, easily becoming the most interesting thing about the film. The combination of Moore's bubbly, ditzy vocal performance and the skinny, flat, fresh-faced character design helps Rapunzel look, feel, talk and act like a real teenage girl. This is not your picture-perfect, full-bosomed princess. Rapunzel is clumsy, bright-eyed, gullible, unsure of herself, and makes cringingly horrible decisions (repeatedly). Sure, she is also resourceful, driven, and moderately spunky, but even when she has future boyfriend Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi) trapped in her magic hair and is blackmailing him into helping her, one gets the feeling that she's play-acting, pretending to be this tough, self-assured woman in order to hide what she really is - a hesitant seventeen-year-old winging it as she goes along. Overall, Moore and the screenwriters craft an endearing character who, unlike most other princesses aside from Belle and Mulan, is strong enough to carry the movie.

And it's a good thing she is so interesting, because her love interest is possibly the blandest character this side of Prince Eric. Like Rapunzel, he initially comes across as a combination of several other characters. The first time we see him, he's leaning off something in an adventurous pose, a la John Smith or the aforementioned Prince Eric. A moment later, his swagger reminds the viewer of Gaston, and his character design inevitably brings to mind Tulio, from The Road To El Dorado (by rival company Dreamworks - oops.) Oh, and the horse who is chasing him, Max, is an uneasy mix of Donkey's Stallion form (from Shrek 2), Achilles from The Hunchback of Notre Dame and - again! - the horse from Road To El Dorado. Unfortunately, there is not much more to Flynn than there was to any of those characters, and one inevitably ends up scratching their heads over just what Rapunzel sees in this bloke. Then one remembers she is a ditzy seventeen-year-old, and that this is the first man she has ever seen - and, suddenly, it all makes sense.

Still, Flynn can count himself lucky to be surrounded by such interesting, complex characters as Rapunzel and the delightfully posh Mother Gothel, who manages to be mustache-twirlingly scheming while at the same time coming across as not completely evil - her motive for adopting and overprotecting Rapunzel is selfish, sure, but one feels there may be something more to their relationship than the usual "evil stepmother" bit. And, unlike Flynn, Mother Gothel manages to be markedly different from other evil stepmothers in Disney history - this is not Lady Tremayne, or the Wicked Queen. She has elements of both characters, but - unlike the leading man - incorporates them into her own, individual persona, making for a satisfying, pathetic (in a good way) villain.

With such interesting antagonists at its core, it is therefore a shame that more is not made of Tangled. The movie is as fluffy and airheaded as its leading lady, and seems to be there mostly for little girls to gawp at the pretty dresses and giggle at the pratfalls (of which there are a few). There is even a lantern-lit duet between the two romantic leads - which, as everyone knows, is the Disney-movie version of a sex scene. In amidst all this, the story is almost ancillary, serving mostly as a way to tide the movie over from adventurous scene to romantic scene to comic pratfall, and earning it the classification of "wish-fullfilment porn". The songs are similarly forgettable, being far from Alan Menken's best work, and while some of the jokes do hit, they do so not through clever zingers or double-entendres, but by appealing to the human species' basic instinc to laugh when someone falls over or is conked on the head with a frying pan.

Overall, the best way to think of Tangled might be as an animated rom-com. All the tropes of the genre are there, with the only differences being that there are songs and that the main character is not a vapid self-entitled bitch, but merely an adorable, misguided teenage ditz. But while this movie is nowhere near as noxious as most rom-coms (this one is wholesome and perfectly appropriate for little girls to draw from), it shares one telling characteristic with them - it is never anything but a fluffy time-waster, its longevity ending the minute the credits roll. And while there are worse distractions to pop in your preteen daughter's DVD player for two hours, there are also much better ones.
 
Last edited:

Dademo

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
709
Reaction score
8
Points
18
Age
30
Location
New York City
Enter The Void

An American born drug dealer living in Tokyo, Japan smokes DMT before going to a drug deal. He is later killed by corrupt police in a drug bust (not a spoiler). His soul floats throughout the living world as he experiences time pass and flashbacks. Hard to explain. It's all about DMT, hallucinogenics, what happens after you die, tibetan book of the dead etc. It's on Netflix

4/5
 

Keith

WCW Halloween Phantom
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,640
Reaction score
2,878
Points
113
^ Yeah heard a lot of interesting things about that one really want to see it.
 

Rated R Superstar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
7,202
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Ottawa Canada
Pete... You're trying to hard.

Ted 10/10

The movie was just absolutely hilarious. The humor was deliciously crude and on par. For those who lived in the 80's, it brings back some nostalgia as it mentions a lot of shit back then. Seth MacFarlane really outdid himself with this one. He got a bunch of the voice actors from Family Guy to be in this. Alex Bornstein, the dude who does Joe, THE FUCKING SWEDISH GUY! Mark Wahlberg is awesome in this movie, as is Mila Kunis who plays the role of the somewhat irritated girlfriend(the things I'd do to her). Patrick Stewart narrates a little bit, which is just fucking brilliant. And Sam fucking Jones(the original Flash Gordon)! The movie was great, if you're a fan of Seth MacFarlane I'd totally recommend seeing this movie.
 

The_King

Active Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
1,964
Reaction score
18
Points
38
Age
31
Location
Illinois
Savages.
Got sucked into seeing this today not knowing it was an Oliver Stone movie. I'm a Stone fan, and he delivered. Basic plot is some California marijuana dispensers get closed in on by a Mexican drug cartel. When the California dispensers refuse the cartel, the cartel takes the dispensers' girlfriend hostage, and the rest of the movie focuses on saving her. Lots of solid character development along the way, and two awesome performances from Salma Hayek and Benicio Del Toro.
7.7/10.
 

Pete

Active Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,282
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Alton, England
Pete... You're trying to hard..

*too.

And not really. I just enjoy writing actual reviews rather than just give three lines of "interesting movie, I liked it, the acting was good but the story wasn't". It's not like I'm trying to land a job as a reviewer or anything, I just have fun writing them. What's wrong with that?
 

Rated R Superstar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
7,202
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Ottawa Canada
*too.

And not really. I just enjoy writing actual reviews rather than just give three lines of "interesting movie, I liked it, the acting was good but the story wasn't". It's not like I'm trying to land a job as a reviewer or anything, I just have fun writing them. What's wrong with that?

I find it funny that you are a grammar nazi. Anyways, this is a Summarize and Rate thread, not write a full length review. You can probably do your own article on that type of thing.
 

Keith

WCW Halloween Phantom
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,640
Reaction score
2,878
Points
113
^ You both make fair points I guess from my point of view it depends on the movie. Some movies you can sum up either way with just a few lines but there are others where greater detail is needed.

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2012) 8/10
Crap title but great film, that should be on the poster right?! Desturbing, tense indie movie with an excellent raw performance from Elizabeth Orlson. At times the plot is a bit confusing, but the way the two seprate stories run side by side is effective and it is a film with rewarding emotionally depth and is uncompresming.

Blue Velvet (1986) 10/10
Basically one of favourite ever films, but this time I got to see it on the big screen for the first time and as a result saw a complelety new film as it takes on a different life in that format. Lynch cleverly puts a unique twist on screen violence and extreme sex, as well as commenting on voyisum. The set up of the film is classic Lynch as he gives you a pretty simple set up to the story enough to interest even a non-Lynch audience, but then twists around a blends a number of genures and ideas in one film, he plays skillfully with these convetions and yet the film still feels like a whole while leaving you open to your own interuptation of the ending. The atmosphere and music creates just the right level of tension, and the visually contrast between the ideal small town america and the more dark shadowery one is just perfect. Dennis Hopper gives his most scary and purely evil performance to date, Laura Dern pulls of a tricky part as she is more a fairy tale princess who is often on the fridges of the story, Kyle Maclachlan brings great range to the confussed role of Jeffary and Isabella Rosselini is maybe best of all as she convinces you of the trumar of her character and how she can be so fangile one minute but then dominate the next. Can't wait for the 25th Anniversary DVD later this year!

Va Savoir (Who Knows?) (2001) 8/10
My first viewing of a Jacques Rivette movie and so far I like his style. Its a neat idea for a film, the focus on characters their personally problems and location is very sharp, there is an exciting pace and interaction between the actors, with a gentle comdy but also tragic element. My only minor complaint is that it is about ten or fifteen minutes too long and the does seem to run out of steam or good ideas towards the end, still a joy.
 

Pete

Active Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,282
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Alton, England
Yogi Bear 2/5
A failed attempt at updating the classic Hannah-Barbera cartoon for the new millenium, which falters due to taking the wrong approach. If stripped down, the premise of this film (a corrupt mayor plots to close down Jellystone Park and sell it to loggers; Yogi, Boo Boo and Ranger Smith try to stop him) would actually suit one of the old ten-minute shorts perfectly; however, here, said premise is bogged down with unnecessary tangents, such as a love interest (something the REAL. anal-retentive Ranger Smith would never have) and a throwaway sidekick which is there more as a plot device than anything else. In fact, the entire movie is the sort of production where things happen because of plot convenience, not because they make sense. Say, if you were a garbage man and a talking bear (albeit a world-famous one) asked to use your trolley, what would your response be? Similarly, if you saw two bears riding said trolley down a midtown street, how would you react? Whatever your answer was, it is different from what happens in this movie.

Another inherent flaw in this movie is that it opts for a live-action/CGI mix. Had the movie been a flat-out cartoon, fast-paced and zany and colourful, it would have been fine; but as a Garfield/Alvin and The Chipmunks ripoff attempt, it fails miserably. The humans are grating, sub-Saturday morning caricatures of bumblingness, and anyone who thinks Anna Farris's smart, bubbly, adorable film-maker Rachel would fall for Tom Canavagh's borderline-autistic Ranger Smith (think Jason Lee's Dave Seville crossed with Matthew Lillard's Shaggy, except worse) has not the slightest clue about the laws of attraction (but then again, this movie's main audience has an average age of eight). Their 'romance' lacks spark, comes from out of nowhere, and - again - is there just because movie laws demand that, in any movie (but especially in a comedy), a cute girl and a leading man must end up together, no matter how mismatched they are. TJ Miller's Ranger Jones is not much better, coming across as a low-grade, milquetoast mix of Will Ferell and Seann William Scott. The greedy mayor (played by Andrew Daly channelling David Cross) and his toady are slightly better, striking up a sort of Captain Harris/Proctor (from 'Police Academy') dynamic. Even still, their characters are too broadly drawn to be interesting.

Sadly, the starring bears themselves are not much better. Dan Aykroyd captures the essence of Yogi, but the fact that his voice does not really match the original, coupled with the fact that the script has him talking INCESSANTLY, contributes to the lack of laughs. Justin Timberlake is dead-on as Boo Boo, but is sadly also given nothing of worth to do or say. In the old shorts, Boo Boo often stole the show, but here, he has exactly one moment where he is anything other than a tagalong; unsurprisingly, it's one of the few highlights in this movie. The other (possibly the only laugh in the entire movie) is an out-of-character moment for Farris's Rachel, which further cements the belief that this woman deserves so much better than Smith.

In the end, however, these moments are nowhere near enough to make up for the predictable mess that is the rest of the movie, mired down with mandatory sequences of bears shaking their booty to recognizable pop songs and unfunny pratfalls. What Yogi Bear attempts here, Alvin and The Chipmunks would later do (marginally) better in Chip Wrecked. The only real highlight of this movie, is the soundtrack, which - in all its cheesy hair-metal glory - deserved to feature in a much, MUCH better movie than this one. With the rest looking and feeling like a particularly lame Saturday-morning live-action show (think Goosebumps or 100 Deeds of Eddie McDowd), this is one bear that was better left in hibernation.
 

Keith

WCW Halloween Phantom
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,640
Reaction score
2,878
Points
113
Falling Down (1992) 6.5/10
This is the closest you are going to get to a good Joel Schumacer movie IMO. There are some interesting ideas in the script and effective moments of black comedy, the support cast including Robert Duvall and Barbara Hershey are very good, what lets it down is that Michael Douglas is a little too hammy in the lead role and that the directors direction is too over cooked and visually style a bit predictable. A more sensitive hand would have made a better film. Uneven but interesting.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
10,876
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Location
Australia
Favorite Wrestler
danielbryan
Favorite Wrestler
brocklesnar
Favorite Wrestler
antoniocesaro
Favorite Wrestler
romanreigns
Favorite Wrestler
princedevitt
Favorite Wrestler
sethrollins
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) 9/10

Same post as the TDKR thread but I don't want to post spoilers. I just seen this movie tonight and got home about 45mins ago. I'll just say the movie was awesome and very long too. But damn you don't even notice how long it goes for as it keeps you interested. It was a good movie with amazing acting. I really liked the Bane character and Hardy played it well, had a very frightening feel to him. Alfred (the butler) delivers a heartfelt performance throughout the movie too. But I'd have to say just about everyone in the movie played their character extremely well.