njskaguy33 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 So, anybody get out to see this little independent art-house movie called "Avengers" this weekend? I did. I enjoyed it. Good mix of action and humor. Storyline was about what I was expecting, though. It'd be nice to see this "little engine that could" turn a profit, but I have my doubts. Hilarious. Have plans to see it next week. Really looking forward to it! Going to see that animated Pirates movie with the lady this week. Ahhh, the things you do when you're in love but reviews have actually been good, so I'm looking forward to it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Randomly watched an independent movie called "Another Earth". It was brilliant in my opinion, not really a sci fi movie but more of a drama. I recommend it if you are ever bored one night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njskaguy33 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Randomly watched an independent movie called "Another Earth". It was brilliant in my opinion, not really a sci fi movie but more of a drama. I recommend it if you are ever bored one night. Another Earth got very good reviews, just missed it when it was out in theaters. Looking forward to seeing it soon1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Another Earth got very good reviews, just missed it when it was out in theaters. Looking forward to seeing it soon1 You will either love it or hate it. I absolutely loved it Great acting in it as well and the budget was only $200,000. I love these kind of movies more than those hundred million dollar budget summer blockbuster fiasco stuff haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njskaguy33 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Speaking of hundred million dollar blockbusters..... New Movie Review The Avengers When The Avengers project was first announced after the success of 2008's Iron Man, comic book fans rejoiced. This wasn't going to be some slapdash tale of a super team fighting baddies. This was going to be something more, something larger than life. Three films followed: Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America. Having seen all these movies, Captain in August of last year, I realized The Avengers could be a smashing success, so long as they two things right. One, give the team a very strong antagonist and two, build the team in a natural way without wasting time on individual character development. That's what the movies were for. Now, over a billion dollars in box office sales later, I can safely say director Joss Whedon and company did just that and so much more. The Avengers isn't just the best summer opening film I've seen in years, it's one of the best superhero movies ever made. Forgive the plot summation as I imagine 90% of you have seen this already, but here goes. Loki, brother of Thor, has snagged control of the mystical Tesseract, an artifact that holds near limitless power. His aim? To become the ruler of all rulers, starting with the pitiful mortals than inhabit planet Earth. In response to this new threat, S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) activates the "Avenger Initiative", bringing together Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the newly thawed Captain America (Chris Evans), Mr. Anger Management Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and billionaire playboy Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Together, with the help of some of the lesser known Avengers crew, such as Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), the team works to stop Loki's extraterrestrial forces from invading planet Earth. The biggest success of the film is the natural development of the Avengers team. Rather than everybody coming together for the common good, there's some drama on the squad. Tony Stark and Captain America face off, Thor finds us Earthlings surprisingly petty and Hulk is just trying to keep from getting pissed. There's natural tension here, expertly woven in Joss Whedon's fantastic screenplay. This tension helps give us something to care about, making the team cohesion even more exciting in the film's third act. It's also worth noting that the previous movies are not required viewing to enjoy this, but if you haven't seen at least the Iron Man flicks, the characters may come off a little flat. Of course, this is done by design and Whedon does a great job on focusing on the characters developed in the films and leaving the other members of the team to true supporting roles. In fact, you could call this Iron Man 2.5, but that's a wise choice as Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark is easily the strongest character in the troupe. The rest of the cast does a fine job in the roles given. Hemsworth is likeable as the Asgardian Thor, Mike Ruffalo is an excellent choice to replace Edward Norton's Hulk and even Captain America, I character I found one noted in his feature length, develops nicely thanks to his run ins with Tony Stark. Loki is also a very smart choice as the main villain. Given his familial back story with Thor, his conquest has weight, especially given the events of their feature film. Again, those who haven't seen Thor may find Loki to a bit over the top, but I found the antagonist interesting and gripping. Even Sam Jackson, who only made small appearances in the credit scenes of the original movies, find plenty to work with as the devious but well meaning Nick Fury. The cast is unilaterally well chosen and work great together. Of course, this is a summer action movie. Most filmgoers aren't looking for a slice of life drama, they're looking for heart stopping action. Marvel movies are known for their big bangs and The Avengers is no exception. Literally every fifteen minutes, something awesome is happening, whether it's the surprising reveal of the Avengers base or Iron Man screaming along the Manhattan skyline. Everything culminates in the third act, which is essentially one long battle sequence and while you might find yourself tiring after the twentieth minute, Whedon brings you right back to the action with more kick-assery. The film also features some classic Joss Whedon humor. Full of quips and jokes, the levity in The Avengers always works and gives the film a very distinct feel. In short, The Avengers is just that. Fun. Fun characters doing awesome things in defense of our petty little planet, Joss Whedon's first major studio film is a stylish and exciting homerun. Usually around this time, I start looking at the summer lineup with a hint of dismay. Loud movies made by money hungry studios, all searching for their piece of the hot weather audience. These movies are usually dumb and fitfully entertaining, a perfect opportunity to get in out of the heat and turn your brain off for two hours. Joss Whedon's Avengers redefines that stereotype, providing an intelligent, honest and fully enjoyable film going experience everybody should see on the big screen. Last year, I had some mental guidelines for the success of this Marvel mashup and thanks to smart writing, good direction and an excellent cast, The Avengers more than lives up to the hype. Score - 9 out of 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) Another Earth got very good reviews, just missed it when it was out in theaters. Looking forward to seeing it soon1 Did you get a chance to watch it yet Edited June 2, 2012 by Zubie#8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njskaguy33 Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Did you get a chance to watch it yet Not just yet, Zubs! Between playoff hockey and other movies I need to watch / review, just haven't had a chance. It's on the list! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giodude Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Speaking of hundred million dollar blockbusters..... New Movie Review The Avengers I saw it in IMAX 3D at 3am the night it came out. I must say it was an amazing movie. But I am still more of a DC comics fan and I can NOT wait until Rises comes out, going to be very epic to say the least. Still very interested in who Joseph Gorden-Levitt plays, but I'm not a fan of spoilers so just going to have to wait!! Also, LGD tomorrow #BecauseItsTheCup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Not just yet, Zubs! Between playoff hockey and other movies I need to watch / review, just haven't had a chance. It's on the list! Let me know what you think because I do not know one person who ever saw it lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaneykoIsGod Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Has anyone else here seen that new-ish Kevin Smith flick Red State? I just watched it and am scratching my head as to what to think of it. First reaction was "huh?" Not as in "I can't comprehend what I just saw," but rather "What exactly was Smith trying to get across with this film?" None of the characters were particularly deeply developed. Some scenes dragged while others seemed glossed over. Certain typical horror movie tricks (gritty camera work, flickering fluorescent lights, action sequences that look like they were filmed with a strobe light, etc.) were overused. And, overall, while it was billed as a horror flick, it didn't have the feel of any other horror flick I've ever seen before. No creepy crawlies, no aliens, no monster under the bed, no psycho killer in a mask. I'll admit, I cheated and tried to look up other people's reviews on Netflix to see what I was missing. The very first one shown is the one that got the most "useful" ratings, and it's either spot-on or made up. The horror of the movie isn't in a monster or a psycho killer or an alien or whatever. It's in everyday things that are involved in our lives. Teenagers make stupid decisions that sometimes have horrific consequences. Extremists make even more stupid decisions that have even more horrific consequences. And the government ... well ... they take the cake. Is that the horror Smith was aiming for? If so, then maybe he did achieve what he set out for. I'm not entirely convinced, though. I feel like that explanation could be a too-convenient Scrotie McBoogerballs situation (South Park fans will get the reference). One way or another, it is definitely a very, VERY vast departure from what anyone familiar with Smith's work would come to expect from him. It takes courage to swing at something that isn't in your wheelhouse. I'm not enough of a film buff to say for sure whether or not he knocked this one out of the park, but it definitely held my interest, and it must have been entertaining because those 88 minutes felt like 30. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaira_Devil_#9 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Has anyone else here seen that new-ish Kevin Smith flick Red State? I just watched it and am scratching my head as to what to think of it. First reaction was "huh?" Not as in "I can't comprehend what I just saw," but rather "What exactly was Smith trying to get across with this film?" None of the characters were particularly deeply developed. Some scenes dragged while others seemed glossed over. Certain typical horror movie tricks (gritty camera work, flickering fluorescent lights, action sequences that look like they were filmed with a strobe light, etc.) were overused. And, overall, while it was billed as a horror flick, it didn't have the feel of any other horror flick I've ever seen before. No creepy crawlies, no aliens, no monster under the bed, no psycho killer in a mask. I'll admit, I cheated and tried to look up other people's reviews on Netflix to see what I was missing. The very first one shown is the one that got the most "useful" ratings, and it's either spot-on or made up. The horror of the movie isn't in a monster or a psycho killer or an alien or whatever. It's in everyday things that are involved in our lives. Teenagers make stupid decisions that sometimes have horrific consequences. Extremists make even more stupid decisions that have even more horrific consequences. And the government ... well ... they take the cake. Is that the horror Smith was aiming for? If so, then maybe he did achieve what he set out for. I'm not entirely convinced, though. I feel like that explanation could be a too-convenient Scrotie McBoogerballs situation (South Park fans will get the reference). One way or another, it is definitely a very, VERY vast departure from what anyone familiar with Smith's work would come to expect from him. It takes courage to swing at something that isn't in your wheelhouse. I'm not enough of a film buff to say for sure whether or not he knocked this one out of the park, but it definitely held my interest, and it must have been entertaining because those 88 minutes felt like 30. Yeah I watched this a few weeks ago. I wasn’t aware it was billed purely as a horror movie to be honest. I thought it was supposed to be a sort of Action or Thriller movie with a twist. I think a lot of the "Huh" might come from trying to place it into a genre. After tying to work out what sort of film it was, I decided it wasn't really that important and tried to just accept it for what I had seen. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but in some cases I think it was intentional. Without giving anything away to anyone who has the intention of watching the film, I think that certain characters were underdeveloped so it was a surprise when they became the focus of the story. Well that’s certainly the feeling I got from it anyway. A lot of the shock and I guess the horror of it comes from the movie not playing out at all how you would expect it. I think Smith was hoping people would try and start second guessing what was going to happen, or looking for the horror movie cliché , and then got a shock when the sequence of events didn’t follow the well establish path horror movie “path”, so to speak. Also I guess a lot of the horror comes from the fact that there aren’t any monsters, these are supposed to be real people, and it makes it slightly more plausible and realistic over say, a 20 foot alien with acid for blood. Also the level of violence towards what we perceive as innocent people with such calculated conviction can also be pretty horrific. I am not sure the Scrotie McBoogerballs argument rings true for me because if that’s the case, I didn’t find it that horrifying for the sake of being horifying, Saw and Hostel fall into that category, I don’t think this does. Also I might be reading into it way too much but with the ending, particular what happens to John Goodman, the maybe Smith was trying to point out that although the churchgoers were clearly crazy, that some of what they were saying in terms of the loss of morality (obviously not to the extent which they were preaching) in modern times might be true, particularly with some of the comments and actions of the senior FBI members and their actions. Sort of like two sides to every coin? The same could be said for the government agents. But like I said that was just my own feeling, and that might be at a push just trying to make some sense out of what I saw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaneykoIsGod Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) Yeah I watched this a few weeks ago. I wasn’t aware it was billed purely as a horror movie to be honest. I thought it was supposed to be a sort of Action or Thriller movie with a twist. I think a lot of the "Huh" might come from trying to place it into a genre. After tying to work out what sort of film it was, I decided it wasn't really that important and tried to just accept it for what I had seen. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but in some cases I think it was intentional. Without giving anything away to anyone who has the intention of watching the film, I think that certain characters were underdeveloped so it was a surprise when they became the focus of the story. Well that’s certainly the feeling I got from it anyway. A lot of the shock and I guess the horror of it comes from the movie not playing out at all how you would expect it. I think Smith was hoping people would try and start second guessing what was going to happen, or looking for the horror movie cliché , and then got a shock when the sequence of events didn’t follow the well establish path horror movie “path”, so to speak. Also I guess a lot of the horror comes from the fact that there aren’t any monsters, these are supposed to be real people, and it makes it slightly more plausible and realistic over say, a 20 foot alien with acid for blood. Also the level of violence towards what we perceive as innocent people with such calculated conviction can also be pretty horrific. I am not sure the Scrotie McBoogerballs argument rings true for me because if that’s the case, I didn’t find it that horrifying for the sake of being horifying, Saw and Hostel fall into that category, I don’t think this does. Also I might be reading into it way too much but with the ending, particular what happens to John Goodman, the maybe Smith was trying to point out that although the churchgoers were clearly crazy, that some of what they were saying in terms of the loss of morality (obviously not to the extent which they were preaching) in modern times might be true, particularly with some of the comments and actions of the senior FBI members and their actions. Sort of like two sides to every coin? The same could be said for the government agents. But like I said that was just my own feeling, and that might be at a push just trying to make some sense out of what I saw. I can't really disagree when anything you said. The more time goes by, the more I think I really like this movie. It's lingering in my head with different possible meanings and messages. To me, one of the greatest definitions of art is something that's pleasing to the senses while being open to interpretation. This was definitely fun to watch, and it's very much open to the interpretation of the viewer. I think I might re-watch it tonight and see if anything else jumps out at me. And FWIW, I ended up watching the recorded live-audience Q&A Smith did after this movie came out. It was fairly enlightening. It turned out the impetus to make the movie came from seeing just how batsh!t crazy the leaders of the Westboro Baptist church are, and he wanted to do a horror flick on how scary people like that can be. The original ending he wrote was COMPLETELY different from what ended up playing out (hint: it would have blown the movie budget sky high). Edit: Just wanted to add that Michael Parks is friggin phenomenal in this film. Just a ridiculously good performance. Edited June 27, 2012 by DaneykoIsGod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaira_Devil_#9 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I can't really disagree when anything you said. The more time goes by, the more I think I really like this movie. It's lingering in my head with different possible meanings and messages. To me, one of the greatest definitions of art is something that's pleasing to the senses while being open to interpretation. This was definitely fun to watch, and it's very much open to the interpretation of the viewer. I think I might re-watch it tonight and see if anything else jumps out at me. And FWIW, I ended up watching the recorded live-audience Q&A Smith did after this movie came out. It was fairly enlightening. It turned out the impetus to make the movie came from seeing just how batsh!t crazy the leaders of the Westboro Baptist church are, and he wanted to do a horror flick on how scary people like that can be. The original ending he wrote was COMPLETELY different from what ended up playing out (hint: it would have blown the movie budget sky high). Edit: Just wanted to add that Michael Parks is friggin phenomenal in this film. Just a ridiculously good performance. Yeah i agree, i was a bit puzzled at the end, and then very quickly came to the decision that i really enjoyed the whole thing. Thanks for the tip about the Q&A i will try and find it. From the sounds of things, maybe my thoughts he might be trying to show both sides of the coin/ modern morality could be off the mark, but that was the feeling i got at points through the movie anyway. Agreed on Parks, his performance is key to making the movie so good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaneykoIsGod Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Saw Ted yesterday. Not half as funny as I thought it'd be. A lot of jokes fell flat. Shoulda seen Spiderman instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaneykoIsGod Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Finally saw Goon. That movie is fvcking hilarious. It succeeded at everything Slap Shot 2 and Slap Shot 3 failed at. Funny, funny sh!t. It's streaming on Netflix now, so if you have that, I highly recommend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Dose Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Saw Ted yesterday. Not half as funny as I thought it'd be. A lot of jokes fell flat. Shoulda seen Spiderman instead. I have now seen both, and I liked Spiderman more. Ted had some good crack-ups, but I felt it could have been so much funnier. And of course a lot of good jokes were used in commercials, so they don't make you bend over in your seat; you just sort of grin widely and nod. Spiderman delivered well on graphics and stunts, though the theme of hero-as-vigilante whom police want off of the streets was sort of already used in Batman Begins. And how is Emma Stone still playing a high schooler? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onddeck Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Anyone see Ted yet? Ps Emma stone is a smokeshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaneykoIsGod Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 ZOMBIE THREAD, BACK FROM THE DEAD! With the season starting back up, it stands to reason that the forum will be getting more traffic. Seems like a good time to dust this sucker off. I'll get that ball rolling with a reluctant review. The wife-to-be dragged me to see Les Miserables. Now, the only musical film I ever enjoyed was the South Park movie, and the only stage musical I ever enjoyed was The Producers. Les Mis was at a disadvantage for my tastes right away since it isn't a comedy. But I pushed my biases aside as best I could and tried to keep an open mind. The result? Didn't like it. There are two primary reasons for this. The first of which has to do with the plot: Since I've never read the book, seen prior film adaptations, or seen the stage production, I can't say whether this film took any liberties with the plot. That said, I thought there were two major cop outs. With two characters, there were very intriguing plots developing. Forgive me for forgetting their names, but the inspector (player by Russel Crowe) and the daughter of the inn keeper who is hopelessly in love with the main character girl's love interest. Both of them have tremendous conflict that builds and builds and seems to be leading to a eureka moment or a tremendous clash ... but they both die. What a disappointment! From a writing standpoint, both of their deaths were such an easy way out of actually coming up with a conclusion to their inner dramas. The other had to do with the stage-to-film adaptation. It just didn't feel like a film. It felt like the kind of thing that is so big on stage that it feels miraculous to pull off, but the screen seems too big for it. The only scene that seemed to properly use all of the big screen movie magic was the opening scene. After that, it felt like a shot-by-shot reproduction of a stage show with a few sweeping panoramic shots thrown in for good measure. Aside from that, a lot of the acting was good. Hugh Jackman was the star of the show. He deserves any accolades he receives. Russel Crowe seemed uncomfortable singing every line, and had this been a song-less adaptation I think he would have been outstanding. Sasha Baron Cohen provided adequate comic relief along with Helen Bonham Carter. Altogether, I really wish they had the balls to make this a non-musical adaptation. Maybe that's just my personal taste, but it seemed like they were just trying to ring up ticket sales for people who love the musical and the songs (my fiancee among them) rather than do anything original. Even with my personal tastes, I feel like I would have really enjoyed seeing this on a stage. But, for me, the screen version just was a waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 ZOMBIE THREAD, BACK FROM THE DEAD! With the season starting back up, it stands to reason that the forum will be getting more traffic. Seems like a good time to dust this sucker off. I'll get that ball rolling with a reluctant review. The wife-to-be dragged me to see Les Miserables. Now, the only musical film I ever enjoyed was the South Park movie, and the only stage musical I ever enjoyed was The Producers. Les Mis was at a disadvantage for my tastes right away since it isn't a comedy. But I pushed my biases aside as best I could and tried to keep an open mind. The result? Didn't like it. There are two primary reasons for this. The first of which has to do with the plot: Since I've never read the book, seen prior film adaptations, or seen the stage production, I can't say whether this film took any liberties with the plot. That said, I thought there were two major cop outs. With two characters, there were very intriguing plots developing. Forgive me for forgetting their names, but the inspector (player by Russel Crowe) and the daughter of the inn keeper who is hopelessly in love with the main character girl's love interest. Both of them have tremendous conflict that builds and builds and seems to be leading to a eureka moment or a tremendous clash ... but they both die. What a disappointment! From a writing standpoint, both of their deaths were such an easy way out of actually coming up with a conclusion to their inner dramas. The other had to do with the stage-to-film adaptation. It just didn't feel like a film. It felt like the kind of thing that is so big on stage that it feels miraculous to pull off, but the screen seems too big for it. The only scene that seemed to properly use all of the big screen movie magic was the opening scene. After that, it felt like a shot-by-shot reproduction of a stage show with a few sweeping panoramic shots thrown in for good measure. Aside from that, a lot of the acting was good. Hugh Jackman was the star of the show. He deserves any accolades he receives. Russel Crowe seemed uncomfortable singing every line, and had this been a song-less adaptation I think he would have been outstanding. Sasha Baron Cohen provided adequate comic relief along with Helen Bonham Carter. Altogether, I really wish they had the balls to make this a non-musical adaptation. Maybe that's just my personal taste, but it seemed like they were just trying to ring up ticket sales for people who love the musical and the songs (my fiancee among them) rather than do anything original. Even with my personal tastes, I feel like I would have really enjoyed seeing this on a stage. But, for me, the screen version just was a waste of time. They actually did a non-musical adaptation of it a few years ago with Liam Neeson, Geoffrey Rush and Uma Thurman. In other news, I really liked Zero Dark Thirty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCroMag Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Saw "Silver Linings Playbook" a couple weeks back, and thought it was wonderful. There were lots of big laughs, some nice heartfelt moments to offset that, and Cooper and Lawrence were fantastic. Saw "Lincoln" back in early December. DDL was the bomb-diggity, and I liked the movie overall, but that sucker moves at a snail's pace. So, if you're going to see it, get comfy in that seat. Still trying to get out and see "Hobbit," "Django Unchained" and "Zero Dark Thirty." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilMinder Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Hobbit was a waste, just picture the last three LOTR movies and their over long travel scenes...now make it three hours long where only one major event happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Dose Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Zero Dark Thirty - very good, though not quite as good as The Hurt Locker. Both films did an excellent job of making you feel like you were watching the action live. I just felt that the script was a little weaker in this case. The Best Picture nominee that I've seen that I think should win is Lincoln. Great script, great presentations, excellent acting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 Hobbit was a waste, just picture the last three LOTR movies and their over long travel scenes...now make it three hours long where only one major event happens. I had never gone to a movie before, saw all the trailers and the neat stuff before, then felt like I could have taken an hour's walk and come back into the movie and not missed a damned thing like I did with that movie.....someone needs to teach that boy how to EDIT....that "meet n greet dinner scene" was unmanageable and pointless.....the movie killed my interest before it even started..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCroMag Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Saw "Django Unchained" on Friday night. Loved it, and thought it was about on par with "Inglourious Basterds." Some very minor gripes, but overall, it was pretty bad-ass. Edited January 22, 2013 by NJCroMag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Zero Dark Thirty - very good, though not quite as good as The Hurt Locker. Both films did an excellent job of making you feel like you were watching the action live. I just felt that the script was a little weaker in this case. Respectfully disagree. While it had its moments, The Hurt Locker had a very weak and implausible ending: Even though I was never in the military, much less combat, the idea that they would go AWOL to hunt down someone seems ridiculous. A really good movie can be suspenseful even when you know the ending ahead of time. That I felt was the case for Zero Dark Thirty. Edited January 22, 2013 by Daniel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.