Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Best Movies of the YearFollow

#1 Jan 27 2010 at 9:49 AM Rating: Decent
Zombieland
#2 Jan 27 2010 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
I woulda figured you'd hate a movie full of unemployed zombies trying to take the hard earned flesh from those who work hard for survival.
#3 Jan 27 2010 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Zombieland


I wouldn't say best, but I really liked this movie.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#4 Jan 27 2010 at 10:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
In no particular order...

Zombieland was fantastic, I loved it. The cast was great and the cameo by Bill Murray was hysterical.

Where the Wild Things are was great, but I think it should have been rated PG13 despite it's lack of anything that would put it past PG. I dunno how to explain it, but I guess I'd say the underlying themes required more maturity and explanation than I felt comfortable trying to explain to my 4 year old. Depression is a hard thing to explain to really small kids.

Ponyo was great, but I love everything he does. It wasn't my favorite Miyazaki or anything, but it definitely met my expectations.

Drag me to Hell cracked me up and had plenty of the jumpy-factor.

I Love You Man was a good buddy-comedy sort of flick. I heart Paul Rudd.

I liked Coraline a lot and The Fantastic Mr. Fox even more.

Up was really good, but I think more mature than Pixar's other movies. I think smaller kids might get bored during parts aimed at adults (longish sections of an old guy looking through a photo album and that kind of thing).

Ingorious Basterds was pretty great, and it took me a while to digest afterward to determine how I felt about it. I like it when a movie does that.

Oh and I really liked Star Trek, despite my expectations to the contrary. Maybe I set my sites so low that it couldn't possibly fail, but I thought it was fun.

I'm sure I missed something, but oh well.

Nexa

____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#5 Jan 27 2010 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Nexa wrote:
In no particular order...

Zombieland was fantastic, I loved it. The cast was great and the cameo by Bill Murray was hysterical.

Where the Wild Things are was great, but I think it should have been rated PG13 despite it's lack of anything that would put it past PG. I dunno how to explain it, but I guess I'd say the underlying themes required more maturity and explanation than I felt comfortable trying to explain to my 4 year old. Depression is a hard thing to explain to really small kids.

Ponyo was great, but I love everything he does. It wasn't my favorite Miyazaki or anything, but it definitely met my expectations.

Drag me to Hell cracked me up and had plenty of the jumpy-factor.

I Love You Man was a good buddy-comedy sort of flick. I heart Paul Rudd.

I liked Coraline a lot and The Fantastic Mr. Fox even more.

Up was really good, but I think more mature than Pixar's other movies. I think smaller kids might get bored during parts aimed at adults (longish sections of an old guy looking through a photo album and that kind of thing).

Ingorious Basterds was pretty great, and it took me a while to digest afterward to determine how I felt about it. I like it when a movie does that.

Oh and I really liked Star Trek, despite my expectations to the contrary. Maybe I set my sites so low that it couldn't possibly fail, but I thought it was fun.

I'm sure I missed something, but oh well.

Nexa

I was let down by Inglorious Basterds and I Love You Man. although, I still really enjoyed the second one. Star Trek was by far my favourite of the year. I really didn't expect Sylar (whatever his real name is) to do well as Spock. Wrong.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#6 Jan 27 2010 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
I'd definitely put Star Trek up there.

I also really enjoyed zombieland, although I haven't managed to see the whole movie yet, what I've seen was awesome, and it's on my list to sit down and watch the full movie.

Edited, Jan 27th 2010 11:55am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#7 Jan 27 2010 at 12:15 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
I really didn't expect Sylar (whatever his real name is) to do well as Spock. Wrong.

Zachary Quinto.
#8 Jan 27 2010 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
I really didn't expect Sylar (whatever his real name is) to do well as Spock. Wrong.


I half expected him to brutally murder those council members at the beginning of the movie.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#9 Jan 27 2010 at 1:08 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I liked Star Trek, even though they destroyed Vulcan, those bastards.

I wanted to see Zombieland, but now I'll have to rent it.

We hardly ever go see movies. No one to watch our son and usually my husband works nights. I'm always off on Mon. and Tues. though and we've been known to catch a matinee while our son's at school, but a lot of the time we don't even think about it. Which means we suck.
#10 Jan 27 2010 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good
***
2,813 posts
I'm hoping that The Hurt Locker wins Best Picture this year, since it really deserves it. Phenomenal acting, writing, and cinematography.

For comedies, Zombieland and I Love You Man were great, but The Hangover and Bruno were the movies that made me laugh the hardest.

For pure visual spectacle in the absense of plot, Avatar wins hands-down, but seeing Transformers 2 on IMAX was pretty awesome as well. If I hadn't spent most of my formative years religiously watching the cartoon and collecting the toys, I probably would have agreed with most critics' abysmal reviews of Transformers 2, but for me it was pure escapist nostalgia.
#11 Jan 27 2010 at 2:22 PM Rating: Decent
Star Trek was it for me, without a doubt. I've been a fan of the story ever since I discovered it as a wee child and I enjoy watching the stages progress as new people come along and contribute. I thought the acting in the latest movie was pretty stellar, considering the roles they had to step into, and yeah, the guy that played Spock pretty much nailed it. I also really enjoyed the cockiness of the younger Kirk and the effect it had on the story. Well rounded movie, for sure.


#12 Jan 27 2010 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
Star Trek was surprisingly good. Spock sexy? hmmmmm
I liked the Time Travellers Wife but it left me all weepy

The best film for me was 'Inglorious Basterds'. It was horrifying, amusing, queasy, romantic, daring and laugh out loud nonesense. It may not be the best film ever but I will never forget it Smiley: nod



#13 Jan 27 2010 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,601 posts
kylen wrote:
I'm hoping that The Hurt Locker wins Best Picture this year, since it really deserves it. Phenomenal acting, writing, and cinematography.
The main thing I noticed while watching it is there wasn't actually a plot.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#14 Jan 27 2010 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
I suppose I'm the only one who found Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs to be hilarious.
#15 Jan 27 2010 at 9:48 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,228 posts
Keep it up...I'm copy pastaing this entire thread into my Netflix...minus Transformers <.<;
____________________________
[ffxisig]188740[/ffxisig]
Busa's Cloth Guide 1-100
Zaredx wrote:
Gjallihorn + Carnwenhan = Green Ranger's Flute! DRAGONZORD!
#16 Jan 27 2010 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I liked Bright Star because it was pretty.

Also, what Nexa said.

Edited, Jan 27th 2010 10:57pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#17 Jan 27 2010 at 9:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Star Trek was it for me, without a doubt. I've been a fan of the story ever since I discovered it as a wee child and I enjoy watching the stages progress as new people come along and contribute. I thought the acting in the latest movie was pretty stellar, considering the roles they had to step into, and yeah, the guy that played Spock pretty much nailed it. I also really enjoyed the cockiness of the younger Kirk and the effect it had on the story. Well rounded movie, for sure.


I just couldn't get past the giginormous plot hole right in the middle of where the plot should have been. Aside from that and some effects choices I didn't like and a few scenes where it just looked like their set budget ran out and they winged it, it was a pretty good movie.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Jan 27 2010 at 10:02 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Star Trek was it for me, without a doubt. I've been a fan of the story ever since I discovered it as a wee child and I enjoy watching the stages progress as new people come along and contribute. I thought the acting in the latest movie was pretty stellar, considering the roles they had to step into, and yeah, the guy that played Spock pretty much nailed it. I also really enjoyed the cockiness of the younger Kirk and the effect it had on the story. Well rounded movie, for sure.


I just couldn't get past the giginormous plot hole right in the middle of where the plot should have been. Aside from that and some effects choices I didn't like and a few scenes where it just looked like their set budget ran out and they winged it, it was a pretty good movie.

My favorite part of the movie was when they introduced the contrived time travel plot device that conveniently allows any future movies/series to completely ignore any and all events that occurred in the original movies/series.

********
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#19 Jan 27 2010 at 10:10 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Demea wrote:
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Star Trek was it for me, without a doubt. I've been a fan of the story ever since I discovered it as a wee child and I enjoy watching the stages progress as new people come along and contribute. I thought the acting in the latest movie was pretty stellar, considering the roles they had to step into, and yeah, the guy that played Spock pretty much nailed it. I also really enjoyed the cockiness of the younger Kirk and the effect it had on the story. Well rounded movie, for sure.


I just couldn't get past the giginormous plot hole right in the middle of where the plot should have been. Aside from that and some effects choices I didn't like and a few scenes where it just looked like their set budget ran out and they winged it, it was a pretty good movie.

My favorite part of the movie was when they introduced the contrived time travel plot device that conveniently allows any future movies/series to completely ignore any and all events that occurred in the original movies/series.

@#%^ers.


Same here. I mean, I liked the movie, but they changed a lot. Like destroying Vulcan. Which still pisses me off. And no, I don't sleep anymore because of that.

Bastards.
#20 Jan 27 2010 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Nadenu Delivers on Time wrote:


Same here. I mean, I liked the movie, but they changed a lot. Like destroying Vulcan. Which still pisses me off. And no, I don't sleep anymore because of that.

Bastards.


Yeah! and ignoring that, why the hell would they have to drill to the core of the planet to implode it if they have that insta mega planet destroying red goo? just flick a spoonfull down from orbit, and watch it take 30 seconds instead of 20 to obliterate the planet.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#21 Jan 27 2010 at 10:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Demea wrote:
My favorite part of the movie was when they introduced the contrived time travel plot device that conveniently allows any future movies/series to completely ignore any and all events that occurred in the original movies/series.


That didn't bother me at all. They wanted to do a reboot of the franchise, and that's a pretty reasonable way to do it. Alternate timeline allows them to do what they want without affecting (or being affected by) other Star Trek stories and history. My problem was that with all the money presumably spent on writing said plot they couldn't come up with something a little more reasonable and well... possible?

I'm not talking about suspension of disbelief, technological whatzits, whether said singularity could cause time travel, or any other such stuff. I'm looking at a plot which could have been written a dozen different ways, in which not a single major aspect of the story would change and which would have made sense. But somehow, through a miracle which only Hollywood writing staffs can bring about, they managed to come up with an explanation which made zero sense.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Jan 27 2010 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Yeah! and ignoring that, why the hell would they have to drill to the core of the planet to implode it if they have that insta mega planet destroying red goo? just flick a spoonfull down from orbit, and watch it take 30 seconds instead of 20 to obliterate the planet.

My thought was "After you've drilled a hole into the core of the planet, I'm not sure you need red mystery goo to finish the job."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Jan 27 2010 at 10:17 PM Rating: Decent
*****
18,463 posts
I've forgotten most of the original Star Trek, so Star Trek for me. I also loved Up, Inglorious Basterds, Adventureland, I Love You, Man, (500) Days of Summer, and I can't believe no one mentioned the best movie of 2009 by far, The Hangover.

Edited, Jan 27th 2010 10:18pm by Atomicflea
#24 Jan 27 2010 at 10:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Yeah! and ignoring that, why the hell would they have to drill to the core of the planet to implode it if they have that insta mega planet destroying red goo? just flick a spoonfull down from orbit, and watch it take 30 seconds instead of 20 to obliterate the planet.


Yeah. There were a number of minor silly things as well. For that matter, why didn't any single one of the ships in that huge fleet think to fire at the big chain thingie? Apparently, a little tiny one man science vessel from the future could blast it with one shot, right? I mean, we could assume that said science vessel was for some reason equipped with the latest and greatest in high tech weapontry, but are we supposed to believe that chains are just stronger in the future or something?


Heck. For that matter, why the hell would a mining ship in the future be such a threat either? To the point where it can obliterate whole fleets? Really? I'm quite sure a modern supertanker cannot today take on a fleet of WW2 warships, so why the hell would this make sense? Do mining charges in the future have anti-shield technology? Apparently so. I guess asteroids all have the latest high tech shielding in the future as well...


And a big chain? Even ignoring the silliness of requiring drilling if you're going to drop the magic red goo, in a world with tractor beams and transporters, why would even a mining ship use a big chain for anything at all? Someone decided it "looked cool", which is ok if what you're doing also makes a lick of sense, but wrecks a film when it doesn't.


And that's still not touching on the huge plot hole...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Jan 27 2010 at 10:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Yeah! and ignoring that, why the hell would they have to drill to the core of the planet to implode it if they have that insta mega planet destroying red goo? just flick a spoonfull down from orbit, and watch it take 30 seconds instead of 20 to obliterate the planet.

My thought was "After you've drilled a hole into the core of the planet, I'm not sure you need red mystery goo to finish the job."


Ah yes, the "pin hole in the water baloon" method of planet destruction. If you time it just right, the molten stream of Core ejecta might even destory another planet or 2 in the process! "WTF Vulcan is totally oozing hot space Lava on us! Ow OW OW!!!" Take that, romulans!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#26 Jan 27 2010 at 10:24 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. There were a number of minor silly things as well.

There is no sound in space!

WTB Firefly.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 197 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (197)