The Last Film watched (CONTAINS A LOT OF SPOILERS)

First topic message reminder :

superflyweight wrote:

Scott is Back wrote:"Thor - Ragnarok"

Tino memorial rating : 7.5874 - Not seen any of the previous Thor's, but this one looked all new and shiny, so thought i would give it a whirl.

GSoE: 8.6

HH Scale of Accurate Titling: 8/10 – Thor Ragnarok - Well the main man is ol' Thor, God of Thunder & all that jazz....so thats a good start. Ragnarok as a word features quite heavily, still no overly sure what it was, but it was mentioned a lot.

Michaels scale of tits OR war: Tits - one topless scene where God of Pecs shows off his rippling torso, and the Hulk gets his dimply arse-cheeks out. Not sure if i would class it as a war, but some fisty-cuffs ensued, and there was a winner, so i suppose it could be a war.... who knows, certainly not me!

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 5/10 - The wife was sent to sainsburys for some steak, and returned with the film, so it didnt cost me anything, but the Scott household took a hit of £9.99.

TattieSconesRRN-Q: "Piss off Ghost" - Said in a South African/Australian Accent, i couldnt tell which (is this racist?)

If Barry Norman had done his reviews like this he wouldn't be dead now.  

Was he murdered due to his substandard movie reviewing technique?

Soul Requiem wrote:The whole use of the force was stupid; the healing and the passing of the lightsaber through time and space was just dumb.

Not just the Light Sabers, but the robots too. C-3PO and R2-D2 made it through 9 Star Wars films from Anakin Skywalker to Rey.

I thought it was fine and that it was an entertaining enough way to spend a couple of hours.

These films were never going to be to you now what the originals were to you as a kid.

superflyweight wrote:I thought it was fine and that it was an entertaining enough way to spend a couple of hours.    

These films were never going to be to you now what the originals were to you as a kid.    

   

I'm old enough to remember seeing the originals at the movies theatre when they first came out, and I thought that out of the recent Star Wars movies, Rogue One was good, good enough that I saw it twice at the theatre and bought it when it came out on DVD. The Force Awakens wasn't too bad and I bought that too. The last two movies I thought were bang average. The Last Jedi came out over two years ago, and I still can't bring myself to buy it yet.

I liked Rogue One. The story was much more straightforward and moved forward in a good way. The side characters were interesting and plot armour was not a feature for once.

The Gentlemen

Humorous and mildly entertaining, a return to the kind of stuff Guy Ritchie is best known for, it made a change to see Hugh Grant play a different role and pulled it off well. It's not for easily offended liberal types, the Independent were pretty scathing and seem unable to separate a film from reality.

The Joker

I thought that Joaquin Phoenix did an excellent job as The Joker. As a result of Phoenix's acting, the film turned out to be better than I expected and made up for what I thought was a very bland storyline.

I'm going to have to watch The Dark Knight again to compare Phoenix's Joker to Heath Ledger's Joker.

Ben-Hur (1959). I'm unwell and it was on Sky movies as per, so why not. Still epic. It's interesting to watch older movies - the acting was a lot different back then. Some good and others not so good, all speaking in an upper class manner.
I've also attempted to watch the remake, I couldn't resonate with it - I think reached 30-40 minutes in before getting bored and switching over.

lostinwales wrote:I liked Rogue One. The story was much more straightforward and moved forward in a good way. The side characters were interesting and plot armour was not a feature for once.

Agree. I've always wondered why they haven't made a Vader back story, set during the 20 something years between episode III and episode IV - there has been comics/literature for that period. I think it would be interesting and possibly a blockbuster.

mikey_dragon wrote:Ben-Hur (1959). I'm unwell and it was on Sky movies as per, so why not. Still epic. It's interesting to watch older movies - the acting was a lot different back then. Some good and others not so good, all speaking in an upper class manner.
I've also attempted to watch the remake, I couldn't resonate with it - I think reached 30-40 minutes in before getting bored and switching over.

Yes, the original Ben Hur is a classic, the remake was crap.

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I liked Rogue One. The story was much more straightforward and moved forward in a good way. The side characters were interesting and plot armour was not a feature for once.

Agree. I've always wondered why they haven't made a Vader back story, set during the 20 something years between episode III and episode IV - there has been comics/literature for that period. I think it would be interesting and possibly a blockbuster.

I still think they'll make a film or two to fill in the gap between episode VI and episode VII.

Atila wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I liked Rogue One. The story was much more straightforward and moved forward in a good way. The side characters were interesting and plot armour was not a feature for once.

Agree. I've always wondered why they haven't made a Vader back story, set during the 20 something years between episode III and episode IV - there has been comics/literature for that period. I think it would be interesting and possibly a blockbuster.

I still think they'll make a film or two to fill in the gap between episode VI and episode VII.

That would just be like the new ones though, wouldn't it? Crappy. Vader is like everybody's favourite character and his back story involves killing people - which is what we all want to see right? Rogue One got the balance right, a bit of violence but still okay for the young ones.

Atila wrote:The Joker

I thought that Joaquin Phoenix did an excellent job as The Joker. As a result of Phoenix's acting, the film turned out to be better than I expected and made up for what I thought was a very bland storyline.

I'm going to have to watch The Dark Knight again to compare Phoenix's Joker to Heath Ledger's Joker.

Watched it yesterday. I’ve seen reviews of it’s brilliant and it’s too slow, but I was kind of in the middle. I didn’t find I was bored by it, but I wouldn’t say it overly engaged me either.

I thought Phoenix offered a pretty good take on it and obviously as his was a back story version, it’s bound to be different, but I definitely liked Heath Ledger’s Joker more. I would love to have seen Ledger and Nolan have had the chance to have done an origin story for his Joker.

1917. Cracking film. Really very good but worth seeing on the biggest screen you can find.

lostinwales wrote:1917. Cracking film. Really very good but worth seeing on the biggest screen you can find.

Haven’t seen it yet but I thought it was going to be another one that didn’t live up to its hype.

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:1917. Cracking film. Really very good but worth seeing on the biggest screen you can find.

Haven’t seen it yet but I thought it was going to be another one that didn’t live up to its hype.

I am sure you'll find other opinions but I thought it more than lived up to the hype. Like any film its not perfect but it's epic to look at and does so many things so very well, right down to all the high profile officer cameos. I think its masterful when you can build a picture of a fleshed out character on a couple of lines of dialogue.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

Very good. Pitt, but even more so DiCaprio were excellent.

Have to say, for me, DiCaprio is such a talented actor.
Great to watch.

westisbest wrote:Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

Very good. Pitt, but even more so DiCaprio were excellent.

Have to say, for me, DiCaprio is such a talented actor.
Great to watch.

Completely agree, but I actually preferred Pitt in this movie though. A special mention to the guy who played Bruce Lee, I think he got it spot on. And also the guy who played Manson in his brief cameo, he was eerily good.

DiCaprio has been Oscar-worthy of a few movies, and for me The Revenant wasn't one of them.

lostinwales wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:1917. Cracking film. Really very good but worth seeing on the biggest screen you can find.

Haven’t seen it yet but I thought it was going to be another one that didn’t live up to its hype.

I am sure you'll find other opinions but I thought it more than lived up to the hype. Like any film its not perfect but it's epic to look at and does so many things so very well, right down to all the high profile officer cameos. I think its masterful when you can build a picture of a fleshed out character on a couple of lines of dialogue.

I still haven't seen it, but it's winning awards here and in the US left right & centre. Take that Phoenix you wackjob.

mikey_dragon wrote:

westisbest wrote:Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

Very good. Pitt, but even more so DiCaprio were excellent.

Have to say, for me, DiCaprio is such a talented actor.
Great to watch.

Completely agree, but I actually preferred Pitt in this movie though. A special mention to the guy who played Bruce Lee, I think he got it spot on. And also the guy who played Manson in his brief cameo, he was eerily good.

DiCaprio has been Oscar-worthy of a few movies, and for me The Revenant wasn't one of them.

Went to see the Revenant. Got bored. Some really spectacular shots and the whole thing with the bear is amazing. But it can mostly be summarised by saying 'And then it got worse'. Then you get stuff like the multi shot pistols, the whole Pawnee thing which never happened (they didn't get massacred etc) the way in which he recovers so quickly etc.

The real story is amazing, but then I guess having a guy crawl for miles with a broken leg and the bear wounds doesn't make for such a great film either

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:1917. Cracking film. Really very good but worth seeing on the biggest screen you can find.

Haven’t seen it yet but I thought it was going to be another one that didn’t live up to its hype.

I am sure you'll find other opinions but I thought it more than lived up to the hype. Like any film its not perfect but it's epic to look at and does so many things so very well, right down to all the high profile officer cameos. I think its masterful when you can build a picture of a fleshed out character on a couple of lines of dialogue.

I still haven't seen it, but it's winning awards here and in the US left right & centre. Take that Phoenix you wackjob.

1917 is one of the best films I've seen in a while. The way it is shot with one continous take is brilliant, Sam Mendes is certainly one of the best film makers out there today.

PaulHv2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:1917. Cracking film. Really very good but worth seeing on the biggest screen you can find.

Haven’t seen it yet but I thought it was going to be another one that didn’t live up to its hype.

I am sure you'll find other opinions but I thought it more than lived up to the hype. Like any film its not perfect but it's epic to look at and does so many things so very well, right down to all the high profile officer cameos. I think its masterful when you can build a picture of a fleshed out character on a couple of lines of dialogue.

I still haven't seen it, but it's winning awards here and in the US left right & centre. Take that Phoenix you wackjob.

1917 is one of the best films I've seen in a while. The way it is shot with one continous take is brilliant, Sam Mendes is certainly one of the best film makers out there today.

It's silly that Parasite beat it to best picture at the Oscars, if you ask me it was the academy trying to make amends for an apparent lack of representation.

The gentleman.

Really good return to form, back to lock stock and 2 smoking barrel's. Fun, engaging quite a few twist, funny.

Really worth a watch.

Soul Requiem wrote:
It's silly that Parasite beat it to best picture at the Oscars, if you ask me it was the academy trying to make amends for an apparent lack of representation.

The Academy virtue signaling is as predictable as the speeches are soppy, gushy, overwrought slush.

It's not about the art of Cinema anymore, merely political fad soundboarding to collect social media fans (not that I'm denigrating Paradise, a movie I haven't seen yet and might very well be worthy enough to win).

It's way past time that movie writers, actors, directors, producers and financiers got back to simply trying to entertain the world and drop the political grandstanding.

Ain't gonna happen though, is it.

The last film I watched was a short film - which by sheer coincidence I was the Producer of.
Enjoy - and share with everyone you know so we can get the view numbers up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb9CJdgzcWQ&fbclid=IwAR3-sYGYNIEJMajKm2L7xvu__IRYGBoShxUXspJfl7ax-T8WlcbpIL6NCVw

JuliusHMarx wrote:The last film I watched was a short film  - which by sheer coincidence I was the Producer of.
Enjoy - and share with everyone you know so we can get the view numbers up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb9CJdgzcWQ&fbclid=IwAR3-sYGYNIEJMajKm2L7xvu__IRYGBoShxUXspJfl7ax-T8WlcbpIL6NCVw

Ffs, you beat me to it.

SecretFly wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:
It's silly that Parasite beat it to best picture at the Oscars, if you ask me it was the academy trying to make amends for an apparent lack of representation.

The Academy virtue signaling is as predictable as the speeches are soppy, gushy, overwrought slush.  

It's not about the art of Cinema anymore, merely political fad soundboarding to collect social media fans (not that I'm denigrating Paradise, a movie I haven't seen yet and might very well be worthy enough to win).

It's way past time that movie writers, actors, directors, producers and financiers got back to simply trying to entertain the world and drop the political grandstanding.

Ain't gonna happen though, is it.  

Joaquin Phoenix berating the Oscars for not giving any clubman award to minorities whilst accepting his Oscar was the worst acting of his career.

I watched Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile recently. A film about Ted Bundy and his missus.

But this review is subject to the disclaimer that I was asleep through huge swaths of it.

Tino memorial rating: 0/10. I am not dead FFS.
GSoE: 7.874/10 - I'm giving it a high score as Mrs Windows tells me it was excellent.
HH scale of accurate titling: 10/10 - Unless you're DAVE667, Shah or Wingrove, you have to think Ted Bundy was a bit nasty and evil so it scores highly. Hammersmith would be happy with it.
Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 5/10 - No war so to speak but Bundy was pretty violent so scores there. Didn't notice any t*ts but there could have been when I was asleep.
Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 1/10. Had to pay for it via Sky. Makes me furious that I slept through it.
TSRRN-Q: None spring to mind other than Mrs Windows telling me to "wake the f*ck up, you moron".

All in all, a great film and one I would heartily recommend you watch.

Textbook review (the bad language notwithstanding). No real need to see film if you've read the review and I regret that I saw the film before Tina (RIP) posthumously posted this.

superflyweight wrote:Textbook review (the bad language notwithstanding).  No real need to see film if you've read the review and I regret that I saw the film before Tina (RIP) posthumously posted this.  

Thanks mate. The Film section has gone to sh*t without me.

I was going to post a review of "Yesterday" but it's so f*cking terrible that I don't want to retain any thought of the film for a period of time sufficient to alow me to write about it. I almost pissed in a glass and threw it at the TV.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I watched Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile recently. A film about Ted Bundy and his missus.

But this review is subject to the disclaimer that I was asleep through huge swaths of it.

Tino memorial rating: 0/10. I am not dead FFS.
GSoE: 7.874/10 - I'm giving it a high score as Mrs Windows tells me it was excellent.
HH scale of accurate titling: 10/10 - Unless you're DAVE667, Shah or Wingrove, you have to think Ted Bundy was a bit nasty and evil so it scores highly. Hammersmith would be happy with it.
Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 5/10 - No war so to speak but Bundy was pretty violent so scores there. Didn't notice any t*ts but there could have been when I was asleep.
Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 1/10. Had to pay for it via Sky. Makes me furious that I slept through it.
TSRRN-Q: None spring to mind other than Mrs Windows telling me to "wake the f*ck up, you moron".

All in all, a great film and one I would heartily recommend you watch.

Brings a tear to my eye, remembering how reviews were crafted in the old days.

Galted wrote:

Brings a tear to my eye, remembering how reviews were crafted in the old days.

Got another one for you, pal. I am keeping this thread alive.

Watched 1917 at the weekend.

Tino memorial rating: 0/10. I am not dead FFS.
GSoE: 9.001478/10 - I don't often score films that highly but I thought it was masterful. I didn't fall asleep which is always a good sign.
HH scale of accurate titling: 10/10 - Surely a film set in the year of the title is as good as it gets? Hammersmith Harrier would definitely find some factual error in the title but I thought it was a splendid description. Faultless in fact.
Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 9/10 - It's a about WWI for heavens sake! A war! WWI was a war you bunch of heathens. Loses a mark for not having any jugs but blimey, if you want a film about a war, this is one for you.
Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 4/10. Had to pay for it on Sky so it can't score too highly but didn't fall asleep once so feel like I only had one of Murdoch's balls in my mouth. That's a result.
TSRRN-Q: Can't really remember any but that isn't a criticism, quite the opposite. They don't say masses but it doesn't detract from the film. Gripping stuff.

If I was a professional film critic which I am in all but profession, I would say 1917 is a flipping cracker of a film and although I know nothing about directing, those that do tell me it is a masterful and original piece of film making as well.

I would say it is below Silence of the Lambs and above The Boss Baby.

Wonderful stuff, very cleansing for the soul when you realise that nostalgia hasn't blinkered you but that it was actually better back in the day.

It's inspired me to do a film review of my own.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Galted wrote:

Brings a tear to my eye, remembering how reviews were crafted in the old days.

Got another one for you, pal. I am keeping this thread alive.

Watched 1917 at the weekend.

Tino memorial rating: 0/10. I am not dead FFS.
GSoE: 9.001478/10 - I don't often score films that highly but I thought it was masterful. I didn't fall asleep which is always a good sign.
HH scale of accurate titling: 10/10 - Surely a film set in the year of the title is as good as it gets? Hammersmith Harrier would definitely find some factual error in the title but I thought it was a splendid description. Faultless in fact.
Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 9/10 - It's a about WWI for heavens sake! A war! WWI was a war you bunch of heathens. Loses a mark for not having any jugs but blimey, if you want a film about a war, this is one for you.
Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 4/10. Had to pay for it on Sky so it can't score too highly but didn't fall asleep once so feel like I only had one of Murdoch's balls in my mouth. That's a result.
TSRRN-Q: Can't really remember any but that isn't a criticism, quite the opposite. They don't say masses but it doesn't detract from the film. Gripping stuff.

If I was a professional film critic which I am in all but profession, I would say 1917 is a flipping cracker of a film and although I know nothing about directing, those that do tell me it is a masterful and original piece of film making as well.

I would say it is below Silence of the Lambs and above The Boss Baby.

Yet another film I don't need to see due to textbook film reviewing.

It's also good to see that although he might be dead, Tina is using the correct "t*ts OR war" classification.

Watched The Breakfast Club at the weekend.

Tino memorial rating: n/a - have respectfully suspended use of this category pending resolution of Tino's claims that he's not that dead

GSoE: 3.88914/10 - dreadful, stock 80s teen fare, tedious, predictable and unfunny.  And Judd Nelson's nostrils offend me greatly.  Earns a few points for not being very long, and for involving Ally Sheedy who was a decent alternative w*nk back in the day

HH scale of accurate titling: 0/10 - they weren't a club and no clubs of any sort were on view: no night clubs, no football clubs, no weaponry, no social clubs.  And neither is there any breakfast to be seen, only a bit of lunch

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 1/10 - sod all, a bit of a skirmish between the jock and the rebel, and a supposed close-up of Molly Ringwald's growler, but nothing to get the adrenaline going or to provoke a chubby

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 10/10 - watched it on Galtova's mother's Netflix account

TSRRN-Q:  'Does Barry Manilow know that you raid his wardrobe?' - no it's not funny, just typical of the dross on offer

Undead Tino method using a decent film and crap film to rate it: Below Barton Fink and above the Karate Kid

Roped into watching this debacle which served no purpose other than proving that it wasn't always better in the 80s.  Films in particular from that era often turn out to be horrifically awful when viewed a few decades on.  Fortunately I hadn't seen this one before so had no reason to view my teenage tastes with contempt like I did with the Highlander.
Film couldn't be more clichéd: contains a jock, a cheerleader, an outcast, a nerd and a rebel, plus the ever-present unpleasant teacher/headmaster.  No-one said anything interesting or funny, just bickered and waffled and sobbed, they even had the obligatory and completely out of place dance scene where they each did a solo and paired off in well-choreographed twos and threes causing me to mutter 'for f*ck's sake'.  As if one dance scene wasn't enough they shamelessly plagiarised the Kevin Bacon angry dance from Footloose in another.
Was a load of unfunny tripe, trying hard to be poignant at times.  Characters were f*cking annoying, makes you realise why 80s films full of teenagers often had a maniac on the loose hacking them to bits.

Galted wrote:Watched The Breakfast Club at the weekend.

and a supposed close-up of Molly Ringwald's growler, but nothing to get the adrenaline going or to provoke a chubby

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 10/10 - watched it on Galtova's mother's Netflix account

Wonderful stuff, Galted. The quotes above were my particular favourites.

To paraphrase Superfly, I won't bother watching it now as there is no need.

Cheers Tino, means a lot coming from you.

I got around to watching The Rise of Skywalker. Nothing to add apart from it was a shower of shoite as expected. Anyone care to add?

obviously haven't watched this yet but it's been announced that Synders version of Justice League will be put on HBOs new streaming service in the new year.

Personally I'm looking forward to this, I enjoyed MoS and BvS and the darker side of the genre was different to Marvel.

Just finished watching How To Switch Yourself Off

Tino memorial rating: n/a – was due to reinstate this as he’s been dead for most of the week but today he’s alive so still suspended, would’ve been an 8/10

GSoE: 7.94678/10 – a good watch, I have a very short attention span when it comes to Youtube but this kept my attention throughout, characters were convincing and engaging and I almost felt like I was prying by watching

HH scale of accurate titling: 10/10 or 0/10 – hurt my head a bit deciding which rating to give, the characters did manage to switch themselves off figuratively by not switching each other off literally which may or not  be accurate titling, I suspect the former

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 2/10 - sod all, was hopeful as it’s about a couple of three wheelers on a virtual first date, Sriya’s a bit of all right and the other one wasn’t far off showing cleavage.  Potential for a raunchy sequel though

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 10/10 - watched it on Youtube

TSRRN-Q:  ‘two words, procrastination, masturbation, do you like that?'

Undead Tino method using a decent film and crap film to rate it: Below Barton Fink and above Rebecca

A very good piece of cinema, the awkwardness of the two participants was well portrayed, as was the contempt of each woman’s inner self for her as she might be perceived (reminded me of two lady Superflies).  Well written and acted - the plot was not straightforward and the running time short but it managed to be thought-provoking without being confusing or throwing too much at the viewer.  Superbly produced though, don’t think I’ve seen such well-produced cinema before, and I’ve seen several films.

Excellent review. I'd watch it if you provided a link.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Excellent review. I'd watch it if you provided a link.

Ffs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwBkdgQcJrs&fbclid=IwAR19EOan1wYzRAf8BYVyHzHzCpPn8z_uXYF04uqXUIPDVSmj5Usg7HGvok4

Should I set up a popcorn home delivery business too?

Galted wrote:Just finished watching How To Switch Yourself Off

Tino memorial rating: n/a – was due to reinstate this as he’s been dead for most of the week but today he’s alive so still suspended, would’ve been an 8/10

GSoE: 7.94678/10 – a good watch, I have a very short attention span when it comes to Youtube but this kept my attention throughout, characters were convincing and engaging and I almost felt like I was prying by watching

HH scale of accurate titling: 10/10 or 0/10 – hurt my head a bit deciding which rating to give, the characters did manage to switch themselves off figuratively by not switching each other off literally which may or not  be accurate titling, I suspect the former

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 2/10 - sod all, was hopeful as it’s about a couple of three wheelers on a virtual first date, Sriya’s a bit of all right and the other one wasn’t far off showing cleavage.  Potential for a raunchy sequel though

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 10/10 - watched it on Youtube

TSRRN-Q:  ‘two words, procrastination, masturbation, do you like that?'

Undead Tino method using a decent film and crap film to rate it: Below Barton Fink and above Rebecca

A very good piece of cinema, the awkwardness of the two participants was well portrayed, as was the contempt of each woman’s inner self for her as she might be perceived (reminded me of two lady Superflies).  Well written and acted - the plot was not straightforward and the running time short but it managed to be thought-provoking without being confusing or throwing too much at the viewer.  Superbly produced though, don’t think I’ve seen such well-produced cinema before, and I’ve seen several films.

Would have been a lot more naked breasts in it if it was two lady Superflies.

mikey_dragon wrote:I got around to watching The Rise of Skywalker. Nothing to add apart from it was a shower of shoite as expected. Anyone care to add?

Watched it over Christmas with family including eldest son who managed to sleep through most of it. His comment was that every time he woke up it looked like nothing had changed at all. Was faintly optimistic after the 1st of the new trilogy even if significant parts were a rip off of the original film. 2nd and 3rd were both terrible. You never got any feeling of risk or danger in the last film. Given it is notionally an ensemble film they could easily have lost a major character or two (beyond the obvious ones) which could just have added a bit more edge.

Gemini Man

Jesus Christ, that was bad. 1/10.

Just John wrote:Gemini Man

Jesus Christ, that was bad. 1/10.

Will Smith makes more terrible films than Nicholas Cage

lostinwales wrote:

Just John wrote:Gemini Man

Jesus Christ, that was bad. 1/10.

Will Smith makes more terrible films than Nicholas Cage

You can probably count on one hand the decent films he's ever made; Men In Black, I Am Legend, Pursuit of Happyness, Enemy of the State and Independence Day. Even Ali was a load of tosh.

Soul Requiem wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Just John wrote:Gemini Man

Jesus Christ, that was bad. 1/10.

Will Smith makes more terrible films than Nicholas Cage

You can probably count on one hand the decent films he's ever made; Men In Black, I Am Legend, Pursuit of Happyness, Enemy of the State and Independence Day. Even Ali was a load of tosh.

But some of them would score highly for accurate titling.

Will Smith has starred in some great films, not mention series (Fresh Prince). He's not so good at making films himself though.