Seen a good (or bad, or indifferent) movie lately (not so lately, sometime in recorded history)? Let us know what you thought of it here.
Please, please, please use spoiler tags around any spoilers.
The Hobbit.
I can't really say I saw it though, I slept through almost all of it.
Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters
6/10
It was pretty good, but they could have swore less and cut out one 10 second nudity scene for a slightly lower rating without messing up the story at all. That would have increased the audience and they would have made more money.
I'm glad you restarted this thread, thanks!
Just re-watched "the Lorax" with my daughter. She loves it, one of the few movies that really seems to impact her emotionally. For adults, it's a little bit more beat you over the head anti-capitolism,but still enjoyable or tall that. The story was true to the original in spirit and rhyme. Hard to rate. If you have kids to see it with 8/10, if you are an adult with little interest in kiddie type miovies, 6/9.
De doc'men'try 'bout Texas, "Killer Joe". It be a bahrrul uh laffs, y'all. Don't mess wif Texas-- or Joe fer dat matt'r.. y'all..
*** 1/2
Mayhaps nex' tam Friedkin kin make a doc'men'try 'bout Texas patriot Andy Mendozee... Cawl it "Saddlin' up tuh Love"...
Quote from: "NitzWalsh"but they could have swore less and cut out one 10 second nudity scene for a slightly lower rating without messing up the story at all.
Or... They could have added
more nudity and maintained the rating. Movies can always use more good looking naked chicks...
Quote from: "rickcopeland648"Or... They could have added more nudity and maintained the rating. Movies can always use more good looking naked chicks...
And simulated sex scenes. I LOVE a good simulated sex scene. I also love porn, but for a whole different reason, believe it or not.
Silver Linings Playbook
5/10
Saw this about a week ago. Some funny parts in first hour, but the plot sort of stalled in the second half. The primary relationship did not develop on screen and the whole betting scenario seemed a bolt-on gimmick to bring in the entire cast for a formulaic non humorous ending. It tried hard for "dysfunctional humor" but more of the latter and less of the former needed here.
History of the Eagles (Showtime)
9/10
Anyone familiar with the band will likely enjoy this story. Interesting blend of antagonism and creative collaboration with very talented artists meandering over four decades. Some very straight-forward takes from Henley, Frey, Walsh, et al. The story almost tells itself and the writers were careful in avoiding hyperbole. I highly recommend this documentary.
Quote from: "rickcopeland648"Quote from: "NitzWalsh"but they could have swore less and cut out one 10 second nudity scene for a slightly lower rating without messing up the story at all.
Or... They could have added more nudity and maintained the rating. Movies can always use more good looking naked chicks...
True, but it was a rather kiddy movie so it made me think it would be great for PG13 or even G audiences.
Call of Cthulhu.
[youtube:2yky626g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHuY2wXTd0o[/youtube:2yky626g]
This is a black and white silent movie produced by the H P Lovecraft Historical Society. In other words, it's essentially a fan film. Taken as such, it's not a bad little gem. I don't think it crosses the line to great or to objectively good, though. I found my attention wandering now and again. Maintaining interest these days when you don't have dialog to hook the viewer is difficult. Also, while I'm sure the actors in this production are skilled, they do not have the skills necessary to do well in silent film. Without dialog, everything needs to be communicated via body language and facial expression. Extensive skill in mime and gesture is necessary, but they simply do not have it. The deliberateness of their actions because it was in the script showed through. Often they felt like actors hitting their marks instead of real people living their lives. But this is forgivable in a fan film, although it would be dishonest to not mention it.
The director tried his best, making use of light and shadow whenever he could. Although nothing was particularly striking. But it wasn't completely boring to look at, either. It could have been all flat angles and such.
One place they could have done more but didn't was during the climax on the island of R'lyeh where perspective is supposed to be all wonky. They just built odd-looking sets, but they could have used things like forced perspective to make this point more clear. But they didn't and the film is poorer for it.
(//http://linedandunlined.com/wp-archive-uploads/rh/Ames.jpg)
Plotwise, it appears to be a faithful to a fault adaptation. This is expected considering the people behind it. It's just not a very compelling narrative for a visual medium. lots of reading and flashbacks. The entire film is a flashback, in fact, where a dude in a booby hatch gives all his papers to his doctor and tells him to burn it so that no one else will come to know what he does and thus suffer the same fate. So, naturally he tells the guy everything he knows in a parade of flashbacks.
that all said, the HPLHS put a lot of effort into this. There's a cult scene with quite a few extras in it that must have strained their budget or personal relations a bit. You can tell there's love put into it, which makes up for the lack of skill in other areas.
But ultimately this film is a curiosity. It's not great. It may not even be good. But considering its an overgrown fan film done in a gimmicky style, it's worth a look just to say that you've seen it. I can't say that it will stick with you after the credits, though.
I kinda liked it. Not half bad for a fan film. (I've seen worse (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN8Snp14Z6c)) Yeah, pretty bad acting, but I liked the period style and faithfulness to the source material.
The same people did another film, The Whisperer in Darkness (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQkos7WTHjg) which veers a lot from the original story but makes up for it with a suitable ending.
I'd love to see them make Shadow Out Of Time or Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath.
Tucker and Dale vs Evil. 8/10
Surprisingly funny. I laughed a lot during the first half, hard enough to almost fall off the couch. The second half was a little slower on the laughs, but still good.
I would totally recommend this to anyone with a dark sense of humor.
Thanks for getting this thread up and running again. Money Ball with Brad Pitt. Not your usual sports movie. He plays the manager of the "Oakland A's". Supposedly a true story, with doubtless additions by Hollywood. 9/10 (and I'm not a baseball fan, but the movie is very good).
Oz the Great and Powerful
If you liked The Phantom Menace you might enjoy this too. They are basically the same film. Prequels to technological and creative masterpieces that use far too much CGI to make up for their dull story and characters.
Quote from: "gussy"Oz the Great and Powerful
If you liked The Phantom Menace you might enjoy this too. They are basically the same film. Prequels to technological and creative masterpieces that use far too much CGI to make up for their dull story and characters.
NOOOO!!!
I wanted to like the new Oz film. Don't tell me it's crappy! :(
Quote from: "gussy"Oz the Great and Powerful
If you liked The Phantom Menace you might enjoy this too.
They should put that on the poster.
I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.
Quote from: "NitzWalsh"I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.
Interesting because that was where I gave up on Star Trek. Much like where Phantom Menace was where I gave up on Star Wars.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "NitzWalsh"I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.
Interesting because that was where I gave up on Star Trek. Much like where Phantom Menace was where I gave up on Star Wars.
I never got enough of the Borg, which was probably one of the reasons they seemed so chilling. They didn't show up that often, and thank God they didn't, or the Enterprise crew would have surely been doomed. But 30 out of 10??? That would make it the best movie ever, and that fame certainly belongs to Star Trek IV, The Voyage Home.
Quote from: "NitzWalsh"I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.
I think we watched different movies.
While I do love the Borg, I hated their gradual villain decay from a nigh-unstoppable and unnervingly dispassionate collective to space zombies led by an increasingly laughable queen. I basically agree with Red Letter Media (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Lr8cdZwHQ)'s assessment of the movie.
I hated the part with Cockrane and the crew's fangasms over him (and really, Geordi, do you not know what "taking a leak" means?) I also disliked the implication that Future Starfleet set into motion events that led to Starfleet being founded which led to Future Starfleet..oh dear, I've gone cross-eyed.
Then there's the infamous and wildly OOC Tommy Gun incident...
While not as bad as Nemesis or Generations or Insurrection (basically, all the other TNG movies), it was basically the moment that Star Trek jumped the shark (//http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/sci-fi-rant-when-did-star-trek-jump-the-shark/965). 7 out of 10 for me, and only because of the great action scenes and worthy (though tragically mishandled) villains.
Watched the new version of Red Dawn....or something like that...meh...okay for an action flick, if you got nothing to do,,rainy or snowy or windy or just cloudy and wet or cloudy and windy or just meh..other than that i loved it....kinda
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "NitzWalsh"I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.
I think we watched different movies.
While I do love the Borg, I hated their gradual villain decay from a nigh-unstoppable and unnervingly dispassionate collective to space zombies led by an increasingly laughable queen. I basically agree with Red Letter Media (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Lr8cdZwHQ)'s assessment of the movie.
I hated the part with Cockrane and the crew's fangasms over him (and really, Geordi, do you not know what "taking a leak" means?) I also disliked the implication that Future Starfleet set into motion events that led to Starfleet being founded which led to Future Starfleet..oh dear, I've gone cross-eyed.
Then there's the infamous and wildly OOC Tommy Gun incident...
While not as bad as Nemesis or Generations or Insurrection (basically, all the other TNG movies), it was basically the moment that Star Trek jumped the shark (//http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/sci-fi-rant-when-did-star-trek-jump-the-shark/965). 7 out of 10 for me, and only because of the great action scenes and worthy (though tragically mishandled) villains.
While I agree it doesn't deserve 30 out of 10 (lol), it is far and away the best TNG film.
Also, they Jumped the Shark with Generations, so it was already dead and done by the time First Contact came out. Honestly, it's a miracle it wasn't worse.
I do love and agree with Red Letter Medias review mostly though. Especially Picard dropping the artifact carelessly at the end of the movie while searching through the debris. Crash! That did make me laugh pretty hard, I hadn't spotted that one on my own.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. 5/10
Cute, but too long and drawn out. The first 1/2 hour was very entertaining, after that I had a hard time staying awake or caring what happened. My daughter, who is like me and generally is glued to animated films, also lost interest. She stuck with it longer than me, but neither of us really cared about the end much.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "NitzWalsh"I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.
I think we watched different movies.
While I do love the Borg, I hated their gradual villain decay from a nigh-unstoppable and unnervingly dispassionate collective to space zombies led by an increasingly laughable queen. I basically agree with Red Letter Media (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Lr8cdZwHQ)'s assessment of the movie.
I hated the part with Cockrane and the crew's fangasms over him (and really, Geordi, do you not know what "taking a leak" means?) I also disliked the implication that Future Starfleet set into motion events that led to Starfleet being founded which led to Future Starfleet..oh dear, I've gone cross-eyed.
Then there's the infamous and wildly OOC Tommy Gun incident...
While not as bad as Nemesis or Generations or Insurrection (basically, all the other TNG movies), it was basically the moment that Star Trek jumped the shark (//http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/sci-fi-rant-when-did-star-trek-jump-the-shark/965). 7 out of 10 for me, and only because of the great action scenes and worthy (though tragically mishandled) villains.
I give them all 30/10.
I actually think Star Trek jumped the shark in the very first episode of TNG when they introduced Wesley Crusher. If it wasn't for him it would be 50/10.
Quote from: "Hydra009"I hated the part with Cockrane and the crew's fangasms over him
That was horrible. Part of the reason why it was horrible is because they show up and just say "We're from the fucking future. A future you're going to help shape by flying that tin can of yours into space. It's very important and shit, but no pressure."
I mean, fuck, yo.
In the episode Who Watches the Watchers they had to go undercover to prevent fucking with a pre warp civilization. I guess it don't matter if that pre warp civilization is their own. I mean, I agree that it gets kind of tedious when they go undercover like that on the planet. But It's kind of like when you watch a slow-moving zombie movie and wonder why they don't just run away from the zombies. Because it's fucking stupid. That's why.
Quote from: "NitzWalsh"I give them all 30/10.
You, my friend, are either the most forgiving critic I have ever met or unclear on the whole critic scores core concept.
1/10 = purge it with fire, assassinate the production staff
2/10 = makes me die a little inside, probably killed the franchise
3/10 = vomit-inducing
4/10 = horrid
5/10 = average
6/10 = okay, but could've been much better
7/10 = pretty good, despite several flaws
8/10 = amazing
9/10 = I want to marry this movie!
10/10 = exceptional quality, this will be a cultural touchstone for generations to come.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "Hydra009"I hated the part with Cockrane and the crew's fangasms over him
That was horrible. Part of the reason why it was horrible is because they show up and just say "We're from the fucking future. A future you're going to help shape by flying that tin can of yours into space. It's very important and shit, but no pressure."
I mean, fuck, yo.
That and they just fawn over the guy constantly and will not leave him alone. It's like working with Overly Attached Girlfriend. *shudders*
I certainly agree First Contact had problems. But, I still found it very enjoyable to watch none-the-less. I do remember one time seeing a top-ten reasons First Contact sucked. I can't remember the rest of the 10, but one of them was, "How is it possible the the Borq could know exactly when in time and where in place to attack - and still miss?" LOL.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"I certainly agree First Contact had problems. But, I still found it very enjoyable to watch none-the-less. I do remember one time seeing a top-ten reasons First Contact sucked. I can't remember the rest of the 10, but one of them was, "How is it possible the the Borq could know exactly when in time and where in place to attack - and still miss?" LOL.
Well, the where in space was easy since they went to where Earth was in their present and just back in time in that location because planets are exceptionally still.
Pathfinders 2/10
WWII paratroopers drop into France the day before "D" Day. They set up radio signals and ground lights to guide the Allied "something or other" to do "whatever". I'm not exactly sure what that was, but it must have been something important and dangerous.
This independent film was produced by someone called the Portland Film Group, which I'd guess must be a group of first year students at a community college in down town Portland, Oregon, who opted for making a movie as a class project, rather than having to write a term paper.
There is so much wrong with this highly uninteresting movie that you ought to watch it just to see how boring it is. Every last character in the movie is totally forgettable. They all act the same, without any personality, just human robots carrying out an assignment. You can't tell one from the other. If they die, you won't care. If they succeed, you won't care either.
The paratroopers are up against highly trained German units specializing in "anti-paratrooper" warfare. I'm not kidding. The movie calls them "highly specialized anti-paratrooper units", not that it makes any difference, because the Germans are even dumber than the Americans. They whistle and sing German marching songs. They do this with a loud gaiety at the top of their lungs, while they wait in ambush. So it's no problem for the Americans to locate and kill them.
There's lots of mind boggling heroics by the Americans. Soldiers sacrifice themselves by throwing themselves on grenades that could have easily been picked up and thrown back at the Germans. One guy lays on a grenade that takes so long to explode I thought it was a dud. Finally, it exploded after 10 seconds.
The Americans play it cagey sneaking around and doing their secret stuff, but sometimes, for no explainable reason, one will rush wildly at the Germans while yelling and firing his rifle. He might die or not. You won't care. You can't even remember which guy he was in the movie anyway.
Quote from: "SGOS"Pathfinders 2/10
WWII paratroopers drop into France the day before "D" Day. They set up radio signals and ground lights to guide the Allied "something or other" to do "whatever". I'm not exactly sure what that was, but it must have been something important and dangerous.
This independent film was produced by someone called the Portland Film Group, which I'd guess must be a group of first year students at a community college in down town Portland, Oregon, who opted for making a movie as a class project, rather than having to write a term paper.
There is so much wrong with this highly uninteresting movie that you ought to watch it just to see how boring it is. Every last character in the movie is totally forgettable. They all act the same, without any personality, just human robots carrying out an assignment. You can't tell one from the other. If they die, you won't care. If they succeed, you won't care either.
The paratroopers are up against highly trained German units specializing in "anti-paratrooper" warfare. I'm not kidding. The movie calls them "highly specialized anti-paratrooper units", not that it makes any difference, because the Germans are even dumber than the Americans. They whistle and sing German marching songs. They do this with a loud gaiety at the top of their lungs, while they wait in ambush. So it's no problem for the Americans to locate and kill them.
There's lots of mind boggling heroics by the Americans. Soldiers sacrifice themselves by throwing themselves on grenades that could have easily been picked up and thrown back at the Germans. One guy lays on a grenade that takes so long to explode I thought it was a dud. Finally, it exploded after 10 seconds.
The Americans play it cagey sneaking around and doing their secret stuff, but sometimes, for no explainable reason, one will rush wildly at the Germans while yelling and firing his rifle. He might die or not. You won't care. You can't even remember which guy he was in the movie anyway.
one of the most enjoyable reviews I have read. You missed your calling.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "NitzWalsh"I give them all 30/10.
You, my friend, are either the most forgiving critic I have ever met or unclear on the whole critic scores core concept.
1/10 = purge it with fire, assassinate the production staff
2/10 = makes me die a little inside, probably killed the franchise
3/10 = vomit-inducing
4/10 = horrid
5/10 = average
6/10 = okay, but could've been much better
7/10 = pretty good, despite several flaws
8/10 = amazing
9/10 = I want to marry this movie!
10/10 = exceptional quality, this will be a cultural touchstone for generations to come.
I'm aware, and only forgiving when it comes to Star Trek.
I watched Amelie again. It shall remain my favorite film ever for a while longer.
I give it a 10/10. The atmopshere, the characters, the story, all both heartwarming and tear-inducing.
Dungeons and Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness
[youtube:ctee09j6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVwPgrQ_R_s[/youtube:ctee09j6]
Judging from the trailer, I expected an utterly crappy movie. I was ready to lay into this stinker and mock it mercilessly. But then I actually watched it.
It was actually good. I have been pleasantly surprised.
The movie is nowhere near as bad as it is portrayed in the trailer. It's not without it's flaws - some of the acting isn't great (others surprised me by just how well they pulled off their characters, especially the vermin guy), the special effects definitely needed some work, the first few scenes were kinda boring, and the script could use a rewrite to really flesh things out a bit more. But for such an obviously low-budget film, it turned out pretty damn enjoyable and entertaining. Maybe I'm just a sucker for Team Evil, but I genuinely liked these characters.
Plot:
It tells the story of a holy knight aspirant on the moment of his knighthood, who seeks a blessing from his God, Pelor, The Shining One. A sign to signify His approval. Nothing happens. And soon after, the holy order is massacred by their enemies and the aspirant's father taken captive. To save his father, this holy knight infiltrates an evil adventuring party and starts down on a path of darkness...
Score: 6/10. It's okay for what it is.
Reasons to watch:
* Boobies. Lots of them.
* Evil Feels Good.
* The evil adventuring party is great. My favorite by far is the guy who can transform his body into a cloud of vermin (cockroaches, centipedes, scorpions, etc) and swarms over people, killing them horrifically. He is disturbing as hell and I love him for it.
* Some really satisfying deaths. They're pretty hardcore in this movie. This is not a family friendly film in the slightest.
* The zombie scene freaks me the hell out. I'm seriously going to have nightmares about that. *shudders*
D&D3, I didn't even know there was a second one.
Quote from: "NitzWalsh"D&D3, I didn't even know there was a second one.
Wrath of the Dragon God, a made-for-tv movie, so I don't blame you for not knowing about it I dimly remember it myself.
Quote from: "Plu"I watched Amelie again. It shall remain my favorite film ever for a while longer.
I give it a 10/10. The atmopshere, the characters, the story, all both heartwarming and tear-inducing.
Yeah, "Amalie" is a movie The Rick Copeland should really hate. It's quite cloying and cutsie, the main character has elements that he would hate if they were portrayed by... say Zooey Deschanelle... but it really is a cute, sweet movie. And Audrey Tautou is cute as all get out. C'mon, that bit where you see her through the observation glass waving...
The Rick Copeland is eagerly looking forward to watching the second part of the comedy epic "Atlas Shrugged". Nooooooooo!
Quote from: "NitzWalsh"I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.
The Rick Copeland hasn't see that since it was in theaters. He never cared for ST:TNG and had no real knowledge of the Borg before the movie. He recalled thinking the movie was ok, but that the Borg were kinda dull. Somewhat like Jehovas's Witnesses.... But with that cool cube spaceship thing....
Quote from: "Aroura33"Tucker and Dale vs Evil. 8/10
Surprisingly funny. I laughed a lot during the first half, hard enough to almost fall off the couch. The second half was a little slower on the laughs, but still good.
I would totally recommend this to anyone with a dark sense of humor.
"Tucker and Dale vs Evil" is worth watching just for the best scene ever involving a chainsaw and bees...
Quote from: "rickcopeland648"The Rick Copeland is eagerly looking forward to watching the second part of the comedy epic "Atlas Shrugged". Nooooooooo!
They're really going to do the second part? Who is funding the thing? Part one was a box office bomb (it didn't even play in local theaters here), and what producer would want to build on that?
Not to say I didn't half way enjoy the first part. I would categorize it as "so so Sci Fi". If you think of it that way, the stupidity of the central message can be overlooked. I'm actually looking forward to see how Hollywood recreates the secret Utopian society hidden away in the Colorado mountains. I've always pictured that as a bunch of eccentric rich guys living in 1700 hundreds village that looks like early Salem Massachusetts.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "rickcopeland648"The Rick Copeland is eagerly looking forward to watching the second part of the comedy epic "Atlas Shrugged". Nooooooooo!
Quote from: "SGOS"They're really going to do the second part? Who is funding the thing? Part one was a box office bomb (it didn't even play in local theaters here), and what producer would want to build on that?
What do you mean "going to"? Brother, they already did it. It's out on video now.
The Rick Copeland hopes they make the third part. He also hopes the last forty or so minutes consists solely of a radio playing a speech. Sweeeeeet...
Quote from: "rickcopeland648"What do you mean "going to"? Brother, they already did it. It's out on video now.
I better get a move on then. Hell, it hasn't even shown up on Netflix new releases page. Course, none do until the interesed core group of fans have finished renting them. Or maybe they only have one disk to rent out.
QuoteThe Rick Copeland hopes they make the third part. He also hopes the last forty or so minutes consists solely of a radio playing a speech. Sweeeeeet...
I think I skipped the speech when I read the book. I probably started it, but lost interest. I vaguely remember a speech at the end of the book. As I recall reading somewhere, Ayn Rand's publisher didn't want to put the speech in the book, but Rand threw a hissy fit, so he left it in.
Atlas Shrugged Part III is set for release on July 4, 2014.
Quote from: "SGOS"I better get a move on then.
Yes you should. The first installment is required viewing for lovers of cheesey, bad movie making. The Rick Copeland is hoping the second is at least as good...
Quote from: "SGOS"I think I skipped the speech when I read the book. I probably started it, but lost interest. I vaguely remember a speech at the end of the book.
Yeah, it's a pretty dull seventy page (?) speech that only beats the reader up with a point she had already made countess times thoughout the book. Kinda like the end of a He-Man episode where it wasn't enough for the silly moral to be obvious. At the end He-Man had to come out and tell the viewer to be themselves, or eat their greens, or some other shit.
Quote from: "SGOS"As I recall reading somewhere, Ayn Rand's publisher didn't want to put the speech in the book, but Rand threw a hissy fit, so he left it in.
And with those gapped teeth and bug eyes she was probably a sight to behold...
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Atlas Shrugged Part III is set for release on July 4, 2014.
Does it have the same cast as the second part or are they going to change it again? The Rick Copeland hopes they shit can everyone again and replace them with an all midget cast, or people with Down Syndrome. That would be amazing...
Quote from: "rickcopeland648"Does it have the same cast as the second part or are they going to change it again?
I don't know. Wikipedia didn't say. Even if it did, it would likely be subject to change by the time it got in front of a camera. These movies are the pinnacle of a vanity project and that they keep making them when the previous one just doesn't make any money is ridiculous.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"These movies are the pinnacle of a vanity project and that they keep making them when the previous one just doesn't make any money is ridiculous.
It's almost like they were made by someone who didn't understand how capitalism works. :P
The Brady Bunch is due for a remake... I'm guessing in a Twilight series based on a Star Trek episode inspired by John Denver of Gilligan's Island starring Justin Bieber as Greg.. :roll:
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "the_antithesis"These movies are the pinnacle of a vanity project and that they keep making them when the previous one just doesn't make any money is ridiculous.
It's almost like they were made by someone who didn't understand how capitalism works. :P
:rollin:
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "rickcopeland648"Does it have the same cast as the second part or are they going to change it again?
I don't know. Wikipedia didn't say. Even if it did, it would likely be subject to change by the time it got in front of a camera. These movies are the pinnacle of a vanity project and that they keep making them when the previous one just doesn't make any money is ridiculous.
Yeah, but The Rick Copeland has to admit that if he were a gaziliionaire he'd finance a shot-by-shot re-make of all three of them. Maybe with the all wee folk or Down Syndrome cast... Or maybe Down Syndrome wee folk...
But it is funny when you make a movie extolling the free market andthe free market tells you to fuck off..
End of Watch - It was intense, and as always I Jake Gylenhoweveryouspellit is awesome.
Final Grade: B+
Going to watch the LotR movies for the first time, I'll tell y'all what I think.
Cloud Atlas - 9/10
Very good movie, complex.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Going to watch the LotR movies for the first time, I'll tell y'all what I think.
Really??? You seem to watch about everything.
Planet Hulk
6/10 - slightly entertaining. Gimmicky characters and story; traditional Marvel.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Quote from: "Shiranu"Going to watch the LotR movies for the first time, I'll tell y'all what I think.
Really??? You seem to watch about everything.
Oddly enough, I didn't really watch movies till about a year and a half ago (I would see them in the theatre from time to time, but not buy any). I've just recently started liking movies, and generally watch at least one or two a week to try and catch up with the rest of the world.
LotR: The Fellowship of the Rings-Since it is the first in a series, I will cut it some slack. I never felt like any scene just went on for too long.
-I found the soundtrack and scenery very awesome, from the peaceful Shire to the awesome Dwarf ruins and the two statues on the river whom's names I cannot remember.
-I didn't find myself hating any of the main characters, which is rare. Don't learn too much about some of them, so that could change though. Even the "bad" fellowship member's "badness" is understandable, given he wants to protect his people.
-The fight involving the fellowship along the river is awesome, and I love how much of a bad ass Sean Bean is in it near the end.
-The Dwarf city fight is also bad ass.
Con:
-How did Gandolf teleport through the roof of Isengard?
-Why don't they just use birds to fly to Morodor (besides the obvious; they are just too badass)?
-Why is Agent Smith high as fuck, thinking he is an elf and shit?
-Is Frodo a moron? Like, "HEY GUIZ, I HAZ DIS RING, ANYONE WANT IT!?!?!". What about, "This ring will tempt and destroy people" are you having such a fucking hard time understanding?
Overall, I give it an 8.75 out of 10.
LotR: The Two Towers-Gandolf the White is bad ass, even if it feels like a Jesus reference.
-Helm's Deep is bad ass.
-The Ente's are funny and bad ass, even if the Isengard battle is too short.
-The scene with the King of Rohan and Wormtongue was bad ass.
-Sam's speech at the end of the movie is bad ass.
-Arwen's speech with her father and his responses are bad ass.
-This movie is bad ass.
-And again, the scenery and the music is bad ass.
Cons:
-Gandolf, Arragon... the whole, "OMG THEY ARE DEAD!!! LOLJK!" is kinda annoying and predictable. But oh well.
-I don't know if Faramir dies at the end, or they mean his life is forfeit in that he loses his title, right to live in Gondor, etc. and that annoys me.
Overall, I give it a 9.40 out of 10.
Quote from: "Shiranu"-How did Gandolf teleport through the roof of Isengard?
-Why don't they just use birds to fly to Morodor (besides the obvious; they are just too badass)?
-Why is Agent Smith high as fuck, thinking he is an elf and shit?
-Is Frodo a moron? Like, "HEY GUIZ, I HAZ DIS RING, ANYONE WANT IT!?!?!". What about, "This ring will tempt and destroy people" are you having such a fucking hard time understanding?
1) Magic 2) They'd be easily spotted and killed. The idea with the hobbits is to sneak the ring in. 3) A glitch in the Matrix 4) Yeah, they're idiots. And the ring seems to grant emo powers more than anything else.
Quote from: "Shiranu"-How did Gandolf teleport through the roof of Isengard?
The Rick Copeland knows what you mean. It's almost as if Gandalf is a wizard or some shit...
Hobbit.
Family bought it for me as a gift since I loved Lord of the Rings.
erm.......... count me a little disappointed in Hobbit. Not sure why.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Hobbit.
Family bought it for me as a gift since I loved Lord of the Rings.
erm.......... count me a little disappointed in Hobbit. Not sure why.
Perhaps because it's mostly set-up. The Rick Copeland has noticed many who thought "The Hobbit" was dull didn't care for the extended versions of the LotR movies either...
Quote from: "rickcopeland648"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Hobbit.
Family bought it for me as a gift since I loved Lord of the Rings.
erm.......... count me a little disappointed in Hobbit. Not sure why.
Perhaps because it's mostly set-up. The Rick Copeland has noticed many who thought "The Hobbit" was dull didn't care for the extended versions of the LotR movies either...
Watched it at home and fairly certain I must have fallen asleep on and off during the movie. Eegads - that's saying a lot for me. I'm a lover of LOTR. LOL
Dunno......Hobbit seemed too predictable, too easy, and kinda dragged along..... Insert darkness wish to take over middle earth, hobbit and company flee protected by sometimes ineffective wizard (?) WTF is that? So.....*yawn* yeah
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Hobbit seemed too predictable, too easy, and kinda dragged along.....
Right, but keep in mind the source material is closer to a kids/ young adult audience and format...
As far as prdictable goes.... You'll be shocked to find out Bilbo kills Smaug...
Quote from: "rickcopeland648"Right, but keep in mind the source material is closer to a kids/ young adult audience and format...
As far as prdictable goes.... You'll be shocked to find out Bilbo kills Smaug...
Maybe I was asleep? I honestly have to watch it again. I wish it wasn't 3 hours long. Afraid I'll fall asleep again.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Hobbit.
erm.......... count me a little disappointed in Hobbit. Not sure why.
It's hard for me to take hobbits seriously if they aren't in old time Disney cartoon format. I don't know how live actors can be expected to look like Tolkien characters. Gollum is a wonderful character, and the movie did him pretty well, but I imagined a much more revolting and creepy character in the book. I can't remember ever once thinking he might be loveable like he is in the movie.
I'm not one of those intellectual highbrows that continually says, "The book was better than the movie," But every Hobbit and Trilogy movie I've seen falls short of my expectations.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Hobbit.
erm.......... count me a little disappointed in Hobbit. Not sure why.
It's hard for me to take hobbits seriously if they aren't in old time Disney cartoon format. I don't know how live actors can be expected to look like Tolkien characters. Gollum is a wonderful character, and the movie did him pretty well, but I imagined a much more revolting and creepy character in the book. I can't remember ever once thinking he might be loveable like he is in the movie.
I'm not one of those intellectual highbrows that continually says, "The book was better than the movie," But every Hobbit and Trilogy movie I've seen falls short of my expectations.
Might be my problem. But if OUR imaginations are better than what Hollywood can provide - they should hire us. LOL
Searching for Sugarman 10/10
Ordinarily, I wouldn't rent a documentary from Netflix, and they had this film on a long wait or maybe listed it but didn't have it, but my sister pressed me to rent this. I was finally able to rent it from Blockbuster on line. It's a low production value film, perhaps made by amatures, but with an absolutely wonderful story. It's about a little known guitar player/song writer named Sixto Rodriguez from Detroit, Michigan, who during the 60s and 70s, was signed on by a record company that thought he would be the next Bob Dillon, but for some unexplainable reason, neither of his two albums went anywhere so they dropped him, and he fell into obscurity (but not quite). For some reason, even though he never knew it, he achieved a notoriety in South Africa on par with the Beatles.
Nothing was known about him. It was said that he committed suicide on stage during a performance, but there were no news clips about his life and only two pictures of him on his record jackets. A South African journalist spends years trying to find out more information about who he was, but keeps encountering dead ends until he manages to locate one of his daughters. Now, I'm not going to give away the good parts. If you like blues and folk music, just see if you can find the film. Blockbuster has it, and they have a free one month trial, so you can cancel before the month is up, and get some free films besides.
The movie is laced with his songs, often as a kind of background for the commentary, but there is much much more to the story, which I thought was nothing short of stunning and heart warming.
It starts out as just a normal documentary. Some guys who had heard him once or twice at some Detroit bar do the usual and rather ordinary interviews at the beginning. It's bla bla ba about how good he was, and I'm thinking this is going to be another boring documentary about some nobody, but in deference to my sister, I was committed to watching the whole thing. The mystery builds and builds to a splendid and inspiring story, with some good music too.
the wife wanted to watch the last...er......that new age vampire movie thingy....s'okay,, a love scene tween the boy and the girl must wet a few hundred thousand crotches but was pretty mild for a sex scene. She kinda implied that they could simply fuck all the time since they never get tired,, she kinda freaks me out a little. The battle scene was kinda okay...meh.... I give it six beers, cause thats what it took for me to get through it.
Quote from: "aitm"the wife wanted to watch the last...er......that new age vampire movie thingy....s'okay,, a love scene tween the boy and the girl must wet a few hundred thousand crotches but was pretty mild for a sex scene. She kinda implied that they could simply fuck all the time since they never get tired,, she kinda freaks me out a little. The battle scene was kinda okay...meh.... I give it six beers, cause thats what it took for me to get through it.
I gave up on that series after the second one, so I haven't seen it, but Roger Ebert described that sex scene as the longest awated sex scene in movie history. Although, he admitted that it wasn't much.
Quote-Is Frodo a moron? Like, "HEY GUIZ, I HAZ DIS RING, ANYONE WANT IT!?!?!". What about, "This ring will tempt and destroy people" are you having such a fucking hard time understanding?
It doesn't really come across in the movie, but "This ring will tempt and destroy people" is meant to be taken literally. It literally does that. Hence Frodo's occasional dumb-ass moves; it's the ring fucking with his mind.
zero dark thirty- yeah, its that good.
Quote from: "aitm"the wife wanted to watch the last...er......that new age vampire movie thingy....s'okay,, a love scene tween the boy and the girl must wet a few hundred thousand crotches but was pretty mild for a sex scene. She kinda implied that they could simply fuck all the time since they never get tired,, she kinda freaks me out a little. The battle scene was kinda okay...meh.... I give it six beers, cause thats what it took for me to get through it.
You mean sparkly Twilight?
If you actually watched it I'm impressed. Not with the movie but with you for doing that for the wife.
+2 in super hero department
(erm...........cause Twilight sucks. And I even read all the books. ::yawn::)
PS that's not sex - that Tween-Pretend-a-vampire-loves-me-sex
Quote from: "aitm"zero dark thirty- yeah, its that good.
Now That ^ is a story.
Olympus has fallen . 8/10 very good movie .
Life of Pi - 7/10
Finally got around to watching it since it is on Netflix now. I almost expected to hate it, considering what I'd heard about the religious PoV of the move, but I think it actually sits the fence pretty well.
The real story of what happened as he tells it in his hospital bed is heartbreaking.
[spoil:3294rth8]I would think religious folks would have more issues with it, since the moral seemed to be that people should be religious because it's more entertaining than Real Life, not because it's true. I mean honestly, that totally seemed like the point Pi made. So yeah, he basically admits that all religions may be made up, but hey, aren't they good stories?? Honestly, the end only vaguely made any sense at all, though.[/spoil:3294rth8]
Anyway, the story WAS entertaining, and the graphics are well done, so I give it a "recommended".
Quote from: "gussy"Oz the Great and Powerful
If you liked The Phantom Menace you might enjoy this too. They are basically the same film. Prequels to technological and creative masterpieces that use far too much CGI to make up for their dull story and characters.
In retrospect, it is actually much better than The Phantom Menace (what isn't though). There is a Jar Jar life debt type character in the film but he is much more agreeable than Jar Jar. James Franco is what irritates me about the movie. He needs to go back to doing soap operas. Oz really needed to be played by a person that could carry a film on his shoulders and James Franco can't do that. Johnny Depp would have worked and with the money spent to make the movie they should have paid a little more for the central character.
"Teen Treak"... Meh... Nothing particularly engaging... Strictly C+ work...
The Rick Copeland is finally irritated with these things. Why do these movies such as "Star Trek Kids" or any super hero movie feel the need to bring back villains from the tv show/previous movies/ comic books. The Rick Copeland would like for at least one of these movies to give us a new bad guy nobody has seen before...
Gangster Squad 9.5/10
Stellar cast with Ryan Gosling, Josh Brolin, Emma Stone, Sean Penn, and Nick Nolte. It's classic 1949 cops and robbers in comic book format: "You dirty copper, ZAP, WHACK, THUMP, BLAMO. Take him away boys." Scene after scene captured the feeling of panels right out of those old comic books my parent's never let me read.
Neat old classic cars from the 1940s brought back fond memories; Fords and Studebakers for the cops, while the gangsters drove Packards. Shootouts employ a liberal use tommy guns and sawed off shotguns with at least a 32 ounces of lead in the air at any given second. Guys go down doing the 'Tommy Gun Shimmy' as they get riddled with bullets in the true comic book tradition. Love the 1940s blues and jazz music (Chickee Boom Chickee Boom) in the gangster night clubs sung by some dame with bananas and grapes on her head.
Sean Penn is the brutal gangster cornering the crime syndicate in LA (I'm takin' over this town and then the rest of the West Coast), but harassed by cops taking liberties with the law and equally demented themselves: WHACK, THUNK, CRUNCH, "They'll be waiting for you with a lead pipe in Alcatraz, Mickey!"
I'm not usually a fan of crime movies, but this one was a wonderful exception. It was a great bloody, almost satirical film. Everyone was a fantasy tough guy, except for Emma Stone, who gets sexier every time I see her. I'm putting this one in my private collection.
Quote from: "SGOS"Gangster Squad 9.5/10
Stellar cast with Ryan Gosling, Josh Brolin, Emma Stone, Sean Penn, and Nick Nolte. It's classic 1949 cops and robbers in comic book format: "You dirty copper, ZAP, WHACK, THUMP, BLAMO. Take him away boys." Scene after scene captured the feeling of panels right out of those old comic books my parent's never let me read.
Neat old classic cars from the 1940s brought back fond memories; Fords and Studebakers for the cops, while the gangsters drove Packards. Shootouts employ a liberal use tommy guns and sawed off shotguns with at least a 32 ounces of lead in the air at any given second. Guys go down doing the 'Tommy Gun Shimmy' as they get riddled with bullets in the true comic book tradition. Love the 1940s blues and jazz music (Chickee Boom Chickee Boom) in the gangster night clubs sung by some dame with bananas and grapes on her head.
Sean Penn is the brutal gangster cornering the crime syndicate in LA (I'm takin' over this town and then the rest of the West Coast), but harassed by cops taking liberties with the law and equally demented themselves: WHACK, THUNK, CRUNCH, "They'll be waiting for you with a lead pipe in Alcatraz, Mickey!"
I'm not usually a fan of crime movies, but this one was a wonderful exception. It was a great bloody, almost satirical film. Everyone was a fantasy tough guy, except for Emma Stone, who gets sexier every time I see her. I'm putting this one in my private collection.
YAY! Us too. Just rented this from Redbox --- we thought it was fantastic! A bit cheesy but who cares?
Watched Broken City.
(//http://images.redbox.com/Images/EPC/Detail370/5913.jpg)
:sigh:
I'm gonna give it a 4 out of 10 based on some pretty lousy writing. Much too cliche to get the job done. And what a waste with such a good cast. Some pretty big holes in the plot which I assume landed on the editing floor (?)
(//http://images.redbox.com/Images/EPC/Detail370/6067.jpg)
Actually a pretty good flick. I'll give it a 7/10. Great acting and a side of ol Franklin R I didn't know.
The series written or on film I highly recommend is this: The Millennium series consists of three bestselling novels, originally written in Swedish, by the late Stieg Larsson (1954–2004). The two primary characters in the saga are Lisbeth Salander, a woman in her twenties with a photographic memory and poor social skills, and Mikael Blomkvist, an investigative journalist and editor of a magazine called Millennium. Blomkvist, the character, has a history similar to Larsson, the author. Larsson planned the series as having ten installments, but due to his sudden death, only three were completed and published.[1] Those three books are:
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Män som hatar kvinnor, literally, Men who hate women) (2005)
The Girl Who Played with Fire (Flickan som lekte med elden, literally, The girl who played with fire) (2006)
The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest (Luftslottet som sprängdes, literally, The air castle that was blown up) (2007)
Bill
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"[ Image (//http://images.redbox.com/Images/EPC/Detail370/6067.jpg) ]
Actually a pretty good flick. I'll give it a 7/10. Great acting and a side of ol Franklin R I didn't know.
Say, that does look like a pretty good movie.
[youtube:3eneruht]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R898wegx6Y[/youtube:3eneruht]
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"YAY! Us too. Just rented this from Redbox --- we thought it was fantastic! A bit cheesy but who cares?
I think "cheesy" was intentional by the director. In fact for me, it was part of the charm.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
Lazenby owns the action sequences, but not the Bond part. Telly Savalas does an admirable Blowfeld. Diana Rigg is smoking hot.
The middle part drags on for a little too long. The bobseigh chase gives a novel finale, but soon afterwards the film ends all too abrubtly.
7/10
Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
Some of the 007-films turn the formula into a parody of itself. Moonraker and Die Another Day are two later examples, this was the first.
Blowfeld's henchmen laughably fail at being menacing. The fightscene in an Amsterdam elevator is okay. However..the encounter with Bambi and Thumper, and kiddy-sized trikes chasing some stupid looking moonbuggy make the movey more memorable than the first two Bonds, but for the wrong reason. The composite effects (explosions added in post production) are outright crap; probably because the bulk of the budget got swallowed up by Mr Connery's astronomical fee.
5/10
My favorite Connery Bonds: Goldfinger and Thunderball.
Quote from: "Solitary"The series written or on film I highly recommend is this: The Millennium series consists of three bestselling novels, originally written in Swedish, by the late Stieg Larsson (1954–2004). The two primary characters in the saga are Lisbeth Salander, a woman in her twenties with a photographic memory and poor social skills, and Mikael Blomkvist, an investigative journalist and editor of a magazine called Millennium. Blomkvist, the character, has a history similar to Larsson, the author. Larsson planned the series as having ten installments, but due to his sudden death, only three were completed and published.[1] Those three books are:
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Män som hatar kvinnor, literally, Men who hate women) (2005)
The Girl Who Played with Fire (Flickan som lekte med elden, literally, The girl who played with fire) (2006)
The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest (Luftslottet som sprängdes, literally, The air castle that was blown up) (2007)
Bill
Seconded. I recommended this earlier before the forum died. I still think Rooney Mara was the better protagonist (American version) but Noomi Rapace isn't bad either. The Swedish version is being shown every now and then on the Sundance Channel. Very involving story with an intricate plot.
I loved the Swedish version, yet to see the American. I give it a 8.75/10 on a critical scale.
I've always thought of James Bond films in general as satire. They all use the same formula and all have the same ending. Taking them seriously is difficult. I've always enjoyed the more over the top ones (generally starring Roger Moore). The more recent ones have had a more serious tone and I don't think that it helps the series.
The Purge - It was alright. I like the concept, but they went too small with it.
Grade: C-
Quote from: "Notthesun"The Purge - It was alright. I like the concept, but they went too small with it.
Grade: C-
Yeah. A reviewer I watch said the premise had a lot of promise, but instead they simply remade The Strangers, which was a fucking awful movie in the first place.
(//http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk4MzM2NTQ1Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODIyODY1OA@@._V1_SX214_.jpg)
I'm not sure I can take seeing Jason Stathman getting his ass kicked. *shakes head* Noooo! I need him to be the Transporter in Every Movie.
*weeps*
Quote from: "gussy"I've always thought of James Bond films in general as satire. They all use the same formula and all have the same ending. Taking them seriously is difficult. I've always enjoyed the more over the top ones (generally starring Roger Moore). The more recent ones have had a more serious tone and I don't think that it helps the series.
The only reason I like the new Bond films is that I got tired of the same old same old. Unfortunately, when you take out the tongue in cheek spy satire, they're just another spy series of the really same old nature.
Bond was a great franchise but it's seen it's best days. Craig is a good enough Bond, but the new direction leaves me flat.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "gussy"I've always thought of James Bond films in general as satire. They all use the same formula and all have the same ending. Taking them seriously is difficult. I've always enjoyed the more over the top ones (generally starring Roger Moore). The more recent ones have had a more serious tone and I don't think that it helps the series.
The only reason I like the new Bond films is that I got tired of the same old same old. Unfortunately, when you take out the tongue in cheek spy satire, they're just another spy series of the really same old nature.
Bond was a great franchise but it's seen it's best days. Craig is a good enough Bond, but the new direction leaves me flat.
I can't like it without Judy. Can't. She was the best part for years.
*pout*
Saw two movies this week!
This is the End - Well that was sure as hell one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. I loved it so much.
Grade: A-
Man of Steel - This is the Superman movie I had been waiting for. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The action scenes were epic!
Grade: A-
Skyfall ~ 8/10
Cloud Atlas 6/10
Critics basically raved about this one, one saying, "This is not a movie. It's a lifetime cinematic achievement." Well... it was somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it had a point, or at least a point worth remembering. Different strokes for different folks. If artsy fartsy is your thing, go for it.
Quote from: "SGOS"Cloud Atlas 6/10
Critics basically raved about this one, one saying, "This is not a movie. It's a lifetime cinematic achievement." Well... it was somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it had a point, or at least a point worth remembering. Different strokes for different folks. If artsy fartsy is your thing, go for it.
I thought I remembered the critics giving it a, "Meh.". Maybe I am thinking of wrong movie.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "SGOS"Cloud Atlas 6/10
Critics basically raved about this one, one saying, "This is not a movie. It's a lifetime cinematic achievement." Well... it was somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it had a point, or at least a point worth remembering. Different strokes for different folks. If artsy fartsy is your thing, go for it.
I thought I remembered the critics giving it a, "Meh.". Maybe I am thinking of wrong movie.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "SGOS"Cloud Atlas 6/10
Critics basically raved about this one, one saying, "This is not a movie. It's a lifetime cinematic achievement." Well... it was somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it had a point, or at least a point worth remembering. Different strokes for different folks. If artsy fartsy is your thing, go for it.
I thought I remembered the critics giving it a, "Meh.". Maybe I am thinking of wrong movie.
I don't read all the critics. I may have two or three that praised it, and just made assumptions after that. Meh, is a fairly appropriate review, I think. It's not like the movie stunk, and it does have its clever moments, but it was just kind of "Meh".
Man of Steel was awful. There were more holes than there was plot, the exposition was dull, and the only decent characters were Lois Lane and General Zod. It had fun parts, but they were few and far in between, and I'd rather just re-watch Iron Man if I want a fun movie.
A few questions that ran through my mind watching this movie:
[spoil:3aov3zfw]Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? Why is John Kent such a pussy? How come Kryptonian atmosphere fucks up Superman but Earth atmosphere doesn't affect Zod? Why do all these Kryptonians instantly have superman powers without exposure to the sun or breathing Earth's air? How does this scientist know that two colliding Phantom Drives will cause a black hole when he literally first heard about the Phantom Drive two seconds ago? Why do they still need to use the Phantom Drive collision after Superman fucks shit up and stops the World Machine? Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? WHY DOES ZOD WANT LOIS LANE ON THE SHIP?[/spoil:3aov3zfw]
Saw "Oz the Great and Powerful" and "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" over the weekend.
Oz - 5/10. Story was good, especially for an origins story, and the acting was decent but Disney's insane overuse of 3D (didn't even watch in 3D, just saw a lot [a whole lot] of stuff that was supposed to jump off the screen) made the film feel gimmicky. The latest 3D technologies can be used to truly enhance a movie experience ("Avatar," "Star Trek: Into Darkness") but Disney chose to make a what felt like, at times, a cheap 80's 3D movie.
H&G - 6.5/10. Do not expect a great film or an awesome story here. The plot was thin with few twists, what twists it had were badly telegraphed and the acting was meh. The movie's saving grace? They seemed to have spent 1/3 of their budget on fake blood and witch costumes. There's so much gore it could easily be classified as a slasher flick. This one doesn't even aim at horror, misses the cheap scare and goes directly for the gross-out. :-D With a better story and better acting (which we should have gotten from Jeremy Renner & Gemma Arterton) this would have been a great movie.
So I watched that fucking Superman movie and what can I say? As a spectacle, it's awesome. Some of the best fight scenes and use of super powered humans in a movie yet. I believe this one sets the bar and, yes, I have seen the Avengers, mother fucker. I mean, holy shit. Godzilla movies don't have this much destruction. And there are some nice touches, such as how it starts out with Supes only being able to super-leap, like he originally did in the comics, before learning how to actually fly and when the bad guys show up, they also start out leaping. The also do a couple things that I would have though would have looked goofy in live action but they somehow make it work. So marks for them.
The story, however, is a mess. It makes just enough sense to be disappointing that it doesn't hit it out of the park. It doesn't carry much emotional weight but is also trying too hard to be heavy. Lois Lane and the Daily Planet gang were probably not in original drafts of the script because they feel tacked on. If that's the case, I wish they had left them out and used whichever character fulfilled her main role as a plot McGuffin.
[spoil:27cc96p8]Thinking upon it, it would have made sense if Superman's mom played by Diane Lane was in this role where Zod insists she comes on board the ship and Superman slips her that thing that uploads his dad into the ship. There could have been an interesting meeting of the natural father with the adoptive mother. But someone said Lois Lane has to be in the movie, and ruined everything.
In fact, the original story probably had a theme of parenting with Supes not knowing which parents to listen to, and he has two sets of the fucking things, and finally making his own decisions. That might have helped the story immensely. As it is, it feels unfocused.[/spoil:27cc96p8]
So, ultimately, it's a disappointing movie because it reaches for greatness and almost, almost gets it. If they had trimmed the fat and focused the story a little tighter, it would have been everything it could be.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"The latest 3D technologies can be used to truly enhance a movie experience ("Avatar," "Star Trek: Into Darkness") but Disney chose to make a what felt like, at times, a cheap 80's 3D movie.
I was impressed with Avatar in 3D, although maybe it was because it was one of the first I saw in the new 3D format that I was so looking forward to, but since then, I have been marginally impressed (I watched Star Trek in 2D and can't comment).
Incidentally, the trade name for the new 3D is "Real 3D". They had to name it something, and I suppose it sounds more appealing than "Half Assed 3D", which would actually be more accurately descriptive.
Quote from: "SGOS"Incidentally, the trade name for the new 3D is "Real 3D".
Wait. What makes it new?
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "SGOS"Incidentally, the trade name for the new 3D is "Real 3D".
Wait. What makes it new?
I don't know for sure, but I think it's the process used to render it. What I remember in the 50's were movies photographed using double lensed cameras. While that is probably still employed, it doesn't account for the entire process, because they can turn out old movies like the Titanic in 3D. Those movies were filmed with one lens. They must be rendered in 3D by some digital hijinks. By the time Hollywood finishes the process, possibly mixing duo vision and the "hijinks", the final result is not quite right. In fact, every movie I've seen in Real 3D appears to be compromised in some way, at least to my eye.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "SGOS"Incidentally, the trade name for the new 3D is "Real 3D".
Wait. What makes it new?
I don't know for sure, but I think it's the process used to render it. What I remember in the 50's were movies photographed using double lensed cameras. While that is probably still employed, it doesn't account for the entire process, because they can turn out old movies like the Titanic in 3D. Those movies were filmed with one lens. They must be rendered in 3D by some digital hijinks. By the time Hollywood finishes the process, possibly mixing duo vision and the "hijinks", the final result is not quite right. In fact, every movie I've seen in Real 3D appears to be compromised in some way, at least to my eye.
The 3D movies from the 50's were all done post processing. It wasn't until the early 80's that they came up with a method of splitting the image using mirrors to simulate dual lenses. Late in the 90's the first dual lens cameras were produced. The cameras today are far more than just dual lenses. Each lens can swivel and focus independently, mimicking very closely the way stereoscopic vision works. Add to that the huge variety of things that can be done during post-processing and you can get some insanely good and very realistic effects.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "the_antithesis"In fact, every movie I've seen in Real 3D appears to be compromised in some way, at least to my eye.
Well, that's because all 3D stuff is flattened a bit in post. They don't want you to know that, but the illusion of depth is reduced. Know how something like 20% of the population experiences discomfort or worse from viewing 3D? If they didn't do this, everyone would have that problem and they'd have no customers. So they reduce the illusion of depth and most people can tolerate it.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"The 3D movies from the 50's were all done post processing. It wasn't until the early 80's that they came up with a method of splitting the image using mirrors to simulate dual lenses. Late in the 90's the first dual lens cameras were produced. The cameras today are far more than just dual lenses. Each lens can swivel and focus independently, mimicking very closely the way stereoscopic vision works. Add to that the huge variety of things that can be done during post-processing and you can get some insanely good and very realistic effects.
Dual lens 35mm cameras were available through the Montgomery Ward Catalog in the late 50s or early 60s. They produced pictures that were viewed with a personal viewer mostly, but I understand projectors and polarized glasses were also available, but didn't work very well. Antique 3D stereoscopic pictures were around before that. A photographer told me they were taken with double lenses. But I would be interested in reading your sources.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "the_antithesis"In fact, every movie I've seen in Real 3D appears to be compromised in some way, at least to my eye.
Well, that's because all 3D stuff is flattened a bit in post. They don't want you to know that, but the illusion of depth is reduced. Know how something like 20% of the population experiences discomfort or worse from viewing 3D? If they didn't do this, everyone would have that problem and they'd have no customers. So they reduce the illusion of depth and most people can tolerate it.
Yeah. Sometimes I feel like I have to use my imagination to convince myself the movie is really in 3D. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. I don't remember experiencing that with Avatar, where some scenes like flying around the floating mountains took my breath away. I'd love to see that again in 3D to see if it still leaves that impression.
If anyone interested, DarkAntics, (aka DarkMatter2525) notes the Christian overtones of the story. He says he isn't opposed to using Christian imagery, he likes Narnia for example. But, he found it excessively overhanded. And even has anti-evolution messages in it.
[youtube:100701kh]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8633E-bJjww[/youtube:100701kh]
[youtube:100701kh]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceTAd1EuCJg[/youtube:100701kh]
Yeah. The previous Superman series were kind of heavy with the jesus symbolism
"...I have sent them you, my only son."
~ Marlon Brando as Jor-El
I actually noticed the heavy-handed message in that fucking Superman movie, too. They don't just have a christian message. There's also something about depleting our natural resources, as the Kryptonians had tapped the planet's core because all other energy sources had been depleted. Also kind of a pro space exploration footnote as part of the reason Krypton was doomed is they abandoned their space colonies once the eugenics took over. Probably could have found more power sources in fucking space.
Anyway, I probably could have done without the messianic crap because it had been done before. One thing I didn't mind was an off-handed thing Pa Kent said that indicated he was a christian. He's a farmer in Kansas. It's just playing the odds. They didn't beat us over the head with the fact, and I appreciated it. But it makes sense that he would be, and likely would have raised his son to believe in jesus.
I concur, though. It makes the common mistake of equating evolution with eugenics. That's fucking stupid. They are two different things. Like evolution takes away our ability to choose or something. Morons.
I think this is the "depth" to the story, but it's the kind of depth that is teaspoon shallow but the idiotic masses will be impressed by it just the same. It's like how I found The Stand to be boring and dumb, but a lot of people seemed to like it for that stupidity. Not despite the stupidity but because of it because they don't think the stupidity is stupid.
Quote from: "missingnocchi"Man of Steel was awful. There were more holes than there was plot, the exposition was dull, and the only decent characters were Lois Lane and General Zod. It had fun parts, but they were few and far in between, and I'd rather just re-watch Iron Man if I want a fun movie.
A few questions that ran through my mind watching this movie:
[spoil:20h1pk3q]Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? Why is John Kent such a pussy? How come Kryptonian atmosphere fucks up Superman but Earth atmosphere doesn't affect Zod? Why do all these Kryptonians instantly have superman powers without exposure to the sun or breathing Earth's air? How does this scientist know that two colliding Phantom Drives will cause a black hole when he literally first heard about the Phantom Drive two seconds ago? Why do they still need to use the Phantom Drive collision after Superman fucks shit up and stops the World Machine? Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? WHY DOES ZOD WANT LOIS LANE ON THE SHIP?[/spoil:20h1pk3q]
According to Rotten Tomatoes, Man of Steel currently has the biggest box office earnings, but gets only 56% from movie goers. I guess people are going, because, well, it's Superman, but in general, they aren't liking it that much.
Quote from: "SGOS"According to Rotten Tomatoes, Man of Steel currently has the biggest box office earnings, but gets only 56% from movie goers. I guess people are going, because, well, it's Superman, but in general, they aren't liking it that much.
No, that 56% is percent of reviewers that liked it, not the public movie goes. MoS has a grade A on Cinamscore, if I recall correctly.
Edit: Correction, A- on Cinamascore. Thus moviegoes are generally happy.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Quote from: "SGOS"According to Rotten Tomatoes, Man of Steel currently has the biggest box office earnings, but gets only 56% from movie goers. I guess people are going, because, well, it's Superman, but in general, they aren't liking it that much.
No, that 56% is percent of reviewers that liked it, not the public movie goes. MoS has a grade A on Cinamscore, if I recall correctly.
Edit: Correction, A- on Cinamascore. Thus moviegoes are generally happy.
Thanks. I think I need a new source for deciding on which movies to see.
The audience rating on that fucking Superman movie is 82%.
Man of Steel - I loved this movie, every minute of it, right down to the cheesy lines delivered with melodramatic overkill. I laughed a lot and left the theater smiling. Not much plot here and no deep meaning. Some of the fight scenes were astonishingly destructive and made combat in the Transformers seem like some 4 year old playing with his action figure set. These characters really duke it out leaving cities in devastating post apocalyptic ruins, which has been pointed out earlier in this thread as "setting a new bar" for superhero movies. I'm cautious about ever giving a movie a "10" because that's like saying it was a perfect movie, and I'm not a big fan of shaky cam filming, so I can take something off there. I'll just say it was way better than 9. :-D
World War Z - It was fun and suspenseful. Honestly, humans are idiots.
Grade: B-
I realy want to see WWZ, I even got the book recently and read it, just to compare.
I also want to see Man of Steel and make my own judgements, but the reviews here have given me very mixed feelings, and I think I will wait to see it now, instead of dishing out dough to see it in theaters.
Saw Craigslist Joe on Netflix last night. 4/10. Really dull. Plot: Guy decides to see if he can travel the US for free using only Craigslist. Has very few interesting things happen to him along the way. Only plus was seeing the artsy/hippie culture thriving and still paying it forward. The movie itself almost put me to sleep, though.
The TV series "24" is good. Never heard about it before, but I'm picking it up on Amazon Prime. I've just finished an engrossing 1st season, comprised of 24 episodes, each devoted to 1 hour of real time in a 24 hour day. You wouldn't think they could make that format work, but I've been on the edge of my seat for the last week. The tension for the first half of the season was almost unbearable. I was actually relieved when things slowed down a bit midway. There are flaws here and there, but forgivable. It got a bit melodramatic at the very end. It's a good way to get glued to the TV screen. I'm not going to start Season Two right away. I'm going to give my heart a rest and watch a couple of romantic comedies I got from Red Box next.
Has anyone seen World War Z yet?
Xenu - Yes. I posted my grade above.
@Aroura33 OMFG, NO! You need to see Man of Steel in theaters. The spectacular action scenes alone are worth the price of the ticket.
Step Up, Revolution
I liked this 4th in the series, as I have the others in the Step Up franchise (the third one didn't do much for me). Don't bother unless you have a quirky interest in street dancing, like I do. I just like watching the dance and choreography. The story line is the same story line in all of them, and I have to say it's actually pathetic. New girl moves into the neighborhood. She is studying classical dance at an upscale school, or trying to break into quality dance group, meets this guy from the "hood" and takes her talents to the street, usually managing to alarm her parents in the process. Of course, society is outraged by the basically harmless antics of these good hearted, but somewhat delinquent looking street kids. Together they end up saving society from some evil wrong by dancing. Yep dancing. It's always the same, just a few new characters in a different place.
Now before you stick your finger down your throat, I know how this must sound, but it helps me understand why some people like to go see crappy musicals strung together by a pointless plot intended to connect the shitty songs together. You know how the dialog goes along, something gets almost interesting, and suddenly for no apparent reason, the cast breaks out in song. WTF?? Well I like to watch street dancing.
"Iron Man 3": More summer meh. It takes all of three to five minutes to figure out who the bad guy really is and once you get it you really want to see more of Ben Kingsley, who i fantastic as this Asian/ middle American/ Middle Eastern/ British "bad guy" Worth seeing for his performance alone, the movie ends with a large amount of ass kickery that is, in the end, surprisingly uninvolving and uninteresting. And the small amount of ass kicking Gwtneth Paltrow was still far too much. Great: C+/ C... Probably a C+ for Kingsley, who's always great... And for Downey telling the kid to quit being a pussy...
Rocky. It's old but I love it
This Is the End 3/10
Apparently quite a few like it, but I think I can safely day this is a monumentally unimportant film. It's sophomoric to the max and intended to be so. I even like some sophomoric movies. But aside from an occasional funny line, there's not much to applaud here.
Warm Bodies - It was fun to watch. Not really a zombie movie though.
Grade: B
Beautiful Creatures 7/10
Looney Christians, spell casters, magic, good and evil, or as they say in the film, "the light vs. the darkness." I liked this movie. It's fantasy, sometimes serious, but still a lot of fun. It's a story of teenage love between a mortal and one of the "others". The first half really kept me interested, and the second half slows down just enough to knock off a point. Not slow enough to come anywhere near boring, just slows down a bit. It does end in a climax, but the first part was more fun. I think some atheists might enjoy this movie.
'Man Of Steel', probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Kevin Costner, Russell Crow and a multitude of big names, a huge budget but,....... no real story, no real content, bad acting, bad script, and the worst directing in history. If you want an example of how NOT to make a big budget film, this is it.
They tried to use a device of flash backs to give the story depth, but all they did was confuse and blur ANY possiblity of cohession and story continuity. Not good,....not good at all!!!!!!
Quote from: "mykcob4"'Man Of Steel', probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Kevin Costner, Russell Crow and a multitude of big names, a huge budget but,....... no real story, no real content, bad acting, bad script, and the worst directing in history. If you want an example of how NOT to make a big budget film, this is it.
They tried to use a device of flash backs to give the story depth, but all they did was confuse and blur ANY possiblity of cohession and story continuity. Not good,....not good at all!!!!!!
Yeah. One critic said that about halfway through the movie, when Supes starts punching the shit out of Zod and his cronies, all the story stuff completely stops. They were building up stuff during the first half of the movie but that all just goes away during the second half. Maybe that build up wouldn't seem so empty and pretentious if it actually informed the punching later, but it doesn't so it does.
I did like one bit
[spoil:356v8evh]When Supes is destroying some machine that would help Zod rebuild Krypton on Earth, Zod begs him to stop saying they can rebuild Krypton or something... It sounded better in the movie. Supes pauses, like he's mulling over the choice and then says "Krypton had its chance." and goes back to wrecking shit. I appreciated this moment. Pity the rest of the movie didn't have more moments like that.[/spoil:356v8evh]
Man of steel 6/10 .
The Aristocats (girlfriend has never seen it)
8/10
Man of Steel ~ 8.5/10
I thought it was pretty good, with a lot of special effects.
"The Incredible Burt", not a great movie, but it was funny, and I laughed and it was fun...so I give it a 6.5
Whelp, the reviews of Lone Ranger are in and it looks like bad movies run in the family. (One internet to the first person to get that reference)
As such, I am now draw to go see it since I have a day off anyway and it's got that kind of train wreck magnetism. Although, I'm not sure if it's really as hilariously bad as, say, Exorcist II: the Heretic.
I can't help but wonder if this movie would have been better with Depp in the lead as the Ranger and an actual Native American actor as Tonto who was not dressed like a gay burlesque performer. I don't know if that would have worked, even with a different, better script after watching Depp play serious in the awful and forgettable Public Enemy. When doing serious roles, Depp turn into wood. Lebanese poplar, if I know my lumber. He just kind of stares into the middle distance because he's used to ooze charisma by just standing there chewing gum (see the TV show 21 Jumpstreet). Well, he's getting old and can't coast on his youthful good looks anymore. Too bad that's what his skill set relies upon. Yet he still makes money and there are people who actually think he's a good actor. I'm reminded of the piano player Ernie in Catcher In the Rye.
QuoteI'm not too sure what the name of the song was that he was playing when I came in, but whatever it was, he was really stinking it up. He was putting all these dumb, show-offy ripples in the high notes, and a lot of other very tricky stuff that gives me a pain in the ass. You should've heard the crowd, though, when he was finished. You would've puked. They went mad. They were exactly the same morons that laugh like hyenas in the movies at stuff that isn't funny. I swear to God, if I were a piano player or an actor or something and all those dopes thought I was terrific, I'd hate it. I wouldn't even want them to clap for me. People always clap for the wrong things. If I were a piano player, I'd play it in the goddam closet. Anyway, when he was finished, and everybody was clapping their heads off, old Ernie turned around on his stool and gave this very phony, humble bow. Like as if he was a helluva humble guy, besides being a terrific piano player. It was very phony--I mean him being such a big snob and all. In a funny way, though, I felt sort of sorry for him when he was finished. I don't even think he knows any more when he's playing right or not. It isn't all his fault. I partly blame all those dopes that clap their heads off--they'd foul up anybody, if you gave them a chance.
He doesn't know he's terrible because people keep telling him he's good. This is part of the reason why I don't make Youtube videos reviewing thirty year old video games. That and I'm pretty sure my voice is the brown noise.
So, yeah. Depp is terrible. Can't speak for Arm & Hammer Baking Soda. He might be a decent enough actor whose career will not recover from this. But these Disney action-adventure movies have been grating on me for a while now. I really hate Pirates. I hated Depp in that movie. I was expecting a swashbuckler and I got the foppish town drunk. The first sequel was better because it built on small things hinted at in the previous movie. But overall, they're just cynical crowd pleasers. They offer nothing deep or interesting, but they get asses in seats. That's all they really need to do, I suppose. Maybe turning Capt. Sparrow into a effeminate drunk was part of the plan, to not give us what we were expecting. To turn the genre on it's head. So they turned the Lone Ranger into a bumbling buffoon because they had already done the gay town drunk and made Tonto the real brains of the outfit. What next? Sherlock Holmes?
Oh, wait.
[youtube:1w58axjy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqCchr9KTMk[/youtube:1w58axjy]
Difference is, this movie is actually enjoyable.
I hear it is an extremely random movie that, at one second is a family movie... the next a guy is having his heart ripped out and eaten infront of him. I think that might be part of the reason it has taken a hit from critics, because alot of people went in thinking it was just a normal family movie.
Quote from: "Shiranu"I hear it is an extremely random movie that, at one second is a family movie... the next a guy is having his heart ripped out and eaten infront of him. I think that might be part of the reason it has taken a hit from critics, because alot of people went in thinking it was just a normal family movie.
Yeah. They added some Wendigo stuff, apparently. (still hemming and hawing about seeing it. Maybe later) It does seem a bit much. Certainly out of the tone of PotC which this is no doubt trying to hit the same notes. Although PotC did have undead and some stuff that was probably a bit much for kids. Maybe cannibalism is not the same as undead rotting corpses. Maybe you can gloss over implied rape with trays of cakes, too.
Monster's University - It was predictable (It's a prequel), yet full of heart and honest. I enjoyed it. While nowhere near Pixar's best, it is a nice piece of the collection.
Grade: B+
The Call - Halle Berry's latest movie. It had me watching but it wasn't really all that good.
Grade: C-
The Lone Ranger
The printer drivers on my laptop had become corrupted or something so I spent the day arguing with it trying to uninstall the old one so I could reinstall it. Last time I installed it, the driver from their website didn't work at all, but the boot disk that originally came with the printer did. But I forgot where I put it and tore apart my room trying to find it and eventually found it and it didn't work but I tried really, really uninstalling the old one and then the uninstall froze, so I rebooted the computer. I got it uninstalled and tried the download and the install froze. Hours of this shit. I finally got it to work, so I decided to take my aggression out on a bad movie. I knew Lone Ranger was still playing, so I went and well, where to begin?
Let me ask you a question: is Mask of Zorro still considered a good movie? Because that's the movie I'm reminded most of at this point. The more I think of it, the more I'm reminded. Both are modern versions of old characters that really haven't been very popular in decades. Both have an old west setting. Both take gross liberties with the original character. Both have cast a sidekick who is the completely wrong ethnicity to play the role. Both have a complicated plot that involve the bad guy doing some mining on the sly for personal gain, a personal vendetta with the #2 villain due to the main character's brother's murder. Both #2 villains have taken to cannibalism based on some ancient superstition about consuming the flesh of another means you gain their power. Both have a morally compromised US Cavalryman as if Dances With Wolves lost his moral compass and joined the bad guy. Both have spectacular set piece action scenes that involve cart rails and the main bad guy falling to his death or something similar, either falling with his ill-gotten ore of having it land on top of him, preferably both to be all ironic and shit. I'm actually kind of surprised how many similarities there are between these two movies. I suspect the writing team sat down with a bunch of DVDs and Mask of Zorro was the one during which they took the most notes.
That said, it doesn't feel like a complete rip-off of Mask of Zorro. It's not a note-for-note retread and there's enough different that it really didn't hit me how similar they were until I was driving home. There are a lot of problems with Lone Ranger, but I think it's unfair is Zorro gets a pass on the same fucking shit. Has that much changed in fifteen years? Maybe. Eddie Murphy got a lot of shit for his Asian character in Norbit, but twenty years earlier, that shit was hilarious in his stand up. How times change.
One difference I can think of is Mask of Zorro wasn't named "The Lone Ranger." Not because they had different character. What I mean is it wasn't called "Zorro." The words "Mask of" says this is
a Zorro story, not
the Zorro story. The title "Lone Ranger" indicates this is a definitive version of the character. I wonder if Lone Ranger would be getting as much heat if it was called Mask of the Lone Ranger.
I said there were problems with Lone Ranger and the big one is the framing device they used, set in 1932 San Francisco where a little kid dressed as the Lone Ranger circa 1950 (because the Lone Ranger looked like this (//http://www.nypost.com/r/nypost/2013/07/02/pulse/web_photos/MBDLORAEC015063714--525x400.jpg) in 1932) goes into a wild west exhibit and in a diorama next to a stuffed buffalo is an elderly Tonto who is supposedly telling the kid this story. This framing device is bad. Bad, bad, bad. The movie would lose nothing but it's padded running time if it were cut. Well, it would lose one thing: Tonto begins his tale when he and the Ranger rob a bank. This is set up that pays off later when it's revealed why they are robbing a bank and what they actually take from the bank and why. This set up and pay off is pretty good, but it should have been achieved without this framing device because it still doesn't justify the annoying kid and the even more annoying elderly Tonto.
Despite what you may have heard that Armie Hammer's John Reid/Lone Ranger takes a back seat to Tonto, I think they're on fairly equal footing. Or maybe, the backstory is mostly Tonto while the current story is all about Reid. Hammer does a decent enough job as a guy who is in no way cut out for this kind of thing. I don't know if I'd call him a great talent or even memorable. He's a generic Hollywood handsome guy who's competent but nothing special.
But that could be because the script doesn't give him a lot to work with. He plays the bookish DA and brother to a Texas Ranger whose wife he still has a thing for and the feeling is mutual, and the brother knows it, so the dying wish "take care of her for me" is a shock to no one. More shocking is his death and resurrection with Tonto filling his head with mumbo jumbo about it not being possible for him to be killed and a white "spirit horse" that has a mind of its own, like Gus the wonder mule. All of this gets thrust upon him while he tries to get revenge for his brother by bringing the murder to justice like a good little DA until he learns how deep this corruption goes and why.
The elephant in the room is, naturally, Johnny Depp as Tonto. When I had first heard he was cast in the role, I rolled my eyes at how bad this was going to be. Then I saw the pictures of him in his make-up and I was dumbstruck because it looked even worse than I imagined. Finding out that this look is based on a painting (//http://cbsjackontheweb.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/original.jpg) really doesn't help how silly it looks. I don't care if Depp's claims to a Native American heritage are true or not. He's an American. Of course he has a little in him. Fuck, I'm part Seneca. A very small piece and I wouldn't even bother trying to pretend I could pass myself off as one in a fucking movie. Especially since there are no doubt tons, TONS of actors who are more than 1/32 Native American who could do the part.
The other problem with Depp is during the pre-release hype he said some stupid shit about redressing the injustices visited upon Native Americans by Jay Silverheels's portrayal of the character on TV.
Quote from: "Johnny Depp"I started thinking about Tonto and what could be done in my own small way to...
"Eliminate" isn't possible - but reinvent the relationship, to attempt to take some of the ugliness thrown on the Native Americans, not only in The Lone Ranger, but the way Indians were treated throughout history of cinema, and turn it on its head.
Frankly, I found his portrayal to be just as racist as any. He spoke a kind of broken English that reminded me of the SNL skit As World Turn (//https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OItGmJ9nAXk). I really didn't find it a very progressive portrayal.
That said, the quote above refers to the relationship between the Ranger and Tonto. I really don't know what their relationship used to be. I don't think I ever watched any reruns of the show. Maybe once when I was like five years old. Most I know about it comes from Bill Cosby (//https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzJ8cCU0nX4). The gist, as I gather, is that Tonto acted like a manservant or employee. This works in Green Hornet, where Kato is literally his chauffeur. But how much does the Ranger pay Tonto? None of that is here. The Ranger and Tonto are largely equal who often work to cross purposes with one another. Twice the Ranger keeps him from killing a bad guy, only to regret it later. Most of Tonto's story takes place in flashback where he made a deal with the bad guys and they wiped out his village as a result. He's taken it into his head that the bad guys were mystical creatures and that a spirit walker, someone who comes back from the dead, will help him. So naturally when the Ranger comes back from the dead with the help of a mystical white horse-- long story-- , he assumes this is the guy, but is disappointed since he'd seen that guy in action during the opening action set piece and would have rather had the brother.
So, we got a lot of stuff working here is a plot of conspiracy and stuff, that really isn't hard to figure out how the big bad is when he first shows up on screen, but it's a decent enough plot that tied the origins of the Ranger and Tonto together, even though both stories are decades apart. Tonto's story had been going on for a long time and his sanity is questionable and he's just ready to finish it while the Ranger's story had just begun and he's not ready to do what needs to be done just yet and these two guys alternatively help each other and get in each others' way while learn just how deep this rabbit hole goes.
So, uh, yeah. As much as I wanted to hate this movie, I really couldn't find it in me to hate it. It's not a great movie, but I enjoyed it more than that fucking Superman movie. I guess it depends on whether you still think Mask of Zorro was any good, or if you think it would have been just as good without Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta Jones.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"So, uh, yeah. As much as I wanted to hate this movie, I really couldn't find it in me to hate it. It's not a great movie, but I enjoyed it more than that fucking Superman movie. I guess it depends on whether you still think Mask of Zorro was any good, or if you think it would have been just as good without Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta Jones.
Strange that you would want to spend money to see a movie that you walked in wanting to hate....
Haven't seen Lone Ranger. Saw Zorro. I remember I enjoyed it and Jones was hot, but, long forgot any plot details.
World War Z: C+
Took my teen daughter to see it over the weekend... some minor spoilers:
Not saying anything anyone doesn't already know, but the only thing this movie had in common with the Max Brooks novel was: A) The title, and B) it had zombies. That's it. I knew this going in, so vowed to view it independent of the book.
Typical summer blockbuster fare: lots of special effects, explosions, etc. Not a lot of plot or character development. Not an awful movie, but not great either. Brad Pitt's character is basically a super-hero, escaping one close call after another. It gets harder to swallow as the movie goes on. Why not just cast Schwarzenegger in the role? Characters do and say a lot things that don't make sense. Typical movie written and re-written by a committee of Hollywood screen writers, who cannot come up with any original material of their own, but are 100% self-assured they can take someone else's original material and "make it better".
But BY FAR the BIGGEST problem I had was in the opening monologue, Pitt's character opines that the world-wide airline system was the perfect mechanism to spread the disease. But you go on to discover that the infection turns a healthy person into a zombie in a matter of seconds after being bitten. So how would the airlines be able to spread the infection? You'd know if someone was infected because they would turn into a zombie before they even cleared security or the trip to the airport, for that matter. This made NO SENSE; there is no way a virus that acted that quickly would be able to spread around the world - it would be too easy to identify carriers and contain it.
In a lot of ways, it reminded me of "28 Days Later": fast zombies, instant infection, world collapses overnight, etc.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Strange that you would want to spend money to see a movie that you walked in wanting to hate....
It's like punching a pillow that looks like your ex as a stress reliever.
The Adjustment Bureau - 3/10
I give it a 3 for the acting, and for a semi original story (though it reminds me a bit of a new Twilight Zone episode). Other than that it is just bad, bad, and stupid.
Spoilers ahead.
It attempts to have deep meaning, but fails on every level. I think the point the movie is trying to make by the end is that humans can express freewill, and change Gods plan if they are willing to sacrifice and/or work hard for that change. The problem is that the movie contradicts itself on both of these points.
It is shown, and even told to the main character by one of the agents, aka angels, that there is a grand plan and that everyone and everything is included in it, down to minute details. Historically, the Chairman (aka God), has let humanity have freewill in the past, and humanity created the dark ages (which God kindly rectified with the renaissance), and WW1, WW2, and almost WW3, which God also stopped BTW.
While Gods plan is in action, if anyone does anything that remotely interferes with it, angels will come and make adjustments to get it back on track, and those adjustments include CHANGING THE WAY A HUMAN THINKS in order to fit back in with Gods plan. This equates to not one once of free will or choice.
At the same time, they try and throw in this wrench of "random chance". The main characters mother was killed, not according to Gods plan, but just by random chance. Note that they call it that, random chance, and not free will when talking about it. This is a problem inside the movie premise for so many obvious reasons, the biggest being that the "Chairman" is not all seeing OR all powerful, even though it is implied both earlier and later in the movie that he is both.
By the end of the movie, they tell us that these 2 people have shown such love and dedication to each other, and willingness to sacrifice for each other, that God, sorry I mean the Chairman, has decided to change his plan to allow it. Again, the problem here is that it is explained to the audience AND to the main character earlier in the movie that the reason these two people are so connected, and so drawn to each other, is that in all earlier versions of "The Plan", from the moment of each of their births they are meant to be together for life! God has designed it for these 2 people to fall in love, marry, and spend their lives together and everything was aiming them at this until, in 2005 for no reason at all given in the movie, the plan is changed and they are no longer allowed to be together. This isn't choice, they have been designed their entire life to react the way they are, this is NOT CHOICE.
One angel lies to them and tells them it will ruin both their dreams if they stay together (and that succeeds in keeping them apart for a time), but that is revealed by another angel as a lie, and NO REAL REASON FOR THE CHANGE is EVER given! Maybe God is just a dick and wants to see what will happen when he changes his plan? And why does he ever need to change the plan anyway? Ever? It makes no sense.
Also, the magic hats that the angels have to wear to use their powers (and that angels cannot do magic in the rain?? Or underwater??). I dock the movie 5 whole points just for this extremely retarded plot device.
I know this is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, but really it isn't at all, not even loosely. They have NOTHING in common except that there are non-human human-looking creatures that adjust things in our world. What they are, how and why they do it, and everything about the main characters are totally different.
Overall, if you see this movie for free on Netflix and the trailer looks interesting, you are wrong. You will be more entertained watching commercials or a Tyler Perry movie.
I give this movie 3-1/2 thumbs down.
I watched 12.45678 minutes of "Les Miserables". It is a musical.....so they say...kinda mix of opera and a musical,,some musicals have talking, most opera is all singing, so for the 12.45678 minutes I saw it was all singing,, not good mind you, actually pretty fuckin awful...really awful....stinkin. But I gave it a chance..all in all it is worthy of a number that must be adjusted for your like of musicals against your like of trying to be good actors acting good but unable to sing a fuckin lick, and bad acting against not being able to sing a fuckin lick. Somewhere in the movie I was assured it was going to get good, but I couldn't take the chance that I would not kill myself before I saw that part so I had to quit early. I almost regret not seeing the rest of it if only I had thought I might not kill myself, but the urge was too great... I would give it a score but that might make some of you want to see it and then you might blame me...fuck you!
For Your Eyes Only.
Welcome departure from Moonraker's goofyness. The storyline is thin and filled with holes, like a slice of swiss cheese, but the stunts are top-notch (ever since the Moore days, Eon productions kept raising the bar on stunts, from Live And Let Die's crocodile-walk to Casino Royale's parcour-chase). The carchase with the yellow Citroën 2cV is a classic. Probably Moore's best 007 preformance.
8/10
Quote from: "aitm"I watched 12.45678 minutes of "Les Miserables". It is a musical.....so they say...kinda mix of opera and a musical,,some musicals have talking, most opera is all singing, so for the 12.45678 minutes I saw it was all singing,, not good mind you, actually pretty fuckin awful...really awful....stinkin. But I gave it a chance..all in all it is worthy of a number that must be adjusted for your like of musicals against your like of trying to be good actors acting good but unable to sing a fuckin lick, and bad acting against not being able to sing a fuckin lick. Somewhere in the movie I was assured it was going to get good, but I couldn't take the chance that I would not kill myself before I saw that part so I had to quit early. I almost regret not seeing the rest of it if only I had thought I might not kill myself, but the urge was too great... I would give it a score but that might make some of you want to see it and then you might blame me...fuck you!
I really don't like musicals, except for the Blues Brothers. When I was a little kid, my friend and I would go to the Saturday matinee for a great time. Once we thought we were going to see a western named Oklahoma. It was OK until they broke out in their first song. Man I was bummed. I probably went unknowingly to 5 movies that turned out to be wretched musicals. When I would discover what I had paid my quarter for, I would get a lump in my stomach. You know the kind of lump you get when your dog dies. :-&
Pacific Rim 6/10
I didn't think it was a very good movie, but if you still haven't had enough of the Transformers after the third sequel, you may like this. It's clearly a Transformers inspired film, but without the humor. The Transformer like things are either robots controlled by humans, or gigantic sea monsters that are protoplasm based. There is some visual appeal. The special effects are well done and the sets look very real.
The hero is played by some guy, and he works with the heroine, played by some woman, as they control one robot (it takes two humans to run a robot and the humans must be in a mind meld so they can coordinate the left and right sides of the robot). The long war has become a losing battle against the deadly sea monsters bent on destroying Earth, because, well, that's just the nature of sea monsters. Fighter jets and low altitude bombers have proven to be ineffective. Apparently, the only way to kill a sea monster is in hand to hand combat involving battle cries, and some pre-engagement tough guy bravado that the robots are directed to do before they actually start to fight. I gave it a six because I didn't fall asleep, but I was kind of happy when it ended.
Hmmm... well, since I only saw the first Transformer's and thought it was okay, I might like it then.
Saw 'Loneranger'. It was awful. What native American is going to ever say "perhaps" in the 1880's? Many problems with believabilty, storyline, continuity, and charactor development. The plot was terrible and a sad excuse to base the obvious camp special effects of the movie. I can't see this thing turning into a franchise, which is the intent of the producers. There is nowhere for it to go....at all. It's not that they wrote a sufficient ending. It's that they didn't even write a real story.
I like Depp but making a camp western sortof comedy and renaming Captain Sparrow, Tonto is just stupid. They even used the same stunt from the 'Pirates of the Carribian' in one of the scenes.
Oh and BTW, "Tonto" was an Apache, ala the Tonto tribe of southern New Mexico. How can Tonto be a Comanche?
It shows that some movie companies will spend millions just for the sensation of doing so and use sell tactics to recoup their investment. I didn't pay for my viewing, can't really tell you how I could pull that off. Let's just say I have a very innovative neighbor that likes movies.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Saw 'Loneranger'. It was awful. What native American is going to ever say "perhaps" in the 1880's? Many problems with believabilty, storyline, continuity, and charactor development. The plot was terrible and a sad excuse to base the obvious camp special effects of the movie. I can't see this thing turning into a franchise, which is the intent of the producers. There is nowhere for it to go....at all. It's not that they wrote a sufficient ending. It's that they didn't even write a real story.
I like Depp but making a camp western sortof comedy and renaming Captain Sparrow, Tonto is just stupid. They even used the same stunt from the 'Pirates of the Carribian' in one of the scenes.
Oh and BTW, "Tonto" was an Apache, ala the Tonto tribe of southern New Mexico. How can Tonto be a Comanche?
It shows that some movie companies will spend millions just for the sensation of doing so and use sell tactics to recoup their investment. I didn't pay for my viewing, can't really tell you how I could pull that off. Let's just say I have a very innovative neighbor that likes movies.
It's typical Hollywood shit, written by committee. See my comments on WWZ, above
Quote from: "Shiranu"Hmmm... well, since I only saw the first Transformer's and thought it was okay, I might like it then.
I still like the 1st Transformers a lot. 2nd, not quite as good. But I lost interest after the 3rd. So my reaction to this movie may just be a case of overload. I wouldn't tell people to avoid it.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Shiranu"Hmmm... well, since I only saw the first Transformer's and thought it was okay, I might like it then.
I still like the 1st Transformers a lot. 2nd, not quite as good. But I lost interest after the 3rd. So my reaction to this movie may just be a case of overload. I wouldn't tell people to avoid it.
yeah the 1st was kinda fun without having to think alot about the physics of a thing the size of a camaro being able to transform into something 10 times larger, not just in size but mass. Even advanced technology has a difficult time with that.
I had fun watching Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn mainly because I loved the creativity of the early Halo games. When I finally got to see Master Chief wreck some covenant asses in an actual movie (compilation of a web series, actually) it felt liberating and I nearly fanboyed.
At one point I believe I yelled: "IT'S A PLASMA SWORD HELL YEAH."
I was a classic action movie and had no real major development. I give it a 7/10 in comparison to better movies, but because of my bias my ebullience has boosted the score to 8/10.
7/10 or 6/10 for those who don't like the Halo games.
Pacific Rim - I have to disagree with SGOS here. The only thing this movie has in common with Transformers is the fact that there are robots and aliens and action. Aside from that, this movie has a serious tone, it treats its main characters like people with issues, and it uses science in it as opposed to simply fighting and destroying the monsters. I actually loved the movie. I saw complaints that there was too much action. This I did not understand. I believe an HOUR went by without any action. Not to mention, what more do you expect from a movie about aliens attacking Earth and us fighting them to the death? I think Del Toro did an amazing job with a simple concept.
Grade: A-
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Shiranu"Hmmm... well, since I only saw the first Transformer's and thought it was okay, I might like it then.
I still like the 1st Transformers a lot. 2nd, not quite as good. But I lost interest after the 3rd. So my reaction to this movie may just be a case of overload. I wouldn't tell people to avoid it.
yeah the 1st was kinda fun without having to think alot about the physics of a thing the size of a camaro being able to transform into something 10 times larger, not just in size but mass. Even advanced technology has a difficult time with that.
The 1st IS fun, with some exceptionally funny lines. I wondered about the transformations in mass too, but it wasn't a movie anyone expects to take seriously enough to ponder for long. I didn't see that movie until a couple of years after it came out. I was out of movies to watch on my Netflix, and rented it out of desperation, but was pleasantly surprised.
Quote from: "Notthesun"Pacific Rim - I have to disagree with SGOS here. The only thing this movie has in common with Transformers is the fact that there are robots and aliens and action.... I saw complaints that there was too much action.
There was too much action for me, to the point where I actually became bored. I have the same complaint about Transformers 2 and 3.
Quote from: "aitm"I watched 12.45678 minutes of "Les Miserables".
Why does The Rick Copeland, who like many hates most musicals, associate "Les Miserables" with one of The Rick Copeland's arch-enemies: Andrew Lloyd Weber? He's certain Weber had nothing to do with neither the play nor the movie, but he just links the two together. Maybe it is the infinitely binding and ethereal but always perceptible thread of suck? That mental association is enough for him to treat it like a radioactive recording of Nathan Lane...
Quote from: "Jesus"I had fun watching Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn mainly because I loved the creativity of the early Halo games. When I finally got to see Master Chief wreck some covenant asses in an actual movie (compilation of a web series, actually) it felt liberating and I nearly fanboyed.
At one point I believe I yelled: "IT'S A PLASMA SWORD HELL YEAH."
I was a classic action movie and had no real major development. I give it a 7/10 in comparison to better movies, but because of my bias my ebullience has boosted the score to 8/10.
7/10 or 6/10 for those who don't like the Halo games.
Yeah, FUD was awesome :D.
Man of Steel: 6/10
Great action, great motion, essentially workable, stuffy story.
But yeah, I saw the Superman = Jesus stuff too. Maybe it was just me, but
1. Superman strikes the Jesus-pose as he leaves Zod's ship above Earth.
2. Superman has two dads, and one of them knows "Clark was sent here for a reason."
3. The super-alien man who can fly goes to church for advice.
4. The supergirl-villian's speech talks about how they're somehow more "evolutionarily advanced" than Supes, because they were tank-bred. While that's obviously genetic engineering, her Bad Guy one-liner is "Evolution always wins!"
5. In this version, Supes has a special birth, unlike the rest of Kryptonian society.
One or two alone, and I wouldn't have noticed. But I has a very uneasy feeling about halfway through the movie, until it dropped the metaphor for the fight scenes.
Well, Superman was a product of the 1940s, and thinking back to those days, there was a lot of bullshit going on, although no one thought it was bullshit. Wasn't Superman the one who fought for truth, justice, and the American Way? My, how post WWII. In fact, I think Like Captain America, it was all part of the propaganda machine. I'm not even sure why we needed the propaganda. The Big War was over. Who the Hell were we trying to fool? And for what purpose? Never the less, I thought Superman was great fun. It was a little kid's fantasy, being a misunderstood good guy who was indestructible. When the bullies at school got to be overwhelming, you could just imagine being Superman, and give those bullies their come-up-ins. That would fix them. They would all go running away and not bother you. That is assuming you chose to let them run away. Everything was your choice and all was under your ultimate control. Yay, Superman. Yay, for little kids everywhere!
World War Z 10/10
It had nothing to do with the book, it had a [spoil:1s7ibs7q]happy[/spoil:1s7ibs7q] ending, they rushed the ending in our favor to now draw it out like 28 days later, and they [spoil:1s7ibs7q]provided a simple solution[/spoil:1s7ibs7q]. It was short, to the point, and came to a proper end. No complaints.
Saw ST:into darkness. called shady friend, put a hit out on abrams. That will put an end to that crap. Seriously, who told this guy he knew anything about star trek? The movie was riddled with deux ex mechina, plot contrivances, and inane dialog. Hint to star fleet, if your running a secret project at least check ID's before you let people in. (spoiler alert) if you can get your buddies into the bombs why couldn't you just wake them up? It would have been simpler. To any grousers I point out that I grew up on the original series. I remember watching it when it first came out in 1966.
The new Star Trek rocked, sorry.
Quote from: "Shiranu"The new Star Trek rocked, sorry.
Where did you say you lived, I have my shady friend on speed dial. Maybe he'll give me a twofer. :-&
something called "The Host" or "Host"....meh.... interesting if your vehicle doesn't run and its raining like crazy and the TV is down and it came by accident via Netflix to your address and it is the only movie to watch .... and yer not feeling well and drank a half bottle of ny-quil. I think then it is pretty good.
Quote from: "aitm"something called "The Host" or "Host"....meh.... interesting if your vehicle doesn't run and its raining like crazy and the TV is down and it came by accident via Netflix to your address and it is the only movie to watch .... and yer not feeling well and drank a half bottle of ny-quil. I think then it is pretty good.
Isn't The Host that Stephanie Meyer book?
Quote from: "Jesus"Quote from: "aitm"something called "The Host" or "Host"....meh.... interesting if your vehicle doesn't run and its raining like crazy and the TV is down and it came by accident via Netflix to your address and it is the only movie to watch .... and yer not feeling well and drank a half bottle of ny-quil. I think then it is pretty good.
Isn't The Host that Stephanie Meyer book?
Yep
Book sucked.
Quote from: "Shiranu"The new Star Trek rocked, sorry.
Pssst............. I loved it TOO! =D>
Crap! I just rented The Host from the Redbox, but I haven't watched it yet. I'll take some Nyquil and watch it at 2:00 in the morning then.
Quote from: "Jesus"Quote from: "aitm"something called "The Host" or "Host"....meh.... interesting if your vehicle doesn't run and its raining like crazy and the TV is down and it came by accident via Netflix to your address and it is the only movie to watch .... and yer not feeling well and drank a half bottle of ny-quil. I think then it is pretty good.
Isn't The Host that Stephanie Meyer book?
I thought he was talking about that Korean horror movie.
[youtube:yjbemkjy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCsBMwK40hw[/youtube:yjbemkjy]
You watched the wrong Host movie, atim. Kids, just say no to NyQuil.
I saw White House Down tonight and it was far more entertaining than I expected. Warning, what comes next is riddled with massive spoilers.
The movie is one massive cacophony of gunfire and explosions with an extreme liberal bent to the plot. This movie is undeniably intended to enjoyed by a left of center audience and to be totally honest, I fucking loved it. This film didn't try to hide the fact that it was a big middle finger to the right.
-the terrorists ( aside from an ex delta force operator and hacker) are all angry, white conservatives and racists-
-the big bad guy is the GOP speaker of the house who tries to cheat his way into power and further fuel the military industrial complex.
- there is one character that is a painfully obvious parody of Rush Limbaugh.
It may be stupid or immature but damn it if I didn't love watching 2 hours of angry white men getting their asses wrecked by a black, liberal president and Channing Tatum.
It has Ben Mankowitz in it, so I have been meaning to see it...
Despicable Me 7/10
I kind liked it. Humorous and heartwarming. Quite a few Invader Zim-ish moments as well.
But a couple things about it bothered me. *fair warning, nyquil and insomnia don't mix*
[spoil:1zyzzpn8]Where the hell are the cops in this universe? Because shooting up a Starbucks gets you like 3 stars in GTA.
Who the hell would really be fooled by a inflatable pyramid? That's like some Ghost Army stuff.
What's the point of stealing famous landmarks? Sure, there's the fame, sorta (quick show of hands: anyone know who briefly stole The Scream painting? Exactly.) But other than that, there's no real point. How about, oh I dunno, conquering the world? Too much?
Why do the criminal masterminds need loans? Don't they, yanno, steal? Seems like the slightly more viable option. Or hell, just sell those dancing robots. People love that stuff. You could be the richest bastard on the face of the planet that way.
The shrink ray is high-octane nightmare fuel. Apparently, it's not an instantaneous process and even more disturbingly, the subject shrinks asymmetrically. For a living subject, that's pretty much a guaranteed and excruciatingly painful death, cartoon physics notwithstanding.
How exactly does the shrink ray tell what objects to shrink and what not to shrink? Because shooting an airplane shrinks the plane but not its inhabitants, yet shooting the surface of the moon shrinks the entire moon, not just whatever part of the surface it hits. Considering the number of times the shrink ray been fired on Earth, I'm surprised that it has never shot the ground.
Does the shrink ray decrease mass along with volume? It'd have to, because otherwise shrunken objects would be ultradense. WTF happens to the mass? :-k
How the hell did the cookie robots reseal the breach they made? A huge chunk of the building fell to the ground. There's no way they could just put it back.
And what sort of kid wants a pancake shaped like a dead guy?! Cause I did like 4 years of therapy to not see dead people anymore.[/spoil:1zyzzpn8]
Quote from: "Hydra009"Despicable Me 7/10
I kind liked it. Humorous and heartwarming. Quite a few Invader Zim-ish moments as well.
But a couple things about it bothered me. *fair warning, nyquil and insomnia don't mix*
[spoil:aosezxsx]Where the hell are the cops in this universe? Because shooting up a Starbucks gets you like 3 stars in GTA.
Who the hell would really be fooled by a inflatable pyramid? That's like some Ghost Army stuff.
What's the point of stealing famous landmarks? Sure, there's the fame, sorta (quick show of hands: anyone know who briefly stole The Scream painting? Exactly.) But other than that, there's no real point. How about, oh I dunno, conquering the world? Too much?
Why do the criminal masterminds need loans? Don't they, yanno, steal? Seems like the slightly more viable option. Or hell, just sell those dancing robots. People love that stuff. You could be the richest bastard on the face of the planet that way.
The shrink ray is high-octane nightmare fuel. Apparently, it's not an instantaneous process and even more disturbingly, the subject shrinks asymmetrically. For a living subject, that's pretty much a guaranteed and excruciatingly painful death, cartoon physics notwithstanding.
How exactly does the shrink ray tell what objects to shrink and what not to shrink? Because shooting an airplane shrinks the plane but not its inhabitants, yet shooting the surface of the moon shrinks the entire moon, not just whatever part of the surface it hits. Considering the number of times the shrink ray been fired on Earth, I'm surprised that it has never shot the ground.
Does the shrink ray decrease mass along with volume? It'd have to, because otherwise shrunken objects would be ultradense. WTF happens to the mass? :-k
How the hell did the cookie robots reseal the breach they made? A huge chunk of the building fell to the ground. There's no way they could just put it back.
And what sort of kid wants a pancake shaped like a dead guy?! Cause I did like 4 years of therapy to not see dead people anymore.[/spoil:aosezxsx]
It
is a children's movie after all :rollin: . Not everything has to make sense, so long as the movie itself is entertaining and fit for a family to watch together.
Pacific Rim. 9/10
Giant robots fighting giant alien creatures. Hard to fuck that up, but I'm sure M. Night could've done it.
Quote from: "MilitantAtheist"I saw White House Down tonight and it was far more entertaining than I expected. Warning, what comes next is riddled with massive spoilers.
The movie is one massive cacophony of gunfire and explosions with an extreme liberal bent to the plot. This movie is undeniably intended to enjoyed by a left of center audience and to be totally honest, I fucking loved it. This film didn't try to hide the fact that it was a big middle finger to the right.
-the terrorists ( aside from an ex delta force operator and hacker) are all angry, white conservatives and racists-
-the big bad guy is the GOP speaker of the house who tries to cheat his way into power and further fuel the military industrial complex.
- there is one character that is a painfully obvious parody of Rush Limbaugh.
It may be stupid or immature but damn it if I didn't love watching 2 hours of angry white men getting their asses wrecked by a black, liberal president and Channing Tatum.
I'm surprised we didn't hear the right screaming about how much they hated this movie considering the way they had a meltdown over Avatar, which was a LOT less biased. Honestly, some parts of the movie confused me, and I honestly don't understand why the mercenary leader agreed to help the traitor get the nuclear football. All the same, it was good for all the reasons you just mentioned. Fuck the right.
There have been people on the right complaining that it puts the Military Industrial Complex in bad light... that the MIC would have no interest in conflicts being started. Besides, you know... that's how they make money... but ya know...
Quote from: "Shiranu"There have been people on the right complaining that it puts the Military Industrial Complex in bad light... that the MIC would have no interest in conflicts being started. Besides, you know... that's how they make money... but ya know...
How can a person put the military industrial complex in a good light?
Quote from: "Savior2006"Quote from: "Shiranu"There have been people on the right complaining that it puts the Military Industrial Complex in bad light... that the MIC would have no interest in conflicts being started. Besides, you know... that's how they make money... but ya know...
How can a person put the military industrial complex in a good light?
A little money goes a long way.
(No, seriously... a LITTLE money... it's depressing how cheap politicians on both side of the isle can be bought for.)
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Savior2006"Quote from: "Shiranu"There have been people on the right complaining that it puts the Military Industrial Complex in bad light... that the MIC would have no interest in conflicts being started. Besides, you know... that's how they make money... but ya know...
How can a person put the military industrial complex in a good light?
A little money goes a long way.
(No, seriously... a LITTLE money... it's depressing how cheap politicians on both side of the isle can be bought for.)
That's true but it seems like it would be exceeding difficult for a film. :Hangman:
Quote from: "Hydra009"Despicable Me 7/10
I kind liked it. Humorous and heartwarming. Quite a few Invader Zim-ish moments as well.
But a couple things about it bothered me. *fair warning, nyquil and insomnia don't mix*
[spoil:16zbwhhg]Where the hell are the cops in this universe? Because shooting up a Starbucks gets you like 3 stars in GTA.
Who the hell would really be fooled by a inflatable pyramid? That's like some Ghost Army stuff.
What's the point of stealing famous landmarks? Sure, there's the fame, sorta (quick show of hands: anyone know who briefly stole The Scream painting? Exactly.) But other than that, there's no real point. How about, oh I dunno, conquering the world? Too much?
Why do the criminal masterminds need loans? Don't they, yanno, steal? Seems like the slightly more viable option. Or hell, just sell those dancing robots. People love that stuff. You could be the richest bastard on the face of the planet that way.
The shrink ray is high-octane nightmare fuel. Apparently, it's not an instantaneous process and even more disturbingly, the subject shrinks asymmetrically. For a living subject, that's pretty much a guaranteed and excruciatingly painful death, cartoon physics notwithstanding.
How exactly does the shrink ray tell what objects to shrink and what not to shrink? Because shooting an airplane shrinks the plane but not its inhabitants, yet shooting the surface of the moon shrinks the entire moon, not just whatever part of the surface it hits. Considering the number of times the shrink ray been fired on Earth, I'm surprised that it has never shot the ground.
Does the shrink ray decrease mass along with volume? It'd have to, because otherwise shrunken objects would be ultradense. WTF happens to the mass? :-k
How the hell did the cookie robots reseal the breach they made? A huge chunk of the building fell to the ground. There's no way they could just put it back.
And what sort of kid wants a pancake shaped like a dead guy?! Cause I did like 4 years of therapy to not see dead people anymore.[/spoil:16zbwhhg]
You are WAAAAAYYY overthinking it, mate. Also, I thought the "camouflaged" pyramid was meant to be silly....like, we could all see it, he just
thought he was being cool.
The Conjuring - Not really scary but a good movie nonetheless.
Grade: B+
White House Down - 84/100. Honestly, it was a good movie. The beginning was slow, but the rest of it was paced fine enough.
It was very "Die Hard"-y, which I enjoyed.
Well I guess Shiranu abandoned reason for madness.
Quote from: "Notthesun"The Conjuring - Not really scary but a good movie nonetheless.
Grade: B+
Wish I would have chosen that instead of The Lone Ranger: 5/5
Saw a couple of movies on my flight to Serbia. That is where I am now
Good Day to Die Hard
I didn't think it was as bad as the reviews. The action set pieces were pretty spectacular. Now, the father/son issues didn't really work. And the wisecracks were just not up to snuff at all. So, no, it wasn't great. But, it was watchable. Maybe a 6/10
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
I thought it about the worst movie I ever watched all the way through. The only reason I did was the woman next to me watched and said it wasn't bad. No, it wasn't bad, it was terrible. 1.5/10
Identity Thief
It wasn't great. But, hey, I thought it was at least watchable. 5/10
I started to watch GI Joe 2 or whatever its called. Got about 15 minutes in and turned it off.
Quote from: "Notthesun"Well I guess Shiranu abandoned reason for madness.
Meh, I don't judge cheesy action movies too critically i'll admit it.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Notthesun"Well I guess Shiranu abandoned reason for madness.
Meh, I don't judge cheesy action movies too critically i'll admit it.
They are pure escapism and White House Down was good for that. =D>
Octopussy VS Never Say Never Again
Octopussy has the superior stunts (though you have to wait untill the third act to see them), and NSNA is the bastard offspring of Thunderball with a shitty soundtrack, but the latter IS that last and I mean LAST chance to see Sean Connery fucking owning the Bond part, and it has this video-game duel that's goofy as fuck but hense also memorable as fuck, Clause Maria Brandaur is creepy as fuck, and Barbara Carera is hot as fuck (trumping Kim fucking Basingers preformance for crying out loud), so fuck those who dump on NSNA for having an M-part writen so poorly that even Edward Fox couldn't save it, or how it has Mr Bean prancing around some scenes for some odd reason... it also has the best and brownest Felix Leiter ever, and the former includes the following line: "Octopussy...Octopussy..."
Both are cheesefests and guilty pleassures, but in the end I must hand the double-o' cheesecrown to Sean Connery.
Octopussy 7/10
Never Say Never Again 8/10
[youtube:1tm92rh6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVpQmZmKNmo[/youtube:1tm92rh6]
I don't know why these mockbusters surprise me anymore.
The Wolverine - While it has its problems, it most definitetly is better than the first one which was GOD awful.
STAY FOR WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE CREDITS!
Grade: B-
Movie 43: 2/10
A series of 10 or so unrelated short films absurdly strung together by an idiotic plotline. Most of the vignettes confuse "gross and repulsive" with comedy. A couple are disgusting. After 90 minutes of having my sensibilities assaulted, I'm less of a person than I was before.
(//http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTY3NjY0MTQ0Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzQ2MTc0Mw@@._V1_SY317_CR0,0,214,317_.jpg)
Completely entertaining. I laughed so hard my sides were hurting.
(grandkiddos liked it too)
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVpQmZmKNmo)
I don't know why these mockbusters surprise me anymore.
It's like they're not even trying anymore. That's... basically the exact same movie.
I don't like horror movies but agreed to see "The Conjuring" yesterday with some friends. Unfortunately for the people in the theater I burst into uncontrollable laughter in the first scene. Apparently I'm the only person who thought this scene was hysterical. I tried to regain my composure but then that cracked-out doll would show up again and I would just lose it! Anyway, the movie as a whole didn't do it for me, but I got a good laugh.
I just saw "Now you see me". Quite a good movie and I would highly recommend it. Very good plot and action scenes that you wouldn't expect from a Magician Drama. You can get it on Graboid if you desire.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"[ Image (//http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTY3NjY0MTQ0Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzQ2MTc0Mw@@._V1_SY317_CR0,0,214,317_.jpg) ]
Completely entertaining. I laughed so hard my sides were hurting.
(grandkiddos liked it too)
The image tags aren't working on my computer, but for the record, the tags refer to Despicable Me. Just in case others are having the same problem.
A View To A Kill
Roger Moore's too damn old, Christopher Walken disappoints, so on to Timothy Dalton (that's Patrick Steward with a full head of hair to you trekkies).
6/10
(//https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3023317760/hD9684A2A/)
Pacific Rim - 9/10
Saw it twice, once in 2D then again in IMAX 3D because I felt like the scale and spirit of the movie deserved the extra screen real estate. I wasn't disappointed. I think I may love this movie too much. I also just heard that Del Toro got the green light to start writing the script for a sequel, which is awesome.
Quote from: "Notthesun"The Wolverine - While it has its problems, it most definitetly is better than the first one which was GOD awful.
STAY FOR WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE CREDITS!
Grade: B-
Due to odd circumstances, I also got to see this today. I found it pretty meh. I didn't see the last three X-Men movies, including the last Wolverine solo picture, so I can't really compare it to any of them.
I didn't care for it, but I recall a Wolverine mini-series from the 80's that this flick is probably based upon and I didn't care about that, either. Just not into seeing Wolverine deal with Japan. What is this? Lost in Translation?
Looking at it objectively, it has some action and a plot where things happen. The cast is mostly Japanese-- or at least Asian-- with a large group of characters with different personal goals that interconnected. This could have been really confusing but I was able to keep track of who was who fairly easily. Maybe it's because it wasn't as complicated as it might have seemed. It is a dumb comic book plot and fairly predictable as a result.
One thing I did notice is it seemed to drag things out. This is not unique to Wolverine. I notice a lot of movies and tv shows drag things out needlessly. It was particularly bad in Watchmen because when I read the comic, I imagined the dialog and fast paced and punchy but the movie added lots of dramatic pauses that were unnecessary and just didn't work. Wolverine is like that and I didn't even read the comic it's based on. So it's not a matter of comparison to the source material.
Overall, I don't know if I can recommend it to anyone. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but nothing particularly good about it, either. I guess if you're a Wolverine fanboy, you might enjoy it. But if you are, then you were probably going to see it anyway.
So what was with that one superhero in Watchmen who always had is big wang hanging out whenever he was in his superhero mode? That's about all I remember from the movie. All of the other characters acted like it was perfectly normal for him to walk around with his wang out. No one looked at it or looked away. It blows away Thor's hammer, Batman's cape, or Wolverine's claws as one of the strangest superhero gimmicks any writer could ever come up with.
Didn't he have his wang hanging out all the time? He just didn't wear any clothes, from what I remember.
Quote from: "SGOS"So what was with that one superhero in Watchmen who always had is big wang hanging out whenever he was in his superhero mode?
It was a kind of gag. He was a being made of energy, kind of like the Silver Surfer, except those characters always materialized without their junk intact. So the comic makers decided to lat their energy being character have a dick. In the comic, his penis was rarely seen with the use of clever angles and such. In the movie, they didn't have that luxury or Zach Snyder wanted to see a blue wang bobbing around. The other characters didn't notice because they were used to it and the movie didn't start Ashton Kutcher.
"Dude, where's my dick?"
"Where's your dick, dude?"
"Dude, where's my dick?"
"Where's your dick, dude?"
"Dude, where's my dick?"
"Where's your dick, dude?"
"Dude, where's my dick?"
"Where's your dick, dude?"
Quote from: "the_antithesis"He was a being made of energy, kind of like the Silver Surfer, except those characters always materialized without their junk intact.
It looked to me like his "junk" was plenty intact. :-D I found it hard to concentrate on the storyline when he was around.
"Holy cow! Who's the dude with the big wang?"
He's one of the superheroes.
"Why's he got his wang out?"
He has special powers from radioactive exposure.
"God, he's got a big wang."
He's one of the most deadly heroes in the story.
"Why's his wang just dangling there all the time?"
Hey shush up. We're trying to watch the movie.
"OK, but did you see that guy's wang?"
LOL love 'Watchmen"... I have the original 10 issue series in plastic from 1986.
Most recent movie: Django - great movie. Christopher Waltz's character is great.
Quote from: "SGOS"I found it hard to concentrate on the storyline when he was around.
It is hypnotic and frightening, isn't it?
(//http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080724131930/watchmen/images/5/50/Doctor_Manhattan_reappears.jpg)
It's hard to look away or not imagine what it's like having that glowing blue skin part your lips. In the comics, his girlfriend said it was like licking a battery. It sounds so magical.
He allows his penis to show because he's above our notions that they should be covered. At one point, when he first came to be, he wore clothes. He got over trying to be human.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"It is hypnotic and frightening, isn't it?
[ Image (//http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080724131930/watchmen/images/5/50/Doctor_Manhattan_reappears.jpg) ]
Hypnotic? Most definitely! Frightening? Potentially, because he doesn't need Iron Man's suit, Batman's throwing weapons, or Captain America's shield. He just levitates in with his wang, and renders criminals incapacitated by his presence. He doesn't need anything, not even a nice looking pair of plaid boxer shorts and cool sunglasses. But I can't get far enough past his wang to find it frightening. :-D
Quote from: "Seabear"LOL love 'Watchmen"... I have the original 10 issue series in plastic from 1986.
Did you buy those at a collectors shop? How much is something like that worth?
I had a ton of comics when I was little, but they were all Little Lulu or Disney type characters, probably not worth what Marvel and DC comics are, but my parent's wouldn't let me buy the adult ones. We all had tons of baseball trading cards too, but I would imagine most of my friends ended up putting those one day valuables in the trash like I did. If only I had a crystal ball. It reminds me of that movie, Blast from the Past, when Brandon Frazier finds out how much those trading cards were worth.
"Body Heat": William Hurt is a shitty lawyer with a cheesy moostache and a perpetual boner. Kathleen Turner (pre-bloat phase) is a woman married to a Florida real estate tycoon and has the voice of Lauren Bacall, the hair of Veronica Lake, and really great legs. Together they sweat, fuck, sweat, perform oral sex on each other, sweat, plot to kill her husband Richard Crenna, sweat, kill him and use a fake will to get all his money, then things start to go to shit.
It's one of those very noirish movies along the line of "Chinatown" but closer to "Double Indemnity" in over all feel and plot-- that is if Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck liked to fuck. Director/ Writer Lawrence Kasdan (who has written, among other things "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" has a great ear for that cheesy 1930's dialogue and rachets up the wold of shit Hurt gets into quite nicely. But he should have learned his lesson when Turner looks at him and says "you're not very bright. I like that in a man". Plus you get nice performances from young Ted Danson and a freakishly young Mickey Rourke as Hurt's arsonist client/ buddy (?). If you like this sort of genre and haven't seen it, you probably should. It seems somewhat tamer now but probably caused more boners in 1981 than any other mainstream movie. 8/10
The Bourne Legacy on HBO. 6 of 10. Renner is good in the part, Rachel Weisz credible as a conflicted government scientist. Good action, etc. but the movie was very formulaic- you can predict the chase scenes and plot development after the first 15 minutes. Almost a carbon copy of the previous Bourne films in terms of plot vs outcome. I would see a sequel on HBO, wouldn't waste money in a theater.
I'm going with the last movie I saw in theaters: Pacific Rim
5 out of 10
Don't let the half rating mislead you, I loved this movie, but it was more special effects than plot. There was an interesting plot but I feel like it wasn't developed enough. Mostly this movie was more of the same CGI special effects jerk offs that America loves, and that's why I had to give it a half rating.
Quote from: "rickcopeland648""Body Heat": William Hurt is a shitty lawyer with a cheesy moostache and a perpetual boner. Kathleen Turner (pre-bloat phase) is a woman married to a Florida real estate tycoon and has the voice of Lauren Bacall, the hair of Veronica Lake, and really great legs. Together they sweat, fuck, sweat, perform oral sex on each other, sweat, plot to kill her husband Richard Crenna, sweat, kill him and use a fake will to get all his money, then things start to go to shit.
It's one of those very noirish movies along the line of "Chinatown" but closer to "Double Indemnity" in over all feel and plot-- that is if Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck liked to fuck. Director/ Writer Lawrence Kasdan (who has written, among other things "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" has a great ear for that cheesy 1930's dialogue and rachets up the wold of shit Hurt gets into quite nicely. But he should have learned his lesson when Turner looks at him and says "you're not very bright. I like that in a man". Plus you get nice performances from young Ted Danson and a freakishly young Mickey Rourke as Hurt's arsonist client/ buddy (?). If you like this sort of genre and haven't seen it, you probably should. It seems somewhat tamer now but probably caused more boners in 1981 than any other mainstream movie. 8/10
:shock:
You're just now seeing "Body Heat" ?
uh...............
whut?
:rollin:
The Rick Copeland had always seen bit and pieces of it here and there, but boner problems prevented seeing it in full. You might be surprised how many on this board might not have ever even heard of it...
Quote from: "rickcopeland648"The Rick Copeland had always seen bit and pieces of it here and there, but boner problems prevented seeing it in full. You might be surprised how many on this board might not have ever even heard of it...
Check!
Wolverine . 8/10. The movie is actually very good but I recommended this for fans of the character only.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"I'm going with the last movie I saw in theaters: Pacific Rim
5 out of 10
Don't let the half rating mislead you, I loved this movie, but it was more special effects than plot. There was an interesting plot but I feel like it wasn't developed enough. Mostly this movie was more of the same CGI special effects jerk offs that America loves, and that's why I had to give it a half rating.
I feel like I'm one of the only people that disagrees with this lol. I felt as though it had a lot more talking in it than it did action. There really aren't too many fights in it. 3 in total, I believe.
Fruitvale Station - A powerfully acted and tragic movie.
Grade: A
Quote from: "Notthesun"Fruitvale Station - A powerfully acted and tragic movie.
Grade: A
I've read some reviews of this movie, and see that movie goers are giving it exceptionally high ratings. It's on my must see list, but I haven't seen this playing at any local theater within a 30 mile radius of where I live. This is not unusual. Often, exceptional and important films don't make to the mainstream movie theaters. Sometimes they show up in these funky little artsy fartsy theaters that don't specialize in mass appeal. At least around here that seems to be true.
"Tree Of Life." This is simply a must see. 10/10. I felt as though I had been through a personal trauma when I left the theater.
Flew back home to the US yesterday. Saw a few more action movies on the plane to kill time.
Jack Reacher - Of course Cruise has many haters, and his religion is stupid. But, I generally enjoy his movies. Certainly nothing groundbreaking here. And a key villain was easy to spot. But, a pretty solid action thriller nonetheless. 7/10
Olympus Has Fallen - I think there was another recent movie with a similar plot. The basic plot is an extremely elaborate terrorist group takes control of the White House, and the hero has to save the day. Obviously you know the hero is going to in fact save the day. So, there is a lot of things you can guess. Still, within the formula, it was a pretty solid thriller too. 7/10
I am Legend - Not very new, but I hadn't seen it. Premise is similar to 28 Days Later, where a virus turns people into zombies. In "I am Legend", Will Smith's character is one of about 1% of the population that has immunity to the virus. We are told that about 90% of the population is killed by the virus quickly, and about 9% of the population turns into zombies. But that 9% has killed off most of the 1% with immunity, leaving very few normal survivors in total. Smith is also a doctor and researcher trying to find a cure. But, he is also going crazy living alone trying to survive. It has a good creepy feel to it. But, it seems to drag in places. 6/10.
Oblivion 7/10
I know there are a lot of bad reviews on this, and I get that a lot of it was "paying homage, aka ripping off, old Sci-fi", but I kind of enjoyed picking up on each old movie in it.
I think it had some semi-original twists. Even though, from previews, I knew a bit of what would happen, it still managed to surprise me.
My criticism is that it really missed the emotional boat. I didn't feel very connected to the characters, or humanity at all.
So I finally went and saw that Pacific Rim thing. I liked it well enough, but I left feeling underwhelmed in some way and I can't quite put my finger on why.
Many critics and audience member noted the human drama was lacking. I'm not sure why as there was plenty going on to keep the viewer interested. Most of it is drawn very simply because it's paying homage to the giant robot genre. So naturally we have the hotshot main character who's like the best robot pilot ever but he got out of it when his copilot and brother is killed. Naturally he's brought back into action and there's a hot chick with issues up the yin yang to be his new copilot. Naturally there's a rival robot pilot who doesn't like him and shit. It's all staples, which is the point.
But that might be the problem. This isn't Top Gun with robots. The Australian rival guy isn't the Iceman to the main character's Maverick. It's not a dick waving contest to see who's the best. They have a critical mission to try and seal off the dimensional portal the monsters are coming from and he doesn't trust the main character or his new girlfriend. I think this would have been better as a series because this facet of the rival character isn't adequately explored. In an animated series, we could get some backstory and understanding for why he's such a prick. There's a hint that there's a reason for it besides being stock character #12, but since it isn't developed, it doesn't play as good if he were just a stock character. The attempts at making the character a bit more fleshed out backfired because they're not quite the rote cliches we've seen a million times before but they don't quite elevate them to something above that. So we don't understand them at all.
But, overall, the flick was fun. Lots of monsters getting punched in the face by robots. It's very PG-13. Kind of amazingly so. So it's not a bad movie to take your older kids to see. A better choice than that fucking Superman movie where the villain used some kind of gravity device on the city that threw debris up into the air several stories before slamming it back down again with increase gravity. It clear shows that among the debris were horrified and totally fucked people. Pacific Rim doesn't have anything quite like that. Well, one guy gets eaten, but there's a teaser or whatever during the credits you can show your kids to take the edge off that. There's other dead all over the place, but it isn't shown on screen like that. Otherwise, it's oddly kid-friendly, which only makes sense.
The only other reason I can think of for not liking the movie as much as I should is the post-apocalypse setting is just boring to me. I really don't like post-apocalypse type stuff. I didn't care for Mad Max. I didn't like The Stand. It may be part of the reason I don't give a shit for zombies. This is a purely personal thing, obviously, but the movie takes place many years after the monsters had been attacking for a while so the post-apocalypse feel is unmistakable.
Also in the feel is it never quite feels as desperate as the dialog would have us believe. I don't know why that is. It could be a budget constraint or a time constraint or the fact that despite these monsters killing thousands of people there still doesn't seem to be a shortage of the fucking things. People, that is. The robot program is being shut down in favor of building giant walls that were demonstrably completely ineffective. But this just doesn't gel. Not to the Humanity's Last Stand they try to sell it as. Irdis Alba has a motivational speech, which is in the trailers, that tries to be the St Crispian's Day speech from Henry V but doesn't even reach Bill Pullman's Independence Day speech. i don't know what it is, but for a movie about giant robots punching giant monsters, it feels awfully small.
Otherwise, it's a decent flick, I guess.
Cabin in the Woods. (A few spoilers)
Fun spoof on teen horror flicks. Maybe not the masterpiece that some are making it out to be but it is fairly clever. The bunker carnage scene was well done with a lot of the monsters getting some good kills in. Works well as a late night scary/silly movie.
In recent interviews, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg made the comments that Hollywood had lost its way and forgotten how to tell stories as it focuses on budget busting special effects. Well, thank you Captain Obvious and Johnny Insight. People everywhere have been saying this for years.
The two directors also predicted a decline in movie attendance because of this. But I wonder. The big special effects blockbusters are still topping the weekly box office stats, and are still making profits. I think that's what drives Hollywood to make them in the first place.
But it seems like a good story and special effects could reside in a movie together as a happy medium, simply by putting money into special effects and some thought into story telling. It does happen once in a while (The Avengers came close), so we know it's possible. OK, The Avengers might not be Shakespeare, but for movie going purposes, it's good enough.
But I crave a good story. My favorite movie in the last three years was the remarkably low budget Midnight in Paris, and I don't think it requires some special snobby intelligence to enjoy a movie like that. It's just a fun story. But when I think about it, that movie would have completely wrecked if the actors had to run down the streets screaming while being chased by giant robots.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I don't know what is more funny about that. The fact you mentioned that everyone has been aware of it for decades or the directors who said that are the directors who has become what they are for what they have been complaining.
I agree with you SGOS, but I also think that there is a limit to what to expect from every genre. If we expect a good plot and realistic human drama from a giant monster invading the planet movie, we need to get ready to settle down with Clover Field -which I loved. But if we want many monsters vs robots action we need to settle down with Pacific Rim I think. They would never do something strong at both ends. I am not even sure that they can do it.
Well I've noticed one thing (about my husband and me) is that we are now Harder to entertain. If we see a movie minus any bells and whistles - we've been a bit bored by it. Whereas say 10 years ago a drama (for drama's sake) would have been just fine. All the additional special effects and movies like Avatar, for example, now has our movie-need jacked-up. We are simply more difficult to entertain than we used to be. We now require good plot AND good production.
QuoteIn recent interviews, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg made the comments that Hollywood had lost its way and forgotten how to tell stories as it focuses on budget busting special effects. Well, thank you Captain Obvious and Johnny Insight. People everywhere have been saying this for years.
George Lucas is one of the worst fucking story-tellers in Hollywood history, he can go fuck himself with a VCR, acting all high-and-mighty. Add ontop of that becoming one of the greatest sell outs... oh fuck off George.
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteIn recent interviews, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg made the comments that Hollywood had lost its way and forgotten how to tell stories as it focuses on budget busting special effects. Well, thank you Captain Obvious and Johnny Insight. People everywhere have been saying this for years.
George Lucas is one of the worst fucking story-tellers in Hollywood history, he can go fuck himself with a VCR, acting all high-and-mighty. Add ontop of that becoming one of the greatest sell outs... oh fuck off George.
But....but..... I have Loved his movies. *pout*
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I don't know what is more funny about that. The fact you mentioned that everyone has been aware of it for decades or the directors who said that are the directors who has become what they are for what they have been complaining.
I agree with you SGOS, but I also think that there is a limit to what to expect from every genre. If we expect a good plot and realistic human drama from a giant monster invading the planet movie, we need to get ready to settle down with Clover Field -which I loved. But if we want many monsters vs robots action we need to settle down with Pacific Rim I think. They would never do something strong at both ends. I am not even sure that they can do it.
Well I've noticed one thing (about my husband and me) is that we are now Harder to entertain. If we see a movie minus any bells and whistles - we've been a bit bored by it. Whereas say 10 years ago a drama (for drama's sake) would have been just fine. All the additional special effects and movies like Avatar, for example, now has our movie-need jacked-up. We are simply more difficult to entertain than we used to be. We now require good plot AND good production.
special effects used to help tell the story, now the story is an excuse to show special effects.
The best effects are the ones you didn't even notice. too many times every thing is CGI'd which stands out like a sore thumb. No more creative camera work, modelling. just have a computer do it.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I don't know what is more funny about that. The fact you mentioned that everyone has been aware of it for decades or the directors who said that are the directors who has become what they are for what they have been complaining.
I agree with you SGOS, but I also think that there is a limit to what to expect from every genre. If we expect a good plot and realistic human drama from a giant monster invading the planet movie, we need to get ready to settle down with Clover Field -which I loved. But if we want many monsters vs robots action we need to settle down with Pacific Rim I think. They would never do something strong at both ends. I am not even sure that they can do it.
Well I've noticed one thing (about my husband and me) is that we are now Harder to entertain. If we see a movie minus any bells and whistles - we've been a bit bored by it. Whereas say 10 years ago a drama (for drama's sake) would have been just fine. All the additional special effects and movies like Avatar, for example, now has our movie-need jacked-up. We are simply more difficult to entertain than we used to be. We now require good plot AND good production.
special effects used to help tell the story, now the story is an excuse to show special effects.
The best effects are the ones you didn't even notice. too many times every thing is CGI'd which stands out like a sore thumb. No more creative camera work, modelling. just have a computer do it.
Totally agree. Personally, I think the movies of the mid-late 90s and early 2000s was our best time - combining story telling with newer special effect techniques. Somewhere around 2005-7 we seemed to get ALL about the effects and the stories vanished. And re-makes... wtf? Doesn't anyone have any good stories to tell any more? eesh
one of my favorite movies is Alien, from 1977. It would be a flop today. nothing happens but story building for the first 45 minutes. no CGI on the monster and yet it looks and moves real.
the obvious culprits are the Star Wars movies. anyone that is a fan should watch Red Letter Media's reviews of the three new ones. They are incredible
Quote from: "surly74"one of my favorite movies is Alien, from 1977. It would be a flop today. nothing happens but story building for the first 45 minutes. no CGI on the monster and yet it looks and moves real.
the obvious culprits are the Star Wars movies. anyone that is a fan should watch Red Letter Media's reviews of the three new ones. They are incredible
But...but Surly... I like Star Wars. *pout* Sorry :rollin: but I do........................ always have.
Quotespecial effects used to help tell the story, now the story is an excuse to show special effects.
This. It's visible in various media, and equally bullshit everywhere. The focus should be on the overall experience, not just the flashy parts.
Quote from: "Shiranu"George Lucas is one of the worst fucking story-tellers in Hollywood history
He had his day, but when I think of the big name directors of 80's, it's Stephen Spielberg and "that other guy."
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteIn recent interviews, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg made the comments that Hollywood had lost its way and forgotten how to tell stories as it focuses on budget busting special effects. Well, thank you Captain Obvious and Johnny Insight. People everywhere have been saying this for years.
George Lucas is one of the worst fucking story-tellers in Hollywood history, he can go fuck himself with a VCR, acting all high-and-mighty. Add ontop of that becoming one of the greatest sell outs... oh fuck off George.
But....but..... I have Loved his movies. *pout*
Okay, I am thinking of Star Wars that, lets be honest... are not ground breaking (or even amazingly good normal) movies story telling wise.
Indiana Jones I do like though. And I love his movies, but as a story teller? Nah, he is garbage.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"But....but..... I have Loved his movies. *pout*
It's hard to find fault with American Graffiti and Indiana Jones, although I've never been a big fan of Star Wars. But Lucas has a long string of movies to his credit, most of which I've never seen. He kind of fell off the radar after that adult actor and little boy were killed in a scene where a helicopter crashes. Can't remember what movie that was. I don't know if that had an effect on his career or not.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"But....but..... I have Loved his movies. *pout*
Okay, I am thinking of Star Wars that, lets be honest... are not ground breaking (or even amazingly good normal) movies story telling wise.
Indiana Jones I do like though. And I love his movies, but as a story teller? Nah, he is garbage.
The good-guy vs the bad-guy is not supposed to be ground-breaking. And...... I'd have to admit that sometimes I just want entertainment. Sometimes I just don't care about the psychology of it all. Just a couple of hours of decompress.
Still, however, I require a decent story line. There have been a few movies where others were Soooo impressed that left me with a huge "wtf" in my head - like The English Patient for example. I think the whole world was impressed with that one when I wanted to stick a fork in my own eye.
Maybe my tastes are a bit askew.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"There have been a few movies where others were Soooo impressed that left me with a huge "wtf" in my head - like The English Patient for example. I think the whole world was impressed with that one when I wanted to stick a fork in my own eye.
Maybe my tastes are a bit askew.
I was socially out of step with that one, too. Everyone raved about it, but I missed whatever it was that was supposed to make it special.
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteIn recent interviews, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg made the comments that Hollywood had lost its way and forgotten how to tell stories as it focuses on budget busting special effects. Well, thank you Captain Obvious and Johnny Insight. People everywhere have been saying this for years.
George Lucas is one of the worst fucking story-tellers in Hollywood history, he can go fuck himself with a VCR, acting all high-and-mighty. Add ontop of that becoming one of the greatest sell outs... oh fuck off George.
THX1138 is on my list of the best films of all time.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"But....but..... I have Loved his movies. *pout*
It's hard to find fault with American Graffiti and Indiana Jones, although I've never been a big fan of Star Wars. But Lucas has a long string of movies to his credit, most of which I've never seen. He kind of fell off the radar after that adult actor and little boy were killed in a scene where a helicopter crashes. Can't remember what movie that was. I don't know if that had an effect on his career or not.
Lucas was the producer of the Indy movies but didn't direct them...thank god.
And as for American Graffiti, he was more driven by the artistic work over creating characters to merchandise. also, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.
I think I had posted my theory that it was Indiana Jones that ruined Star Wars, and thus George Lucas.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"I think I had posted my theory that it was Indiana Jones that ruined Star Wars, and thus George Lucas.
But....but...I LOVE Indiana Jones.
You guys are killing me.
*pout pout*
Quote from: "Shiranu"Okay, I am thinking of Star Wars that, lets be honest... are not ground breaking (or even amazingly good normal) movies story telling wise.
Indiana Jones I do like though. And I love his movies, but as a story teller? Nah, he is garbage.
The original three took a well known story and did something great with them. The new episodes...well, not so much. Guess who directed what.
From a story perspective there really isn't much new ground to be broken. I'm trying to think of the last very original story or method...Blair Witch comes to mind.
If that thing was released in the 80's camping would have ended.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "the_antithesis"I think I had posted my theory that it was Indiana Jones that ruined Star Wars, and thus George Lucas.
But....but...I LOVE Indiana Jones.
You guys are killing me.
*pout pout*
It has nothing to do with it.
It's a fairly well-known fact that the production of Raiders of the Lost Ark had problems, was rushed in places, and what Lucas disliked is a lot of "character" stuff was on the cutting room floor. Lucas was mostly absent during the production of Empire Strikes Back, but at that point he'd taken in the idea that people don't want character. They want a roller coast ride. Even saying that Empire would have made just as much money if it wasn't as good. What was that character stuff left out of Raiders? We don't know specifically what Lucas was the most upset about, but one element was that during the previous relationship between Indy and Marion she was under age. Some of the dialog remains:
"I was a child."
"You knew what you were doing."
Just wrap you head around that while remembering that Lucas's wife left him around the production of Return of the Jedi but left their adopted daughter in his care.
Is Lucas a pedophile or pedophile sympathizer who'd hoped to introduce to the world a hero that would have relations with under age girls the way Edward D Wood Jr tried to drum up sympathy and understanding for transvestites with Glen or Glenda? I honestly don't know. I'd like to think not. In either case, he got the idea that character and story is not what sells. He became the money man he'd founded Lucasfilm LTD to avoid. After Jedi, he took a rather long break from Star Wars and during that time, many of the people who'd help make Star Wars what it was had left Lucas and he surrounded himself with yes men and that's when things really started to suck.
And who's fault was it? Indiana Jones. That's who. Damn pedophile.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"We don't know specifically what Lucas was the most upset about, but one element was that during the previous relationship between Indy and Marion she was under age. Some of the dialog remains:
"I was a child."
"You knew what you were doing."
Eh, I could read that to mean she was young and naive and he took advantage of that, but not literally underage.
In any case, I'm easy to please. I enjoyed Star Wars, the original trilogy, very much. I enjoyed Indiana Jones very much. The first was the best, but the next two were fine.
The Star Wars prequels, not so much. But, they had some moments. The last Indiana Jones sort of the same. Nuking the fridge was stupid. But, it had some moments. I didn't utterly detest the new Star Wars or Indiana Jones. But clearly not the same as the originals.
I don't bother to bash Lucas. I know there is good reason to. But, hey, he did a lot of stuff I never could and despite his flaws, I've been entertained by at least some of his work. So, who am I to bash him? I'm not sad he's retired though, LOL.
Like I said, I'm pretty easy to please.
Except that fucking Steve Carrell magician movie. Fuck that was terrible...
I think, as a movie maker, he was very good... I enjoyed Star Wars and Indiana Jones. I only criticize his writing ability.
And that magician movie looked total garbage, did you actually go and see it?
Quote from: "Shiranu"And that magician movie looked total garbage, did you actually go and see it?
A page or two back I reviewed it. I took a trip to Europe, mainly business. But I stopped in Athens for a couple of days. Anyway, I watched a stack of movies on the plane since I can't sleep on planes. I normally like Carrel. And the woman in the seat next to me watched it and laughed a few times. So I asked what she was watching. She told me, and said it was decent. So I watched it. It was among the worst movies I've ever watched in its entirety. Usually I turn it off if it is that bad, but for some reason I don't know why, I just kept watching. What complete piece of shit. At least I didn't pay anything for it.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Except that fucking Steve Carrell magician movie. Fuck that was terrible...
I hear you, but I don't think it was as bad as the time Steve Carrell played that Noah character and built an ark in his yard.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteIn recent interviews, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg made the comments that Hollywood had lost its way and forgotten how to tell stories as it focuses on budget busting special effects. Well, thank you Captain Obvious and Johnny Insight. People everywhere have been saying this for years.
George Lucas is one of the worst fucking story-tellers in Hollywood history, he can go fuck himself with a VCR, acting all high-and-mighty. Add ontop of that becoming one of the greatest sell outs... oh fuck off George.
THX1138 is on my list of the best films of all time.
Have any of you even seen THX 1138?
Quote from: "Jmpty"Have any of you even seen THX 1138?
I did, something like 20 years ago. Long after Star Wars was out. I don't remember it well. I remember it being slow.
Still working my way through 50 years of 007
The Living Daylights.
While it's nice to see a shakespearian actor's take on Bond, the scryptwriters didn't quite know how to make that shine. The parts where he's forced to emulate Moore's shuaveness fall flat. The badguys (Jeroen Krabbe kissing and hugging people, and Joe Don Baker playing with a remote controll) are abysmal and the arian looking henchman with exploding milkbottles can't save that day. The designated stuntmen with their ultra-flat conceiled parachutes deliver an exciting in-air actionscene though, that easily tops their preformance in previous installments. Miriam D' abo plays perhaps the most anoyingly stupid bondgirl ever.
6/10
It has been years since I've seen the Timothy Dalton Bond movies. Basically, I saw then when new in theaters and not since. But I remember really enjoying them at the time and thought Dalton made a great Bond. But, I seemed to have been in the minority.
Dirty Girl starring Juno Temple.
I found myself sporting an odd Juno Temple fixation after browsing through movie trailers on YouTube and this flick in particular peaked my interest. Lucky for me, Dirty Girl is an Instant View on Netflix so I gave it a go.
The film takes place in 1987. Juno stars as Danielle Edmonston, a promiscuous high school student from small town Oklahoma who possesses a reputation as the school slut. She is partnered up with an overweight gay student named Clark for a class project. Her mother, played by Milla Jovovich, is planning on marrying a devout Mormon (William H. Macy) and the new husband is planning on adopting Danielle once the nuptials are completed. She has no desire to become a good Mormon girl and decides to run off to California to find her real father in an act of rebellion and Clark, in an effort to escape his homophobic and abusive father, decides to join her on her quest.
There's no other way to put it other than I friggin' loved this movie. The reviews, both from professional critics and viewers, weren't very good but I must say that I completely 100% disagree with such negative sentiments in regards to this film. It deserves heaps more credit than it has been given. It's cute, funny, and deals with some pretty serious subject matter that makes for some very emotional scenes. It alternated between making me want to laugh and cry all while making use of an awesome 80's soundtrack that blended with the story perfectly. It also features a great ensemble cast consisting of Juno, Milla, and Macy as well as Jeremy Dozier, Dwight Yoakam, Mary Steenburgen, and Tim McGraw.
I've viewed it 3 times in the past 2 days. Maybe I'm overselling it but I feel like I can't stress enough how much I adored this movie. I'm incredibly glad I stumbled upon Dirty Girl and I strongly recommend it.
The Conjuring 6/10 (for being above average creepy)
I don't usually go to these. I find them mostly boring with the same repetitious plot. But every once in a while I get a Regal Cinema Club free movie. There were only two movies I wanted to see this week, Wolverine and maybe The Conjuring, but as often happens, the pass is not good for the most recently released movie, so I couldn't use it for Wolverine. I'm a fan of the X-men, but the other Wolverine movie was kind of so so. Not a big loss. I'll catch it when the DVD comes out.
I didn't find the religious parts of The Conjuring annoying. It's a horror flick, where nothing is real, anyway. In fact, I thought having to wait for clearance from the Pope to do an exorcism, while the family was obviously in mortal danger was funny. I was startled once, and creeped out a number of times, which doesn't usually happen to me in this kind of film. So for those who are into this sort of thing, I'll say it wasn't too bad.
The movie claims to be a true story, or at least based on a true story and real life characters, who are actually identified with what appears to be real family photos at the end during the credits. I suppose you could look them up in a telephone book or something. I got a chuckle out of that. I suppose some people think it's a documentary. :-D
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"There have been a few movies where others were Soooo impressed that left me with a huge "wtf" in my head - like The English Patient for example. I think the whole world was impressed with that one when I wanted to stick a fork in my own eye.
Maybe my tastes are a bit askew.
No, you're tastes aren't skewed. "The English Patient" sucks bulk-bin quantities of cock...
Quote from: "the_antithesis"So I finally went and saw that Pacific Rim thing. I liked it well enough, but I left feeling underwhelmed in some way and I can't quite put my finger on why.
Part of the problem with "Pacific Rim" is that the best part of the movie is not the actual climax, rather it's the fight in Hong Kong City. The movie is kinda down hill from there...
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Except that fucking Steve Carrell magician movie. Fuck that was terrible...
I hear you, but I don't think it was as bad as the time Steve Carrell played that Noah character and built an ark in his yard.
Everyone might be better off avoiding anything with Carrell. He's a funny enough guy, but his movie batting average is exceptionally poor. Just check out "Dinner for Schmucks" is you need any proof...
The little Mermaid. Terrible. I give it a 5/6, just for the fact that some songs are catchy, and some characters were enjoyable (not including Ariel). Ariel is a pain in the arse, she's a brat if you ask me. Sure aren't teenagers like that at a point, but selling your body and life for a man, risking the entire kingdom for her dream, is sooo.....lame. She get's what she wants in the end. Big whoop.
Quote from: "rickcopeland648"Quote from: "the_antithesis"So I finally went and saw that Pacific Rim thing. I liked it well enough, but I left feeling underwhelmed in some way and I can't quite put my finger on why.
Part of the problem with "Pacific Rim" is that the best part of the movie is not the actual climax, rather it's the fight in Hong Kong City. The movie is kinda down hill from there...
Yeah. I was thinking that myself. The story structure was just plain bad. It leaves you feeling kind of meh. It's like if you're given a meal, and it's good. We'll say excellent for the sake of argument. But you're left staring at your dirty plate for the next half hour.
(//http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTcwNzgyNzUzOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzAwOTA5OA@@._V1_SX214_.jpg)
We rented the new Bruce Willis Die Hard this past week............ OMG so bad. Really terrible. I fell asleep about 20 mins into it because I just didn't give a rats ass if Bruce (and company) got shot in the head. I'm a Bruce Willis fan so that's saying a lot.
You can skip this one - seriously.
LICENCE TO KILL (1989)
Perhaps the most underrated of the 007's. The cardboard Lupé character and vengeance against a druglord (rather than Pinky and The Brain taking over the world) are it's only major gripes imho; besides that it's a slick, well-paced, well-bloody actionmovie, with awesome stuntwork and great badguy preformances by Robert Davi and Benico Del Torro.
8.5/10
Goldeneye (1994)
Spoiler alert... Sean Bean dies in this one. Xena Onatop is memorable enough, and so is 007 fucking shit up in a tank.
Probably Brosnan's best Bond. 8/10
Just saw Elysium with Matt Damon with my dad today. Good, bloody action (although over the top at one particular point). Both villains are very vanilla. One is a caricature of the right-wing stance on immigration, while the other (and his friends) crazy just because whatever. All other characters on Elysium lack any real depth.
[spoil:ln49rht7]We had a good opportunity with the secretary thrown in the same armory with the secondary protagonist (a nurse), but that opportunity dies as the secretary does.[/spoil:ln49rht7] Still, we have a well-stated "good vs evil" thing going on.
Damon is nice as a sarcastic guy trying to build his way up, and he gives a couple generally funny moments in the film. Earth's socioeconomic disparity is well established by the slums. LA looks like the worst aspects of any developing country. The goal, is a solid, understandable one. Max (Damon) is going to die if he doesn't get to Elysium within five days. It lets the audience know what to expect.
Right-wingers will hate this movie (which gives it two extra points in my book). The wealthy are generally portrayed as selfish and indifferent to the plights of the poor (especially immigrants), keeping everything to themselves, and the poor are portrayed as victims and heroes, even some of the seedier elements. I've seen a lot of frothing over this film already, though it's wasn't nearly as much as Avatar.
Overall, fun to watch.
9/10.
Tomorrow never dies (1997)
If it hadn't been for the weaksause bulletsoup finale, this one could've topped Goldeneye. But as at is I'll have to call it a tie. One of the best-paced bonds in the series. 8/10
Quote from: "Jutter"Tomorrow never dies (1997)
If it hadn't been for the weaksause bulletsoup finale, this one could've topped Goldeneye. But as at is I'll have to call it a tie. One of the best-paced bonds in the series. 8/10
You keep watching James Bond movies like this, and you might end up thinking you have a license to kill. They will have to commit you.
Only five left to go, to complete the 50 years of 007. It's just a fun franchise. Eyecandy, erotica, suspense, action, stunts, but also humor, and even cheeze and camp and some sub-par special effects... intentional or not. It all makes for guaranteed entertainment ranging from so-bad-it's-good, to great.
Quote from: "Jutter"It's just a fun franchise.
Most likely the longest running franchise, too.
During an interview with Pierce Brosnan, a dumb lady (parafrasing) opened with: "at my videostore they have a whole seperate James Bond section; isn't that amazing?" Pierce, in response, all but facepalms.
[youtube:cnpsw5ue]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwNjjIBG3jY[/youtube:cnpsw5ue]
forward to 16:55
If the Star Wars series had produced 20+ movies by now, which basicly would've been doable, it could be mistaken for a section of it's own too I guess. Right next to the Star Trek section.
The latest Bond films with Daniel Craig are more just action films. While they are generally good action films, they don't have the tongue in cheek quality of the older Bond movies, which set them apart from the usual action films. I've read some criticism in this regard. But times change. Maybe that's what movie goers prefer, but obviously some people miss the older films.
Quote from: "SGOS"The latest Bond films with Daniel Craig are more just action films. While they are generally good action films, they don't have the tongue in cheek quality of the older Bond movies, which set them apart from the usual action films. I've read some criticism in this regard. But times change. Maybe that's what movie goers prefer, but obviously some people miss the older films.
The Craig reboot shaved off the camp and cheeze considerably, but not entirely. It's still there somewhat. A guy dripping blood from his eye... Bond straightening his fistcufs while the traincart behind him gets wildly demolished. Craig's Bond is decidedly more thugish than his more suave predecessors; that's a complaint I've read often, but maybe that's what the current zeitgeist demands...
Bond does have this tendancy to change along with his zeitgeist somewhat. Connery's Bond dumped on the Beatles, smoked, and hit women... forward past Moore's carry-on Disco Bond, and Brosnan's non-smoking 007 gets smacked by women. The rape-kissy scenes where the bondgirl succumbs after James forces himself on them are gone too. They look laughable in retrospect. And come to think of it, it's weird that Craig's Bond is considered Thugish compared to his decreasingly mysogonistic colleagues.
Quote from: "Jutter"They look laughable in retrospect. And come to think of it, it's weird that Craig's Bond is considered Thugish compared to his decreasingly mysogonistic colleagues.
Yeah, laughable, but loveable, but maybe that's just nostalgia on my part. Craig probably is a bit more thuggish, but I think the word thuggish carries it too far. He still manages to clean up well and looks dashing in the casino segments. I always liked how even in games of chance, his good luck seemed to be "impeccable" as if befitting a gentleman.
Now you've got me thinking about doing a Bond marathon, but I've got a number of other things to watch before I start on the old Bond films. I do have a number of them in my collection, but it's been a long time since I pulled them out.
I was visiting a friend in Seattle a few years ago. I'd lived in a small town that had a drive in, which has since blown down in a windstorm, and a theater, which closed in the summer, because the town wasn't big enough to support both a drive in and a theater (the theater has recently disappeared due to economics, I understand). Both were really sub par.
Anyway, my friend wanted to show me a Cineplex with stadium seating and top quality sound (he used to live in my town so he knew I didn't know much about what was happening in the real world), and he decided we should see Die Another Day, which was just released. He thought it would be the best movie out at that time that could demonstrate the quality of an upscale theater. I actually flinched when an sawmill blade was blown off it's axle and shot right at the camera (this wasn't even in 3D). God, I'm such a hick. :-D
I've never read them but from what I've come to understand, Daniel Craig's 007 is the closest to the man that Ian Fleming originally created in the novels. Fleming described him as sort of a blunt instrument or a tool to be used by the government.
I grew up as a huge James Bond fan and think Craig definitely ranks as at least one of the top 2 to ever play the character. I also think Casino Royale had the best Bond Girl in Vesper Lynd.
The world is not enough (1999)
This story's a slow starter, but it's also a sort of proto-skyfall, because M's a target.
7.5/10
Hey... isn't this the one with the sawblades?
Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters - What a disappointment. I even liked the first one better. The only good thing about this movie is Percy and Mr. D. The rest is bad.
Grade: D+
couple o'more days... Kickass 2 comes out.
So which one of you cunts will do a rating first? Eeny... meeny... miney....
Gandhi. Hard to rate it, 9/10 I guess. Of course, even retrospectively Kingsleys portrail is fantastic.
I had not seen the movie until now, but what I got out of it had more to do with the Indian culture, and general human nature that also happened to include the story of one mans life. Maybe that is what makes it so good, and what made him a legend in his own time, that to him, it was always about humanity and never really about him.
[Sarcasm]Considering how much fewer gangrapes surely are bound to occur in modern India, just imagine how many gangrapes surely must've occured in Ghandi's days. Hense Ghandi's wellknown stance on gangraping women.[/sarcasm]
Sorry, but when someone brings up Ghandi, I think India. When I think India, I think gangraping.
Quote from: "Jutter"couple o'more days... Kickass 2 comes out.
So which one of you cunts will do a rating first? Eeny... meeny... miney....
I'm looking forward to that one. I'm also braced for the sequel letdown, but I can tell you now, I'm not missing that movie.
Quote from: "Jutter"couple o'more days... Kickass 2 comes out.
So which one of you cunts will do a rating first? Eeny... meeny... miney....
ME ME ME!
I dunno. I didn't bother watching the first one. It just didn't interest me.
The first Kick Ass was really good. The reviews so far on Rotten Tomatoes seem to indicate that it isn't as fresh as the original. But, still worth seeing.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"The first Kick Ass was really good. The reviews so far on Rotten Tomatoes seem to indicate that it isn't as fresh as the original. But, still worth seeing.
The first one was positively unique and enjoyable. Young Chloe Moretz was adorable as Hit Girl. I saw her interviewed about playing such a foul mouthed little girl, and she said, "OMG if I talked like that at home, I'd be grounded for a year."
Raine Wilson put out a mirror of Kick Ass simply titled Super. It was OK, but had a darker more pathetic quality. I'm not sure you can do Kick Ass twice. The first one was a startling twist that depended on the current super hero frenzy, but that particular uniqueness is going to be gone in the sequel. I'm still looking forward to it. I keep thinking it's possible to do a sequel that's even better than the original, but Hollywood has an awfully hard time pulling it off.
Ashens and the Quest for the Game Child (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS2Cnx_eL6s)
I wanted to like this movie a lot more than I actually did. I've been watching Stuart Ashen's channel where he reviews crap he brought at Poundland on his sofa. This is his first feature-length film. It has a few too many in jokes and too few actually funny jokes. It's kind of typical of youtubers where they go for too long on something. I wasn't expecting and deep and meaningful character study. Too be fair, the actual premise is solid, I guess. The main concept of the plot, I mean. But it's let down by getting his friends and fellow youtubers in on the act in cameos and whatnot. But that may be how the film got made in the first place. I was disappointed that his friend who plays Chef Excellence didn't spend the entire film in a chef's outfit. That would have been better, I think. But, ultimately it just wasn't as funny as i would have liked. I don't recall groaning or rolling my eyes, but I wasn't laughing much, either. I guess I'll chalk this up as a nice first effort. Try harder next time. Too bad the sophomore effort is usually crap.
Mud 7/10
I was looking forward to this one, because I saw very high viewer ratings when it was in the theater. It's a good movie, but I don't think as good as the rave reviews. The story is pretty good but not brilliant. It's interesting, but not complex.
I like Elysium, but I pretty much like anything with robots, explosions, and Jodie Foster.
Kick Ass 2 - It's been awhile since I disagreed so passionately with a grade a movie has on Rottentomatoes. I loved this movie. It was fun, human, and kicked ass. Seriously.
Grade: A-
Quote from: "Notthesun"Kick Ass 2 - It's been awhile since I disagreed so passionately with a grade a movie has on Rottentomatoes. I loved this movie. It was fun, human, and kicked ass. Seriously.
Grade: A-
Rotten Tomatoes had it at 27 a day before the sneak preview was shown at my theater. I don't how that's is possible.
Kick Ass II 10/10
This is why I go to the movies. It had my attention right from the start. When the over the top Kick Ass type action isn't going on, there's still always something interesting. As a sequel it especially stands out, and I think it might even be better than the first one. I may have to watch it a couple more times to decide for sure. I laughed an awful lot, sometimes even when the blood was flowing. The main characters are a little bit older, and the story takes that into account. It carries on with the next part of their lives, rather than try to do the same thing all over again pretending Hit Girl is still a little kid. I wondered how they were going to handle that. I hope they do Kick Ass III. I'm a committed fan.
Die Another Day (2002)
This trainwreck of a movie tries too hard to become a loveletter to the bondfans. It was too sucessfull at the boxoffice to count as something that nearly killed the franchise, but with the growing competition from Jason Bourne and Mission Impossible it was clearly time for a reboot.
Still this is effective as cheesy etertainment, and only goes to show that even the worst Bond-flick is worth watching.
7/10
Casino Royale(2006)
Some people don't like how Eon Productions decided to give us, rather than the familliar movie 007, something decidedly closer to Flemming's 007... I'm not one of them. To top Brosnan's final Bond, we would've needed Ewoks. This was the right choice. 9/10
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"I like Elysium, but I pretty much like anything with robots, explosions, and Jodie Foster.
I do also! Elysium was a good picture. And Jodi as always is great. :wink: Solitary
Elysium was good, I enjoyed it alot, but its pacing felt really... weird. I give it an 7/10 for just feeling... awkward in its progression and pacing.
Emperor 7/10
Not sure if this one made it to theaters. It's available now at Red Box on DVD, but not in Blu-ray, which might suggest it's of limited interest. Tommy Lee Jones plays General MacArthur, who is actually a supporting character. The story is limited to a narrow focus of ten days during the first part of the rebuilding of Japan after WWII.
MacArthur assigned to a second in command the task of deciding whether or not Emperor Hirohito should be tried for war crimes. The investigation had to take place in 10 days. It could have been told in a much shorter time, but it was interesting none the less. There are also some flashbacks as the main character, General Fellers, in charge of the investigation, thinks back to his previous love, a Japanese woman prior to WWII. That part could have been left out, I think.
There probably is some history to be learned, but the movie feels like a lot of Hollywood glamor had been added. Still, I think it is worth watching.
Quantum of Solace (2008)
What otherwise could've been great actionscenes (the ropedangling duel and the propellorplane chase were potentially memorable), are sadly ruined by shitty editing. Erraticly jumping from one split-seccond-shot to another makes them exhausting to watch and nearly impossible to follow. The plot shouldn't be blamed. Finding out more about the Quantum organization, and answering the questions that gave him torturous mixed feelings about Vesper, both demanded the same actions from Bond. I like how that places 007 in a spot where M starts doubting his loyalty. I think that made for a pretty good plot. Such a shame things got slaughtered during post-production.
6/10
Dishonored Lady - 7/10. It wasn't amazing, but I kinda liked it. It is from the 30's I believe staring Hedy Lamarr.
Skyfall (2012)
Javier Bardem's character is delightfully creepy, and therefore somewhat forgiven for being entirely too omnicient. Moneypenny's back and as flirty as ever. MI6 get's an explosive makeover that was much needed because the 'old' office was starting to look sterile and too sci-fi. Making M the main bondgirl was unconventional, but a good way to pass on the baton to Ralph Fienes. The courtroom scenes suffer from unprofessional un-courtroom-like diatribes. The ending, straight out of Home Alone, ends with an anticlimatic knife in the back but was entertaining enough. The cinematography is luckily back on par. It took three movies worth of tweaking (okay two worth of tweaking, and one awefull sidetrack in the middle), but the franchise has now effectively been reset for perhaps another 50 years of 007
8,5/10
P.S. I hope the next films will further establish Quantum as the much needed replacement for SPECTRE.
Board Walk Empire Season 3 7/10
Not as engaging as the first two seasons. A lot of time is spent on family dynamics, rather than on gangster stuff. It's like a whole season devoted to one gangster story with filler added. I still enjoyed it, although I not as much as S1 and S2.
Olympus Has Fallen 10/10
I was hard up for a movie, and didn't think this would be all that good. Surprise. I didn't know what it was, except that it sounded like Secret Service guarding the president. I won't say anymore lest I undermine the viewing experience. I enjoyed going into this one cold. I'm happy I didn't know anything about it beforehand. Got my attention right away, and more so as the film progressed.
Star Trek Into Darkness: 9/10
Aside from a few eye rolling moments, I thoroughly enjoyed it. They borrowed heavily from the old material, but changed it up enpugh that everything was a surprise.
I especially loved the very end. Sometimes movies seem to meander at the end, but this one was perfect. Overall, I enjoyed it much more than the first one.
Miss Congeniality
for the 12 time...I giggle all the way through it. It's just a fun time.
Yeah its not a great movie, but its always a 10.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Star Trek Into Darkness: 9/10
Aside from a few eye rolling moments, I thoroughly enjoyed it. They borrowed heavily from the old material, but changed it up enpugh that everything was a surprise.
I especially loved the very end. Sometimes movies seem to meander at the end, but this one was perfect. Overall, I enjoyed it much more than the first one.
Right now for me, anything with Cumberbatch in it cant get less than an 8/10, he is so good.
Epic : 4/10
The 4 is entirely for the animation, which is gorgeous, magical, and thoroughly fabulous. It has a stupidpredictable plot that does not even make a stab at originality or surprise, poor poor choices for voice actors, bad writing, bad dialog, bad music, dumb main and even dumber side characters, etc. Excluding a few really beautifully animated scenes, this movie is one to avoid, unless you are looking for something to help you sleep.
Epic....failure.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Epic : 4/10
The 4 is entirely for the animation, which is gorgeous, magical, and thoroughly fabulous. It has a stupidpredictable plot that does not even make a stab at originality or surprise, poor poor choices for voice actors, bad writing, bad dialog, bad music, dumb main and even dumber side characters, etc. Excluding a few really beautifully animated scenes, this movie is one to avoid, unless you are looking for something to help you sleep.
Epic....failure.
100% agree. I saw it on a plane. I know that all movies have to recycle elements. There is nothing really new under the sun. But, this came off as the most derivative, least original way to recycle old elements I have seen. What is the term for a plot device of an object that the good guy and the bad guy both want? In any case, that has been done many times, of course, But, it was so poorly done here.
Psycho From Texas.
1/10. I'd give it zero, but it's so bad that it's at least good for a laugh.
Quote from: "aitm"Miss Congeniality
for the 12 time...I giggle all the way through it. It's just a fun time.
Yeah its not a great movie, but its always a 10.
*smacks taxi* I'm Gliding Here!!! :rollin:
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"100% agree. I saw it on a plane.
OMG! LOL I know movies shown on planes and in the club cars of trains have to be washed, cleaned, and approved for all audiences, and I'm not talking about just shielding our vulnerable children from sex. You can't offend anyone, not even grownups, with anything. Movies are weeded out of consideration, sent through committees of good taste, followed by the censor experts, and finally approved by the chairman of the board who is in deathly fear of being fired if some disgruntled customer writes a complaint.
The result is the that you get to watch the most uninteresting stuff. It's too bad, because it sounds like such a wonderful idea to pass the time being provided with a movie as part of the long flight or ride.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Aroura33"Star Trek Into Darkness: 9/10
Aside from a few eye rolling moments, I thoroughly enjoyed it. They borrowed heavily from the old material, but changed it up enpugh that everything was a surprise.
I especially loved the very end. Sometimes movies seem to meander at the end, but this one was perfect. Overall, I enjoyed it much more than the first one.
Right now for me, anything with Cumberbatch in it cant get less than an 8/10, he is so good.
Right. Watch Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and get a major dose of British superior acting. Cumberbatch more than holds his own against the best, playing a very paranoid agent that has to steal a file from his agency. One of the best bits of acting I've seen, period. Very few lines spoken, but his body language alone just sells everything.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"100% agree. I saw it on a plane.
OMG! LOL I know movies shown on planes and in the club cars of trains have to be washed, cleaned, and approved for all audiences, and I'm not talking about just shielding our vulnerable children from sex. You can't offend anyone, not even grownups, with anything. Movies are weeded out of consideration, sent through committees of good taste, followed by the censor experts, and finally approved by the chairman of the board who is in deathly fear of being fired if some disgruntled customer writes a complaint.
The result is the that you get to watch the most uninteresting stuff. It's too bad, because it sounds like such a wonderful idea to pass the time being provided with a movie as part of the long flight or ride.
Actually, I saw "Silver Lining Playbook" on the flight from Kahului to LA and it was both vulgar and provocative. It was censored but you still knew what they were saying.
I don't remember what company that flight was with though :.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"100% agree. I saw it on a plane.
OMG! LOL I know movies shown on planes and in the club cars of trains have to be washed, cleaned, and approved for all audiences, and I'm not talking about just shielding our vulnerable children from sex. You can't offend anyone, not even grownups, with anything. Movies are weeded out of consideration, sent through committees of good taste, followed by the censor experts, and finally approved by the chairman of the board who is in deathly fear of being fired if some disgruntled customer writes a complaint.
The result is the that you get to watch the most uninteresting stuff. It's too bad, because it sounds like such a wonderful idea to pass the time being provided with a movie as part of the long flight or ride.
Actually, I saw "Silver Lining Playbook" on the flight from Kahului to LA and it was both vulgar and provocative. It was censored but you still knew what they were saying.
I don't remember what company that flight was with though :.
Well, that shoots down my theory pretty well. Silver Lining was a pretty good movie.
Maybe. It could be that particular company is a just bit more lax than your average company.
And yeah, I rather enjoyed it.
I'm on a movie binge, watching a bunch before school starts.
World War Z. 7/10
Action packed, good special effects. I have read the book, and already knew not to expect it to be very similar. They used a few things from the books all the same, and it was fun to pick those elements out. Other than that, it's just a raw action - entertainment movie, and fulfills that fairly well.
R.I.P.D.
Because this movie hasn't been released in the Netherlands yet, there's nothing I'm supposed to know about this Men-In-Black-ripoff with ghosts. So it should be impossible for me to report on how the cast delivers an excellent preformance, even if everything else about this picture is sub-par.
If you're going to find out for yourself whether the tomatometer/score of ten is indeed too harsh, and that it´s entertaining enough to kil ninety minutes with, I aught to have no reason to suggest you wait untill you can rent-buy at a discount.
6.5-10
Last movie I saw was Big Jake, an old western with john Wayne. Wasn't the best movie in the world, but a solid Western movie, far better than most westerns today, taking the whole action/slo-mo approach instead of the down and dirty gun fights of old.
I'd say 6.5/10
(the lower score is due to a few story flaws and the fact that the endings is abrupt)
Star Trek: Into Darkness
A great action movie. Is it Star Trek? Well....let's just say it's a great action movie. I think it lacks what made Star Trek great, though. It didn't make me think about morality, ethics, or philosophy much. I suppose if you picked at the movie enough you could find things to discuss of that nature, but they weren't part of the movie. The movie was about action sequences and catching the bad guy. I still enjoyed it a lot because it had a good plot and it had amazing special effects, except for the godddamn lens flare. ENOUGH WITH THE LENS FLARE, ABRAMS!
Elysium. 8/10
It's pretty good, but I didn't quite like the ending.
Quote from: "Sal1981"Elysium. 8/10
It's pretty good, but I didn't quite like the ending.
Same.
My Big Wedding 2/10
Coming from a person with a soft spot for romantic comedies, this movie was unbelievably pointless sap, but it had a cast of Hollywood icons.
Kick-ass 2
Not as good and stylisticly crisp as the first one, but then again few sequels are, and this was a particularly tough act to follow. It was refreshing to barely recognize Jim Carey, in spite of being well aware. But I can't help but wish Stars and Stripes had been a morally ambivalent go-between, gradually corrupting Kickass to suit the Motherfucker's twisted plans, but I suspect that's an opportunity the makers of the comics missed and can't be blamed on the moviemakers. Kick-ass gets buff, rather than an actual characterarch. And age inevitably hasn't been kind to the Hitgirl concept, because the dramatic gap between age and bloody antics has narrowed. The Motherfucker owns his part, this is mostly his show.
All in all still more entertaining than the Tomatometer gives it credit for. 7/10
Getaway
When director Courtney Solomon exploded onto the scene in 2000 with his debut Dungeons & Dragons, we were blessed with inept, talent-free film making not seen since Robot Monster. He followed this up with 2005's An American Haunting where a young woman was terrorized by the ghost of Moe Howard. Now after producer credits on a string of mediocre and unknown straight to DVD debacles, he takes the director's chair again with Getaway
The story starts in media res, which is hipster speak for "not fucking explaining anything right off the bat, so be prepared to either be confused or not give a shit." Eventually we learn that Ethan Hawk plays some guy who used to be a professional race car driver but now has come home to find his wife has been kidnapped and a mysterious caller on his phone tells him to obey his instructions or she'll die. He's made to steal a car simply covered with cameras so the mysterious voice can watch his every move and then drive through the downtown marketplace and smash all the christmas decorations. Jesus christ, who's the mysterious voice? The Grinch? Shortly thereafter he's carjacked by a chipmunk. Wait. No. That's Selena Gomez. So now she's stuck with him and all the pieces are in place for a fun romp, right?
Well, no. And fuck you.
If I were to summarize Getaway with just one word it would be "distracting." Not distracting in a good way how other movies distract us from our failed and miserable lives. It is distracting in that poor directing choices keep bringing me out of the experience so that any enjoyment I could have with the movie is undermined by the way it was made.
For example, there's a break in the drivey action so Hawk and Gomez can trade some dialog and deliver a bit of exposition, but the dialog is delivered with constant cutting back and forth the way all the action scenes had constant cuts to try and look more exciting than it really is. it was jarring enough that I not only noticed but was starting to get a little motion sickness from a fucking dialog scene.
The entire time Gomez looks either disinterested or like an angry chipmunk. I don't know why the fuck she's famous, but I found her voice to be squeaky and nasally and overall unpleasant to hear. Hawk told her to shut up early in the movie and my heart sank because no one who's told to shut up in a movie every fucking shuts up. She also has mysterious abilities stolen from an NPC support character in a video game. I wouldn't have been non-plussed if she'd pulled the ark of the covenant right out of her ass, if they had needed it. Throughout the editing kept putting in reaction shots from her as the drivey action was going on. I could tell what they're doing as we get a quick look of her pudgy cheek and her hair whip out of her face. It's trying to be sexy, but fails.
Hawk, meanwhile, looks the part of a guy who had seen better days and now finds himself tits deep in this shit because the career choices that got him in this movie in the first place mirror the life choices his character made perfectly. He looks haggard and disinterested... No, disinterested would require ascribing emotion to his utterly blank performance, like how an electrical outlet looks happy. Yeah. He's just kind of there. Like a blank space on the set that reads "insert charismatic lead here."
The weak link for me Rebecca Budig as Hawk's kidnapped wife. This seems to be a thing with Coutney Solomon movies where the female character are awkward. Awkward in a way I can't quite put my finger upon. Like they used all their worst takes. Budig is especially awkward because there was no reason to put her in this movie at all. If you see this movie, try to imagine how much better it would have been if we never saw her until the end because all of her scene until the end are just padding. But even then she's awkward as fuck like Solomon didn't give her any direction because he's a goddamned nerd and is to too shy to talk to girls. Chipmunks, yes. Girls, no.
What holds it all together is the mystery of who this mysterious voice could be. He has quite a bit of control and is forcing Hawk to intentionally get into chases with the cops and then lose them within a fixed time limit. So who is he and what's his big plan? Well, since we have no backstory to work with, he turns out to be person non-Grata played by Jon Voight in a wasted cameo. His plan is to steal money somehow using computers. So it all kind of fizzles at the end.
Overall it's an unpleasant movie to watch. Solomon hasn't learned a damn thing about how to direct a movie in the last thirteen years. None of the actors seem all that invested, and neither was the audience. One part near the end when Hawk's gotten his wife back but the bad guy had captured Gomez and was driving away, there's a lengthy sequence filmed from the front of Hawk's car as he chases the bad guy down. It goes for at least two minutes, which is forever in movie time especially when it's a car chase down a public street. it doesn't look like any CGI was used. The cordoned off a lengthy stretch of road in a busy European city and set up stunt drivers to do near misses and did this entire thing in all one, unbroken shot. Such misspent effort on something that might have been cool in a better movie. Here, it just come off as weird and pretentious. But the real problem is that this movie isn't all that memorable. Dungeons & Dragons was memorable, at least. Memorably bad, but still memorable. I'm already forgetting Getaway. Possibly to kill every neuron containing the memory of Selena Gomez's voice. Ick.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"the dialog is delivered with constant cutting back and forth the way all the action scenes had constant cuts to try and look more exciting than it really is. it was jarring enough that I not only noticed but was starting to get a little motion sickness from a fucking dialog scene.
Having recently watched Quantum of Solace again, I can feel your pain. When no shot stays for longer than a splitsecond, it just becomes exhausting thus anoying.
Quote from: "Jutter"Quote from: "the_antithesis"the dialog is delivered with constant cutting back and forth the way all the action scenes had constant cuts to try and look more exciting than it really is. it was jarring enough that I not only noticed but was starting to get a little motion sickness from a fucking dialog scene.
Having recently watched Quantum of Solace again, I can feel your pain. When no shot stays for longer than a splitsecond, it just becomes exhausting thus anoying.
Shaky cam is like that, too. These kinds of devices can add a sense of intensity to a movie if they're used sparingly, but if they do much more than hint or nudge the film along, they begin to lose their effectiveness and become chaotic. At a certain point, it starts to seem obvious that the director is using gimmicks because he really doesn't have much of a story to tell. In the worst case, it can actually flat out wreck a potentially good movie.
I liked "distracting" as it's been used here. You have to wonder if you are intentionally being "distracted" so you won't realize the movie is that bad, or is it just simply distracting?
Now You See Me 10/10
Recently released on DVD (I don't think it played in theaters around here), I just rented it from Red Box, and watched it cold. It stars Morgan Freeman, Jessie Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Mélanie Laurent, Mark Ruffalo, and Michael Caine. Street magicians team up to even an old score with some dazzling tricks and make it to the big time. But their journey to stardom itself is one artfully carried out act of misdirection, as a much bigger agenda actually drives the action. This was great fun, and I don't want to spoil it by telling any more about the movie. Even if it turns out you aren't as impressed as I am, you will have a good time watching this highly enjoyable movie. Well worth renting this one.
Super Mario Brothers 5/10
I guess sometimes you can go back to a place you were 30 years ago to revive an old experience, but it won't be the same. The movie captured the feel of Donkey Kong or Super Mario with the appropriate background music and non stop action with lots of confusion. It was like watching the Three Stooges in color: Shoot this guy; Now climb up; Jump; Go back; Turn right; Now hit this guy with your hammer; etc.
The thing I remembered and most liked (and still do) are the Goombas, devolved beings with low intelligence that formed an army of soldiers loyal to President Koopa. They would to whatever Koopa wanted, but always with the same stupid grins on their faces. They seemed to be happy all the time, probably due to the fact that they were mentally challenged.
However, Luigi Mario discovers that while they are trying to capture you or shoot you with their deadly ray guns, they could be distracted by waltz music. Give a goomba a slight nudge, and he would begin to sway in time to the music. Pretty soon the whole army would be swaying and dancing instead of fighting, until someone in charge would have to get them back on track. At one point in the movie some battle commander calls President Koopa with a problem, "Commander, the goombas are dancing again," to which Koopa, irritated by the call, yells into the phone, "Just deal with it."
Little kids would probably still like it. Good and evil are well defined, and there's lots of goofy characters.
Saw Elysium starring Matt Damon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 7Yt4TCtQ18 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=U7Yt4TCtQ18)
Well it was okay but kinds a slow and predictable. What was funny is that I have a very political conservative friend that didn't get the matephor messege of the movie. The movie is about illegal aliens, healthcare reform, racism, and a multitude of obvious political issues. One of the main charactors is a substitute for Che Guevera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara). The charactor even looks like him.
The movie is about a very polluted earth that is run buy robots and basically enslaves the poor population. Oh they are free so to speak, making slave wages living in poor conditions, but technically free. The rich and near rich live on a manmade satalite called "Elysium." The thing is that the people of Elysium have every freedom and modern convenience to include a medical device that can diagnose and cure any and everything. It looks like an MRI machine. To use such a device you must have a citizen tattoo (burned in), an ID that allows you to live on Elusium. Are you seeing the significance?
Well Matt Damon is a worker that is exposed to high radiation at his job and the company gives him pain pills and tells him he will die in 5 days, so he gets rigged up and goes (Illegally) to elysium to save his life. To do so he has to steal the security codes which get stored in his brain. Well I think that is enough info to wet your appetite, so go see it, or download it like we did and see the methephor that is Elysium!
The Cold Light Of Day (2012)
descent oldfashioned thriller, with strong supporting roles from Bruce Willis and Sigourney Weaver. Too bad that the payoff is so weak: a trained secret agent holding an ill-timed monologue, untill shot in the back by the triggerhappy Mossad tailing her.
7/10
Quote from: "Jutter"Quote from: "the_antithesis"the dialog is delivered with constant cutting back and forth the way all the action scenes had constant cuts to try and look more exciting than it really is. it was jarring enough that I not only noticed but was starting to get a little motion sickness from a fucking dialog scene.
Having recently watched Quantum of Solace again, I can feel your pain. When no shot stays for longer than a splitsecond, it just becomes exhausting thus anoying.
The weird thing is, I don't think it was a conscious decision. They had two people in a car, so set up two cameras on the actors, one for each, and when the actor had a line, it cut to them. But their lines were so short and came so rapid-fire, it became a distracting overuse of editing. If they'd had a third camera to get both actors in frame at the same time so they could take a break from that, or do a bold thing like not cut to the actor when they're speaking, it wouldn't have been such a problem.
This strikes me as the sort of mistakes a first year film student would make instead of a thirteen year industry veteran. Courtney Solomon started pretty bad in film with Dungeons & Dragons. It's just kind of sad that he hasn't improved in very basic ways over the last decade.
Killer Joe
Rate this 9 out of 10, which is big for me. This is one intense movie, done in a dark humor that is really sharp. GREAT ACTING by Matthew McConaughey, Juno Temple, Gina Gershon, Thomas Haden Church. Juno Temple alone is worth watching the movie. She plays this sexy, half there spaced out sister and just smokes on screen. McConaughey is incredible. The dude is a serious actor.
GREAT dialogue, GREAT plot, some odd twists, wild ending. HIGHLY recommended.
Rush 8/10
I'm not that interested in race cars, but this movie, a true story they tell me, held my interest. It's focuses on the personal competition between two Formula 1 champions in 1976. I went to a Formula 1 race way back when. The track was so big, most of the time the cars were just barely in sight. Then whoever you were cheering for would zoom by the stands in about a second and a half, and then would be gone again for a few minutes. LOL
But the movie was more interesting than that. During the racing parts you were in the car a good part of the time winding your way through the course at breath taking speeds. The background story was fairly interesting.
Gravity 10/10.
Literally, the only thing wrong with this movie was that we lose Clooney so soon in the film. :Hangman:
Quote from: "Savior2006"Gravity 10/10.
Literally, the only thing wrong with this movie was that we lose Clooney so soon in the film. :Hangman:
I was disappointed with that also. I thought the movie was OK. The story presented some neat strategies for getting out of the nightmare predicament that I've never thought about. It kept my interest, but I wasn't enamored with it.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Savior2006"Gravity 10/10.
Literally, the only thing wrong with this movie was that we lose Clooney so soon in the film. :Hangman:
I was disappointed with that also. I thought the movie was OK. The story presented some neat strategies for getting out of the nightmare predicament that I've never thought about. It kept my interest, but I wasn't enamored with it.
What would you score it?
Quote from: "Savior2006"What would you score it?
Clever resolution of the problem 9/10. Kudos to the writers.
But as far as engaging me personally 6/10
Personal engagement is a important aspect of a movie. This attribute is hard to defend since I can't say what it was. I was excited about seeing it, but when I left the theater, I didn't feel like I had connected with the film. For a me, a 10 movie has me thinking about it on the way home, and when I get up the next morning.
Moon 9/10
Oblivion totally ripped off this movie. Oblivion basically repeats the exact same plot that Moon came up with.
Captain Phillips 9/10
An interesting and tense recount of the piracy attack on the Maersk Alabama in 2009 off the coast of Somalia, so you know how the thing plays out. Some of the details don't exactly follow my recall of the event, but they come very close. It's not Tom Hanks' usual character, but he plays the role well. Everyone plays a convincing role. I'd say this one is a must see.
My Name Is Bruce.
Fun cheesy movie where Bruce Campbell plays... Bruce Campbell. What he believes to be a rollplaying prank from his agent, turns out to be not that at all. Now he has to play the Ash part for real to defeat... wait for it... the chinese patron saint of beancurd.
[youtube:3w0k0ofw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwi77qlEl9c[/youtube:3w0k0ofw]
This is the Bruce we love from the Evil Dead movies, in obnoxious and goofy topform.
8/10
Quote from: "Savior2006"[spoil:2aydtmqg]Literally, the only thing wrong with this movie was that we lose Clooney so soon in the film. :Hangman:[/spoil:2aydtmqg]
Thanks the fuck a lot for not using the spoil tag asshole.
I very much enjoyed the film. This is one of those movies really designed for 3D. A lot of people don't like 3D, or think it is overused, etc. Now, of course, some people really cannot visually tolerate 3D movies. But, for people that think 3D is overused, but like it occasionally, this, like Avatar, is one of those movies that is designed for 3D and best viewed in 3D.
They did a great job with visual realism. Some scientists point out that it is not scientifically realistic. Things happen in the movie that couldn't really happen. But, it is of course fiction. And for the average person who doesn't know what is or isn't possible, it has a very realistic feel to it.
It is a lot of fun. At least I think so. 9/10.
I've been aware for sometime that the third our fourth remake of Carrie is going to open soon. Great story that it was, I'm probably going to pass this time. The coming attractions appear to be the same script as the original with different actors. I'd can't imagine how you could improve on the original movie and it's cast chemistry. Maybe change the hair styles to make it more up to date, but the original movie set a high standard that I think will remain the defining "Carrie" for a long time.
I'm holding out for Godzilla in 2014.
Gravity - What a beauty. I loved every second of it.
Grade: A
Chyrnoble Diaries.. so my spelling sucks.. People go on an extreme tourism trip to the reactor and meet up with teenage mutant ninja turtles.
Scared me and few horror flicks phase me much less scare me, but this one got me...or I was stoned..
He! He! That was an interesting movie. I liked it. And I usually hate that type of movie. I never watched it yet, but my older son told me not to miss Gravity---10 out of ten. Solitary
The Phoenix is Rising on DVD 0/10
My god, that was poorly acted and directed. It should get some kind of an award. You might check out the reviews at Redbox.com. As of two days ago, no one, not one single person, gave it more than a half of one star. I should have read the reviews first, but I was hard up for a movie.
Sandra Bullock and some fat chick trying to reprise Bullock success with Ms Congeniality, if there are some re-runs of Mayberry I would suggest that instead. Oh its got its moments, but trying to make the fat chick a "heavy bad-ass" cop fails pretty bad when she can barely pick up a chair let alone muscle some guy out of a car... stick to Mayberry
Quote from: "aitm"Sandra Bullock and some fat chick trying to reprise Bullock success with Ms Congeniality, if there are some re-runs of Mayberry I would suggest that instead. Oh its got its moments, but trying to make the fat chick a "heavy bad-ass" cop fails pretty bad when she can barely pick up a chair let alone muscle some guy out of a car... stick to Mayberry
Melissa McCarthy is over the top repulsive for me. I seldom react to looks that way, but I can't bear to look at her, not even with the morbid curiosity one indulges in while gaping at freaks at a side show. But I suppose she deserves a round of applause for turning her handicap into something profitable. Still, I can't help being saddened watching her.
I didn't watch it, but a surgeon, a woman no less fixes a satelite moving 17000 mph? Yeah, send a dishwasher to do cardiac surgery naked in Antarctica with zero gravity.... :lol:
Not a movie, but still pretty good:
"The Dresden Files." TV show from Canada I've been watching on Hulu, loosely based on the books by Jim Butcher.
Harry Dresden is a the only openly practicing wizard in America. He runs a private investigators business in Chicago. Great books and a pretty good tv show that unfortunately only ran a single season.
Going to see "Ender's Game" tonight. Will update after the movie.
*Edit*
8/10 for "Ender's Game." The movie was about 50% true to the letter of the book but about 95% true to it's spirit. And, it was absolutely full of eye candy. My biggest disappointment was that it wasn't in 3D (at least where we're at). 3D would have put this one over the top as it did for "Avatar" and the latest Star Trek movie. Basically, it's a good movie that barely misses great.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"I didn't watch it, but a surgeon, a woman no less fixes a satelite moving 17000 mph? Yeah, send a dishwasher to do cardiac surgery naked in Antarctica with zero gravity.... :lol:
In zero gravity (technically in a friction-less enviroment I think), it doesn't matter how fast things move as long as you're moving with them. In general, speed is only a factor if you're moving through a particle field that has a different speed (like on earth with wind resistance; but we don't call it spectacular that people can repair a car indoors while going 1,000 miles per hour, which is the speed earth itself moves at)
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"There are so many obese people in US and UK. (Both society's populations include close to half obese).... You see her as handicapped many people see her 'normal' like themselves compared to abnormal Hollywood types....
It might also be the roles I've seen her in. Generally I avoid her movies, so I can't say I've seen a lot of her. I googled her yesterday and clicked on images. Actually, in images, rather than in roles, she looks like a right nice person. I recently took a chance and rented Identity theft because it got good reviews, but again, I disliked her in that movie. Looks aside, she played a disgusting person, fucking over people's lives just to swipe their identities and spend their money. I fast forwarded to the end to see how it turned out, and she apparently had a change of heart and morphed into a sweet considerate person. The whole scenario was absurd, but I got the impression that there was supposed to be a moral there (don't judge people by their looks). However, her actions were deplorable. I hated the movie. I don't know why I have such a negative visceral response to her. She's just an actress.
Edit: And no, I don't hate fat people. I understand that it's often not their fault, and I'm actually compassionate about that, but I react negatively to fat people who glorify being fat. It's not healthy, and while it may be uncontrollable, it's not something I think people should aspire to.
Cloud Atlas. One of the best films I have seen in recent memory. Interesting how it divided the critics, they either loved it or hated it.
Just saw Man of Steel yesterday, on an airplane. It has two main features:
1. Melodramatic speeches
2. CGI action
Action sequences are supposed to give you some thrill, excitement. Perhaps I've just seen too many action sequences, or perhaps the effect was muted by being on a little airplane screen, but, I didn't feel very much excitement or thrill with the action. It was just there. The rest of the movie is speeches that just seemed melodramatic to me.
Eh, there were some moments I liked. I thought Zod was a better villain than the Lex Luthor of Superman Returns. Then again, only slightly. He gave too many over the top speeches too.
They certainly had a good cast. Lawrence Fishborn, Kevin Costner, Russel Crowe. Henry Cavill makes a good Superman. Just needed a better script.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Action sequences are supposed to give you some thrill, excitement. Perhaps I've just seen too many action sequences, or perhaps the effect was muted by being on a little airplane screen,
I've wondered often enough if movie goer's infatuation with special effects will eventually wear thin. I like them when used effectively. I actually thought Superman used them quite well, but for the most part, my enjoyment of special effects is more about curiosity of the modern technology that is used to create them. Blowing up a car in a movie is just mundane repetitiousness. How the technicians in Hollywood do it is interesting, however.
I've read several articles in the past few months of how Hollywood is bemoaning the less than anticipated revenues of the last summer and making doom and gloom forecasts about the end of the movie industry. Apparently, special effects aren't cheap. But is it really that bad, or are some rich guys just whining about not making as much money as Wall Street?
Or maybe movie goers are getting bored with special effects and car chases. I know I am enthralled by the rare movie these days that is carried by the strength of a good story, rather than movies based on someone's rigid formula declaring every movie must have 3 car chases, 4 explosions, and 12 guys being taken out by a judo expert.
It seems to me that 90 minutes of repetitious adrenalin stimulating action once a week will eventually wear thin, especially when video games can provide that for hour after hour, 7 days a week. What?? Take a beak from Grand Theft Auto to go see an action movie? But then I'm not the guy doing the polling and figuring out how to keep Hollywood afloat.
My favorite new movie is We're The Millers. Best comedy I have seen in a long time---five stars! :rollin: Solitary
QuoteThis is a good thing. Again because that's our culture in general. There is a certain beauty and hotness we are supposed to accept both in male and female norms.
This may get me some hatred, but I am going to put myself out there...
I don't think it's a good thing for obese people to be considered sexy. I am very much against models being forced to reach unhealthy levels of skinniness to be considered attractive, and I am against being unhealthy overweight being the norm as well. That goes for both sexes; I don't think Fat Bastard from Austin Powers should be considered an ideal body either.
There is nothing wrong with larger or skinnier people being comfortable with their body, but it shouldn't be what they want to be. I was borderline anorexic for years and even 30 pounds heavier I still have issues of thinking I am too skinny (I am the ideal weight for my size).
I just don't think being unhealthy should be publicly acceptable, nor should obesity be idealized in anyway. It's fine to find them beautiful because that goes beyond physical, but don't pretend they have great bodies.
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteThis is a good thing. Again because that's our culture in general. There is a certain beauty and hotness we are supposed to accept both in male and female norms.
This may get me some hatred, but I am going to put myself out there...
I don't think it's a good thing for obese people to be considered sexy. I am very much against models being forced to reach unhealthy levels of skinniness to be considered attractive, and I am against being unhealthy overweight being the norm as well. That goes for both sexes; I don't think Fat Bastard from Austin Powers should be considered an ideal body either.
There is nothing wrong with larger or skinnier people being comfortable with their body, but it shouldn't be what they want to be. I was borderline anorexic for years and even 30 pounds heavier I still have issues of thinking I am too skinny (I am the ideal weight for my size).
I just don't think being unhealthy should be publicly acceptable, nor should obesity be idealized in anyway. It's fine to find them beautiful because that goes beyond physical, but don't pretend they have great bodies.
Fine, I will agree with you this time..BUT THATS IT!
I also agree. There is a difference between people with a heavy build who are perfectly healthy and people who are obese, but we shouldn't be glorifying unhealthy bodies in any direction. We really should take someone with a healthy and natural figure to be beautiful. And that discards body builders and the like as wel.
Ender's Game 6/10
Not bad. Not great.
Flight - Great movie
I mean, come on. It's got Denzel Washington, he always does great movies. The beginning feels almost like an action movie, but don't be fooled. It's a compelling drama that explores the depths of addiction and human integrity. I really enjoyed it.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Flight - Great movie
I mean, come on. It's got Denzel Washington, he always does great movies. The beginning feels almost like an action movie, but don't be fooled. It's a compelling drama that explores the depths of addiction and human integrity. I really enjoyed it.
I enjoyed it too, but I thought it went really into a weird place. What the guy did to the plane to get get everyone but one alive was insane (granted maybe impossible but thats not the issue). That was tossed aside because another person who equaled his efforts died by trying to help others. I think this movie's message really made me realize how much some people will take a great action and crucify someone because they may be a drunk. So what? Nothing he did, was proven to be the cause of the accident, but he was able to save almost all and because one died he was made the scapegoat. I thought the message was a MAD movie.
Quote from: "SGOS"Ender's Game 6/10
Not bad. Not great.
Is it at least worth it if you've read the book and want to see some cool special effects to go with it? :lol:
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "SGOS"Ender's Game 6/10
Not bad. Not great.
Is it at least worth it if you've read the book and want to see some cool special effects to go with it? :lol:
I didn't read the book, but the special effects were good. Quite a bit of floating around in zero gravity, and alien structures I recognized from a video game I've played, but I can't remember which one now.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "SGOS"Ender's Game 6/10
Not bad. Not great.
Is it at least worth it if you've read the book and want to see some cool special effects to go with it? :lol:
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "SGOS"Ender's Game 6/10
Not bad. Not great.
Is it at least worth it if you've read the book and want to see some cool special effects to go with it? :lol:
I didn't read the book, but the special effects were good. Quite a bit of floating around in zero gravity, and alien structures I recognized from a video game I've played, but I can't remember which one now.
I've found that people who read the book enjoyed the film more than people who haven't. There's a lot in the book that isn't covered or is covered incompletely in the movie. For the first time ever, Hollywood made a movie too short instead of too long. As I said in my earlier post, it's a good movie that just misses being great.
Thor 2: It was fun, I cried, and it was absolutely beautiful.
Grade: A-
Quote from: "Notthesun"Thor 2: It was fun, I cried, and it was absolutely beautiful.
Grade: A-
Please tell me it's not like the first Thor. That movie was so terrible, I couldn't even get through the first act.
Quote from: "Notthesun"Thor 2: It was fun, I cried, and it was absolutely beautiful.
Grade: A-
I'll be seeing it soon. I was surprised by how much I liked the first one, because that particular type of sci fi, (You know: raising Krackens with magic spells, mid evil back drops with aspects of advanced technology, done with the feel of a Biblical spectacular) is almost always a guaranteed snooze for me.
Just watched Enemy at the Gates, pretty good movie. Though it had more than one historical inaccuracy, I still enjoyed it
Thor: The Dark World 9/10
OK that does it. I'm a fan.
Captain Philips 9/10 . Tom Hanks Nuff said.
This is not a movie but an English TV series: Ripper Street. So far it is excellent. Solitary
Das Boot
10/10, was thoroughly enthralled.
Quote from: "missingnocchi"Das Boot
10/10, was thoroughly enthralled.
Agree! An excellent movie. Solitary
Batman Dark Knight = 2/10
Batman Begins = 9/10
It had ninjas, so it was cool, chill ^^
12 Years a Slave - Such an incredible film. Hard to watch at times. Beautiful. Powerful. I cried.
Grade: A
Enders Game - As a book reader, I give it an 8.5 our of 10. My husband has not read the book, and when I asked, he gives it a solid 8, verging on 8.5 out of 10.
Criticisms of OSC aside, they really did justice to the books. The casting and acting is great, by everyone young and old. Asa Butterfield does a perfect combination off brilliance, confidence, and subtle vulnerability.
There are some small issues with the thread of the story, but overall it keeps a good pace, stays true to the books, and most importantly stays true to the theme, or moral if you will, of the story. The end twist is devastating whether you know it is coming or not.
The special effects are well integrated, and never felt out of place or in your face to me. I would recommend this movie to everyone. Book reader or not. Sci-fi fan or not. It makes me wonder all over again how on earth this is classified as a young adult story. The themes are far from simple, and very thoughtful even for adults.
I got to see this movie on my birthday, and I have to say, it was the perfect present. My first "date night" with my hubby since our little one came along!
Superman, Man of Steel. 6.5/10.
On the one hand, I liked the long introduction and backstory. It gave the movie an epic feel right away, even if it isn't cannon. It had it's moments after that, but I felt it really lost momentum towards the end, and just felt like any other epic fight between 2 super people.
I thought the roles were well cast and well acted, but the writing just lost it's umph, or direction, by the middle of the movie or so.
Not bad, but not the best either. I think Superman is just a pretty hard story to do justice to.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Superman, Man of Steel. 6.5/10.
On the one hand, I liked the long introduction and backstory. It gave the movie an epic feel right away, even if it isn't cannon. It had it's moments after that, but I felt it really lost momentum towards the end, and just felt like any other epic fight between 2 super people.
I thought the roles were well cast and well acted, but the writing just lost it's umph, or direction, by the middle of the movie or so.
Not bad, but not the best either. I think Superman is just a pretty hard story to do justice to.
I think DiscoveringReligion had the best take on that movie. If you're familiar with very much of the Superman mythos, this movie should anger you. Seriously, what part of "Superman does not kill" did the film makers not understand? This is not a hard concept to nail down, guys:
Superman does not kill. When Superman kills someone, he stops being Superman. That's your finale, not your first fucking movie. #-o
Seriously, Superman killing someone is like the military killing Godzilla (no surprise that Hollywood fucked that up, too). Grass grows, birds fly, Godzilla's invincible, and Superman doesn't kill.
These franchises have survived for decades without your shitty new take on them; quit trying to make them darker and edgier for its own sake! :evil:
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Aroura33"Superman, Man of Steel. 6.5/10.
On the one hand, I liked the long introduction and backstory. It gave the movie an epic feel right away, even if it isn't cannon. It had it's moments after that, but I felt it really lost momentum towards the end, and just felt like any other epic fight between 2 super people.
I thought the roles were well cast and well acted, but the writing just lost it's umph, or direction, by the middle of the movie or so.
Not bad, but not the best either. I think Superman is just a pretty hard story to do justice to.
I think DiscoveringReligion had the best take on that movie. If you're familiar with very much of the Superman mythos, this movie should anger you. Seriously, what part of "Superman does not kill" did the film makers not understand? This is not a hard concept to nail down, guys: Superman does not kill. When Superman kills someone, he stops being Superman. That's your finale, not your first fucking movie. #-o
Seriously, Superman killing someone is like the military killing Godzilla (no surprise that Hollywood fucked that up, too). Grass grows, birds fly, Godzilla's invincible, and Superman doesn't kill. These franchises have survived for decades without your shitty new take on them; quit trying to make them darker and edgier for its own sake! :evil:
Didn't he killed Zod and friends? They even made it happen in Superman 2. Doomsday? Joker?
I also watched DiscoveringReligion's take on MoS. It is long, but, interesting:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1763fg (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1763fg)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x176yqe (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x176yqe)
Basically, he argues that Superman should not be taking part in destroying buildings, killing people in the process. He compared it Christopher Reeve's movie, where, Zod noticed that Superman spent all his time trying to save innocent lives whenever Zod did anything. So, Zod used that as a vulnerability. In MoS, Superman doesn't bother rescuing people from the falling buildings, he helps knock them down.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"I also watched DiscoveringReligion's take on MoS. It is long, but, interesting:
A couple years ago, I found a 2 disk double sided set of the 4 Chris Reeves Superman Movies, for $5 in the bargain bin at Walmart. I thought it was quite a find, because I really liked those films, but re-watching them was a disappointment. There are some clever moments, but I didn't connect with them as well as I remembered. I just found them mostly uninteresting.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"I also watched DiscoveringReligion's take on MoS. It is long, but, interesting:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1763fg (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1763fg)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x176yqe (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x176yqe)
Basically, he argues that Superman should not be taking part in destroying buildings, killing people in the process.
Yeah, so what's all that drivel about "truth, justice, and the
AMERICAN WAY?" :-D
I feel like I am watching an argument from an episode of "Big Bang", I was never aware of any "non-kill" rule whether spoken or not, but then again I guess I was never wrapped up that tight....... :twisted:
Quote from: "aitm"I feel like I am watching an argument from an episode of "Big Bang", I was never aware of any "non-kill" rule whether spoken or not, but then again I guess I was never wrapped up that tight....... :twisted:
I remember the old TV series. I was at the perfect age to love Superman. Now that I'm thinking about it, I can't remember him actually killing anyone. He didn't save the world from aliens with superpowers matching his own. It seems like it was always some second rate bank robbers or the like. You know, petty thieves who weren't really ready for the big time.
He would crash through the walls of the vault as they were stuffing their sacks with money, and stand there for a minute with his chest puffed out in he man fashion, while bullets just bounced off him. Then he would grab them by the collars and turn them over to the cops who would thank him for his service, and then he'd just fly off, change clothes, and tie up the episode by having a discussion with Lois and Jimmy: "Gee Clark, you missed all the action at the bank. Superman nabbed the robbers. Where were you, anyway?"
Clearly, there should be another rule about Superman. He never has to fight anyone with powers equal to his own. Well, at least it bothers me when that happens in the modern Hollywood versions. I just want to see him apprehend robbers and purse snatchers. I don't really care if he kills them or not. If he does, that's fine. I really don't care, but I don't want him to be vulnerable. It's just not Superman-ish like it should be. :-D
Despicable Me 2 - 9/10
Iron Man 3 - 7/10
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
My school had an advance screening of Catching Fire, the second of the Hunger Game series. I loved it. My favorite book of the series and the movie was so good.
Grade: A
The Last Samurai: Really enjoyed this movie, my biggest complaint was that in 30 minutes Tom Cruise went from completely oblivious to their culture to a mas. r Samurai. But still really good, very critical of the Westerner culture over powering of native cultures and the risk of capitalism over ones nation and people. 8.0
Letters from iwo jima: made me re-respect Clint Eastwood. Really humanized the "enemy" and showed that both sides were human and not so different after all. 9.5
Click - 9.8/10
Quote from: "Shiranu"The Last Samurai: Really enjoyed this movie, my biggest complaint was that in 30 minutes Tom Cruise went from completely oblivious to their culture to a mas. r Samurai. But still really good, very critical of the Westerner culture over powering of native cultures and the risk of capitalism over ones nation and people. 8.0
Letters from iwo jima: made me re-respect Clint Eastwood. Really humanized the "enemy" and showed that both sides were human and not so different after all. 9.5
The last samurai is really a good movie .
The Lorax 9/10
2 guns.
Fun lil movie. Naturally over the top but if you like mindless shoot-em-ups and bad mexicano's and bad cia and bad military and ....hell everybody bad but the two good guys..then its a fun snacky movie.
Imagination---A different kind of movie done with mostly blind people that really opens your eyes to what it is to be blind---a lot better than what it sounds like it would be. Worth seeing. Solitary
Bianca and Jo: Rapturous Rimmers
Got my rock off anyway...
"Dredd," 6/10 'cause I was in the mood for stupid action.
Remake? Sequel? Not sure since the only carryover character was Dredd.
Judge Dredd, played by Karl Urban (Dr. "Bones" McCoy from the "Star Trek" re-boot) takes a borderline rookie on an evaluation assignment. Lots of shootin', 'splosions and mayhem ensue, but not much substance. Still better than the absolutely horrific "Judge Dredd" that Stallone did back in the late eighties/early nineties. How could it not be?
Karl Urban was stuck with the line "I am the law." but used it to much better effect that Stallone did.
Dr. Who: The Day of the Doctor
This doesn't really technically count as a movie. The 50th anniversary Dr. Who special was played in 3D in a number of theaters yesterday. It was a one-time event. I'm surprised how well attended it was. I just barely heard of it in time to go. And yet the showing was sold out. In fact, the manager said he added a second screen and it was sold out too.
Some purists don't like the messing with canon, doing retcons. Well, doesn't bother me too much. It was a fun episode. I enjoyed it a lot.
It had a cameo by Tom Baker. There were some shots of all the doctors. There were 3 doctors with significant parts, David Tennant, Matt Smith, and John Hurt. Hurt played a previously unknown Doctor, also called the War Doctor, who killed all the Time Lords and Daleks in the Time War.
Some fans suggested they should have used Paul McGann as the War Doctor. McGann only played the Doctor in that one Fox special. But, his Doctor is considered canon and was shown in this episode when all the doctors were shown.
Although it appeared on TV, some bits were filmed specifically for the theater showing. You know in movies where they will often have something to tell you to silence your phones and the like. Well, they had a bit with a Centaran who said that use of communications devices would be considered an act of war. There was also a theater-only intro by Smith and Tennant in character. And and the end there was a behind the scenes featurette.
It was in 3D. Surprised they did a 3D conversion for a one-night showing. The 3D wasn't bad for a conversion of a TV show.
People cheered when various characters from the past came on. Tom Baker got a big cheer. It was a lot of fun.
If you want to see how Navy Special Operations works and the men who do it watch Act of Valor. Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"If you want to see how Navy Special Operations works and the men who do it watch Act of Valor. Solitary
I saw that with my ex-girlfriend last year. We only went because we knew the theater would be empty and wanted to *cough* be alone, but she wound up sobbing through the whole thing. I was sad too, but for entirely different reasons.
:shock: Sorry! I can't help laughing. :lol: What a bummer! You have to take her a Chick Flick next time. :wink: Solitary
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
I had been looking forward to this movie for a long time, and it didn't disappoint. I give it a 9.5/10 only because there were a few things I think they could have added from the books to clarify a few points in the movie. Otherwise, I thought it was great. It didn't slow down at any point, we explored Katniss' relationships more deeply, we saw more juxtaposition between the angry, downtrodden districts and the wealthy Capital, and the action was great. And I cried during this one, too.
A showing of Catching Fire has been starting every half hour beginning at noon and ending at 10:30PM every day this week at my local theater. I've never seen that theater show a movie that many times in a day. I'm going tomorrow.
red 2. meh. Not as fun as the first one. Way over the top a believability (but so what) maybe because the characters have been established you follow the roles better but wait for it on redbox where its only a couple bucks. 5
Captain Phillips I will give that a 9 out of 10. BTW 9 happens to be the best score I could give any movie; very retiscent about giving one that extra one. Perhaps I could take it to a 9.3
Just saw "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire." I really wish Joe Average (or maybe the average movie producer) was a little smarter so Hollywood wouldn't have to beat us over the head with the title. Yes, we've read (or at least heard of) the books. Yes, we know they're a series. No, you don't have to add the title of the first movie to all the others.
I'll have to give this one a 9/10. While I thought "The Hunger Games" (8/10) was a good movie and a great adaptation, this one was better. Not only a better movie but a near perfect adaptation that made the movie as enjoyable as the book (pretty rare feat in itself). If they continue this trend, Hollywood may achieve something they only very rarely manage. A movie that's better than the book it's based on. The upcoming "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1" (2014) and "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2" (2015) could easily be the best of the films, based on the weakest of the books. Thanks again to Warner Brothers decision to split the final Harry Potter movie into two parts (absolutely necessary for the sake of the story which they screwed up in the second part anyway) and the corporate greed that keeps making them split stories that don't need to be split just for the box office take.
If you haven't seen "The Hunger Games" yet, rent it, buy it, view it on Netflix but see it and then go see this one. It's a rare treat.
Beware the cliffhanger ending though, if those bother you. Having read the books, I knew it was coming so wasn't much bothered by it. My daughter was ready to kill over it though. :twisted:
A couple of noteworthy trailers were on with the film, one good, one bad. The bad one: They're re-making RoboCop. While this one looks like it may be an improvement over the original (most likely the writers will run with the trope and just recycle the script), Hollywood, please quit re-treading 80's/90's action films. While you strike on an occasional gem, most are steaming pile that get tossed on the compost heap.
The good one: "Divergent" based on the book by Veronica Roth is due out in March and while they've cast Shailene Woodley (Amy Juergens: "The Secret Life of the American Teenager") as Beatrice 'Tris' Prior, it looks like it will be very faithful to the book. If so, it will be a good to great movie. If it is as faithful to the book as the trailer suggests, there will likely be three more. "Divergent: Insurgent," "Divergent: Allegiant - Part 1" and "Divergent: Allegiant - Part 2," again splitting a story that doesn't need to be split. :roll:
Random movie thought:
Why is "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" getting a sequel and "I Am Number Four" is not? They had similar ratings at both IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes and had similar budgets yet Mortal Instruments failed (at least so far) to turn a profit (Budget: est. $60,000,000 - Gross: $31,165,421) and Number Four has (Budget: est. $50,000,000 - Gross: $55,092,830). Granted, "I Am Number Four" wasn't the best sci-fi film ever (I'd give a 6/10), but it's based on a pretty good series of books and with a different director the follow up movies could be quite good.
The Heat - B
The World's End - A
Also, Divergent looks good!
Catching Fire 8/10
Not as good as the first, but it ranks very high in the field of sequels.
WTF! Catching Fire is better than Hunger Games as a movie and as a book! Ahhh, I can't believe you liked the first more lol.
Frozen - I fucking loved this movie. It was beautiful and Olaf stole my heart.
Grade: A
Quote from: "Notthesun"WTF! Catching Fire is better than Hunger Games as a movie and as a book! Ahhh, I can't believe you liked the first more.
I liked the concept of children forced to fight other tributes, because the concept is unique and chilling. In the sequel, the State sticks it's nose in the fight so much that it becomes the primary adversary. That didn't shock me as much. It's more like the world we live in.
However, the transition toward focusing on the State as the primary adversary is necessary to the storyline. Otherwise the sequel wouldn't introduce anything new to further the story. I haven't read the books, but the story as it has unfolded so far, has wonderful potential for the overall plot.
I was worried that this might turn out like the Twilight Series, where the first movie was interesting, but the overall story turned into a smaltzy soap opera. Hunger Games doesn't appear to be going in that direction. There's a lot left to tell that can build to a climax with increased tension, rather than fade into a drawn out drama focusing on the teen angst of some ditzy high school girl.
Well I watched 'The Big Divorce'. It was little more than a UCLA film student project(undergrad). The plot was simple, the humor was unsophisticated, the tempo lagged most of the film, and the ending was predictable.
The cast was filled with the children of proven stars which is why I came to the conclussion that it was a student project. There were some second teir stars but no headliners, not that that actually matters.
The story is simply this:
Boy works for jew and falls for his granddaughter.
Becomes jewish so that they can marry.
Engages in family resturant business and tries to take it to franchise.
Meets investor that happens to be his highschool dream girl.
Chetas with dream girl and decides to get a divorce.
As a condition of the prenuptual agreement he has to reenact the wedding.
During reeanctment he decides to stay with wife...ala happy ending (not in the message parlor sense).
Cliche` humor about the briss and a few jewish colocials was the extent of the humor.
Obviously it was suppose to be a typical romance comedy, but it never got off the ground. The acting was better than fair but not outstanding. Elliot Gould had a big part but it was so underdeveloped scriptwise that it couldn't actually help the story.
I give it half a star and a 3/4 thumbs down. You would have felt that you wasted your time and would have been pissed if you had actually paid a dime on it.
In the word of my friend and neighbor's wife...."STUUUUUPID"!
The fugitive 9/10.
National Lampoon's Dirty movie. If you want any really tasteless jokes on any subject, seriously.
Example: Why were there 4,000 Mexicans at the Alamo?
They only had 3 cars.
Example: How do you get an Iranian woman pregnant?
Cum on her shoes and let the flies do the rest.
2 out of 5 stars. Insults everybody, tasteless, no plot, but you'll watch it to the end.
Unhitched
4/5 out of 6
Good movie if predictable, the addition of hot English women makes the movie better, and I always enjoy Seth Green
I just watched Altered States and had flash backs. :shock: 8-) Solitary
Samsara 9/10
Today I watched 'The Best Offer'
Great movie, great plot, interesting ending.
4 out of 5 stars
High brow drama.
Is it me or is Donald white hair and beard Sutherland in every movie?
Pacific Rim - I'm no good at giving out stars.
It was good. It is the quintessential Godzilla movie that has been re-imagined for a modern audience. Monsters, robots, amazing special effects and cinematograpy....it's a great action movie. Not much for a plot, but come on. Monsters and robots. I wasn't expecting much. I was satisfied with it. And Charlie Day is hilarious. :)
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Not much for a plot, but come on. Monsters and robots. I wasn't expecting much. I was satisfied with it.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Not much plot, but plenty of rockem sockem. Give em the ole one/two. Blamo! - Right in the head; Crunch! - Oooh, a judo chop to the Kidney. That's what we do to aliens. Take that! :-D
Mortal Instruments: City of Bones 8/10
A movie with none of the traditional redeeming values we expect in an intellectual film that uplifts our souls, teaches us values, or examines the depth of the human condition. The love plot was smaltzy, the characters unreal, and it required an extraordinary suspension of belief that would test the limits of devoted fans of occult films.
As I recall, when it played in the theaters, it received marginal interest. But I found myself very pleasantly engaged. It's almost embarrassing to say that I liked this movie a lot.
A memorable moment was a scene where one of the demon hunters was giving a tour of the secret lair to a new recruit who had been shocked out of his reality and suddenly made aware of the underworld of demonic forces that inhabit the fringes of our dimension:
"We have a working agreement with the werewolves. We stay away from the Vampires. But we kill warlocks, witches, and demons."
"How about the zombies? Do you kill zombies? Oh wait! They're already dead."
"No, we don't kill zombies, you idiot. Zombies aren't real."
Oh well, sometimes you're in the mood for a movie that isn't up for an Academy Award.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Pacific Rim - I'm no good at giving out stars.
It was good. It is the quintessential Godzilla movie that has been re-imagined for a modern audience. Monsters, robots, amazing special effects and cinematograpy....it's a great action movie. Not much for a plot, but come on. Monsters and robots. I wasn't expecting much. I was satisfied with it. And Charlie Day is hilarious. :)
I kind of wish the monsters weren't so goddamned similar. Yeah, they had different features and shit, and they explain why they were so similar, but I couldn't tell one from another if you paid me money.
It also felt less like a movie and more like a television series truncated into a two-hour movie. The Christopher Nolan batman movies have this same problem and they feel unsatisfying as a result.
Out of the Furnace 6/10
Christian Bale
Slow moving, but punctuated every 45 minutes or so with some interesting violence. The plot is simple, but effective. If the movie were not so slow moving, I would have rated it higher. The acting was good, but much of the dialog was in hushed tones, which made it kind of hard to hear. It might not bother others, but I guess I've spent too much of my life shooting rifles and running chain saws without enough ear protection.
Hunger games part 2 6.5/10 max. I'm a little dissapointed.
Batman Vs Superman
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1)
Man of Steel II is scheduled for release in 2015. With Ben Affleck as Batman. I don't know what to think. Did Batman ever come into conflict with Superman in the comic books? Batman Vs Superman may be more of a headline than a movie title.
I couldn't find anything about the plot. It's in preproduction right now. I'm not sure if preproduction can mean "just a thought in someone's head", or they have a script and the crew is ready to turn on the lights and start the cameras.
Quote from: "SGOS"Batman Vs Superman
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1)
Man of Steel II is scheduled for release in 2015. With Ben Affleck as Batman. I don't know what to think. Did Batman ever come into conflict with Superman in the comic books? Batman Vs Superman may be more of a headline than a movie title.
I couldn't find anything about the plot. It's in preproduction right now. I'm not sure if preproduction can mean "just a thought in someone's head", or they have a script and the crew is ready to turn on the lights and start the cameras.
Gal Gadot has been cast as Wonder Woman.
(//http://www.blackfilm.com/read/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FF6-London-premiere-Gal-Gadot-2.jpg)
It bears noting that "Batman vs Superman" is not the official name for this upcoming film. It's just a fan name for the film because fans are depressingly predictable like that.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "SGOS"Batman Vs Superman
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1)
Man of Steel II is scheduled for release in 2015. With Ben Affleck as Batman. I don't know what to think. Did Batman ever come into conflict with Superman in the comic books? Batman Vs Superman may be more of a headline than a movie title.
I couldn't find anything about the plot. It's in preproduction right now. I'm not sure if preproduction can mean "just a thought in someone's head", or they have a script and the crew is ready to turn on the lights and start the cameras.
Gal Gadot has been cast as Wonder Woman.
[ Image (//http://www.blackfilm.com/read/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FF6-London-premiere-Gal-Gadot-2.jpg) ]
It bears noting that "Batman vs Superman" is not the official name for this upcoming film. It's just a fan name for the film because fans are depressingly predictable like that.
Gal Gadot? Doesn't she belong in that other thread? :-D
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "SGOS"Batman Vs Superman
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1)
Man of Steel II is scheduled for release in 2015. With Ben Affleck as Batman. I don't know what to think. Did Batman ever come into conflict with Superman in the comic books? Batman Vs Superman may be more of a headline than a movie title.
I couldn't find anything about the plot. It's in preproduction right now. I'm not sure if preproduction can mean "just a thought in someone's head", or they have a script and the crew is ready to turn on the lights and start the cameras.
Gal Gadot has been cast as Wonder Woman.
[ Image (//http://www.blackfilm.com/read/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FF6-London-premiere-Gal-Gadot-2.jpg) ]
It bears noting that "Batman vs Superman" is not the official name for this upcoming film. It's just a fan name for the film because fans are depressingly predictable like that.
I don't know who she is as an actor, but I am okay with her being cast as WW.
Edit: Oh, Israeli... no wonder she is so beautiful.
Larry David's HBO movie 'Clear History'.
Funny in a very 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' kind of way.
Typical Larry David. A man so full of himself that he can't get out of the way of himself. A loser that would finally win if he wasn't so preoccupied with minor shit.
I give it 8 of of 10, but worth the time.
Blue Is the Warmest Color: Yes, There's Sex. There's Also Passion -- and its Absence
One of the tragedies of the Internet age is that sometimes movies get attention for all the wrong reasons. When it debuted Blue Is the Warmest Color in in May, the festival jury was so taken with the film and its two lead performances that it split the award between the director and his actresses, who play lovers. Many critics at Cannes loved the picture, and seemingly not just for its sex scenes, which, incidentally, are among the most naturalistic and carnal I've ever seen.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "SGOS"Batman Vs Superman
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1)
Man of Steel II is scheduled for release in 2015. With Ben Affleck as Batman. I don't know what to think. Did Batman ever come into conflict with Superman in the comic books? Batman Vs Superman may be more of a headline than a movie title.
I couldn't find anything about the plot. It's in preproduction right now. I'm not sure if preproduction can mean "just a thought in someone's head", or they have a script and the crew is ready to turn on the lights and start the cameras.
Gal Gadot has been cast as Wonder Woman.
[ Image (//http://www.blackfilm.com/read/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FF6-London-premiere-Gal-Gadot-2.jpg) ]
It bears noting that "Batman vs Superman" is not the official name for this upcoming film. It's just a fan name for the film because fans are depressingly predictable like that.
Batman vs Super man really sounds lame.
Quote from: "leo"Batman vs Super man really sounds lame.
You got that right!
Hunger Games: Catching Fire - 9/10
Very good story, just ended abruptly. When I saw it in the cinema, I didn't know there was gonna be a third movie. I'm eagerly anticipating the conclusion.
Quote from: "Sal1981"Hunger Games: Catching Fire - 9/10
Very good story, just ended abruptly. When I saw it in the cinema, I didn't know there was gonna be a third movie. I'm eagerly anticipating the conclusion.
I've got the third book on reserve at the library. The Librarian said everyone wants to read it since they were left hanging (which is why I want to read it).
I just watched: Blood in Blood out. Excellent movie and acting.
Quote from: "Sal1981"Hunger Games: Catching Fire - 9/10
Very good story, just ended abruptly. When I saw it in the cinema, I didn't know there was gonna be a third movie. I'm eagerly anticipating the conclusion.
Well, you've got two films to go then. Corporate Greed is doing to every series of movies, simply for the cash grab, what had to be done with the final Harry Potter to preserve the integrity of the story. Then they managed to screw it up anyway.
Hollywood, please stop splitting stories into multiple films when they don't absolutely need to be.
Seven Psychopaths 8/10 stars.
Star heavy cast: Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson, Harry Dean Stanton, Abbie Cornish (Yowza!)
Convoluted dark comedy that is a movie within a movie, parts funny and grisly, interesting to watch. Drags a little bit in spots, but the plot shifts keep you guessing and keep it interesting. Recommended.
Capt Phillips.
Well it was okay but not historically correct. I don't see how they could make a movie with such a small event. Yes it was an important event but not really much happened.
I give it a 5 out of 10.
The Hobbit Part II 6/10
The audience moaned at the end, because like Catching Fire, this mostly boring movie turns out to be a cheap ass setup for Part III. It's a Hollywood ploy to sell more movie tickets, not a commitment to entertainment.
The Hobbit is truly a truly delightful book, but human actors in movies don't even look like little hobbits, and worst of all, Part II of the movie is just a bunch of creatures of the Vale running around doing stuff that was already done in Part I. OK, they added 15 minutes of dragon fighting at the end so that Bilbo could close the with an apologetic line disguised as an ominous foreshadowing. It's really just an attempt by Hollywood to promise that Part III will be the better film.
I'm not one of those who continually praise books as being better than the movies. Movies can add a visual component to a story, which often makes them better. However, this does not hold true with the Hobbit.
So, another not movie. Just finished up with the second, cut short season of "Jericho." Engaging enough to keep me watching and the writing was actually pretty good. Maybe 6/10 overall. I would still highly recommend anyone who thinks that a Corporate States of America is impossible should watch this series. With the power given to corporations over the last 30 years and their financial ability, "Jericho" lays out a very plausible scenario.
I saw Pacific Rim on a plane yesterday. Eh, just too many cliches to me. You've got the hot-shot insubordinate pilot. check. you got the commanding officer who has to bust down the hot-shot insubordinate pilot. Check. You got the guy that hates the hotshot and it comes to fisticuffs. check. Hot-shot saves the world and the former foe shake hands and kiss and make up. check. You've got the reluctant partners. check. Who of course have issues. Check. But, they come together and save the world anyway. check.
Not quite sure how many more cliches they could fit in just one movie.
Still a better love story than Twilight.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"I saw Pacific Rim on a plane yesterday. Eh, just too many cliches to me. You've got the hot-shot insubordinate pilot. check. you got the commanding officer who has to bust down the hot-shot insubordinate pilot. Check. You got the guy that hates the hotshot and it comes to fisticuffs. check. Hot-shot saves the world and the former foe shake hands and kiss and make up. check. You've got the reluctant partners. check. Who of course have issues. Check. But, they come together and save the world anyway. check.
Not quite sure how many more cliches they could fit in just one movie.
Still a better love story than Twilight.
If you're watching a kaiju film for its story, you're gonna have a bad time.
Kickass 2. Didn't really like it. Meandering as hell. And Red Mist was such a disappointing villain. 6/10
Kickass 1 is about some schmuck trying to become a hero, and this wannabe hero is thrust into this larger story with Big Daddy and Hit Girl, things go awry, but they're ultimately successful - he's finally the hero he always wanted to be. Kickass 2 is about 103 minutes long.
[spoil:13r783q6]I can't tell if this is Kickass's story, or Hit Girl's story or what. But today I learned that cops are apparently useless. You can kill like 10 cops in some cul-del-sac with like half the neighborhood watching and no one will knock on your door the next day. Or get in a shootout on the interstate and highway patrol won't get involved. And apparently, you can do an all-applicants-accepted goon recruitment drive and no one will rat you out to the cops or anything. Oh, and you can assault people at school and not get expelled. And lawnmowers are excellent weapons.
I'm also somewhat disappointed that Justice Forever didn't have something like a 90% casualty rate. Because it really, really should have. Especially the unarmored/unskilled capes.
And Red Mist. Yeah, not going to say his other name. Dunno what the hell happened to this guy, but basically he went from an awesome Judas in the first movie to just a spoiled rich kid/failtard in the second. He was really hard to take seriously this time around, which is really a shame considering his awesome Joker line at the end of Kickass 1.
The mean popular girls subplot clichestorm was almost unbearable. Are there seriously people like that? :-k And apparently, the One Direction lookalikes (and shirtless Kickass) have Hit Girl all hot and bothered. Makes sense to me.
Though, I did really like one scene. Dave bumps into some guy in the hallway and says offhandedly, "Watch it!" and this comically intense goth guy turns around and says, "Watch me end your life." And just glares at him but otherwise doesn't do anything. Fucking priceless.[/spoil:13r783q6]
Quote from: "leo"Batman vs Super man really sounds lame.
Of course it's lame.
Nerds came up with it.
This
(//http://www.upcoming-movies.com/image/edge-of-tomorrow-poster.jpg)
Is the worst-looking movie poster I have ever seen in my entire life. Anyone who thinks this looks cool should be sectioned under the mental health act.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"If you're watching a kaiju film for its story, you're gonna have a bad time.
Pacific Rim is not a kaiju film. It is a major motion picture that is inspired by kaiju films. Much like how Star Wars and Indiana Jones were inspired by the old movie serials or Godfather was inspired by the old gangster movies or how anything by Quintin Tarantino is inspired by the old grindhouse movies of the 60's and 70's. The nature of these films is to take the conventions of the old films they are inspired by and then elevate them with superior craftsmanship. This is the only way they can rise above and properly honor their source material. Otherwise, they have no reason to be made.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"This
[ Image (//http://www.upcoming-movies.com/image/edge-of-tomorrow-poster.jpg) ]
Is the worst-looking movie poster I have ever seen in my entire life. Anyone who thinks this looks cool should be sectioned under the mental health act.
I've seen worse (//http://blogs.presstelegram.com/modernmyth/files/import/57220-20111213_poster_xmen_first_class.jpg). Pretty bland, though. All you can really tell from that one is that this action flick features a badass in body armor in a sci-fi setting. And the lens flare is annoying.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"If you're watching a kaiju film for its story, you're gonna have a bad time.
Pacific Rim is not a kaiju film. It is a major motion picture that is inspired by kaiju films. Much like how Star Wars and Indiana Jones were inspired by the old movie serials or Godfather was inspired by the old gangster movies or how anything by Quintin Tarantino is inspired by the old grindhouse movies of the 60's and 70's. The nature of these films is to take the conventions of the old films they are inspired by and then elevate them with superior craftsmanship. This is the only way they can rise above and properly honor their source material. Otherwise, they have no reason to be made.
There is always a reason for kaiju films to be made. That reason is watching giant monsters and robots beat the shit out of each other. Which Pacific Rim delivers, I would note.
On Dec 25th, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty shows in theaters. I'm not a big fan of Ben Stiller, although he's OK. I'm looking forward to this one. The short story is hilarious, as most all of James Thurber's humor is. I've laughed so hard reading Thurber that I lose my breath. Although that was many years ago.
The coming attractions seem to loosely reflect the intent of the story, but I don't recall the situations. It's like Hollywood is rewriting their own and making it into more of a Romantic Comedy. I hope they don't botch it up. Some things can't be improved upon, and few writers, probably no Hollywood writer that I know of, can match James Thurber's skill at humor. We shall see.
The Hobbit 2:
Not sure how many stars. But, I enjoyed it. In fact, while most people find the Hobbit films inferior to TLotR movies, at least for me, I prefer them. I read the Hobbit, although over 30 years ago. I never read TLofR. I had trouble keeping up with the sub-plots, who was where doing what in TLotR. Maybe I'm just stupid. Or maybe I didn't have the background knowledge. But I found TLotR hard to follow. The Hobbit's simpler story is more to my liking.
I originally planned on seeing part 1 in HFR, but, the theater was sold out when I went, so I only saw it in regular 3D. I did see this one in HFR. Some people complained that HFR was too clear, that it allowed you to see imperfections that you wouldn't see at regular frame rate. For me, honestly, I am not entirely sure I would have noticed anything if I wasn't told it was HFR. I can say it did look very sharp. Some scenes were breathtaking.
The CGI was generally very good. The spiders scenes and the dragon scenes were great. Yeah, you can still tell it is CGI. This was particularly true when buildings or walls collapse, which happen repeatedly. For some reason, those always have a CGI look to them to me. I guess we still need to wait a few more years before CGI will be completely indistinguishable from live action. But, all in all, pretty damn good.
Some still question why, after making three long books into three long movies, we now have one short book turned into three long movies, albeit with material added from other sources. Eh, its fine by me. The movie did seem overly long at almost 3 hours. It didn't necessarily need to be that long. But I wasn't bored either. So, I'm fine with it.
The Hobbit 2: I really enjoyed it.
Grade: A-
I want to see American Hustle! Also, go see Frozen!
I watched "The Wolverine" last night,,,not proud of it, but I admit it. If you watch it, you will not be proud to admit it either.
Quote from: "aitm"I watched "The Wolverine" last night,,,not proud of it, but I admit it. If you watch it, you will not be proud to admit it either.
Why ?
Quote from: "leo"Quote from: "aitm"I watched "The Wolverine" last night,,,not proud of it, but I admit it. If you watch it, you will not be proud to admit it either.
Why ?
Don't believe me? ME? :-?
You therefore are doomed to watch it..to your despair... :Hangman:
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "leo"Quote from: "aitm"I watched "The Wolverine" last night,,,not proud of it, but I admit it. If you watch it, you will not be proud to admit it either.
Why ?
Don't believe me? ME? :-?
You therefore are doomed to watch it..to your despair... :Hangman:
How bad it is ? 1/10 ?
'Out Of The Furness'
Thin plot.
Space script with little to no dialogue.
A bunch of heavyweights vying for an Oscar nomination:
Forest Whitiker
Christian Bale
Woody Harleson
William DeFoe
They really got into character but that isn't saying much because the characters where all about their backstory which was not illustrated in the film. You had to assume a great deal and then keep catching up and try to find a plot.
This story is about a steel factory worker (Christian Bale) in a small depressing town in Northern Penn. near the Jersey border. He has a younger brother that is in the Army that has made a total of 4 tours of combat in Iraq and has a serious case of PTSD and combat fatigue.
Bale has a car wreck and kills the family in the other car and is sent up for (you have to guess here) drunk driving manslaughter. When he gets out his younger brother is out of the Army and doesn't have a job and secretly bare knuckle fights for money. DeFoe (a bar owner) is the kid's manager and sets up the fights. They set up one fight in Jersey run by a drug kingpin (Woody Harelson). The kid is suppose to take a dive and he reluctantly does, but it seems that DeFoe owes Harelson a lot of money and Woody kills Defoe and the kid.
Bale is told by the Penn. police chief (Forest Whitiker) what has happened. While Bale is in prison Whitiker steals his girl friend. Bale goes looking for Harleson. He eventually lures Harelson to Penn. and kills him. Whitiker lets Bale off for doing the citizen's a favor for killing Harelson and because he feels guilty for stealing Bales girl friend.
Thats basically it but it takes 2 hours of long looks grunts moans and serious Marlon Brando type bruding to accomplish that shallow plot.
I give it a one and would never spend any money on this flick if I could help it.
I hope to see 'The Butler' next.
Quote from: "mykcob4"'Out Of The Furness'
Thin plot.
Space script with little to no dialogue.
A bunch of heavyweights vying for an Oscar nomination:
Forest Whitiker
Christian Bale
Woody Harleson
William DeFoe
They really got into character but that isn't saying much because the characters where all about their backstory which was not illustrated in the film. You had to assume a great deal and then keep catching up and try to find a plot.
This story is about a steel factory worker (Christian Bale) in a small depressing town in Northern Penn. near the Jersey border. He has a younger brother that is in the Army that has made a total of 4 tours of combat in Iraq and has a serious case of PTSD and combat fatigue.
Bale has a car wreck and kills the family in the other car and is sent up for (you have to guess here) drunk driving manslaughter. When he gets out his younger brother is out of the Army and doesn't have a job and secretly bare knuckle fights for money. DeFoe (a bar owner) is the kid's manager and sets up the fights. They set up one fight in Jersey run by a drug kingpin (Woody Harelson). The kid is suppose to take a dive and he reluctantly does, but it seems that DeFoe owes Harelson a lot of money and Woody kills Defoe and the kid.
Bale is told by the Penn. police chief (Forest Whitiker) what has happened. While Bale is in prison Whitiker steals his girl friend. Bale goes looking for Harleson. He eventually lures Harelson to Penn. and kills him. Whitiker lets Bale off for doing the citizen's a favor for killing Harelson and because he feels guilty for stealing Bales girl friend.
Thats basically it but it takes 2 hours of long looks grunts moans and serious Marlon Brando type bruding to accomplish that shallow plot.
I give it a one and would never spend any money on this flick if I could help it.
I hope to see 'The Butler' next.
Ah...good, won't spend the money on that.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "mykcob4"'Out Of The Furness'
Thin plot.
Space script with little to no dialogue.
A bunch of heavyweights vying for an Oscar nomination:
Forest Whitiker
Christian Bale
Woody Harleson
William DeFoe
They really got into character but that isn't saying much because the characters where all about their backstory which was not illustrated in the film. You had to assume a great deal and then keep catching up and try to find a plot.
This story is about a steel factory worker (Christian Bale) in a small depressing town in Northern Penn. near the Jersey border. He has a younger brother that is in the Army that has made a total of 4 tours of combat in Iraq and has a serious case of PTSD and combat fatigue.
Bale has a car wreck and kills the family in the other car and is sent up for (you have to guess here) drunk driving manslaughter. When he gets out his younger brother is out of the Army and doesn't have a job and secretly bare knuckle fights for money. DeFoe (a bar owner) is the kid's manager and sets up the fights. They set up one fight in Jersey run by a drug kingpin (Woody Harelson). The kid is suppose to take a dive and he reluctantly does, but it seems that DeFoe owes Harelson a lot of money and Woody kills Defoe and the kid.
Bale is told by the Penn. police chief (Forest Whitiker) what has happened. While Bale is in prison Whitiker steals his girl friend. Bale goes looking for Harleson. He eventually lures Harelson to Penn. and kills him. Whitiker lets Bale off for doing the citizen's a favor for killing Harelson and because he feels guilty for stealing Bales girl friend.
Thats basically it but it takes 2 hours of long looks grunts moans and serious Marlon Brando type bruding to accomplish that shallow plot.
I give it a one and would never spend any money on this flick if I could help it.
I hope to see 'The Butler' next.
Ah...good, won't spend the money on that.
And I definately won't view the Wolverine. I have already turned to offers to go see it. One was a free offer because my buddy wanted me to go so bad he offered to pay. I told him I don't bother with the comics anymore.
Watching Pacific Rim atm... wish I could have seen it in theatre for better sound, size and better than 720p, but it is what it is.
Cliche? Check.
Somewhat generic characters so far? Yup.
Fun? Hell yeah.
Not all movies have to be mind-warping and master pieces... sometimes movies can just be fun and colourful and action-y, and so far it is fitting the bill.
+ for the Asian girl being ridiculously attractive.
Update: Not having any problem telling the Kaiju apart.
I loved Pacific Rim!
Also, "The Wolverine" wasn't bad. It was alright. Way better than the shitty first one.
Quote from: "Notthesun"I loved Pacific Rim!
Also, "The Wolverine" wasn't bad. It was alright. Way better than the shitty first one.
Yeah, I really liked it, I will give it a 9.3/10 for entertainment. There were moments that made me smile and moments I was like, "Holy shit, that's bad ass!", and that is something I very rarely get from movies. Really, really enjoyed it.
'The Butler'
Exceollent!!! 10 out of 10 in my humble opinion.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.
I must say, these movies have gathered a strong reputation for a reason. The epic feel, realpolitik, moving soundtrack, strong symbolism and unexpected turns make this well worth watching and eventually owning on DVD. Just make sure to see the first one first so you'll understand whats going on.
Quote from: "aitm"I watched "The Wolverine" last night,,,not proud of it, but I admit it. If you watch it, you will not be proud to admit it either.
Im not into comic books, but there are quite a few good action movies based on them. Having said that, The Wolverine isn't really one of them. It's just too drawn out and takes too long to get anywhere. I did like the twist ending though.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Quote from: "aitm"I watched "The Wolverine" last night,,,not proud of it, but I admit it. If you watch it, you will not be proud to admit it either.
Im not into comic books, but there are quite a few good action movies based on them. Having said that, The Wolverine isn't really one of them. It's just too drawn out and takes too long to get anywhere. I did like the twist ending though.
I saw the last Wolverine when it was in theaters. I'm an XMen fan, but the thing is starting to go downhill. Hollywood is just milking it for the last bit of profit, and starting to cause a bad taste in my mouth for the whole franchise. Apparently, Wolverine was the central character of the comic series, but I think there's too much effort focusing on his past when other interesting figures could be introduced or at least highlighted.
This is odd for me, because I usually enjoy the part of superhero movies that explain the hero's origin. But enough is enough.
Quote from: "SGOS"Apparently, Wolverine was the central character of the comic series, but I think there's too much effort focusing on his past when other interesting figures could be introduced or at least highlighted.
This is odd for me, because I usually enjoy the part of superhero movies that explain the hero's origin. But enough is enough.
I dislike Wolverine on principle simply because he tends to steal the show in whatever he's in. I imagine the other characters saying to him, "Yeah, Logan. We know all about your torturous backstory. You've told us like a dozen times. Yeah, yeah, you're a baddass. Storm just sank a naval fleet, Cyclops just turned around and decapitated three 50-foot robots in one smooth motion with his eye beams, and Jean just mind-violated Magneto, but yeah, it was really nice how you punched out like 3 guards and beat up that guy with the really sharp fingernails. Real impressive."
And can you imagine what his teammates would be like drunk? I guarantee you, he'd be the butt of just about every joke. *Morph shapeshifts into Wolverine* "I'm Logan, bub. I'm the gruff, mytserious type, bub. I have a dark and troubled past, bub. I don't play by society's rules. I haven't showered in weeks. Women inexplicably love me, though. Wanna go out? Btw, I'm 150 years old and you're 17. And I'll never truly love you because I still have feelings for my old flame. And my other old flame. And my other..."
"My rage masks feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. I drink away my problems. I'm Canadian, so I have free socialized healthcare, but I don't need it because I'm such a badass. I've died like a billion times now. I miss my daddy. I'm the reason there are like a half-dozen clawed supers now. I'm part of like 800 teams. I'm a caveman in yellow spandex."
Coincidentally, I was going to post a short Wolverine review. I just saw it on a plane. I see a lot of movies that way these days it seems. Not a great screen for an epic superhero film. I liked the twist ending. I don't know how many people saw it coming a mile away. I'm not good at all at seeing plot twists, so, it happens all the time to me that I get surprised when everybody says, "man, that was obvious!".
Yeah, it was somewhat slow in the beginning. And, ultimately, forgettable. Not something I'll be contemplating long after the movie is over. But, for a few hours entertainment, I thought it was fine.
QuoteI dislike Wolverine on principle simply because he tends to steal the show in whatever he's in.
Yeah, that about nails it. I did like one scene in the 4th or 5th of the series that only lasts for about two seconds, where a bunch of young X-Men are recruiting a team of gifted mutants to fight the bad mutants. They always manage to enlist their picks who readily understand the importance of the mission... except when they walk up behind Wolverine who sitting at the bar drinking with his usual scowl as if he hates his miserable life. Before they can say a word, he glares at them and says, "Fuck off!" They just turn around and head back out the door happy to be leaving without getting the shit beat out of them.
American Hustle 9.5/10
Very enjoyable. No spoilers here, but I think people will like this movie.
Captain Phillips: About Somali pirates based on a true happening. Excellent acting all around, a tight script, and a lot of tense moments. Worth seeing. Solitary
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
8/10 - It was good, just not fantastic.
Going to see 47 Ronin... know its going to be garbage, but I promised my neighbours I would go see a movie with them...
Just saw The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. I heard the basic premise of the first part, but, never saw it. So, there was lots and lots I did not understand. Raising three fingers means "I want someone to come beat the shit out of me"?
My brother, who saw the first part, explained what Katniss did with the berries to piss off the president in the previous Games.
I would say that in general, I found it interesting and enjoyable. I did find some parts not that plausible. For example, things like the President giving a personal visit to Katniss not believable. And, while I can accept the idea of something like the Games being a distraction for the masses, I did find it hard to believe that with all the President's power, that the Games could be that much of a driving force of whether the masses revolt or compliant. That the President could be that vulnerable to whether the Games worked out the way he wanted or not. But, it is of course just a story.
But, yeah, worth watching.
I actually really liked 47 Ronin. Not nearly as bad as the critics are making it out to be. I would give it a 7.0-ish as opposed to their 1.5.
The Wolf on Wall Street - I fucking loved it. 3 hours and I was not bored for a second. Leo is amazing.
Grade: A
@caseagainst
I don't see how it is not possible for the president to not visit Katniss.
Quote from: "Notthesun"I don't see how it is not possible for the president to not visit Katniss.
He didn't even have a bodyguard. Visiting someone alone, who is famous for their ability to kill people? He's the President, doesn't he have a booked schedule? He doesn't have assistants to give her the message?
Monthy Python and The Search for the Holy Grail.
(it's on Youtube in full)
How does a movie this shitty manage to crack you up with an unrelenting barrage of memorable quotalicious bits? Because Monthy Python.
Life Of Brian has the pollish, the cultural rellevance, and the depth, and the laughs......but SftHG has your sides splitting.
Verdict: NI !!
@case his bodyguards were outside. He knew she wouldn't try and kill him. That would mean her entire district would be killed. Much of what she does is for Prim. She wouldn't throw away both their lives like that. Snow is a devious motherfucker. He wanted to do it in person. Make it more effective. Which it was. He fucks her up with that conversation.
@jutter don't fucking call that movie shitty!
Frozen. It seemed like a nice movie for little girls on Christmas day, and it got good reviews from critics and viewers. I think it had a convoluted plot line with lots of holes in the plot, but I fell asleep during it several times so maybe that's why. The computer animation is stellar and it had some funny moments, but the plot wasn't interesting to me at least.
@Jutter... For Christmas, I bought my girls a plushy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and Killer Bunny. They love Search for the Holy Grail.
Quote from: "Solitary"Captain Phillips: About Somali pirates based on a true happening. Excellent acting all around, a tight script, and a lot of tense moments. Worth seeing. Solitary
I'm sorry Solitary, I didn't find it that good. 1) it wasn't very accurate. 2) it seemed that the actors were merely trying for an oscar instead of being true to the story.
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty 5/10
The movie wasn't bad. But as it states at the beginning, it was "inspired" by James Thurber, not "based on a short story" by James Thurber. It doesn't follow the book at all, except for a few day dreams that Walter has at the beginning of the movie. After that, he partakes in a real adventure that uses up about 3/4 of the film. The adventure outdoes his daytime musings, and gets him the girl. One gets the impression that after a dose of heavy real life adventure, Walter is cured.
This of course, misses the whole point of the original story. The writers seem to have misunderstood the original, or thought it was lacking. They wrote an entirely new story, and tried to garner audience attendance by stealing the title of a humorous classic.
This doesn't make it a bad movie, but it can't be compared to anything James Thurber ever wrote.
I just saw Donnie Darko the other day. Honestly, I'm disappointed. It seems like it was trying waaaay too hard to be deep, and I just stopped feeling attached to the narrative after awhile. Also, for a self described "psychological thriller", it wasn't very thrilling.
Damn, double post. Well, I also saw "Life of Brian" recently. It was...okay. The main problem is with this pacing. The movie just kinda dragged itself along. Oh, and the "Biggest Dickus" scene? Really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of comedy when you resort to penis jokes.
I watched the secret life of Walter Mitty yesterday, I was pleasantly surprised by it. I went in expecting a sucky movie but I had a really good time with it. Ben stiller did a good job with the more serious role that it offered.
I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10, worth renting if nothing else
Gravity, 8/10
Very good movie. I never would have guessed Sandra Bullock could pull off such a performance. Don't get me wrong, I love her in things like Demolition Man, but I have not been too fond of her dramas (they tend to be too sappy for me), so this was a really pleasant surprise.
Also saw Elysium recently. Not even sure how to rate this movie. It has a great idea, but the vehicle it delivers it in is so predictable, so lacking in depth, I just barely was able to choke it down. Supposedly, the director was trying to make a big point about society today as well as the direction it is headed, but instead this movie comes off as just another action movie with too much CGI and not enough plot, with a case of shoving the moral down your throat at the end for good measure. It could have been done MUCH better. I did not care if Matt Damon's character (Max?) lived or died. Jodie Foster played a great bitch, but her motivations were flat, and again, I didn't even care enough to hate her. And I get emotional about almost everything in movies!
So, 4/10.
Potential 9/10 totally wasted into garbage.
Looking forward to this, but going on the trailer, it might not deliver.
[youtube:1vl0z9j1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCTen3-B8GU[/youtube:1vl0z9j1]
Recently saw:
"Despicable Me 2" -
Better than the first, but not terribly original. Good pacing and a decent (for a kids animated movie) plot. Overall, worth watching. 7.5/10
"Thor: The Dark World" -
Was a little disappointment with this one after the recent awesomeness that has been present in the other "Avengers" movies. Still had it's points. Loki was great, as usual, and there were some twists that surprised me. Again, worth watching. 7/10
"Ender's Game" (second viewing) -
This movie is much, much better the second time around. I still think people who've read the book will enjoy it more than those who haven't because so much of the depth in the development of Ender's character is missing. I can't figure out how "The Hobbit" is getting three overly long films to tell one simple story and a story that NEEDS an extra hour doesn't get it. 9.2/10. Hopefully this one will get a "Director's Cut" edition that adds more of the battle room and the strife between Dragon Army and the others as well as the build up to Ender's emotional break-down. If so (and if it's done as well as the rest of the film), it'll be worthy of a 10/10.
'All is Lost' starring Robert Redford. It's an artsy fartsy film about a man that is sailing by himself(never a good thing) in the middle of the Indian Ocean( also not a good thing). His boat is damaged by a container that fell off of a ship and floated around until it struck his sail boat. A storm comes up and further damages the sailboat beyond sea worthiness. He deploys a life raft and drifts. He tries to float to the commercial shipping lanes and actually makes it but the rare random ships don't see or respond to his flares. He sees a light and out of flares starts a fire that soon engulfs his life raft and send him into the ocean. Just about the time he gives up the light becomes a boat and a hand is extended saving his butt from drowning.
One word of dialogue in this whole two hour movie..."FUUUUUUCK"!
It is horrible. 0 out of 10!
Never heard of All is Lost. It is 95% on the Tomatometer. I guess it isn't everybody's cup of tea. LOL. Really the single word of dialog is "fuck"? LOL
American Hustle - Great movie! Loved the cast. Christian Bale is amazing as always.
Grade: A
I love FROZEN!
'Freezer' Dylan McDemott(sp).
Good, entertaining short. Twist at the end. 5 out 10.
Frozen 10/10. Yep.
The only possible criticism of this movie is the gooby snowman, but my 6 year old laughed so hard every time he was on screen, it is pretty obvious who he's there for.
They rewrote Hans Christian Andersons "The Snow Queen" pretty heavily, but created a wonderful story. The animation was beautiful and amazing. The songs are just fantastic! I was instantly moved by "Do you want to build a snowman?", and later "Let it Go" is worthy of a Broadway production.
The characters are well written and the story keeps interest for all ages. It actually has a surprising plot twist, too.
Loved it!!
@Aroura33 OLAF?! He was amazing. I can't believe you didn't like him. He was pure joy. I loved him.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead: 10/10. I haven't finished the book, but it seems just as quarky and crazy as the book is.
To be fair, it did have some slow parts and what not, but I just love the story.
...
Quote from: "jumper"I saw "Walking with dinosaurs" a few weeks ago - I thought it was a cute movie and it was very informative. I liked it, so did my kids of course..
Uh oh. If I can remember right, "Walking With Dinosaurs" had a lot of factual problems. Alot of those "day in the life of a dino" specials do.
Saw Frozen again today. Still love it.
I saw The Agony and the Ecstasy (//http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058886/) staring Charlton Heston and Rex Harrison. (practically the only two people in the film)
Basically, this guy Michelangelo is told to paint a ceiling. And just like getting any contractor in, costs keep going up and it takes him ages to finish.
I gave it a rating of approximately 109.5
Quote from: "Jason78"I saw The Agony and the Ecstasy (//http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058886/) staring Charlton Heston and Rex Harrison. (practically the only two people in the film)
Basically, this guy Michelangelo is told to paint a ceiling. And just like getting any contractor in, costs keep going up and it takes him ages to finish.
I gave it a rating of approximately 109.5
Contractors work fast. They can finish a job in a timely fashion... If they show up, which of course, is the problem with most contractors. :-D
Quote from: "Notthesun"Saw Frozen again today. Still love it.
Frozen is a excellent movie indeed . 9/10
Quote from: "Notthesun"Saw Frozen again today. Still love it.
Yep, I just rewatched it again, and it is still a 10/10 for me too. On the second rewatch, I must say Olaf grew on me. He is cute, and his solo "in summer" is so funny in a super ironic way.
My only dislike upon a rewatch is the love song by the trolls. I really don't like that scene. It is really out of character for the rest of the movie. And I think the trolls themselves are ok, good animation and design. Just really not liking the song right at that spot.
"Let it Go" makes me want to BE the Snow Queen. And I'm not alone, my daughter has already declared she wants me to make her this costume for Halloween (please). She's got exactly that white blond hair, but I'm concerned it is a little overly sexy for a 7 year old. I think if I make it without the slit, it will be fine. :) sorry, got a little off topic there. I just love this movie so much! I'm glad to see Disney seems to be having a second renaissance.
That is probably my least favorite song also. Let it go, build a snowman, and for the first time in forever are incredible! I love it.
Olaf is amazing. I love how happy he always is. Always smiling.
'The Book Thief'
Man this is the best picture of the year maybe the decade. As usual Jeffery Rush is superb.
10 out of 10. I'd pay the $14 to see it in a cinema. I saw it at my neighbor's media room. He has a 100 inch screen and there are no annoying babies crying to spoil the movie.
Her: A
Dallas Buyers Club: A-
Blue Jasmine 8/10
This is a character study of a divorced woman with psychological problems. I tend to like character studies. They depend on good writing while keeping an eye on human psychology. I also appreciate a production that can keep my interest without having to blow up a truck every 5 minutes.
I'm ordinarily not a big fan of Cate Blanchett. To me she's just an actress that appears in movies from time to time, but she certainly got my attention in this film. From now on, whatever role she might play, interesting or not, I'll at least know that this woman can act.
Jack Ryan 7/10
The movie is not as complex or exciting as the other films based on this Tom Clancy character. It's kind of a reboot, because it goes way back to the beginning of Ryan's career. There are no plot twists. Ryan is recruited by the CIA, is assigned a job, and he accomplishes his assignment. It's more interesting than watching a normal guy do his job for a year, and although Ryan's job is filled with danger, it's just a movie about watching a guy do a job. But if you are a fan of the franchise, it's something you probably should see.
[youtube:1z645b2v]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyougFDZ7zU[/youtube:1z645b2v]
Hark! Prepare thy kinsfolk for merriment moste plenteous!
(Alt title: Taketh mine argent!)
All is Lost 7/10
It's a fairly accurate description of going through the correct survival tactics at sea. I thought that part was well done. I don't think the movie has wide appeal. I thought of it more as a visual instruction manual. Lost cargo containers have a reputation as serious hazards to navigation. So do unmarked fishing nets.
I liked the part where after his electronics failed, he got out a book on celestial navigation. I thought it remarkable that he actually learned how to do it so fast, however. I've watched instruction videos, and it seems like no simple thing. I never learned it either, even though I had books and a sextant on board (I've yet to meet a modern day sailor that can do it). However, I was armed to the teeth with backup self powered GPS units. Anyway, I related to taking off across the ocean without knowing celestial navigation. LOL
Things that bothered me:
I don't know why he waited so long to try and set the storm jib when he knew what was coming. But I know it happens.
Setting down an open knife in a rubber life raft bothers me. He did it twice without incident, but each time I wanted to yell out, "Close the God damned knife!"
But making mistakes is an accurate portrayal of what happens.
My brother has recently been on a killer whale kick. Don't know why, but I wound up watching the documentaries Black Fish and The Whale as a result.
Black Fish is about Tilikum, the bull orca at Sea World that has already killed three people, one of them a trainer during a show. It didn't seem to have a very good or focused message, except that being an orca in captivity sucks balls. Well, duh. It didn't offer especially good solutions to the problem. It also seemed a bit unfocused, including elements of other whale attacks and spending a little time with wild orcas and how friendly they are.
The Whale is about a young bull orca called Luna that had gotten separated from its pod and lived in Nootka Sound, off the west coast of Vancouver Island. During this time he kept trying to interact with human beings, but the Canadian government decided to be dicks and make it a fine to even look at him, which led to him trying hard and harder to get attention until he tangled with a boat propeller and died, which is the main reason why the government imposed the fine in the first place. It's a sad story and bit too hippy dippy for my tastes.
We also watched Room 237, a documentary about the possible meanings of Stanley Kubrick's film version of The Shining. I was actually looking forward to it since after watching the internet video at kubrick2001.com gave me better insight and appreciation of 2001: a Space Odyssey, it would be nice to gain better understanding of the Shining. But it was not to be. The first thing they show you, the very first insight they attempt to impart is some dumb shit talking about how the movie is about the subjugation of the Native Americans by white people. This isn't even the stupidest, craziest theory put forth. One guy is convinced it's Kubrick telling us how he faked the moon landing footage for NASA.
I do not buy this for a second. Kubrick is a guy who was a great artist, even if I don't tend to find his movies very fun to watch. He did make his films about more than what they appear to be, but it was usually related in some way. These fucked up theories have nothing to do with the movie at all. Worse, this shit is padded. Using the weird scene where there's a guy with his head split open, one commentator goes off about some story her son had made up about a guy with his head split open. This is completely unrelated to the movie or anything relevant but we get to hear about it anyway. This is a bad movie with nothing of substance to offer. Avoid it.
The final film I've seen is Salinger, a biopic about J.D. Salinger. It was an interesting look at a life, but ended with a tease of the books that will be published now that he's dead starting in 2015. They don't sound like they'll be all that worthwhile. Do we really need a complete history of the Glass family or Holden Caufield's family? Fuck, no. Two other book the film mentions are lifted directly from his life, such as his intelligence work during WWII. I just watched the movie. I don't think I'll need any more of that.
So, that's a lot of documentaries. Wonder why I keep watching them.
Robocop - It was fun to watch. All in all it was alright.
Grade: C+
Finally saw Zoolander. I feel dumber now. Granted, I know it's supposed to be a dumb movie, but it had the misfortune of being dumb and unfunny. Being funny is sort of an important thing for a comedy. There's the ant thing and "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills" and that's about it. Here are the other "jokes" you guys are missing out on: mispronouncing words, being unable to pee, giving yourself a wedgie, Earth to ___, computer illiteracy, repeating jokes that were barely passable the first time around, etc. If you can be entertained by funny faces and jingling car keys, then this is the show for you. Otherwise, don't bother.
enders game...I liked it. Nothing spectacular, and somewhat predictable , in fact I mentioned to the wife way before the final act 'acted'....but it was okay for a movie...again. Just holds the attention long enough for you to forget you haven't been laid in a month...er....skip that part. 6outa 10
Hi everyone!
My name is Matt Pierce and I am from Winnipeg, MB, Canada. In today's society everything seems to be shared and spread on the Internet and through all kinds of media. Through my love of filming I had decided to create a documentary called, "Anchor". Anchor is a film about both Christian and Atheist perspectives on some of life's biggest questions such as "Who are we as humans?", "Why are we here?", "What happens when we die?", "How should we live?", and "From where do we get meaning and purpose in life?" The film will also explore what both Christianity and Atheism truly believe and whether they can provide sound reasoning for their assertions. I don't believe that Christianity and Atheism have been represented fairly in a film where recognized experts from both sides have been interviewed. By interviewing prominent speakers from each worldview, this film hopes to correct the common misrepresentations of each side.
Every single person has a worldview and how they form that worldview determines how they live their lives and how they answer each of these questions. It's the biggest part of our lives! It's only when these questions are all looked at together and really scrutinized that someone can tell if they have a coherent worldview or not. A person's worldview should be based on the truth, not on emotions, skepticism, or wishful thinking. Finding truth is extremely important and vital to living life. This documentary will be a hunt for that truth to see if it lies in either of these dominant worldviews.
I am about halfway finished as I have interviewed eleven people so far including Daniel Dennett and Paul Tripp. I am currently running an indiegogo campaign to raise the funds to finish it off. I would be truly honored and grateful if you were able to let me know what you think and to even share it with friends if you like the idea!
Thanks for taking the time to read this. I look forward to hearing back from you all!
[moderator:v44zbzxq]Don't advertise in your first post. That's not a nice thing to do.[/moderator:v44zbzxq]
Just re-watched "How to Train Your Dragon" the other night and was reminded why this is movie was easily one of the top ten ever made.
All the technical aspects are done very well and it tells a great story. 9.9/10
I need to watch that and Frozen someday... Frozen... Freezing... Frosted... w/e...
How To Train Your Dragon is my favorite animated movie ever. I cannot wait for part 2!
Also, Frozen is amazing. Fuck, I love that movie.
Gravity. I can't say it was a great movie, I can't say it was a pretty good movie. It held me spellbound, it seemed over in 30 minutes. I think that means its a pretty damn good flick.
I watched John Carpenter's The Thing last night. A fantastic psychological horror story, it makes me sad that the vast majority of horror films are just another shitty slasher movie when they could be fantastic and interesting films...
I watched The Godfather for the first time last week, and followed it with parts 2 and 3. First two... superb. Last one... meh. I figured I had to watch these movies before I die. Glad I did.
Posted via Tapatalk on tiny smartphone keyboard. Expect typos.
Watched MASH, the movie the other night and was reminded of the references to Frank Burns as the 'sky pilot'. We should use sky pilot more often just to see who gets it and who doesn't. :-k
Quote from: "Atheon"I watched The Godfather for the first time last week, and followed it with parts 2 and 3. First two... superb. Last one... meh. I figured I had to watch these movies before I die. Glad I did.
Yes, they are certainly essential movies that must be watched. Except for one of them, probably that last one, which is totally unessential and ends up demeaning the series as a whole.
American Hustle
9/10
It's not a Scorcese film, but the way the story's told reminds me a lot of Goodfellas (the flash-forward at the beginning, that the story reaches again halfway through. The alternating character voice-overs.) Excellent preformances all around, including Louis CK's.
Where's That Fire with Will Hay 1937.. very funny.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Atheon"I watched The Godfather for the first time last week, and followed it with parts 2 and 3. First two... superb. Last one... meh. I figured I had to watch these movies before I die. Glad I did.
Yes, they are certainly essential movies that must be watched. Except for one of them, probably that last one, which is totally unessential and ends up demeaning the series as a whole.
Just watched the first one about 2 months ago, I loved it :D. 9.7/10.
Been a long time since I watched godfather. I'll probably watch it again sometime and realize how much I missed last time. Every time I rewatch movies years later I always find a lot I missed last time. Same with books..
I watched the Will Hay movies before on archive.org and watched again last night and they're funnier second time around.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 22, 2014, 09:27:32 AM
The last 300 thing. Can someone tell me, what is the genre of this...thing?
Please do not say fantasy. Because apparently movie was hyped in another way and there are tons of 'discussions' about how it fits 'history' or not.
It could be a genre of its own, I suppose, although I would call it mythology. There is an established history of movies that have a mythological feel employing mesomorphic male and female warriors dressed in quirky body armaments designed to enhance the attractiveness of their bodies as they engage in bloody battle. They often include elements like dragons or the currently popular "krackens", but not always. If you choose not to call it fantasy, this series probably falls in that genere, whatever it is.
Someone gave me a Blu-ray of "300" in a sealed Blu-ray box. It was probably a freebee included with purchase of a Blu-ray player, and whoever received it wasn't even interested in watching it, and it eventually ended up in my hands. I had it in my possession for months before I watched it. It was OK, I guess, but not worth paying money to see. I don't know why Hollywood did a sequel. I guess a lot of people like this genre. Debating its historical accuracy is just something some people might want to do, just like in the thread about the historical accuracy of the movie Noah, which I would include in the genre.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 22, 2014, 09:27:32 AM
The last 300 thing. Can someone tell me, what is the genre of this...thing?
Please do not say fantasy. Because apparently movie was hyped in another way and there are tons of 'discussions' about how it fits 'history' or not.
What's so baffling is that people needing an explanation for a movie like this in terms of 'historical facts'. :rotflmao: (American media, I suppose)
These 300 movies without doubt are the worst things ever made in the name of cinema, let alone the genre it aims. It's mostly 'implied' style violent porn for under 18. It contains so many absurdity even in its own absurdity, I wouldn't know where to begin with.
Don't even waste your time.
Fuck you, 300 is awesome and hilarious. :twisted:
Divergent: 8/10
I understand this is another movie, potentially a series, based on books about dystopian futures for young adults. Very much like Hunger Games, and equal in interest IMO. I saw it yesterday and enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to a sequel.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 22, 2014, 09:27:32 AM
The last 300 thing. Can someone tell me, what is the genre of this...thing?
Gay porn.
Quote from: the_antithesis on March 22, 2014, 10:34:24 AM
Gay porn.
The genre lends itself to nudity, and it should be an integral part of the genre IMO. :biggrin:
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 22, 2014, 10:21:06 AM
Fuck you, 300 is awesome and hilarious. :twisted:
I haven't seen the second one, but I thought the first was pretty awesome. It's got all the elements of a heroic tale and tells the story with an artistic twist. What's not to like?
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone 8/10
This movie was fricken hillarious! Not the best comedy I've ever seen, but this one is definitely worth seeing. LOVED that Jim Carey took on a comedy role like the good ole times
So I just so "Frozen"...
I liked it well enough, to the point I would consider watching it a second time. I am pretty sure I have not said this, but I don't watch movies or read books more than once... even Star Wars (the original trilogy of course) I have only seen about 2 times, and the second time was very distracted. Book wise the only book I have read more than once, fully, is Hess' "Siddhartha".
So the fact that I would watch it again means I enjoyed it as much as Star Wars and "Siddhartha", which I think puts it above my normal scale of 1-10.
I actually watched the original Robocop. I can see why it's considered a classic by many.
The Counselor 5/10
I didn't understand what was going on. I might get more out of this movie by watching it again, but I don't care to watch it again. When I construct scenarios to fill in the parts of the story that are not explained, the story becomes mundane. If it were not for the graphic violence, there wouldn't be much to hold the audience's attention.
Finally saw Riddick (2013) and I was pleasantly surprised by it. I was expecting a rehash of Pitch Black, but it wasn't. It sort of tied Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick together while being different from both. There are some pretty tense and exciting moments in the film and a lot of the shots of the alien landscape are just gorgeous. The secondary characters are pretty forgettable and more than a little stupid. I kinda hoped for a really good antagonist like in Chronicles, but that didn't happen. But thankfully, you do see a fair share of Necromongers - I'm glad that arc hasn't been completely dropped - including a setup for a possible sequel that I would be very interested in.
Definitely a back-to-basics take on the franchise. Overall, it's not bad. 8/10
I saw that latest Thor and it was a lot of meh. Really superbly and extravagant meh.
The wolf of wallstreet is awesome. 9.5/10 . Leo dicaprio is superb in this movie. He is really a great actor.
Don Jon 7/10
Fairly interesting, I thought. Unusual to say the least. I guess it was sort of a romantic comedy, but missing the expected "happily ever after." It did end on an upbeat note, but not the kind that brings a tear to the eye.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 22, 2014, 09:27:32 AM
The last 300 thing. Can someone tell me, what is the genre of this...thing?
Please do not say fantasy. Because apparently movie was hyped in another way and there are tons of 'discussions' about how it fits 'history' or not.
What's so baffling is that people needing an explanation for a movie like this in terms of 'historical facts'. :rotflmao: (American media, I suppose)
These 300 movies without doubt are the worst things ever made in the name of cinema, let alone the genre it aims. It's mostly 'implied' style violent porn for under 18. It contains so many absurdity even in its own absurdity, I wouldn't know where to begin with.
Don't even waste your time.
I disliked the first 300. It turned Persians into either
A) Metrosexuals
B) Goblins
I preferred the History Channels version of Thermopylae (however the fuck its spelled) and Meet the Spartans.
I watched the epic thriller JawsII the true story of the super giant killer great white shark who has an appetite for helicopters and the one teenage girl with her classically trained acting skills saying, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NOOOOOOOOOOOO! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Spoiler Alert: Roy Schrider killed the super giant killer great white shark in the end.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 27, 2014, 04:09:26 PM
I watched the epic thriller JawsII the true story of the super giant killer great white shark who has an appetite for helicopters and the one teenage girl with her classically trained acting skills saying, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NOOOOOOOOOOOO! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Spoiler Alert: Roy Schrider killed the super giant killer great white shark in the end.
yeah, chuck Norris never kilt no fuckin shark.. Roy is the man!
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 27, 2014, 04:09:26 PM
I watched the epic thriller JawsII the true story of the super giant killer great white shark who has an appetite for helicopters and the one teenage girl with her classically trained acting skills saying, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NOOOOOOOOOOOO! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Spoiler Alert: Roy Schrider killed the super giant killer great white shark in the end.
The shark of that movie is 25 feet long. In the real life the biggest white sharks grow to about 20 feet long max. The average adult white sharks are about 15 feet long.
y:
Quote from: aitm on March 27, 2014, 04:10:55 PM
yeah, chuck Norris never kilt no fuckin shark.. Roy is the man!
Blasphemer! Roy is maybe the second toughest man of all time. But Chuck Norris is Chuck Norris. :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:
Quote from: leo on March 27, 2014, 09:43:39 PM
The shark of that movie is 25 feet long. In the real life the biggest white sharks grow to about 20 feet long max. The average adult white sharks are about 15 feet long.
Those are just white sharks. The one in the movie was a GREAT white!
*ducks*
:biggrin2:
Actually the one in the movie was helicopterus eatus.. a rare REALLY FUCKING BIG great white shark
Quote from: GalacticBusDriver on March 27, 2014, 09:55:11 PM
Those are just white sharks. The one in the movie was a GREAT white!
*ducks*
:biggrin2:
:smile2: :smile2: :smile2:
Quote from: leo on March 27, 2014, 09:43:39 PM
The shark of that movie is 25 feet long. In the real life the biggest white sharks grow to about 20 feet long max. The average adult white sharks are about 15 feet long.
On a tour of Universal studios, they show you the man made lake where they filmed Jaws. Apparently, the ocean views were dubbed in on a blue screen if I understand correctly. They still have a dock with some exploding oil barrels from the movie, and I can't remember now, but the shark may even leap out of the water. The studios are an adventure in capitalism. It's quite remarkable how they do that stuff.
Next thing you're gonna say is the shark really didn't eat anyone and didn't eat the helicopter. :eyes:
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 27, 2014, 10:21:45 PM
Next thing you're gonna say is the shark really didn't eat anyone and didn't eat the helicopter. :eyes:
I never saw Jaws II, so I can't say whether it actually ate the helicopter, but I'm sure it happens a lot in real life.
Uhoh..flight 370..eaten by a 80 foot GREAT BIG SUPER GIANT great white! CALL CNN!
CNN BREAKING NEWS: was flight 370 eaten by a great white shark?
In the real life white sharks are Orca bitches. Sometimes in the wild Orcas kill white sharks. Too bad the Orca movie suck.
All I can say is that it was downloaded on Google Incognito and I'm a little worried about explaining it to my wife if the FBI shows up....
Quote from: leo on March 28, 2014, 01:14:44 PM
In the real life white sharks are Orca bitches. Sometimes in the wild Orcas kill white sharks. Too bad the Orca movie suck.
But orcas are cute and cuddly looking. They look like big swimming pandas and they have them at Sea World where they swim in from the sea to do tricks for families and little kids! For GODS sake, what about the children? /whiney phoney concerned voice
Yeah, and Rottweilers are really cute when they are puppies, but i don't look to pet one running around loose.
Watched Chyrnoble Diaries again.. fun spooky flick.
Watched Dawn of the Dead..much better zomnies than TWD. They were athletic zombies that could run. I don't see how anyone could get caught by WD zombies, but those running zombies were bad ass! :shocked:
Watching The Hills Have Eyes remake. So far the only good part is the blonde's ass.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 27, 2014, 04:09:26 PM
I watched the epic thriller JawsII the true story of the super giant killer great white shark who has an appetite for helicopters and the one teenage girl with her classically trained acting skills saying, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NOOOOOOOOOOOO! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Spoiler Alert: Roy Schrider killed the super giant killer great white shark in the end.
I like how they scarred the shark to make it scarier.
Christ, hollywood people are so fucking stupid.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 28, 2014, 02:21:06 PM
But orcas are cute and cuddly looking. They look like big swimming pandas and they have them at Sea World where they swim in from the sea to do tricks for families and little kids! For GODS sake, what about the children? /whiney phoney concerned voice
CNN propaganda to make people think animals have feelings and don't like being kept in the equivalent of a tea cup...
I had finally gotten around to watching Chronicle. For those who don't know or remember, which is most of you, it's a super hero-style story told Blair Witch style. Three friends find this thing that gives them all super powers. Pretty much just telekinesis which they can use to fly and create force fields and shit. Some telepathy is suggested but not explored.
I liked the movie, but I found myself identifying with the main character a bit too much. So much so that when I first started watching the opening scenes where we see how much he and his life sucks, I had to turn it off because I got too upset.
The main point of the story seems to be that people who've had shitty lives shut never get the ability to rise above it because they'll invariably misuse their new-found power. They've been taught that only dicks have power, so they'll become a dick when they get it. Or maybe it's just lashing out in anger at how shitty their life has been. But it's give a nerd the means to fight back, and you'll get Columbine. I'm not sure if that's a positive message.
But otherwise, I liked it. They get away from the found footage look by having the character use their powers to move the camera around. It has a great fight at the end between two super-powered characters that, I think, was better than that fucking Superman movie. Partially because the characters were better developed and the stakes were better explained. Scriptwriter Max Landis had put in a pitch for a Superman story to DC which they had stupidly rejected. They'd do better if they haired Max to write their DC heroes movies. He had better love for the material and an understanding of how to make it work.
Chronicle was a better movie than I thought it would be. Reminded me strongly of Akira, which I suspect was an influence. It showed how different people with extremes of life experiences and personalities might deal with ultimate power. Was a lot more philosophical in that sense than I expected.
Noah. The movie is fairly good. 8/10. If you go without great expectations , it's a good ride.
Why are there never zombie cats, dogs, birds, etc.?
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 30, 2014, 12:21:25 AM
Why are there never zombie cats, dogs, birds, etc.?
Well, there were plague vampire dogs in "I am Legend."
Quote from: stromboli on March 29, 2014, 02:09:39 PM
Chronicle was a better movie than I thought it would be. Reminded me strongly of Akira, which I suspect was an influence. It showed how different people with extremes of life experiences and personalities might deal with ultimate power. Was a lot more philosophical in that sense than I expected.
Akira was mentioned in the Chronicles page on TV tropes for the same reason. Chronicles was good and I don't know if I said that in this thread. That particular movie gets a 5/5.
The Man From Earth. 8/10
I heard about this film on some top 20 atheist friendly movie list. It was the #1 movie recommended, and described as hard to describe without spoiling it. And it's true. It's got no action, no special effects, mediocre acting, but a fascinating story to tell. I 100% recommend this movie. It's free on Hulu.
Jackie Chan's er......something or another.. I already forget.... if lousy actors are the best they could find, they fucked that up and found worse ones.
Anchorman II: 1/10
A few comedians of some merit, badly hampered by a weak plot and bad directing. Possibly on my list of 25 worst movies ever.
Captain America 2 8/10 . The movie is very good , specially the second half. The beginning of the movie is kinda slow:
Yep 8/10 was my guess also. Pretty good for a sequel, I think.
so Keanu Reeve's Ronin 47 or 47 Rodents or something involving the number 47......yeah..er.....if yer desperate for a movie try Heidi or Teenage mutant ninja turtles or maybe just eat some chocolate turtles while watching the grass grow.
I liked Captain America 2, I will also give it a 8/10.
47 Ronin I actually enjoyed a good bit. I give it a 7/10.
I want to see the new captain America.
I just downloaded Knights of Badassdom. It's supposed to be a comedy/horror. Hopefully it's funny enough that I can get past the scary parts and I don't have nightmares... :lol:
Sent via Internet Explorer
Machette II
Some of my friends watched it stoned.
I watched it drunk.
F*ing hilarious. Recommend it full-heartedly.
Justin Bieber as bleep, 'nuff said.
So, I finally watched Battleship. I had a hard time getting through it because the beginning was just so terrible with all the military dick sucking. You know, there is a difference between being enthusiastically supportive of the millitary and sucking military dick. This movie falls in the later. Fortunately, this gets toned down a little once the aliens show up and kick their well-licked balls back into their abdominal cavity. But only a little, what with the amputee being a hero and the old guys running the ship and shit.
It's a shame these are bad things about the movie because there are the only things I can really recall. I remember there were these killer ball things so Hasbro could sell toys of them and a sequence where they track the aliens by essentially playing the game Battleship, but otherwise it's forgettable. The main character is a ponce who never stops being a ponce and is ultimately rewarded for his poncitude. And... fuck. Were there any other characters in this movie? I ask because I can't really remember. I only remember the main character because he got the most screen time and he was an insufferable ponce for every second of it.
There was the blond chick girlfriend. I remember she was kind of hot, but that thumbs-up at the end made me want to hit her in the head with a snow shovel, which is how all my relationships end.
There was the nerdy scientist guy who has an arch lifted from the Big Book of Predictable Character Archs You Shouldn't Use In Your Movie, You Dumb Shits by E. B. White. Actually, there was this one scene where he had to go get a piece of magical scientific equipment from an area overrun with aliens and while he's getting it, he's spotted by an alien. The alien looks a little thinner and weedier than the others and I thought they were going to do something with this, BUT THEY DON'T.
Assholes.
One top of all this, the movie is poorly photographed. Too many tracking shots, zoom in closeups, etc that I suddenly because aware of every single fucking camera movement. Maybe I would not have if it was a good story with compelling characters. but it wasn't and they didn't have any characters. Just ponces and props. That's what the old guys were. Fucking props.
So, fuck that movie. Seriously. It's worse than everyone expected.
All I remember about Battleship was when they were doing that takeoff of sink my battleship in that board game environment.
Enders Game - something to think about.
The fight was two battles, #1 to knock him down, and the second to punish him enough so that you don't have to fight him again, worked fine on a one-on-one.
Then the military/government approach of total annihilation, unwarranted!
The Conjuring.
2/10 - Would not watch again unless forced at gunpoint.
Monsters U :
10 out of 10 for Adults and Kids.
Not gonna spell it out, go watch it.
Another great Pixar title.
The latest movie for me was The 300 sequel/prequel. I'd give it a 7/10. I liked the first one a bit better.
As for the movie I've seen lately Van Wilder, after all these years still 7/10 :)) and Deep impact maybe 5,5/10.
I enjoyed the Chronicle very much, 47 ronin not so much, man of tai chi not really. I feel kinda disappointed by the 2 Keanu Reeves's flicks.
Quote from: Feral Atheist on April 14, 2014, 08:03:34 PM
Enders Game - something to think about.
The fight was two battles, #1 to knock him down, and the second to punish him enough so that you don't have to fight him again, worked fine on a one-on-one.
Then the military/government approach of total annihilation, unwarranted!
I agree about the military mentality, but why the fuck is it always that little kids are the only ones to save the world??? I just can't get past this. In anime it's the same, Evangelion and the like, it's always "the aliens/ ghosts/ whatever the fuck is going to destroy the universe, and the only one capable of opposing them is... a group of elementary school kids equipped with... I mean seriously?!?
"Marina", a Belgian movie about the life of Rocco Granata. Truly a great movie, though I may be biased.
Great acting, beautifull story, a few good songs in there. Really just fun to watch.
If you are a guy, I would recommend watching this with your girl if she wants to watch something romantic. It's got a good enough story to keep you interested that I usually find lacking in romantic films.
Downside? It's in Dutch and Italian so it'll be subbed for most of you. Yet, it's a great movie. Would reccomend.
9.2/10
Rush
Fantastic movie about real life events in Formula 1.
Very well written and acted with good action.
I really liked that Ron Howard stayed true to formula 1. No going at it like bumper cars which is not at all what happens in Formula 1.
Quote from: Berati on April 27, 2014, 07:59:21 PM
Rush
Fantastic movie about real life events in Formula 1.
Very well written and acted with good action.
I really liked that Ron Howard stayed true to formula 1. No going at it like bumper cars which is not at all what happens in Formula 1.
I wanted to see that. It's out on DVD?
Sent via your mom
It Came from Beneath the Sea:
SLOW. The attack on the city if entertaining and the monster is fairly well done but it takes way too long for the protagonists to figure out what the audience already knows and somehow manages to not have any tension while waiting for them to figure it out.
20 Million Miles to Earth:
Some great Harryhausen special effects, especially the fight with the elephant. The plot is just ok if you don't over think it. The pacing is fairly decent (much better then It Came) and it has a few scenes that will really grab your attention. The halfhearted attempt to tack a love story onto the plot was unnesasary and unsuccessful. Some say it is a King Kong knockoff: I'd say its plot is worse but the special effects are better.
Just watched "Odd Thomas" on NetFlix and loved it. It's kind of a quirky dark humor film based on a Dean Koontz novel. I'm gonna have to read the book now.
@Aroura33 - Tucker and Dale vs Evil kept me rolling through much of the film as well. It kind of surprised me. I've seen it twice.
Quote from: Jack89 on April 27, 2014, 10:25:57 PMJust watched "Odd Thomas" on NetFlix and loved it. It's kind of a quirky dark humor film based on a Dean Koontz novel. I'm gonna have to read the book now.
Took a chance on this one over the weekend and was very pleasantly surprised. As a long time fan of the books I wasn't expecting much from the film, especially considering it was nearly direct to DVD. It's not the typical direct to DVD though as litigation tied up it's release and they apparently got tired of waiting and simply threw it out on the DVD market in hopes of getting some kind of return. Anton Yelchin did a great job as Odd and Addison Timlin was good as Stormy. I especially enjoyed her sheer panty camel-toe scene! (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/shocked.gif)
All-in-all a good adaptation of a book to make an entertaining film. 7/10
I've also been watching "Orphan Black" from BBC Americas on-demand. This is one of, if not the the best, TV shows in a long, long time. Basic premise: Sarah Manning returns to (generic North Am. city, I think they mention New York but it looks more like Ontario) after nearly a year away. Upon here arrival she witnesses her doppelganger commit suicide by train. She decides to run a scam, taking the dead girl's place and things start to get real interesting. 9.5/10. If you're interested, watch from the beginning. There's too much back story to be able to really understand the plot if you jump in now. You can find on-demand here: http://www.bbcamerica.com/orphan-black/where-to-watch-orphan-black/ Seriously good show!
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 10, 2013, 01:37:48 AM
NOOOO!!!
I wanted to like the new Oz film. Don't tell me it's crappy! <!-- s:( -->:(<!-- s:( -->
then don't come an obvious spoiler thread.
Mama - first half of the movie was okay, had some scary moments and atmosphere, acting wasn't to outstanding except for the little girls.
Then second half it just wilts and becomes funny instead of scary when you see the horribly rendered cgi 'mama', the bad acting just gets worse, and nothing redeemable about it.
X-Men Days of Future Past 10/10
After 5 or 6 X-Men movies, with the one devoted to Wolverine a throw-away, and the last one a bit jarring for me with the teenage versions of Xavier and Eric, this last film brings the new and old characters together into a very interesting story that kept my attention very well. I think it's the best movie I've seen this summer, even without the hype given to Captain America and Spiderman. I think it's the additional element of a good tale added to the typical Superhero formula that makes the difference for me. It helps to have seen the previous films. Otherwise, there are parts of the movie that will cause you to think you missed something.
Jennifer Lawrence takes over the sexy blue shape shifting character of Mystique, and I bring this up to point out a glaring error in the film. It's a rather big error (which I also forgive). The nearly naked quality of her blue form early in the movie shows her from the back and clearly reveals a zipper from the back of her neck to her bottom. :wtff: We all know Hollywood is going to use a body suit for the character, and in later scenes, the editing room fuzzes the zipper out. But I'm pretty sure the real Mystique wouldn't be shifting her shape by donning a wardrobe of various body suits. :smiley:
Still it's a very good movie that ties in with the previous X-Men plots without simply repeating a plot with a new set of villains, like superhero sequels often do.
X-Men Days of Future Past: Loved every second of it.
Grade: A
Just watched There's Something about Mary. It's almost my life story minus the happy ending and I ran into my "Mary" (named Paige) years later and she'd gained about 250 lbs and a really bad alcohol and drug problem. Talk about fucking disappointed. Geeez!
Just seen X-Men again. Still in love. Bye.
Bullet to the Head with Sly Stallone. Don't waste your time.
Red 2 w/ Bruce Willis, etc. See above.
Quote from: Notthesun on May 24, 2014, 03:17:00 AM
X-Men Days of Future Past: Loved every second of it.
Grade: A
C- at best, due to the lack of the Moody Blues. That wasn't fair.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 27, 2014, 08:29:01 PM
C- at best, due to the lack of the Moody Blues. That wasn't fair.
Yeah, I thought that when I saw the title, "how cool is that title, I hope they have a snippet of the song",,but as I have heard nothing about it, I am disappointed. They are my favorite of all time
C- at best? Disappointing.
Quote from: aitm on May 27, 2014, 08:39:01 PM
Yeah, I thought that when I saw the title, "how cool is that title, I hope they have a snippet of the song",,but as I have heard nothing about it, I am disappointed. They are my favorite of all time
Same here, until I went to a KISS concert. KISS was silly, but the lead-off band was doing their second album and one song really hit me, "By-Tor and the Snow Dog." Been hooked on them ever since.
Quote from: Notthesun on May 27, 2014, 08:41:00 PM
C- at best? Disappointing.
For reasons noted. Otherwise it was a fun movie. Plot holes you could send an Ironman bearing a nuke through, but I don't mind those, we get to laugh about them over dinner after.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 28, 2014, 11:54:11 AM
By-Tor and the Snow Dog
Got to hear that live a couple or three times in the 70s and early 80s. The first time was the very last venue for the 2112 tour on August 1st 1976. Their next show a week later kicked off the All the World's a Stage tour. The set list didn't change much.
the LEGO movie
9/10
This movie wanted to be (mostly) fast paced AND create the illusion of LEGO-stop-motion... that means blocks, which means increments, and that means the animation can't help but have a frantic choppyness that some might find hard to get into. Hense the one point reduction.
But it's also a loveletter to all those who've build stuff and played with LEGO, with lots of clever jabs at movie clichés, and an underlying message of letting your unique creativity shine by abandoning instructions that'll really pull at your heartstrings. This movie glances over it's products on sale with such deliberate dismissiveness, it understands it needn't plug a product that sold itself just great for decades. The emphasys was placed on fun and creativity where it belonged, and I think the filmmakers avoided the pitfall of losing the audiences respect with overt commercialism with style.
Something eighties spaceguy Benny, who's yearning to build a spaceship SPACESHIP SPACESHIP!!!, had a worn out decall and (sure enough) that crack across the chin in his helmet, so that gave me a nostalgasm. Also: secretly this is the best movie with Batman in it... ever.
Final verdict: everything is awesome!
"The enemy" 3,5/10 The most fucked up film I saw in a while. 3,5 because of the boob shots :) Jake Gyylenhaal didn't help.
... and WTF with the spiders???
https://archive.org/details/Sobaka Dark, low budget, black and white film. Acting isn't great, plot takes awhile to develop, but well worth watching.
https://archive.org/details/Oh_Mr.Porter_1937 Maybe one of the funniest old Brit films you'll ever watch. Will Hay was flat out funny as hell and probably a lot of the inspiration for Monty Python.
If you watch this and don't think it's funny there's something wrong with you. :lol:
Edge of Tomorrow 9/10 Emily Blunt and Tom Cruise
Surprisingly good Science Fiction movie that struck me as refreshingly unique. The plot seemed new, but in thinking about it on the way home, I've seen variations of it once or twice, although not done as well as this movie, in my opinion. I almost passed on this one, because the coming attractions left me flat. Compared to today's cookie cutter formula for "big machines fighting aliens" movies, this one had an entirely new problem to overcome. They still had to figure out how to bash the Hell out of the enemy with their futuristic machines, but that was truly a secondary issue dwarfed by a much bigger problem, which I won't give away.
Not a movie, but an obscure episode of the Twilight Zone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7n4LeRB6js&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Just watched Knights of Badassdom.
It's a (horror?) flick... Although it was so poorly done that even I couldn't tell and I can't watch horror movies.
Anyway... Review...
Story:sucked
Effects: not very good
10/10 would recommend. It was pretty funny
Sent via your mom.
Death Machines (1976)
I've been going through those Mill Creek boxed sets of fifty movies for five bucks and on the last disc in the Sci-fi Invasion is a movie that I found to be special.
First of all, I don't know why it's on the sci-fi set. It's a martial arts movie. Supposedly there's mind control involved, but this is barely mentioned and unexplained. I guess they needed one more to make fifty, but they have plenty of sci-fi crap they could have put here. So I don't get it.
Second, and this is a personal thing since I watched every one of these shitty movies one by one, all twelve discs have the same DVD menu with the same music loop playing over and over until you want to chew your own face off. The music is the theme from Death Machines. So now I have Stockholm syndrome. Well, okay then.
But I realized this movie was special within the first few minutes where we see three sets of duded fighting using (fingerquotes) "martial arts" until one by one they slay their opponent. The third guy awkwardly reaches up the pant leg of his karate pants and just shoot his guy. That's good martial artin' right there. Usually with a cheesy movie like this, you get something like that and then nothing that good happens again. but then a few minutes later, the three mind controlled karate assassins take out a target with a fucking bazooka.
This movie is just bafflingly bad, but bad in an interesting way. This keeps it entertaining. It's actually a really good bad movie.
Noah.
I'm an Aronofsky fan...seen 'em all.
5/10
Maybe his worst to date. Clunky.
Edge of Tomorrow.
4 out of 5. A good film overall, but I think the alien design was a tad bit ridiculous.
The Fault in Our Stars - Grade: B+
Quote from: Notthesun on June 09, 2014, 04:00:39 AM
The Fault in Our Stars - Grade: B+
I've been thinking about going to that, but I'm not quite up for a tear jerker in a public theater. Might have to wait for the disk, and watch it at home.
Fault in Our Stars 9/10
A solid movie without special effects. Not the tear jerker I expected, although that's how the critics were describing it.
22 Jump Street - Not as good as the first one, but still a great time!
Grade: B+
How to Train Your Dragon 2 - How amazing. I loved every minute of it. It may be the darkest American animated movie I've ever seen.
Grade: A
Quartet (2012) -- 8/10
-Nam
Quote from: Notthesun on June 14, 2014, 10:31:29 PMHow to Train Your Dragon 2 - How amazing. I loved every minute of it. It may be the darkest American animated movie I've ever seen.
Grade: A
"How to Train Your Dragon 2"
Dreamworks has figured out how to make sequels. Boy, have they! I did not believe the few people I've heard saying that this one is every bit as good as the first, if not better. I won't say better, yet. Not until I've waited a couple days and maybe seen it again. But, it just might be! I'll give it a grade/rating in a few days.
I actually like that Dreamworks has decided to
not follow the "Disney Happy Happy, Joy Joy" path of the last 15-20 years. The "dark" aspects of these films are, I think, what puts them over the top.
Quote from: Savior2006 on June 08, 2014, 01:35:59 AM
Edge of Tomorrow.
4 out of 5. A good film overall, but I think the alien design was a tad bit ridiculous.
They reminded me of the aliens in "The Darkest Hour."
Saw "Maleficent". Sixteen yo cutie made me feel pervy. And the plot was total revisionist history.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 15, 2014, 06:53:07 PM
They reminded me of the aliens in "The Darkest Hour."
Saw "Maleficent". Sixteen yo cutie made me feel pervy. And the plot was total revisionist history.
As a cousin of mine says a lot: "Just 'cause she's off the menu don't mean you can't look."
-Nam
The Fault In Our Stars.
Catching a matinee of this flick on a Monday afternoon, the old ladies who were the only other people in the theater were talking as they left. I overheard one of them say "That was very good. It was better than the book," reminded me why old ladies make terrible film critics.
The film wasn't bad, exactly. What it was is a note for note retread of the novel. It really didn't do anything spectacular to make it better than the novel. It wasn't spectacular as a film overall. Very workmanlike, but no real flair, I thought. There were a couple missed opportunities for the director to add flair, but I guess the director has no ambitions to be memorable. But that's okay. Not everyone has to try to be the next Spielberg, especially old fart Spielberg. But it does not a great movie make.
Part of the problem is the character that eventually dies of cancer by the end-- spoilers-- doesn't look very sick as their health is supposedly deteriorating. Maybe not every actor is willing to lose the amount of weight Christian Bale lost for The Machinist, but a little paleness added to those chubby cheeks would have been nice and keeping with the point of the novel, which is an unblinking look at young people living with cancer and how much it sucks. Having a character succumb to a version of Ali MacGraw's Disease (movie illness in which the only symptom is that the sufferer grows more beautiful as death approaches) was just a bad idea.
It seems to be a lot of little things like this that aren't necessarily important but they add up to a production that really didn't care as much about making a good film as just making a film. Another example is a character with eye cancer who eventually loses both eyes. One of his eyes is glass but it's obvious the actor does not have a glass eye. Reading the novel, I imaged the character had thick glasses which would have distorted his eyes enough to make the non-glass glass eye less noticeable. This was a simple thing that would have improved things, but they didn't do it because the stage glasses with perfectly flat lenses were good enough. "They could have, but they didn't" should be the tagline on the poster.
That all said, it's not a bad movie. Just a movie that does a pedestrian adaptation of a popular novel. I have read the novel, along with all of John Green's other works. I'll say it is his best book yet. His first novel, Looking For Alaska, was sort of like a semi-autobiographical first novel, as it's set in a prep school in Alabama and Green attended Prep school in Alabama, poor kid. His second, An Abundance of Katherines, was the typically indulgent sophomore effort where the main character is a child prodigy and therefore less likable. Paper Towns felt like the same formula in Looking for Alaska perfected and enjoyable as such, but hopefully he won't try to polish that formula anymore because it will get old. The Fault In Our Stars is his best novel because it's so unlike his previous works that were mostly the same characters in similar situations with a nerdy main character that is obviously based on Green himself. Hopefully he'll try bold moves like this in the future instead of going back to the old formula or worse, making a formula out of teenaged girls with cancer.
This is what the movie is built upon, but it never really adds to it or rises above it. it's good, but if you've read the book, you don't to see the movie.
On a personal note, the actress playing the main character, Shailene Woodley, reminded me quite a bit of my sister-in-law. The one whose daughter died. This made the view experience a tad spooky for me. Were I a more spiritual and therefore self-centered individual, I would say this casting was meant just for me on some level. I doubt it, but I find it weird that they didn't cast an actress that didn't make me think of my niece who'd died of cancer. I mean, jeez.
Lonely Hearts (1982) -- 6/10
-Nam
Recently watched Australian films some by Peter Weir:
Walkabout (1971) -- 8/10
The Cars That Ate Paris (1974) -- 6/10
Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) -- 8/10
The Last Wave (1977) -- 7/10
Newsfront (1978) -- 6/10
Lonely Hearts (1982) -- 6/10
Back to 1942
Subtitles from Chinese
About the Henan famine and Japanese invasion during WWII and a old man who lost everything and had to sell family to survive. Probably the saddest movie you'll ever watch and a reminder just how cheap life can be on this planet.
Dialog moves quickly so have your reading glasses on.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 20, 2014, 02:08:30 AM
Back to 1942
Subtitles from Chinese
About the Henan famine and Japanese invasion during WWII and a old man who lost everything and had to sell family to survive. Probably the saddest movie you'll ever watch and a reminder just how cheap life can be on this planet.
Dialog moves quickly so have your reading glasses on.
Dare mo shiranai (2004)
Is the saddest movie I have ever seen.
-Nam
Odd part of watching a movie about famine is I feel hungry and end up munching on snacks then feel bad afterwards. Somehow I feel like I shouldn't eat for a few days, but I will anyway.
Recently watched "Her". 9/10.
I thought it might be trite or boring, but it was neither. The pace is slow but steady, and keeps you interested in what is going to happen next. The dialog is thoughtful. The movie is a lot deeper than I would have expected.
Quote from: Aroura33 on June 20, 2014, 07:24:41 PM
Recently watched "Her". 9/10.
I thought it might be trite or boring, but it was neither. The pace is slow but steady, and keeps you interested in what is going to happen next. The dialog is thoughtful. The movie is a lot deeper than I would have expected.
I'm going to watch the DVD later tonight, unless I get sidetracked. I have the same trepidations you described, but I see that viewers seem to think it's a fairly good flick.
Just watched The Natural for the first time, I give it 9/10.
-Nam
Her 9/10
Granted, I've been in the mood for a unique movie after reaching a summer saturation point with Superhero action films. I like those too, but there's a lot of other worthwhile subject matter besides that, and I've had a craving for something like Her for awhile now. I was able to identify with a lot of Her on a psychological level from my own experience, rather than engaging myself in something that I can only relate to as fantasy. Actually, Her is sci fi and consequently has a fantasy component, but it is more cerebral and was a welcome change of pace.
I'm glad you enjoyed "Her" SGOS. There is a crowd out there that doesn't seem to get it. Perhaps it is simply that they cannot relate. I also felt pretty connected to it, not just the main character (though he is a man, and I am a woman, his character has some universal traits that I think either gender and any sexual orientation could relate to), but also the side characters.
There is a lot being said in this movie, and not all of it is on the surface. I noticed the background images and people quite often as part of the story. The elevator stands out the most in my memory, I thought it was quite strikingly done.
I'm going to see How to Train Your Dragon 2 this afternoon with my daughter. I hear it is pretty dark, so I hope she enjoys it. It is getting pretty good reviews from critics and audiences, so my hopes are up. :)
Quote from: Jutter on June 02, 2014, 11:40:15 AM
the LEGO movie
9/10
This movie wanted to be (mostly) fast paced AND create the illusion of LEGO-stop-motion... that means blocks, which means increments, and that means the animation can't help but have a frantic choppyness that some might find hard to get into. Hense the one point reduction.
But it's also a loveletter to all those who've build stuff and played with LEGO, with lots of clever jabs at movie clichés, and an underlying message of letting your unique creativity shine by abandoning instructions that'll really pull at your heartstrings. This movie glances over it's products on sale with such deliberate dismissiveness, it understands it needn't plug a product that sold itself just great for decades. The emphasys was placed on fun and creativity where it belonged, and I think the filmmakers avoided the pitfall of losing the audiences respect with overt commercialism with style.
Something eighties spaceguy Benny, who's yearning to build a spaceship SPACESHIP SPACESHIP!!!, had a worn out decall and (sure enough) that crack across the chin in his helmet, so that gave me a nostalgasm. Also: secretly this is the best movie with Batman in it... ever.
Final verdict: everything is awesome!
Just saw the movies and I have to agree. This is the best movies I've seen in years.
Emperor (2012) -- 5/10.
So, they took an actual general from WWII, who was also married and his wife was stationed with him many places during the war, and gave him a fictional affair with a Japanese woman, which was filler throughout the film.
It's not the only reason why this gets a 5/10 but it's at least 80% why.
-Nam
Bus Stop (1956) -- 5/10
This movie annoyed the hell out of me. Especially the lead male character.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 15, 2014, 07:57:36 PM
As a cousin of mine says a lot: "Just 'cause she's off the menu don't mean you can't look."
-Nam
True. I had a fifteen year old girl determined to ____ me when I was 28. I had some fun messing with her head, but I avoided any possible jail time.
Went to watch Maleficent in theatres yesterday. Not really my thing to start with, so perhaps not a fair judge in this.
Yet all in all I would give it a decent 7/10. If you like these 'darker' fairytales/disneymovies, I could even understand you giving it an eight.
The film gets progressively better. The child-acting in the first ten minutes is atrocious. But as the movie grows darker and more violent, it gets more entertaining. And the CGI which first looks childish and dodgy becomes more convincing in less light.
I personally think the leap to 'evil empress' that the title-character makes is kind of a non-sequiter, even though the cause is a terrible cause. But then again, this is a children's movie and I suppose I can't really fault it for that. All in all, the story actually seems like a good way to teach young kids that good and evil isn't the black-and-white version they were told as kindergardeners.
I did not care for the narrator, however, nor the part it played in the predictable ending. Of course, these kind of movies can't really be blamed to have a standard-happy-ending, but with a movie that toyed with darkness and gave twist to thte most known part of the story (though you can see it coming) and tried to stand out from the average disney-movie, I'd hoped for a more unique ending.
But all in all, not a bad movie and definitely something a guy can suffer through when trying to score some points with his date.
Legend of the Sea (2007) -- 2/10
Awful film.
-Nam
How To Train Your Dragon 2 (in 3d). 9/10. The first one's story is SLIGHTLY better, but the animation in the second one is incredible.
First off, I'm probably swayed by the fact this is the first 3D movie I've seen in theatres, and damn was it impressive! The animation made my stomach swoop and dive with Hiccup, Toothless and the other dragon riders. It felt pretty awesome. I enjoyed the story, liked the darkness of it and the ultimate hopefulness of it, no matter how predictable it was.
Also, seeing it with my 7 year old daughter, who immediately afterward dubbed it The BEST movie she'd EVER seen!! is probably affecting my rating a bit. But it was pretty darn impressive.
Looking back on it from outside the awe factor, the plot is a tad predictable, and the pacing is odd at times, but I think it more than makes up for it with the most awesome mom in a cartoon (IMO, at least that I can think of)...ever. :D And also, I just love that It was a well done sequel, which seems a truly rare thing in Hollywood.
Oops, double post, sorry.
Quote from: Berati on June 21, 2014, 02:51:28 PM
Just saw the movies and I have to agree. This is the best movies I've seen in years.
I'd give the Lego Movie a 10/10. There just wasn't anything I disliked. I was constantly pleasantly surprised by the movie. It really is one of the best movies I've seen in ages, but I've been on a roll with good movies lately. I've seen a few dud, but also a lot of great ones!
Now good TV shows, those seem to be rarer quark.
Quote from: Aroura33 on June 24, 2014, 02:58:49 AM
I'd give the Lego Movie a 10/10. There just wasn't anything I disliked. I was constantly pleasantly surprised by the movie. It really is one of the best movies I've seen in ages, but I've been on a roll with good movies lately. I've seen a few dud, but also a lot of great ones!
Now good TV shows, those seem to be rarer quark.
If you ever have trouble sleeping watch Legend of the Sea.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 24, 2014, 03:02:34 AM
If you ever have trouble sleeping watch Legend of the Sea.
-Nam
Not being critical here but I couldn't find a review of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes. the rating I found was for age level six. Any movie that uses Rob Schneider for a voice actor can't be good. :eek:
Quote from: stromboli on June 24, 2014, 04:07:42 AM
Not being critical here but I couldn't find a review of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes. the rating I found was for age level six. Any movie that uses Rob Schneider for a voice actor can't be good. :eek:
Review (I wrote it):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2334578/reviews
-Nam
How to Train Your Dragon 2.
If you liked the first one you should enjoy the new one too.
Never Take Sweets from a Stranger (1960) -- 9/10
A Hammer film. Not what one would expect of Hammer in 1960 -- a film on the subject of pedophelia. And, it doesn't hold back in dialogue.
-Nam
Blackfish.
I don't even know how to rate this film. Whatever your stance, it is an extremely well done documentary.
I'm not an animal activist. I have in the past, and may someday in the future, raise my own food animals. But an orca is not a food animal. And I also believe that even food animals should be well treated.
Anyway, I think absolutely everyone should see this film. I'm serious. I was devastated. I felt like I SHOULD be an animal rights activists. I will never ever, unless under threat of death go to Sea World, now. And I say that after I looked for, read and watched rebuttals to this film. The facts are, the film is right, and Sea World is....well go watch the film!!
I saw it months ago, and it still pops randomly, and not so randomly, into my mind. I chaperoned part of my daughters 1st grade class's zoo field trip, and this movie was in my head so often while looking at the "animal exhibits". I saw a preview for a movie about a rescued dolphin, (in captivity for life of course), and I just felt horror, not the hope and joy the preview was trying to evoke in me.
This movie/documentary is the only one of it's kind that profoundly changed the way I view something, in this case a large portion of human interactions with the animal world.
I highly recommend it.
Edge of Tomorrow - It was awesome. Face paced, fun, and just a great summer movie. I loved it.
Score: A-
I saw the play, Jersey Boys, in Chicago a couple years ago, and I enjoyed it very much (I don't usually have a great enthusiasm for plays). Granted part of my interest was the unique way it handled scene changes, which wouldn't work in a movie. If they needed a restaurant scene, there were no stage hands to do it. The lights dimmed a bit and the actors themselves would push a table out onto the stage, and carry in their own chair, which they would briskly plop down and then sit on it. The lights would come up again, and presto! There were the bare essentials of a restaurant. All this would be done in just a couple of seconds. However, the movie is not getting hot reviews from critics, which probably has little to do with how enjoyable the movie might be. I'm not sure I'll go see it at the theater yet. But I'd like to hear if anyone has seen it.
Is that the only play you've ever seen? 'Cause that pretty much how much of them work; but why that would have any bearing on how good the performance is...I have no idea.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 26, 2014, 11:09:11 AM
Is that the only play you've ever seen? 'Cause that pretty much how much of them work; but why that would have any bearing on how good the performance is...I have no idea.
-Nam
No, I've seen maybe 20 plays in my lifetime, usually when I visit my city friends or relatives, but I've never seen it done that way, so it was unique to me. And being from the sticks, I thought it was quite clever. Note that wasn't all that was good about the play. The music brought back nostalgic memories. The story line was marginal, but that seems to be typical of musicals.
Season 4 of Downton Abbey just came out on Amazon Prime. I watched all 9 episodes in one evening. Now I have to wait another year.
The Ledge
An atheist is banging a religious fanatics wife, but might jump off a building to save her life. Good flick. It's on Netflix.
Transformers 4 - Well, what can I say? I love action. This has to be the worst of all of them (I loved part 1!). I did not like any of the humans. At least Shia was funny and the parents were lovable in the other three. In this one we have an annoying ass dad, a hot daughter, and a boyfriend. They had nothing to offer (Didn't expect them to!). Anyways, the action was cool. Although it seemed scaled down compared to all the others. No matter what, I will always love Bumblebee! Everytime he was on screen I felt like a little boy! That will always be the best part of these movies.
Grade: D
Quote from: Notthesun on June 27, 2014, 03:45:45 AM
Transformers 4 - Well, what can I say? I love action. This has to be the worst of all of them (I loved part 1!). I did not like any of the humans. At least Shia was funny and the parents were lovable in the other three. In this one we have an annoying ass dad, a hot daughter, and a boyfriend. They had nothing to offer (Didn't expect them to!). Anyways, the action was cool. Although it seemed scaled down compared to all the others. No matter what, I will always love Bumblebee! Everytime he was on screen I felt like a little boy! That will always be the best part of these movies.
Grade: D
I still have my Bumblebee transformer from the 80's.
I liked the first two, didn't care too much for the third.
-Nam
I've already decided I won't bother to see Transformers 4. Like others here I was delightfully surprised by 1. The rest got progressively less interesting. I left the theater in the middle of the third one.
Jersey Boys 8/10
I thought it was much better than the critics.
The last 2 movies i watched were, Prometheus and Rise of the planet of the apes , i enjoyed them both.... :popcorn:
RATE THE MOVIE YOU WOULDN'T WATCH ON A BET
The Legend of Bagger Vance. Scientologist Will Smith imparting life advice to a disillusioned white guy. And golf. 0/0.
The Serpent and The Rainbow, 3/10
Brief plot synopsis: Guy is asked by his pharmaceutical employer to go to Haiti and find the zombie powders and bring them back so modern medicine can use them to make a new kind of anesthetic. Guy finds out Voodoo is real, but zombie powder is still just a mix of known scientific substances that the drug companies can still use....plus hot mixed race sex throw in there somewhere.
I found it painfully bad. At first it was annoying, with terrible narration and acting by Bill Paxton. The only redeeming quality being a strong black female lead. But then the plot got SUPER stupid AND slow at the same time. There were moments I actually started dozing off on my husband shoulder, followed by a random explosion or loud exclamation that would wake me, only to get boring again and I'd start dozing off. I was awake for the end, which was just silly piled on top of stupid.
This is supposed to be an interesting book. Maybe I'll give that a try, but probably not. Anyway, if you are having insomnia, I highly recommend this movie. If you want an enjoyably bad flick, this isn't it though.
Cairo (1942) -- 7/10
-Nam
Quote from: stromboli on June 27, 2014, 12:12:02 PM
RATE THE MOVIE YOU WOULDN'T WATCH ON A BET
The Legend of Bagger Vance. Scientologist Will Smith imparting life advice to a disillusioned white guy. And golf. 0/0.
Will Smith isn't a Scientologist though he stated in the past he likes what they say. But he's not an actual Scientologist.
And The Legend of Bagger Vance is a good movie.
-Nam
Quote from: Aroura33 on June 27, 2014, 01:06:39 PM
The Serpent and The Rainbow, 3/10
Brief plot synopsis: Guy is asked by his pharmaceutical employer to go to Haiti and find the zombie powders and bring them back so modern medicine can use them to make a new kind of anesthetic. Guy finds out Voodoo is real, but zombie powder is still just a mix of known scientific substances that the drug companies can still use....plus hot mixed race sex throw in there somewhere.
My husband hat a fit of movie nostalgia and asked me to watch this with him on Netflix. He remembered it as being pretty cool. I found it painfully bad. At first it was annoying, with terrible narration and acting by Bill Paxton. The only redeeming quality being a strong black female lead. But then the plot got SUPER stupid AND slow at the same time. There were moments I actually started dozing off on my husband shoulder, followed by a random explosion or loud exclamation that would wake me, only to get boring again and I'd start dozing off. I was awake for the end, which was just silly piled on top of stupid.
This is supposed to be an interesting book. Maybe I'll give that a try, but probably not. Anyway, if you are having insomnia, I highly recommend this movie. If you want an enjoyably bad flick, this isn't it though.
I agree. I was expecting more from the movie. I read a synopsis of the book, and it really intrigued me.
Quote from: Nam on June 27, 2014, 01:30:48 PM
Will Smith isn't a Scientologist though he stated in the past he likes what they say. But he's not an actual Scientologist.
And The Legend of Bagger Vance is a good movie.
-Nam
I wouldn't know. I didn't see it. :biggrin:
Plot for every action movie made today
[spoiler]Badass kicks everyone's ass for two hours, gets to bang the girl.[/spoiler]
No exceptions. :think:
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 27, 2014, 05:34:25 PM
Plot for every action movie made today
[spoiler]Badass kicks everyone's ass for two hours, gets to bang the girl.[/spoiler]
No exceptions. :think:
Tomb Raider. Lady Croft doesn't get to bang the girl... sadly...
A Nous la Liberte (1931) -- 9/10
-Nam
That Man From Rio (1964) 9/10
Jean Paul Belmondo at the top of his game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JmQO5BAT0k
Passion in the Desert (1997) -- 7/10
French soldier gets lost in Egypt, becomes delirious, and has sex with leopard.
-Nam
Quote from: Aroura33 on June 27, 2014, 01:06:39 PM
The Serpent and The Rainbow, 3/10
Brief plot synopsis: Guy is asked by his pharmaceutical employer to go to Haiti and find the zombie powders and bring them back so modern medicine can use them to make a new kind of anesthetic. Guy finds out Voodoo is real, but zombie powder is still just a mix of known scientific substances that the drug companies can still use....plus hot mixed race sex throw in there somewhere.
I found it painfully bad. At first it was annoying, with terrible narration and acting by Bill Paxton. The only redeeming quality being a strong black female lead. But then the plot got SUPER stupid AND slow at the same time. There were moments I actually started dozing off on my husband shoulder, followed by a random explosion or loud exclamation that would wake me, only to get boring again and I'd start dozing off. I was awake for the end, which was just silly piled on top of stupid.
This is supposed to be an interesting book. Maybe I'll give that a try, but probably not. Anyway, if you are having insomnia, I highly recommend this movie. If you want an enjoyably bad flick, this isn't it though.
I saw that a few years ago and agree it's pretty dry. I only watched it because it was the only realistic depiction of zombies in film. I'm so sick of zombies and they all get it wrong , anyway.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on June 27, 2014, 07:18:37 PM
Tomb Raider. Lady Croft doesn't get to bang the girl... sadly...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qUj5EjhfI
She fingerbangs the girl. That's what.
Quote from: the_antithesis on June 28, 2014, 12:15:37 PM
I saw that a few years ago and agree it's pretty dry. I only watched it because it was the only realistic depiction of zombies in film. I'm so sick of zombies and they all get it wrong , anyway.
How do people get something fictional, wrong? If you think about it zombies have been around in literature for over 2,000 years. So, unless the first story ever written about a person rising from the dead is what you're speaking about, which I doubt, then no one gets it wrong.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 28, 2014, 12:20:57 PM
How do people get something fictional, wrong?
Well, in the 90's there was talk of making a Spider-man movie and one of the scripts allegedly circulating involved the main character not becoming a super hero but turning into a half-human, half-spider monstrosity. So it is possible to get something fictional wrong.
And zombies are not fictional. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvius_Narcisse)
Quote from: the_antithesis on June 28, 2014, 12:34:06 PM
And zombies are not fictional. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvius_Narcisse)
The article states "zombie-like", Tom Cruise doesn't count.
:wink:
-Nam
I heard Transformers is apparently breaking this summer's box office records. That surprises me given the general reaction I've heard toward the last two movies.
Quote from: SGOS on July 03, 2014, 07:27:49 AM
I heard Transformers is apparently breaking this summer's box office records. That surprises me given the general reaction I've heard toward the last two movies.
I thought the last two made bank, too.
Also, they brought in the Dinobots. It's kind of like how idiots thought Revenge of the Sith was going to be great because they finally put that whiny shit in the Darth Vader suit.
Quote from: the_antithesis on July 03, 2014, 11:20:22 AM
I thought the last two made bank, too.
17% on the Tomatometer from the Critics. Fans are up around 60%. Professional critics must be looking for something else, although 60% is hardly stellar. I don't see much competition from this week's new releases, however.
Muriel's Wedding (1994) - 8/10
-Nam
Quote from: SGOS on July 03, 2014, 11:57:47 AM
17% on the Tomatometer from the Critics. Fans are up around 60%. Professional critics must be looking for something else, although 60% is hardly stellar. I don't see much competition from this week's new releases, however.
I said made bank, not reviewed well.
Dark of the Fallen (stupid title) made $402 Million on a $200 million budget ($836 worldwide).
Revenge of the Moon (stupider title) made $352 Million ($1,123 million worldwide) on a $195 million budget.
So, yes. They made serious bank. Especially in places where they don't speak English and thus don't know Shia LaBeuf is a terrible actor.
Source: Box Office Mojo.
The Hidden (1987) - 7/10
Good SciFi cop film. Plus, Claudia Christian is hawt in it.
-Nam
Spent the last few days watching documentaries.
The Institute: 2/10
It starts out sort of amusing. The idea of the game itself sounds fun, and there are a few funny interviews or filmed moments, but mostly it's just pretentious and boring, with a side of some seriously disturbed and sad life people.
The Cove: 10/10
This is probably the most disturbing thing I've ever seen, ever. Like, a live horror movie that actually happens every year.
So, without spoiling the entire thing, the basic story is that one of the trainers from the 70's show Flipper had a massive change of heart (for good reason) about cetacean captivity, and during his world roaming to save dolphins, discovered that hundreds of dolphins were being killed off the coast of Japan in a cove near a small fishing town. But he can't get in to see what is REALLY happening. He recruits a real life Oceans 11 team, including someone who works of Industrial Light and Magic to help disguise their cameras, and they infiltrate the area and film it.
Holy....shit.
I researched the movie a little before watching it, and learned that the Japanese claim the dolphins were killed quickly and humanely, and their meat was eaten.
I told my husband I had no problem if they were eating the meat, even though I know dolphins are very intelligent, if they are killing them humanely.
BUT...
[spoiler]But they aren't. I have seen cows and pigs and chickens in horribly inhumane conditions that made me angry and upset. I've seen cows take minutes to die, go down and struggle. It's not ok, and it is why I only buy free range chicken and beef and eggs.
How they kill those dolphins was one of the most horrific things I've ever watched. It was like watching well armed soldiers walk into a primitive village, take the young females out for "breeding", and then violently slaughter the helpless old men, women and children right in front of each other, screaming and everything. I have NEVER seen so much blood. It actually changes the texture of the ocean water, not just the color.
The details that they should not be eating the meat, that it is highly contaminated and unsafe for consumption, that the Japanese view dolphins as pests and competition for the fish in the area, that they sell it as more expensive "whale" meat and are poisoning their own people, that many in the Japanese government know all of this and tell outright lies about what really goes on there and are buying out the representatives of countries in only agency that might be able to protect these animals is just the horrible icing on the horrible cake.
[/spoiler]
Between this movie and Blackfish, for the first time ever I have a very strong urge to do something about an issue, to take action! But I don't know what, so instead I feel sit here feeling helpless.
Long story short, I highly recommend it. If you have a strong stomach.
2 more documentaries.
Are all Men Pedophiles?: 7/10
Has some very good points and arguments. Some of it is just undeniably true. The fear of pedophiles in the west has started to break down the relationships of men with children. The west has over-defined the term pedophile and many people who are not actually pedophiles are being labeled as such and denounced as predators.
My only problems with this movie are that the "dark" interviews are poorly done, and the accents are so thick with the narrator and all the experts that some of it is hard to understand.
Still, I really do think everyone should watch this one as well.
I Escaped a Cult: 5/10
I feel truly sorry for these people, but the interviews were not very compelling, and the pacing was horrible. Only 2 family stories, so it felt really long and drawn out.
It's kind of interesting, might recommend it if you are really into this topic. But I think all religions are cults (of varying degrees).
Maleficent - I quite enjoyed that. I loved Angelina Jolie in it. <3
Grade: B
Also, for Transformers, it doesn't matter how bad they are (and they are), people are going to see them.
Stella Dallas (1937) -- 7/10
Great ending, the rest I found to be good but not special.
-Nam
Quote from: the_antithesis on July 03, 2014, 01:00:38 PM
I said made bank, not reviewed well.
Dark of the Fallen (stupid title) made $402 Million on a $200 million budget ($836 worldwide).
Revenge of the Moon (stupider title) made $352 Million ($1,123 million worldwide) on a $195 million budget.
So, yes. They made serious bank. Especially in places where they don't speak English and thus don't know Shia LaBeuf is a terrible actor.
Source: Box Office Mojo.
Yes, I understood that. My reply was additional information about #4, and not really a relevant response to "making bank."
And I have to agree with you about LaBeuf. I've often wondered why he plays in so many movies, because I don't think he's that interesting of an actor. It always seems like he's playing the same character.
Almost all actors seem to play the same character: themselves.
-Nam
Tron Legacy
Meh. The story is weak, although the same could be said of the original. The new aesthetic is a little bit simpler than the original. I don't know about the loss of bike helmets and the addition of motorcycle helmets. The de-aging of Jeff Bridges is pretty uncanny valley. They could have made this work by making all programs look like that or maybe it would have worked in black and white (the original movie filmed the actors in B&W) But they didn't do that. Pity. Otherwise the movie retreads the original too much and plays on the nostalgia way, way, way too much instead of being it's own story that is worth telling. I suppose, in the end, it's one of the better latter day sequels to have been made. It just wasn't all that good, either.
X-Men: Days of Future Past
This one is tough. First of all, because of the last six X-Men movies, I only saw three of them. And I didn't even mean to see The Wolverine. I just got invited to a sneak peak and went more to be sociable than because I wanted to see that shit.
That said, this movie was pretty good. Partially because it wasn't an adaptation of the comic book story, which would be impossible since events and characters from the comic book story were already mined by the first movie. It's kind of like how Batman is constantly whining about his dead parents because he has no other character. Days of Future Past is the definitive X-Men story and regular characters keep coming back in time from this dark future they made never happen, the second Pheonix and Bishop if I remember correctly.
Adaptations are a tricky bird because no matter how much you get right, you are going to get something wrong and some asshole is going to think it was important. This movie just plain gets everything wrong, so it really don't matter. It makes it easier to stop worrying about accuracy or if Ellen Page could act older so that it would be believable and shit like that and just watch the fucking movie. I honestly do not know what to think of this. I tend to think that accuracy counts in storytelling but that this movie managed to render all nitpicking moot is a feat worth applauding and perhaps even studying.
I'm still not enjoying these superhero movies as much as I should, but this one is well done. I really can't think of anything else to say about it.
Street Fighter (1994) -- 6/10
-Nam
I watched the new Riddick movie last night and thought it was good, but I would have preferred a different main character than Vin Diesel. I guess I'm tired of seeing him in the Fast and furious movies that I only watch for the cars and Jordana Brewster. :drool: :wink2:
just watched star trek first contact but that was a dvd.
last time i saw a movie in the movie complex it was: a million ways to die in the old west..
I LOVED ITTTTT!!!! 9 out of 10!
Just watched Black Swan with natalie portman in, ma pal told me it was gd so i gave it a watch, turned out it was nobad even tho it was about ffn ballet , didnt think i would like it but i did ffs......... :pidu:
I didn't really care for Black Swan.
-Nam
Quote from: the_antithesis on July 06, 2014, 04:08:44 PM
Tron Legacy
Meh. The story is weak,
Yeah, I agree. Both were. Bikers might like it. Sci Fi for bikers.
Quote from: 10 Green Bottles..... on July 06, 2014, 08:38:27 PMJust watched Black Swan with natalie portman in, ma pal told me it was gd so i gave it a watch, turned out it was nobad even tho it was about ffn ballet , didnt think i would like it but i did ffs......... :pidu:
It's not about ballet though. It's about one person's descent into madness. Besides, awesome girl-on-girl scene with Natalie Portman and any reasonably hot chick is plenty of reason to see this one! (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/hubba.gif)
Quote from: GalacticBusDriver on July 07, 2014, 06:54:14 PM
Besides, awesome girl-on-girl scene with Natalie Portman and any reasonably hot chick is plenty of reason to see this one! (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/hubba.gif)
Yeah. At least one of the chicks should be hot.
Now, Voyager (1942) -- 8/10.
I think one of Bette Davis' best performances.
-Nam
Transcendence - 10/10
I give very rare movies a full rating because I always find some flaw in them; this isn't a flawless movie, but I think it still deserves a 10 outta 10.
---
Frozen - 8.5/10
---
Noah - 9.5/10
I don't think Noah was some "atheistic" movie as I've heard many claim, after some certain, rather magical, events in the movie I just took it as some fantasy movie.
Night Must Fall (1937) -- 7/10
-Nam
Trying to decide if I want to watch Lilo and Stitch or Alice In Wonderland...
Quote from: Shiranu on July 09, 2014, 03:43:10 PM
Trying to decide if I want to watch Lilo and Stitch or Alice In Wonderland...
Which of the latter? If the cartoon: perfect drug film, if the live version: kinda dark.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on July 09, 2014, 04:14:18 PM
Which of the latter? If the cartoon: perfect drug film, if the live version: kinda dark.
-Nam
The cartoon one. I like the story itself because of how twisted it is, but I haven't seen it in ages. No drugs to watch it on though :(.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 09, 2014, 04:17:49 PM
The cartoon one. I like the story itself because of how twisted it is, but I haven't seen it in ages. No drugs to watch it on though :(.
Me and some friends had a debate in 1998 on what was the best film to watch drugs on, and we got stuck on two films Disney's Alice in Wonderland (cartoon), and Spawn.
The previous night we all got extremely high and watched Spawn but some still had vivid memories of tripping while watching Alice in Wonderland.
-Nam
Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975) -- 8/10.
If you're not into quiet, solemn, and a bit depressing films that run over 3 hours long: this is not the movie for you.
-Nam
"Sabotage" strong 8,5/10 for Arnie. Nice paced, story is simple but has a twist to it. Keeps You interested till the end.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 7/10
Decent movie. It's about a post plague war between the few plague survivors and the partly evolved apes. This is the way we imagine it happening in the 1960s epic film. But there are still millions of years of evolution that we would have to go through to get to that point. That would be like 300,000 sequels at the rate it's going. While it's a good action movie, the story line is a far cry from the original, where the apes had set up a semi advanced culture complete with it's own myths and fundamentalist religion that prevented any scientific achievement that might throw religious beliefs into question. And rather than include much of the original's ape bigotry, the last film is more about survival.
As hokey as the ape costumes were, I think the original low tech film was a much superior thought provoking story, although given its lack of advanced film making technology, it could almost be treated as poignant humor with an important message. Such a film today might offend the new millennium's anti-evolutionary fundamentalists who reject science and would not want to be put in a position of seeing how closely their own religion resembles that of the close minded backward simian religious beliefs of the original film.
Or maybe, it's just because Hollywood now focuses on action and special effects, often to the detriment of good story telling. Still it's a fair movie.
Biutiful (2010) -- 8/10.
-Nam
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) -- 7/10.
-Nam
Rififi (1955) Has an unbelievable 30 minute silent robbery scene that has never been touched. The leanest, tightest gangster film ever made, imo.
A Raisin in the Sun (1961) -- 9/10.
-Nam
The Moon is Blue (1953) -- 10/10.
-Nam
Love Crazy (1941) -- 9/10.
William Powell hilarious as always.
-Nam
"I'm Not Scared" Subtitles available on Netflix
A small boy in the Italian countryside finds another boy his own age chained up in a pit dug in the yard of an abandoned farmhouse then discovers he was the victim of a badly botched kidnapping. The local town is in on it including his own parents.
Very intense sad movie.
Saw Thor: Dark World. 7/10. It was entertaining and it had its moments, but it needed a rewrite. Badly.
First off, I hate all the humans in this movie. There was no real point in having Earth be a part of this story anyway. Stupid love triangle was stupid. And they basically turned her (I don't care enough about her to bother learning her name) into a living macguffin, which was horrible, but a million times better than watching her try to date some poor schmuck. And frankly, the whole damn science team was physically painful to watch. The cell phone reception scene alone made me facepalm so hard, let alone the weaponized portals. These characters actually distracted from the story, which easily could've been just about the Asgardians and the Dark Elves.
And speaking of the Dark Elves, I actually really liked them. Their ships are cool. Those implosion grenades are cool. Their Black Rage powerup crystal thingies are cool. Their armor is cool. Those creepy masks are creepy. And their motivation is only mildly cliched - they don't do evil for evil's sake, don't want to conquer Earth or anything (in fact, they don't give two craps about the Earth, which makes their presence on Earth really puzzling) - they just want to unmake existence and return it to primordial chaos. Now there's a goal I can get behind. And best of all, they're led by the 9th Doctor. Awesome.
I also really liked the Asgardians. The part where Loki "dies" in Thor's arms was great. Their whole dynamic was great, let's see more of that. But there were two things I really didn't like about them - Thor is apparently quite the trickster himself, which really threw me for a loop as it didn't seem to fit with this characterization at all. He's a stern, duty-bound warrior with all the subtlety of a 2x4. He's very much like his weapon - blunt, powerful, and very straightforward. This is the kind of guy who not only does not use deceit, but looks down on it. The second thing is Loki's offscreen coup d'etat. Wtf.
And some of the acting seemed kinda off. Volstagg had what could have had a great You Shall Not Pass moment, but his lines were delivered like he's responding to a questionnaire. A lot of the characters were like that. What gives?
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 14, 2014, 02:49:09 AM
Saw Thor: Dark World. 7/10. It was entertaining and it had its moments, but it needed a rewrite. Badly.
Then it's not a 7/10. That would be more in line with 4/10. 7/10 is considered to be "above average" and teetering on "good". An opinion from someone who has rated over 7,400 films, TV shows (including episodes), documentaries, short subject, video games, and pornography combined.
:wink:
QuoteFirst off, I hate all the humans in this movie. There was no real point in having Earth be a part of this story anyway. Stupid love triangle was stupid. And they basically turned her (I don't care enough about her to bother learning her name) into a living macguffin, which was horrible, but a million times better than watching her try to date some poor schmuck. And frankly, the whole damn science team was physically painful to watch. The cell phone reception scene alone made me facepalm so hard, let alone the weaponized portals. These characters actually distracted from the story, which easily could've been just about the Asgardians and the Dark Elves.
And speaking of the Dark Elves, I actually really liked them. Their ships are cool. Those implosion grenades are cool. Their Black Rage powerup crystal thingies are cool. Their armor is cool. Those creepy masks are creepy. And their motivation is only mildly cliched - they don't do evil for evil's sake, don't want to conquer Earth or anything (in fact, they don't give two craps about the Earth, which makes their presence on Earth really puzzling) - they just want to unmake existence and return it to primordial chaos. Now there's a goal I can get behind. And best of all, they're led by the 9th Doctor. Awesome.
I also really liked the Asgardians. The part where Loki "dies" was great. Their dynamic was great, let's see more of that. But there were two things I really didn't like about them - Thor is apparently quite the trickster himself, which really threw me for a loop as it didn't seem to fit with this characterization at all. He's a stern, duty-bound warrior with all the subtlety of a 2x4. He's very much like his weapon - blunt, powerful, and very straightforward. This is the kind of guy who not only does not use deceit, but looks down on it. The second thing is Loki's offscreen coup d'etat. Wtf.
And some of the acting seemed kinda off. Volstagg had what could have had a great You Shall Not Pass moment, but his lines were delivered like he's responding to a questionnaire. A lot of the characters were like that. What gives?
Definitely not a 7/10.
-Nam
Yeah, I tend to 8/10 everything that I don't hate. Apologies. Yeah, realistically, it's more like 5/10. It's basically a badly executed good movie. Great special effects, though.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - I loved it. Even more than the 1st. Ceasar is the best!
Grade: A-
All is Lost (2013) -- 7/10.
-Nam
Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World
Eh, it was alright. I like the aesthetic. i would like to see a super hero movie that uses it. But the story is about a whiny twentysomething who doesn't know how to handle his love life. So it's a universal story, I guess. It's just trite, is all. I didn't enjoy it.
But as I said, I would like to see a super hero movie with this aesthetic and until recently, director Edgar Wright was set to make Ant-Man. I can only conjecture that he was planning to do just that with Ant-Man and Marvel nixed it because this someone goofy, overblown look wouldn't fit with the rest of the Marvel movie. If that's true, it's a shame but understandable. Also if true, hopefully Wright won't give up on the idea and make a super hero movie with this kind of energy and excitement. There are plenty of public domain super heroes these days. So why not dust one of them off and have real fun without the bollocks of continuity?
Seven Psychopaths 7/10
Good cast, but some loopy plot twists. A lot of odd behavior from notable odd character actors. but the plot twists should have been less predictable.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 14, 2014, 03:48:45 AM
Yeah, I tend to 8/10 everything that I don't hate. Apologies. Yeah, realistically, it's more like 5/10. It's basically a badly executed good movie. Great special effects, though.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 14, 2014, 03:48:45 AM
Yeah, I tend to 8/10 everything that I don't hate. Apologies. Yeah, realistically, it's more like 5/10. It's basically a badly executed good movie.
I actually understand what you mean. I like movies in general, so I tend to score them higher than what they deserve. But for accurate comparisons there should be as many 1/10 movies as there are 10/10 movies, and most movies would rank somewhere in the middle like a standard Bell curve. But if someone were to give a really average flick a deserved score of 5/10 around here, it would give the impression that the movie just plain sucked. If you give a movie an 8/10, someone would be sure to ask, "8/10?" What was so bad about that movie?"
We could use a new scoring system in the forum. You would have to be honest:
I walked out of the theater half way through in utter disgust
Movie was OK, but I slept through a lot of it
Movie held my attention, and I didn't go to the lobby for popcorn
Movie was so good, I cried and made a fool of myself in the theater
or
Movie was so funny, I pissed my pants
or
On the way out of the theater, I kept pestering strangers with how I loved the movie more than anything else in the world, until people started telling me to get a grip on myself and quit acting like a possessed Pollyanna.
Out of the 7400+ ratings I have at imdb.com I've given 103 movies 10/10 and 6 movies 1/10 (used to be seven but I recently rerated "Surf Nazis Must Die (1987)" 3/10 based on the performance of Gail Neely who really is the only person worth watching in the entire film).
I've rated 24 films 2/10, and 89 films 3/10. So, if you can do the math on the progression (I can't) and it may rest between me mainly rating films 6/10-7/10.
-Nam
I just finished watching the final episode of Lilyhammer from NET FLIX. It is hilarious.
Spitfire (1934) -- 6/10
Katherine Hepburn plays a Faith healer.
-Nam
The Shopworn Angel (1938) -- 8/10.
The acting is mildly okay (except by James Stewart) but it's an overly bittersweet film.
-Nam
Le million (1931) -- 7/10.
-Nam
Le manoir du diable (1896) -- 7/10.
Silent films aren't really my thing, and I almost didn't watch this but then it said it was only 3 minutes long, so I did. Very entertaining short film. Good special effects, for 1896, and I guess it could be considered "horror" since it's apparently about a vampire.
I enjoyed it.
-Nam
The Toxic Avenger (1984) -- 8/10.
It's just so damn hilarious.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on July 16, 2014, 12:23:20 AM
Le manoir du diable (1896) -- 7/10.
Silent films aren't really my thing
I was wondering how far back you would go. You sure have been on an "old" movies binge lately.
Quote from: SGOS on July 16, 2014, 06:02:57 AM
I was wondering how far back you would go. You sure have been on an "old" movies binge lately.
I read about it on imdb and found it on YouTube. But, I love 1930s films, so, most of my ratings of classic films may stem mostly from that decade.
However, that 3 minute film is now the oldest film I've seen. Before was a French film from 1902 that's considered the first science fiction film: Le voyage dans la lune (1902) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0000417/).
-Nam
A Modern Musketeer (1917) -- 7/10.
-Nam
The dawn of the planet of the apes. The movie is awesome ! 9/10
Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter (1968) -- 7/10.
Better than the first one.
-Nam
Pretty Maids All in a Row (1971) -- 7/10
Gene Roddenberry boner murder mystery (though not really a mystery). Seemed satirical.
I enjoyed it.
-Nam
The Super Cops (1974) -- 6/10.
-Nam
The Third Man- Jospeh Cotten, Orson Welles. A real classic. 8/10.
Quote from: stromboli on July 17, 2014, 11:44:44 PM
The Third Man- Jospeh Cotten, Orson Welles. A real classic. 8/10.
I watched that recently. Orson Welles gets top billing and he's barely in it. And not his best work.
-Nam
Yeah. Orson Welles was the "up and coming" but Joseph Cotten does all the work. Good example of film noir.
M (1931) an early Peter Lorre film directed by Fritz Lang in Germany. About a child murderer and how the police enlist the underworld to find the murderer, then betray them. Good film if you can find it.
Quote from: stromboli on July 17, 2014, 11:58:55 PM
M (1931) an early Peter Lorre film directed by Fritz Lang in Germany. About a child murderer and how the police enlist the underworld to find the murderer, then betray them. Good film if you can find it.
I have "M" -- great film. Got it in a "Family" pack. That is not a "family" film.
-Nam
They made movies in 1896?
I'm preparing myself for the doc "Jesus Camp" i dont know if I'm ready for it....
Sent from your mom
Quote from: Nam on July 18, 2014, 12:06:54 AM
it began in the 1890's.
-Nam
1980s * fify
Sent from your mom
Well young eggs.. You better watch this film... How to Say No: Moral Maturity (1951)
We don't want you going to Jesus Camp immoral and immature! :eek:
https://archive.org/details/HowtoSay1951
Jesus Camp is a documentary about how the church camps are child abuse. I saw it via one of the things I follow on facebook
Sent from your mom
Watch it anyway.. You need some good old fashioned instruction from 1951 .. :lol:
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 18, 2014, 12:49:23 AM
Watch it anyway.. You need some good old fashioned instruction from 1951 .. :lol:
Lol I think I should follow that up with Reefer Madness
Sent from your mom
Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 18, 2014, 01:00:30 AM
Lol I think I should follow that up with Reefer Madness
Sent from your mom
I have that posted here, somewhere...
Should watch the musical: hilarious and really fucking violent.
-Nam
I have better....That Rotten Tea Bag..
Not very long, but damned patriotic.. It'll make you proud to be a coffee drinker..
https://archive.org/details/ThatRottenTeaBag
Ohhhhh...here's a real winner by Creationism..
The DEADLY Legacy of Darwinism! You're gonna just luvvvv this one..
https://archive.org/details/DarwinsDeadlyLegacy
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 18, 2014, 02:04:38 AM
Ohhhhh...here's a real winner by Creationism..
The DEADLY Legacy of Darwinism! You're gonna just luvvvv this one..
https://archive.org/details/DarwinsDeadlyLegacy
I'll watch it later, it's in 7 parts.
-Nam
I made it through part 1.. Then thought, Oh fuck you dumb bastards..
Here's a great animated Disney-like cartoon with cute woodland animals used to sell the clean, clear taste of.. PM blended whiskey.. After all, what kid doesn't love that clean clear taste of blended whiskey? :lol:
https://archive.org/details/PmPicnic1948
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 18, 2014, 02:39:29 AM
Here's a great animated Disney-like cartoon with cute woodland animals used to sell the clean, clear taste of.. PM blended whiskey.. After all, what kid doesn't love that clean clear taste of blended whiskey? :lol:
https://archive.org/details/PmPicnic1948
Pm Picnic
(1950) (they have the year incorrect) -- 3/10.
I hope Art Carney got paid a lot, or got free beer, or something because that sucked.
-Nam
Just watched Lone Survivor...
On one hand, it was a really good movie, I give it at least a 8.7/10.
On the other... fuck, that was hard to watch through. Military flicks like that, especially one's based on true stories, get a lot harder to watch the more family and friends you have who are foot soldiers. Add ontop of that I have seen more blood and guts from idiots than I like and it makes it almost too unpleasant to watch :\.
Overall it was a really good movie, but I really regret watching it... made me feel like shit.
Quote from: Nam on July 18, 2014, 02:53:27 AM
Pm Picnic (1950) (they have the year incorrect) -- 3/10.
I hope Art Carney got paid a lot, or got free beer, or something because that sucked.
-Nam
Yeah yeah yeah.. Like YOU wouldn't sell whiskey to small children..
APA, thanks for the videos! You always make my day. Solitary
Maleficent - 7/10
(And yeah obviously Spoilers)
This ones gotten a lot of really bad reviews and some good ones. My personal take on it is that its a okay movie.
The biggest complaint people had about this movie was how it changed the character of maleficent, from the one everyone knows from the original 1959 sleeping beauty, from the mistress of all evil, to a sympathetic character.
I kind of knew what the theme of this movie was going towards just from the trailers, after all there was no way you could make a movie about maleficent and not have her be the main star of the story. Something people forgot about the original sleeping beauty was just how fucking boring the prince and aurora was in it, and the real stars were the good fairies and maleficent.
In this retelling, it is essentially rewriting the character, but it also gave more depth to her on why she is the way she is, how she isn't evil so much as a woman scorned. It made the king in this movie into the real villain, it gave a whole lesson of the cruelty of mankind. What this movie actually did was something the animated didn't, and was give more character to aurora, she's still the buttery sweet princess, but she actually comes off as that instead of a cardboard character.
The good fairies are just near pointless editions to the story, but it gives more time to other characters because of this.
And yes, biggest spoiler, i liked the fact maleficent made a bond with aurora, becoming her fairy godmother and she being the one to remove the curse, because one thing that pissed me off about the original was how the whole 'true loves first kiss' came from a guy who only had known her for a day or so, so in this adaptation his kiss didn't do shit, while maleficent, who grew up taking care of aurora, almost raising her and loving her like a daughter, actually did love her in the end because it was more genuine then the animated movie made it.
Its not perfect, there are a few things here and there that could have been improved upon, but overall I liked this movie, I liked this retelling of the character, because it would be been a seriously predicable movie if it followed it script and plot of the original.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 18, 2014, 12:33:57 PM
Yeah yeah yeah.. Like YOU wouldn't sell whiskey to small children..
Hells no. I hate whiskey (except bourbon) l, why would I want to poison children?
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on July 18, 2014, 12:54:46 PM
Hells no. I hate whiskey (except bourbon) l, why would I want to poison children?
-Nam
No idea why. When did you stop poisoning them anyway?
The Man in the Moon (1991) -- 8/10.
-Nam
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 18, 2014, 01:38:07 PM
No idea why. When did you stop poisoning them anyway?
I think it was in...HEYYY...I poisoned no one.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on July 18, 2014, 02:06:43 PM
The Man in the Moon (1991) -- 8/10.
-Nam
Not for me. Andy Kaufman was good on Taxi, but everywhere else he sucked. Jim Carrey just sucks, period.
Quote from: stromboli on July 18, 2014, 02:17:37 PM
Not for me. Andy Kaufman was good on Taxi, but everywhere else he sucked. Jim Carrey just sucks, period.
That's not the same film. That's "Man on the Moon (1999)". This is "The Man in the Moon (1991)":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102388/reference
-Nam
Sex Tape 7/10 (when comparing it to other Hollywood comedies)
Trashed by most critics, I thought it was less raunchy and more funny than I expected. I don't usually laugh out loud in theaters at Hollywood jokes. I usually find myself admitting that they might be kind of clever, but not funny enough to make me laugh. I laughed out loud several times. It was the first Matinee of the day, and the audience was small, maybe 30 or 40 people. I heard lots of other people laughing, both men and women. As a comedy, it met my standards, if not the critics. I might even go to an 8/10
Quote from: Nam on July 18, 2014, 02:50:34 PM
That's not the same film. That's "Man on the Moon (1999)". This is "The Man in the Moon (1991)":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102388/reference
-Nam
Coming of age. Another "meh"
The people under the stairs. Wes Craven.
Why is there adult language in what otherwise appears to be a kiddy movie? Who is this aimed at? What kind of half assed story is this? Ooh that Marcellus guy from Pulp Fiction.
trainwreck avoid 3/10
J'accuse (1919) -- 7/10.
3+ hours of a love triangle with some war thrown in, and a couple of rape scenes (one showed nudity), and the usual drama. It's no DW Griffith but it tries to be.
-Nam
Ð"евÑÑ,ÑŒ дней одного года (Nine Days in One Year) (1962) -- 7/10.
I've seen better Russian films.
-Nam
Quote from: Jutter on July 18, 2014, 07:45:13 PM
The people under the stairs. Wes Craven.
Why is there adult language in what otherwise appears to be a kiddy movie? Who is this aimed at? What kind of half assed story is this? Ooh that Marcellus guy from Pulp Fiction.
trainwreck avoid 3/10
You thought People Under the Stairs was a kiddie movie?
I suppose Jaws was a nature documentary.
Quote from: the_antithesis on July 19, 2014, 11:39:38 AM
You thought People Under the Stairs was a kiddie movie?
I suppose Jaws was a nature documentary.
Well, Universal Studios does use its plot for their Halloween Horror Nights some times. For the kiddies.
-Nam
A Southern Yankee (1948) -- 7/10.
Funny.
-Nam
"How to Train Your Dragon 2". As good as the original, fun for kids that won't drive adults starkers.
Welt am Draht (1973) -- first part 8/10 second part 7/10.
-Nam
Godzilla 2000. First time I've seen it since I saw it in theaters 14 years ago. Still just as fun. 8/10, not quite the best in the franchise, but still real damned good.
Harsh Times (2005) -- 8/10.
-Nam
Here's everything I've marked as watched on my Trakt.TV for all who are interested lol
http://trakt.tv/user/wolf39us/history/all
Everytime I watch something on Plex, it will automatically be marked seen on here. The bunch that I have from yesterday were put in manually.
Everything I watch I rate at imdb.com. I may post one or two movies a day in this topic but all I mainly watch are movies (I watch, maybe, three tv shows a day).
-Nam
Tentacoli (1977) -- 5/10.
John Huston, Shelley Winters, Bo Hopkins, and Henry Fonda in a Jaws ripoff but not a shark, an octopus.
So sad.
-Nam
Stridulum (1979) -- 6/10.
-Nam
13 Sins.. Some fucked up cell phone game for a fortune.. Much better than I thought. You have to accomplish 13 tasks to win and they get more illegal and gruesome as the game progresses.. Starts with eating a fly, but gets into murder and worse..
I've been watching the series Tyrant, taking place in the Middle East. Excellent series.
The Bad News Bears Go to Japan (1978) -- 2/10.
Awful.
-Nam
"Transcendence". Incoherent.
Crossing the Bridge (1992) -- 7/10.
-Nam
Lucy 10/10
OK, pure Sci Fi/Fantasy, and there may have been plot holes, but I was too captivated to notice. I really enjoyed this one. Certainly at the top of this summer's favorites for me.
Austenland (2013) -- 8/10.
Yes, it's a chick flick but a funny chick flick.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on July 25, 2014, 08:08:30 PM
Austenland (2013) -- 8/10.
Yes, it's a chick flick but a funny chick flick.
-Nam
Check out Lost in Austen. I love it and it's a chick flick.
Lucy. 7/10.
Junk science, but entertaining and fun. Silly, but never boring. The action starts as the movie starts; very little buildup... right into the action. SJ kicks some serious Korean gangster ass. Plus the first half takes place in Taipei, where I live. I recognized most of the locations. In fact, one scene was shot across the street from my friend's apartment!
Quote from: Nam on July 25, 2014, 12:34:53 AM
The Bad News Bears Go to Japan (1978) -- 2/10.
Awful.
-Nam
WHAT? That was the greatest movie ever made about lousy kid actors who couldn't play baseball and went to Japan.
Boyhood.
I find it an artistic masterpiece, though it's hard to describe why I like this film.
10/10 would reccomend.
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) -- 5/10.
Eh...Van Helsing meets Brothers' Grimm. Both movies I like but combined...eh...
-Nam
Just watched '' The Pianist' would give it 8/10 thot it was gd movie would recommend it....
Quote from: Green Bottle on July 26, 2014, 08:19:23 PM
Just watched '' The Pianist' would give it 8/10 thot it was gd movie would recommend it....
Have that on DVD.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on July 26, 2014, 08:15:25 PM
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) -- 5/10.
Eh...Van Helsing meets Brothers' Grimm. Both movies I like but combined...eh...
-Nam
Rimmer should have kept his bow.
The Ante. 1/100 Hilariously stupid murder plot. Some poor slob is framed for a murder he didn't do, but this is so bad you'll laugh all the way through at the bad acting and directing, but the cinematography is actually pretty good.
It's one you just can't look away from it's that bad.
Quote from: Nam on July 18, 2014, 02:06:43 PM
The Man in the Moon (1991) -- 8/10.
-Nam
Was that the movie about Andy Kaufman? That was really good
Edit: I should probably learn to read the rest of the thread... I'm going to sleep haha
Sent from your mom
The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013) -- 6/10.
Even though it's 2 hrs 10 min. it was too short. It felt like they crammed so much (without too much explanation) of the story into such a backass edit that it was too overwhelming (in a technical viewpoint). But that wasn't the worst of it, I felt I was watching the Twilight series (though I've only seen the first film), some cliché version of a vampire movie, Underworld, Star Wars (the bad guy "Bane" is Darth Vader who has a son and daughter, except in this film the daughter is the hero instead of the son), Stargate (a portal that can take you places and like Stargate is round and looks like water), Harry Potter (minimally), X-men (a "school" with a "professor" and everything) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade; and i'm sure many others.
I read they're making a second one.
Oh joy.
-Nam
The 100 year old man who climed out a window and disappeared
6.5/10
I wouldn't place this on par with Little Big Man, or Forest Gump, but if you like such witty history-tickling stories, this is still good fun. I think the bulk of the humor lies in the anatagonists being ruthlessly powerless against the obnoxious luck of the 100 years old opportunist Allan, and the merry band of friends he surrounds himself with (elephant included). Allan's a guy who seems more like a force of nature to reckon with, than a character to relate to, and there lies the movie's weak spot... a protagonist so roboticly self-absorbed that even 99 laps around the sun can't make him sympathatic.
Stand Up Guys (2012) -- 7/10.
Quite enjoyed it.
-Nam
Mud (2012) -- 8/10.
-Nam
Innocent Voices. 9/10.. A 10 year old boy in El Salvador has to decide between joining the Salvadoran army or joining the peasant resistance gorillas. Good flick based on true story.
At the time the Salvadoran army took 11 year old boys to fight in the war that lasted 12 years and was US backed.
The Original Alien Movie - It was pretty good.
The Great Gatsby (2013) -- 8/10.
-Nam
McCanik 7/10 Pretty good. David Morse a corrupted cop trying to off a kid he framed years before.
Shoulder Arms (1918) -- 7/10.
Charlie Chaplin's always funny.
-Nam
Little Moth (Chinese subtitles) 8/10 On Netflix. If you want a good reason to think the world sucks shit watch it. About an impoverished couple who buy a disabled 11 year old girl with plans of making her beg on the streets for them, but plans don't work out and the girl needs her legs amputated.. Fuck, I'm really glad I don't live in China.
Billy Jack. 5/10 Made in 1970. Watched this movie with short hair while wearing my Navy peacoat in an east coast theater full of hippies. the whitest white guy on planet earth playing a half-breed native American who is adept at karate, natch. Short squat guy with a taller skinny Korean stunt double. Shit gets kicked, punched, lots of bad slo mo; hot hippie chicks getting felt up, hippies and indians getting beat up by bigoted rednecks. Best seen while high, preferably on Peyote. Unfortunately I wasn't.
What was even weirder is that I was probably the only person in the theater who had ever even met an indian or knew anything about their culture. And all I got was dirty looks.
Trial of Billy Jack: Don't, just don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kUoD8vtedc
Cheesy fun. a let's-ride-the-starwars-bandwagon sci-fi remake of the seven samurai, courtacy of Roger Corman and James Cameron.
6.5/10
Lucy - It was way inaccurate but it was fun.
Grade: B-
The Cabin in the Woods (2012) -- 8/10.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on July 29, 2014, 05:31:38 AM
The Cabin in the Woods (2012) -- 8/10.
-Nam
Yeah, it picks up points for being unique.
Joss Whedon has always used humor and horror well.
-Nam
the purge anarchy
Quote from: SGOS on July 29, 2014, 01:04:27 PM
Yeah, it picks up points for being unique.
But loses all points for being unfunny and feeling like an over log episode of the Twilight Zone.
Going to see Sharknado tonight and Sharknado 2 tomorrow
Quote from: Naru on July 31, 2014, 11:32:52 PM
Going to see Sharknado tonight and Sharknado 2 tomorrow
You poor sap.
Only watching it because my girlfriend wants to see it. She loves B movies. The worse B movie she made me watch AHHHHH Zombies. Omg it was the worse thing I have ever watched.
But Sharknado is not a B movie. A B Movie is when they try to make a good movie but go utterly wrong somewhere, usually due to the budget. Sharknado was made to intentionally be bad. I find the lack of sincerity is such product to be unpalatable.
hmm I was always told movies like Sharknado or any movies that SYFY makes is consider a B movie or a movie that goes straight to cable or DVD.
Quote from: Naru on July 31, 2014, 11:45:12 PM
hmm I was always told movies like Sharknado or any movies that SYFY makes is consider a B movie or a movie that goes straight to cable or DVD.
Used to be, but now the cheapo studios, especially the Asylum which makes the Sharknado movies have since become hip to the idea that there is a market for truly stupid ideas for movies. Sort of like how Snakes On a Plane got made and shit like that. It sullies it knowing that they are making shit on purpose instead of because that's the best they can do. Like whenever Bon Jovi puts out a new album.
The House on Carroll Street (1988) -- 7/10.
-Nam
Quote from: the_antithesis on July 31, 2014, 11:39:32 PM
But Sharknado is not a B movie. A B Movie is when they try to make a good movie but go utterly wrong somewhere, usually due to the budget. Sharknado was made to intentionally be bad. I find the lack of sincerity is such product to be unpalatable.
B movies are low budget films. That's all they are. If one extrapolates the cost of an average A movie ($50-$150 million) compared to an independent film such as the Sharknado series, and most any other film showcased on SYFY, it would classify as a B movie.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on July 29, 2014, 01:33:01 PM
Joss Whedon has always used humor and horror well.
-Nam
He's an exceptionally good director. Or maybe he chooses the better screenplays. Whatever it is, I won't miss one of his movies. I'll pass on some other better known directors, however.
A B movie is based on budget, and ther have been some good movies made. A C movie is anything starring a former cast member of 90210.
Quote from: stromboli on August 01, 2014, 10:44:47 AM
A B movie is based on budget, and ther have been some good movies made. A C movie is anything starring a former cast member of 90210.
An F movie is almost anything Christian related.
-Nam
Guardians of the Galaxy Not sure what to give it. I'll say 6/10. Maybe 7/10
I've seen the coming attractions about 5 times at the theater and it looked like it would be pretty bad. Yet it's getting good reviews from critics, so I went. Actually, it's not a bad movie. There are a few very funny moments, and it's a fair superhero spoof, much much better than I thought it would be. Basically, a group of galactic misfit criminals band together to make sure some thing one of them stole (I'm not sure what it was or what it was supposed to do) would not fall into the wrong hands and result in the end of the Galaxy. That's the plot, but obviously to get from that simple point A to point B, they have all kinds of encounters along the way with various characters more nefarious then themselves.
Some of the incidents are so pointless and absurd that they are breathtakingly funny, although most of the movie I would describe as just cute. It was worth the price of admission, but I can't say my life will be any richer for it.
Life of Pi (2012) -- 9/10.
-Nam
Guardians of the Galaxy - Pure movie magic.
Score: A
The Last Stand (2013) -- 7/10.
-Nam
The best spoof movie is Galaxy Quest (1999).
My list would be:
1. Galaxy Quest (1999)
2. Blazing Saddles (1974)
3. Spaceballs (1987)
4. Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993)
5. Shaun of the Dead (2004)
-Nam
The Inevitable Defeat of Mister & Pete (2013) -- 8/10.
Not as depressing as Dare mo Shiranai (2004) but it comes close.
-Nam
Guardians of the Galaxy. ∞/5
something with two blacks guys, one a cop the other a wanna-be, supposed to be a comedy, had some laughs, a couple guffaws, and it got me from a pistachio ice cream on a sugar cone to bed.....so......it was okay.
Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 08:19:17 PM
something with two blacks guys, one a cop the other a wanna-be, supposed to be a comedy, had some laughs, a couple guffaws, and it got me from a pistachio ice cream on a sugar cone to bed.....so......it was okay.
Bad Boys?
-Nam
The Warrior's Way (2010) -- 9/10.
-Nam
Hours (2013) -- 7/10.
-Nam
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 03, 2014, 08:10:29 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy. ∞/5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYqjcHYTQgQ
Most excellent movie, wildly beyond my expectations.
Dark Skies (2013) -- 6/10.
-Nam
Guardians of the Galaxy
Eh, it was alright. A fun time waster, I guess.
I am mainly disappointed because Star Lord is one of my favorite obscure Marvel characters and that guy in the movie is almost nothing like the guy I remember.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UKnXe8T9Ikg/TkKDsgVymOI/AAAAAAAAAPo/1XL-EIxsqYk/s1600/Marvel+Premiere+61+%2528Star-Lord%2529+-+p1.png)
But then, they've apparently been using the character in the comics recently that also doesn't look like that old character I liked, so I guess I get to go fuck myself. Still would have liked to see the science fiction character on the screen, but that character was never popular. Hence why the change.
I'm not sure why I'm lukewarm over this movie. It could be the above. It's the same reason why I hate the last Superman movie, the last three Batman movies, and all the Spider-man movies. I still have to wait to see the actual character brought to life on screen.
But I think it's more than that. There were a couple times during the movie when something important was happening and they went into slow motion, which completely killed the emotional impact of the moment. It's not just this movie, either. I've been seeing this a lot lately. Holding on some significant moment for longer than they should and making me roll my eyes and dry heave at the over saccharine sentiment.
That certainly didn't help. Anything that takes me out of the movie lessens its entertainment value and that shit is anti-entertainment.
Other than that, I'm not sure why I'm meh about it. It may be it's just a meh story. Probably is. But it's not as bad as, say, the Star Wars prequels. I remember thinking that as I watched the large amount of CGI spaceship tomfoolery comparing it to the overly busy scenes, such as the opening space battle of in Revenge of the Sith where I didn't understand what was happening and did not care. In GotG, I did understand what was happening. I'm not sure why. Either those scenes where better staged or they had gotten me to care thanks to the little character moments earlier in the movie and thus paid closer attention. (I didn't pay attention during Revenge of the Sith because they had lost me two movies ago)
So I guess there's that working for the movie. "Not as shit as Revenge of the Sith" isn't exactly a glowing recommendation. But they'll get it anyway.
Quote from: the_antithesis on August 04, 2014, 05:48:59 PM
so I guess I get to go fuck myself.
well that saves a response from me....
Quote from: aitm on August 04, 2014, 06:11:29 PM
well that saves a response from me....
I think that's implied whenever you say anything.
I've been watching the series: The Killer. Great in every way! Solitary
Guardians of the Galaxy. 8/10. Very good. Not perfect, but a surprisingly good showing.
Just as a heads-up, I loved the 2008 comic series. Dan Abnett is a great writer (but only when he feels like it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarines:_A_Warhammer_40,000_Movie)). If you haven't seen the 2008 series before watching the movie, I heartily recommend it. The main things I liked about it is that it was this ragtag group of misfits who by all rights shouldn't even have anything to do with each other, and they're staring down galactic threats together at the ass end of the universe knowing full well that they'll probably die in the process. And even if they succeed, their exploits will not be rewarded, thanked, or probably even noticed. They're not heroes like Superman or Captain America. They're not fighting for truth, justice, or the American way. They're fighting because all hell's breaking loose and there's simply no one else stepping up to the plate. They're a bunch of misfits turned Big Damn Heroes, and that's awesome.
Anyways, onward to the movie!
The titular characters were generally pretty faithful to the source material, which was great to see. (I was worried that they're just slap some paint on some schmuck and call it a day, but thankfully, they really tried to nail these characters, which isn't an easy task) Groot and Rocket Raccoon were especially true to character. I AM GROOT. XD Gamora was noticeably less so, and didn't sell me on her status as Deadliest Woman in the Galaxy. In the comics, she is a badass who hacks her way through mooks and does surprisingly well against even extremely powerful foes in hand-to-hand combat. She even has a sort of intimidating presence, not unlike Thanos, which makes a lot of sense considering her history. She's not a particularly pleasant person to be around, is what I'm getting it. The movie depiction really doesn't do her character justice. It's not right to have her say she's an assassin but never so much as show her attempting to assassinate anything. Show, don't tell, guys! Starlord was okay, he's slightly less of a goofball in the comic, but you do see that underneath all that, he is capable leader, which is good. I think Drax was a little more gruff and stoic in the comic, but I did like the unexpected humor from him in the movie, so I'll give that a pass. I was also really sold on Nebula. (Amy Pond ftw) And beink seeing Cosmo was great!
I liked it. I really did. That said, I do have a few nitpicks:
[spoiler]It really could've used at least one more teammate, like Quasar or Warlock or Nova. I figured Nova would be a shoe-in since the Nova corps feature heavily in the movie, but whatever.
The plot was bizarre with Ronan as the main villain and Drax's apparent beef with him is really strange. I would've gone a different way and had Thanos and Nebula as the main antagonists and had Ronan as a third party who is initially very belligerent towards the Guardians but eventually helps them against Thanos. Playing keep-away with the Infinity Gem would make more sense that way. Plus, it'd give Drax a more plausible reason to be eager to fight.
I have no idea why Nova Prime is apparently more of a head of state than a superhero. Or why Nova Corps members are helpless at zero Gs since the Nova Force famously allows for flight. Or why the (Space?) Gem is apparently just a planet-killing device instead of a facet of godhood. The climax was pretty damn bad (http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/152/d/0/anigif_by_niightmaremoon-d67ddwk.gif) with one hell of a tidy resolution (the Xandarians are surprisingly upbeat at the end considering a whole crapton of their compatriots just died) And Marvel's famous post-credits scene was awful and enraging in this movie. I WILL DO A MURDER ON THAT DUCK.
That "Everything Wrong With ____" series is going to have a very long list of sins when they review this movie.[/spoiler]
Marianne (1929) -- 8/10.
-Nam
Noah 3/10
I honestly don't think this has anything to do with my atheism. Regardless of whether the movie got it's "historical accuracy" correct or not, I did not find it entertaining. I was caught between periods of boredom and moments of perplexing human behavior that did not seem real at all. It was also depressing. Depressing does not necessarily disqualify a movie as worthwhile, but I found this depressing without purpose.
If you think that was depressing, watch the Black Robe! I was in a funk for a week after watching it.
awe man and I just downloaded Noah too! It looked amazing in the trailer. But I've been deceived by trailers before. I'll come back once I've watched it.
My son and I went to Tammy. I'd give it a 7/10. Most of the funny parts were in the trailers you saw on TV or waiting for other movies. There wasn't much unexpected. There were some funny out takes during the ending credits. I would have enjoyed it more if the best parts hadn't already been shown so many times.
Quote from: LoriPinkAngel on August 06, 2014, 10:59:24 AM
My son and I went to Tammy. I'd give it a 7/10. Most of the funny parts were in the trailers you saw on TV or waiting for other movies. There wasn't much unexpected. There were some funny out takes during the ending credits. I would have enjoyed it more if the best parts hadn't already been shown so many times.
I hate it when they show the ending in movies. Like you can't tell it's the ending.
-Nam
Going to reserve my thoughts on Tammy (haven't seen it, don't plan on it) other than... I grew up with people who she is stereotyping so I can't find any humour in it, just patheticness at how accurate it most likely is. Would probably depress me too much to watch it.
So, I watched Star Wars: A New Hope for the first time in years... god, it felt so good.
10/10, even though there are so many plot holes and corny bits and somewhat lack-luster acting and... fuck, I just don't care. The mythology this one film created is simply too amazing, and watching it again was like seeing an old friend for the first time in years and years and years... it was just an amazing feeling.
Lady Scarface (1941) -- 7/10.
-Nam
Quote from: Shiranu on August 06, 2014, 03:26:42 PM
Going to reserve my thoughts on Tammy (haven't seen it, don't plan on it) other than... I grew up with people who she is stereotyping so I can't find any humour in it, just patheticness at how accurate it most likely is. Would probably depress me too much to watch it.
So, I watched Star Wars: A New Hope for the first time in years... god, it felt so good.
10/10, even though there are so many plot holes and corny bits and somewhat lack-luster acting and... fuck, I just don't care. The mythology this one film created is simply too amazing, and watching it again was like seeing an old friend for the first time in years and years and years... it was just an amazing feeling.
Which version?
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on August 06, 2014, 03:29:43 PM
Which version?
-Nam
Pretty sure the remastered, where Han doesn't shoot first (which is lame).
Also, it explains why some of the voice acting sounded so weird since they did alot of chopping and editing...
Quote from: Shiranu on August 06, 2014, 03:51:25 PM
Pretty sure the remastered, where Han doesn't shoot first (which is lame).
Also, it explains why some of the voice acting sounded so weird since they did alot of chopping and editing...
It took me years to buy it on DVD; I did have bootleg copies of the originals. Then, finally Lucas relented and released the originals with the newer versions. Then I got those.
Of course it took Lucas awhile to release them on DVD, period because he invested so much in LD's.
-Nam
Middle of the Night (1959) -- 9/10.
Kim Novak was great in this.
-Nam
Get On Up 6/10
The music was enjoyable, but I'm not sure there was much else about James Brown that is interesting enough to make a biography about. From what I could tell from the movie, James Brown was about a whole Hell of a lot of musical talent, but it pretty much ends there. As often happens, Hollywood produces copycat movies. This used a style and ideas that mirrors Jersey Boys. It's clearly a rip-off, but is carried by iconic songs that we all loved.
Just watched Reservoir Dogs, 9/10. I pretty much love anything by Quentin Tarantino.
A cpl of movies i recently watched..
Shogun Assassin, i liked it tho its not the best of its type, 6 / 10
Twelve Monkeys, 3rd time watching this and still as enjoyable as the 1st time, Brad pitt plays it well as the crazy nutjob... 8 / 10
Rock n Rolla, typical Guy ritchie london gangster hoodlum type film but quite enjoyable if uv had a few beers. 8 / 10
Waterloo Bridge (1940) -- 10/10.
-Nam
Jaws! The parts that originally scared me cracked me up this time. I'd never realized that the phrase "That's one bad hat, Harry" came from that movie. Fun and nostalgic to watch. I can't place a number rating on it.
I just watched Excision. One really strange movie with a really strange girl---oh! Tracy Lords is in it as her mother. You want to be a surgeon, watch this one. :eek: Solitary
Hercules, 8/10. They don't go the demi-god route.
Anyone have a good Hong Kong crime film to recommend?
Quote from: Shiranu on August 09, 2014, 03:08:41 AM
Anyone have a good Hong Kong crime film to recommend?
Sha shou hu die meng (
My Heart is that Eternal Rose) (1989)
-Nam
Spider Baby or, The Maddest Story Ever Told (1967) -- 8/10.
Funny. Lon Chaney, Jr. was really good in this, and Sid Haig was freaky.
-Nam
Rush. 9/10
Le feu follet (1963) -- 8/10.
-Nam
Divergent. I didn't like it. I liked it. I didn't like it. I hated it. It was okay. Four out of 10. Get it?! *chuckles*
My computer apparently played my rental copy out of order (it was like Memento meets the Hunger Games), so if my review seems bizarre, you'll know where I'm coming from.
Here's the set-up. There's this dystopian city that basically has a caste system. But it's not hereditary, so people can join whatever caste they want. As you might imagine, being a farmer your whole life isn't a popular pick.
Here's the plot: Meet the Audience Surrogate slash Mary Sue you're supposed to identify with, training from hell (almost every training scene from from Starship Troopers minus the nudity), deus ex machina, obviously evil character is evil, sinister plot, crap hits the proverbial fan, deus ex machina, every cliche in the book, roll credits. That's the film. No, really.
The part that really kills me that none of the characters have much personality. Seriously. Watch it and write down the characters' personality traits. Not their titles or positions or relations. There's barely anything there until practically the end of the movie, where all the character development apparently happens. They're like cardboard cut-outs. Macklemore was surprisingly good, all things considering.
No one has actual adult conversations. They just talk in these unnaturally brief grunts and exposition-speak. I've read comic books with meatier dialogue.
And given the pretty huge deathtoll (it's absurdly high, the life expectancy in this society must be in the upper 20s) and apparently horrendous waste of manpower (legions of homeless, a military that excels primarily at parkour, and a noticeable lack of people doing actual work) I'm having a really hard time believing that this is a society that has lasted more than a single generation.
But the part that really urks me is just how much they smash you over the head with the central theme over and over. "I'm a precious little snowflake. You can't put me in a box." Yeah, we know. We know. I don't see why that's such a problem anyways. A little flexibility never hurt anyone. And you're stuck in one caste regardless of your snowflake status, so I don't see how that could possibility threaten the social order.
Oh, and the ending gave me cancer.
Watched Wonderland last nite and its not upto much, tho if ur into that braindead lie back on the sofa with the eye's half shut type of movie experience then this is for you...
Val Kilmer plays John Holmes (who, i hear you say ) he used to be the biggest Dick'' in Hollywoodland.......
Shite storyline, some violence, and Kilmers bare arse..... 3/10
I watched Gravity recently and thought it was exciting to watch. I don't think I want to be an astronaut. It seemed to be accurate with its science more than most science fiction movies. Worth seeing.
IP Man... pretty damn good :D.
Quote from: Solitary on August 15, 2014, 12:06:07 AM
I watched Gravity recently and thought it was exciting to watch. I don't think I want to be an astronaut. It seemed to be accurate with its science more than most science fiction movies. Worth seeing.
I read an article that rated the "science" in Gravity. For the most part, it thought a large amount of the science was correct, but there were things that were wrong, and very wrong when you see them. I found one of the mistakes so glaring during the film that it shocked me out of my suspension of disbelief. You don't just jet pack over to the Russian Satellite, or the Chinese Satellite like you are peddling a bike over to the other side of the lake. This probably wouldn't have bothered me so much if the movie was not trying so hard to get space "right", because I can buy into a lot of Sci Fi stuff that is really far fetched.
Granted, the movie was widely acclaimed, even nominated for an Oscar, but it left me flat when I saw it in 3D at the theater. I rented it again when it came out on DVD, and I couldn't even watch the whole thing. It's odd how out of sinc my tastes are some times. It even bothers me a bit. LOL
Spoiler Alert!
http://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/16-things-gravity-got-wrong-and-some-things-it-got-right-too/
Quote
1. Clooney’s character is reckless to the point of being ridiculous
2. How did the astronauts not know anything about each other?
3. All those communications satellites would’ve been fine
4. Sandra Bullock would have been screwed pretty early on
5. There’s no way to get from Hubble to the ISS easily (especially not with a jetpack)
6. You can’t hit things at speed in space and expect to survive
7. Sandra Bullock was a bit too, uh, scantily clad
8. Why did Clooney keep talking to Bullock when she was CLEARLY RUNNING OUT OF OXYGEN?
9. Clooney didn’t need to die (although we’re glad he did)
10. That 90 minutes thing? It’s sort of right, but mostly baloney
11. Tears don’t float in space so no cool 3D effects for you
12. Getting to Tiangong-1 from the ISS? Yeah, not gonna happen
13. What the hell was Bullock’s plan before she grabbed the fire extinguisher to recreate Wall-E, just jump?
14. Good luck swimming out of a flooded capsule when you’ve just returned from space
15. Yeah, yeah, like the person with months of astronaut training can’t pick the right spacesuit â€" COME ON
16. Coming in from a spacewalk isn’t that easy
Not a movie, but starting a M*A*S*H marathon since I have never actually really seen it.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 15, 2014, 09:20:18 PM
Not a movie, but starting a M*A*S*H marathon since I have never actually really seen it.
At the time that series aired, there was nothing like it. I haven't watched an episode in years. It might seem a bit dated to me now, but I remember it being great fun. There is one character who doesn't appear very often, just a few times in the entire series. Colonel Flag. Watch for him. Every time he showed up, I knew it was going to be a great episode, and it was. But I have a strange sense of humor sometimes. It may not be like that for you.
I hate to admit it, but I really liked the ending to: I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. This is an underrated movie in my opinion, great acting, directing, and story line. Not every ones taste though. Solitary
Moonlight and Madness 5/10
Maybe less if your not a Woody Allen fan. It's not his finest work, and that score is a rating based not on movies in general, but only compared to the rest of Woody Allen's work. He does get in a few shots at religion, and I got a kick out of these two old black ladies sitting in front of me in the theater. I would have pegged them as church going Baptists, and who knows, maybe they were, but they would laugh and giggle every time the movie made fun of religion. Although the movie was much less critical of superstitious beliefs than members of this forum.
Quote from: Solitary on August 19, 2014, 04:06:07 PM
I hate to admit it, but I really liked the ending to: I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. This is an underrated movie in my opinion, great acting, directing, and story line. Not every ones taste though. Solitary
I don't advocate revenge. But I have to say, I do enjoy a good revenge movie. They're especially good when things get so bad for the original evil doers that you almost feel sorry for them.
Just saw Guardians of the Galaxy in an AVX 3D theater. Great combination of action and humour and it deserves its 92% fresh rating at rotten tomatoes. Should probably be even higher.
Finally saw Hunger Games. 7.5/10
It's a fairly fresh idea, very well put together, and it definitely got me invested in the protagonist's plight. I liked it. I really did.
But it took a surprisingly long time to get to the titular games, some of the action was noticeably off (like grabbing a spear with your armpit bad), lots of missed opportunities (showing more about the society and its history, fleshing out the tribute characters and the mentor, etc) and lots of headscratchers (Everyone in district 12 is herded together to watch the Hunger Games that apparently goes on for days?! What's the significance of the mockingjay? What do the champs get? Why is District 12 whiter than Maine? Wouldn't the districts be called by actual names rather than numbers? How do you get your name in the hat 42 times today if they only pick tributes once a year? And seriously, how many times do people fall from considerable heights and apparently not seriously hurt themselves in this movie?) Also, I think there was some social commentary going on about the rich-poor divide but it was too subtle for me to get.
And finally, I definitely would've implemented the Hunger Games system differently:
[spoiler]All tributes are handled separately and not allowed to fraternize at all. That includes training. Otherwise, they could hurt each other, glean information about their opponents ahead of time, form emotional attachments or even alliances.
Immediately prior to the games, tributes are escorted by security and locked inside an elevator tube that is raised to the surface instead of tearful farewells in a pointless room culminating in a leisurely stroll onto the tube (there's a pretty good chance involuntary tributes wouldn't voluntarily leave the room, duh)
The elevators reach the surface and unlock simultaneously after a brief introduction.
Tribute starting locations are equidistant from each other around a central supply cache approximately 1 km away. There's also a meager supply cache immediately next to the tribute starting locations.
Unscalable walls surround the Hunger Games site and tributes are warned not to attempt to scale the walls or lethal force will be used against them.
Outside interference in a game in progress is forbidden. No sponsors. No airdrops. No nothing.
Games officials cannot change the rules of the game; the game continues until there is a sole victor. In the unlikely event that the victor is fatally wounded, the victor is celebrated posthumously. In the absurdly unlikely event that the last two tributes refuse to fight, the game goes on until only one is left alive, however long that is, and the victor is imprisoned and ultimately executed for cowardice and dereliction of duty.
The victor receives fame and fortune as well as a sizable grant for the district. Tributes would most likely be entirely voluntary at this point.
Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor.[/spoiler]
While I liked the Hunger Games too, I never understood the purpose of the games. Sure their purpose was described in the movie quite succinctly, but I was left with the nagging feeling: "Explained? Yes; Makes sense? Not really." I guess, it's one of those things you are not suppose to give thought to. It's just the way it was.
But the movie was surprisingly good, compared to the books, at least compared to the third book, which I borrowed from the Library because the second movie left me hanging. There's so much in the book that just doesn't seem plausible. In addition, while the books were written for young adults, they read like they had been written by one, probably one of high school age.
It seems to me that this is one of the exceptions, where the movie is better than the book. Just reading the third book, I would have never guessed that anyone would see any potential there for making a movie at all. I could see none. The only satisfaction I got was seeing how the series ended.
Edit: That said, I would rate the movie very high, very high indeed.
Yeah, the Games make no sense. The stated goal that they help people remember the past is bollocks and they certainly don't help bring the nation together. Quite the opposite. It gives districts a yearly reason to resent the Capitol.
There's also one part where Katniss is trapped in a tree by people who want to kill her. They shoot like two arrows at her and apparently give up and all go to sleep together. In the morning, she cuts down a beehive while they're sleeping and makes a break for it while they go all Wickerman.
And it's a stupid scene because it requires the antagonists to be absolute morons for that scene despite being competent elsewhere. A better scene would be where Katniss is trapped in a tree by people who want to kill her, sees the beehive and cuts it down in one quick chop, then makes a break for it. It's a minor change, but it would work so much better.
And that's why you let someone read/watch your work before going public. So stuff like that doesn't happen.
I thought it was explained was that the reason the Games occur was for the Capitol to punish the Districts for rebelling against them in the past and to keep morale low so it wouldn't happen again.
I still need to watch guardians. Might do that soon.
I'm debating on either seeing guardians or deliver us from evil.
Quote from: Munch on August 21, 2014, 12:27:46 PM
I'm debating on either seeing guardians or deliver us from evil.
Guardians is really funny.
I saw Guardians last weekend. Pretty funny, worth a trip to the theater.
Guardians otG was awesome. Believe the hype. Go see. 10/10
Great soundtrack too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSj4vmbyh5M
I went to see Sin City yesterday because I was hard up for a movie, and the pickings at the theaters have been slim for the last month. I was headed for theater 7 at the cineplex when I spied a water fountain 20 feet down the hall, and I was thirsty. The doors for Sin City and Lets be Cops were side by side, and after I got my drink of water, I accidently walked into Lets be Cops, which started at the same time. After sitting through a bunch of boring coming attractions, the movie started, and I thought it was just another coming attraction. But 5 minutes into the movie, I realized what I had done. My row was filled up, and I was sitting smack in the middle, so rather than create a disturbance, I decided to watch Lets be Cops.
So there I am sitting through a movie which gets a 15% rating from the professional critics at Rotten Tomatoes. Ordinarily, I would never choose a movie with such a low rating, even a low rating from professional critics. But you know what? Lets be Cops wasn't bad. It's wasn't great, but it's very much your average Hollywood comedy, maybe a bit above average.
Guardians... yeah, it was pretty damn good. Something about a Raccoon on the back of a giant tree creature blasting robots got a smile out of me... I cant understand why.
Just saw Guardians, I loooooooved this movie.
It did take a bit to get going at the start, but once it did it was awesome through and through. I loved the premise, how it didn't take itself seriously. It didn't have the old super hero crap about 'we don't kill we're heroes', they just killed, which was very satisfying. The characters were a lot of fun, with maybe only one of the main team members a little on the boring side, but the rest were great (<3 Groot), the villian was also a little disappointing but it in a way its good he was, as your see by the end.
The special effects were really great too, Rocket felt very blended in with the rest of the cast (as did Groot <3)/
It was just a fun, cool, adrenaline pumping sci fi romp that felt like back in the 80s sci movies, I'd recommend it to anyone even if your not a comic book fan, you don't have to be to enjoy this.
So I was feeling nostalgic and stupid yesterday and I picked up The Black Hole and Tron on DVD.
It's been decades since I've seen Black Hole. I don't remember much about it. I do remember finding the climax a tad boring when they're trying to get to the smaller ship as the bigger ship is torn apart by the black hole and meteors and shit. It was kind of interesting up until that point as there was a mystery element with what Reinhardt was really up to and what really happened to the crew. But we learn all that and then spend the last twenty minutes going from set piece to set piece.
I do have to say, they are very lax with the laws of science. Vaccuum of space? Pressure suits? What are you? A pussy? I mean, wow. I wasn't expecting it to be the most scientifically accurate movie ever (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/neil-degrasse-tyson-the-black-hole_n_5458655.html), but the last time I saw that was in Thundercats and I didn't except it there, either.
As it stands, it's a collection of nice ideas that don't really gel. The characters are just kind of there. Not completely flat, but not exactly fleshed out, either. The mystery buoys things, as I have said, but interest drains instantly once that's cleared up. Then there's that ending.
Ho Lee Fuck Ing Shit
Not since 2001: A Space Odyssey has there been such a confounding ending. And that one at least can be explained. (http://www.kubrick2001.com/) This one really can't because they just threw in weird imagery of heaven and hell because it was 1979 and they were high at the time.
It is an oddity of a film from a time when Disney was desperate to do something because they were living on recycling their old animated films. This era brought us flicks like The Black Hole, Something Wicked This Way Comes and our next flick...
Tron
And fuck you.
I'll admit that I have a huge nostalgia boner for this movie that is large enough to have its own atmosphere. It was a movie about video games during a time when video games could be said to be my whole life. But it also has an aesthetic that cannot be reproduced no matter how hard you try.
I covered most of this movie when I saw Tron: Legacy a few months ago. It's not a great story or anything. But it works better than its sequel mostly because the sequel was more like a remake than a sequel, constantly referencing the original even when it wasn't appropriate. Also, young Jeff Bridges made a better lead than what's-his-name in Legacy. Bridges could play that kind of douchebag well and convey a likability that's hard to pull off. probably because he shows a vulnerability that modern douchenozzles refuse to show. He's hacking into the company mainframe to find evidence that he made those popular games that a co-worker stole and was subsequently promoted. He manages to make it clear that he is really hurt by this even though he's putting up a brave front.
It's also interesting to watch the movie from a filmmaking perspective. Some scenes were made before they decided that good guys should be blue and bad guys red (originally it was yellow and blue respectively). Bridges performance as Clu at the beginning is kind robotic because they didn't know how they should have the programs act.
I think at the end, there is just more to see here. Tron has the always fun Bridges doing his thing while Black Hole has Ernest Borgnine floating around on wires to make zero G, which sounds more fun than it actually is. That and Tron has the most beautiful production design ever.
I also popped in a few old movies yesturday, since I couldn't find anything interesting to download on steam.
One of the most comforting studios I enjoy watching movies from is hayao miyazaki and studio ghibli films (the ones he made). I'm just in love with his movies so much, I can even remember seeing laputa castle in the sky as a child and loving that movie so much, glad I have it in my collection.
But yeah anyway the one I watched yesturday was howls moving castle, I know this didn't get as ground breaking a write up as spirited away, which really is one of the best movies, but I've just for a soft spot for howls moving castle, the animation is incredible, the characters are enjoyable, the background of the movie is rich, and the depth of the main character is surprisingly relatable. I've watched it so many times aside from it not having the complete childlike innocence of some of his films, its still a well written story, and some of the finest animated sequences in any movie.
Also since i mentioned it earlier, Laputa castle in the sky is one of my all time favorite classic animated movies, the music in this movie is so good for its time, the plot is again deep and thought provoking, the characters are memorable and premise and mystery of laputa is just enchanting, I really recommend anyone who loves anime to just download or go out and buy this movie. Just listen to that end credits score, just gorgeous.
Quote from: the_antithesis on August 25, 2014, 05:33:32 PMNot since 2001: A Space Odyssey has there been such a confounding ending. And that one at least can be explained. (http://www.kubrick2001.com/)
You have blown my mind, sir.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 20, 2014, 12:34:32 AM
Finally saw Hunger Games. 7.5/10
It's a fairly fresh idea, very well put together, and it definitely got me invested in the protagonist's plight. I liked it. I really did.
But it took a surprisingly long time to get to the titular games, some of the action was noticeably off (like grabbing a spear with your armpit bad), lots of missed opportunities (showing more about the society and its history, fleshing out the tribute characters and the mentor, etc) and lots of headscratchers (Everyone in district 12 is herded together to watch the Hunger Games that apparently goes on for days?! What's the significance of the mockingjay? What do the champs get? Why is District 12 whiter than Maine? Wouldn't the districts be called by actual names rather than numbers? How do you get your name in the hat 42 times today if they only pick tributes once a year? And seriously, how many times do people fall from considerable heights and apparently not seriously hurt themselves in this movie?) Also, I think there was some social commentary going on about the rich-poor divide but it was too subtle for me to get.
And finally, I definitely would've implemented the Hunger Games system differently:
[spoiler]All tributes are handled separately and not allowed to fraternize at all. That includes training. Otherwise, they could hurt each other, glean information about their opponents ahead of time, form emotional attachments or even alliances.
Immediately prior to the games, tributes are escorted by security and locked inside an elevator tube that is raised to the surface instead of tearful farewells in a pointless room culminating in a leisurely stroll onto the tube (there's a pretty good chance involuntary tributes wouldn't voluntarily leave the room, duh)
The elevators reach the surface and unlock simultaneously after a brief introduction.
Tribute starting locations are equidistant from each other around a central supply cache approximately 1 km away. There's also a meager supply cache immediately next to the tribute starting locations.
Unscalable walls surround the Hunger Games site and tributes are warned not to attempt to scale the walls or lethal force will be used against them.
Outside interference in a game in progress is forbidden. No sponsors. No airdrops. No nothing.
Games officials cannot change the rules of the game; the game continues until there is a sole victor. In the unlikely event that the victor is fatally wounded, the victor is celebrated posthumously. In the absurdly unlikely event that the last two tributes refuse to fight, the game goes on until only one is left alive, however long that is, and the victor is imprisoned and ultimately executed for cowardice and dereliction of duty.
The victor receives fame and fortune as well as a sizable grant for the district. Tributes would most likely be entirely voluntary at this point.
Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor.[/spoiler]
I saw it a while back... I would give it a 6/10 though. It's not really a fresh idea. In fact is a pretty blatant rip off of Battle Royale. I still enjoyed it, but it didn't live up to the hype everyone I know gave it.
Sent from your mom
Boyhood. 9/10. Excellent.
Just saw Chef. 7.5/10 A good movie about rediscovering one's passion. There was a lot of music that I liked. Made me hungry for a Cubano.
100 Foot Journey 5/10
Nothing special about this movie.
Blood Ties
I got so bored I put the thing on fast forward, so I probably shouldn't rate it, having only watched an annoyingly boring half hour.
So I finally saw Wreck-It Ralph. Kind of odd that it took me this long to see that one seeing as I'm a nut for classic video games and shit, but that's life.
On the whole, I was disappointed. I think the Lego Movie spoiled me already what with having Batman be a major supporting character. I think Wreck-it Ralph would have benefited from having a recognizable video game character do likewise, like maybe Q*bert follows Fix-It Felix Jr. through the story or something. I don't know. It would have elevated things a bit. But it's probably unfair to compare the two since Lego came out later. It just would make the inclusion of classic video game characters seem less like cameos and pop-culture references, which do not effect me the way they do others. Most people get that shock of recognition from seeing something they haven't seen in twenty years. I was playing Q*bert just the other day, so it's less of a shock for me.
However, the plot became surprisingly complex when Ralph must choose to betray a friend for their own good. And then even that turned out to be more than it seemed. that was good.
Less good was the needless H plot of the alien bug things taking over the game. I know they needed to raise the stakes, but that was a cheap way to do it. particularly since it was unconnected to the plot I mention above. I might have liked it better if the alien bugs had, I don't know, personality?
So the video game stuff was like pop culture references in a bad Shrek movie and the plot had some good parts and some bad. I'm not a fan.
I watched the silent picture version of Uncle Toms Cabin last night. A must see picture. Solitary
Just remembered I watched all the Alien franchise stuff with dad.
Aliens: 10
Alien: 8
Alien Resurrection: 6
AVP: 6
Alien 3: 4
AVP2: An insult to horseshit.
A Most Wanted Man 6/10
It was never made clear enough to me what was going on. I think that was the writer's intended device. Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? Is the main bad guy really a bad guy or a good guy? You never really know. Add to that, I didn't understand exactly what the opposing factions were trying to accomplish. I had a general idea, but not enough to make something sensible out of all of it at the end of the movie. It felt like something was missing. People were doing things, even interesting things, but I was left without a sense of purpose. I read an in depth synopsis afterwards, and yes, it pretty much described what I thought I was watching, but I still keep asking myself, "Yeah, but why bother to even write this story?"
Phillip Seymour Hoffman did his usual job of solid acting, and managed to leave us with his credibility intact. Even though he has been widely acclaimed, he always seemed underrated to me. I guess you need to be better looking to get the kind of praise I think he deserves.
Quote from: Savior2006 on September 04, 2014, 09:04:34 PMAVP2: An insult to horseshit.
Yeah, AVP:Requiem was an oddly fitting title. When I saw it, I said "Well, there goes the franchise." It was basically just a slasher with a predalien instead of Jason.
The funny part is that it made close to $130 million on a budget of $40 million. Laughing all the way to the bank.
November man 8/10
Pierce Brosnan as an aging spy. This was trashed by critics, but I'm always out of sync on what I like. I enjoyed the intrigue, although it did kind of overdo a lot of the typical spy movie clichés. There may have been some obvious plot holes, but I have a hard time following a lot of spy movies, anyway. So I don't worry about how this guy knew that, or what that guy's motive really was.
James Bond movies always drive me nuts. How come he's in Morocco now? Why is he suddenly in Rio? Now he's in Budapest! What's actually going on? And why does this one criminal mastermind think he can take over the world? I just go to Bond films for the babes.
Heaven is Real 2/10
It includes all the devices necessary in a good Christian Drama. A miracle happens. At first, no one believes the boy, until he relates some things about the family to his father. These things are supposedly things he could not know. The father struggles with it and accepts the boys story as real. Now everyone thinks the father has gone over the deep end, including his wife, and they want to fire him as minister of their church. The father becomes a martyr, but then the boy relates other things that get the doubters on board. Finally, the minister's wife believes while she is in tears over something the boy tells her about the family that he could not possibly know. Everyone joyously reunites in their newly deepened faith and they all become friends again. Throughout the movie there are many scenes of people praying by themselves and in groups. They are good Christians walking in God's path, but they are shown the light and reborn once again.
It's profoundly Christian sap and gooey schmaltz of sickening proportions.
A little kid saying stuff he couldn't possibly know? Pssh. Amateur.
Quote from: SGOS on September 12, 2014, 10:02:09 AM
Heaven is Real 2/10
It includes all the devices necessary in a good Christian Drama. A miracle happens. At first, no one believes the boy, until he relates some things about the family to his father. These things are supposedly things he could not know. The father struggles with it and accepts the boys story as real. Now everyone thinks the father has gone over the deep end, including his wife, and they want to fire him as minister of their church. The father becomes a martyr, but then the boy relates other things that get the doubters on board. Finally, the minister's wife believes while she is in tears over something the boy tells her about the family that he could not possibly know. Everyone joyously reunites in their newly deepened faith and they all become friends again. Throughout the movie there are many scenes of people praying by themselves and in groups. They are good Christians walking in God's path, but they are shown the light and reborn once again.
It's profoundly Christian sap and gooey schmaltz of sickening proportions.
Always figured it would be better than God's Not Dead. I prefer stupid and sweet to stupid and mean.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier gets a 10 out of 10. Very well done action scenes. I love superhero movies.
Oh, and I forgot the most important part. At the end, when everyone is reuniting in friendship, his wife calls her husband aside and tells him they're having another baby. They do a tender Christian Kiss of agape love (or is it the other one? I can never remember which is which) as they enjoin in happiness, blessed with another miracle of life, for which they can thank Jesus.
Nebraska 9/10
Great acting. The stylistic choices augment the story's atmosphere nicely. Crisp black and white with two mono-soundtracks (sound left, music right) rather than stereo. This is not a story about a victorious winner (the supposed trophy is a scam), but rather about a persistent loser who's granted one final indulgence as a reward for his persistence. It's one of those films that manages to be endearing through it's refusal to be bigger than life. For someone like me, who's a sucker for escapist spectacle, but likes variaty too, such movies make for a welcome change of pace.
Grudge Match 7/10
The Raging Bull vs Rocky in a light dramady flavor. The sfx creating the illusion of younger versions of Stallone and DeNiro could've been done better, and the comedy's corney. But ultimately this film turns out to be a more worthy successor to Rocky than all it's sequels managed to be. Not omg you must see this, but definately worth wasting a rainy sunday afternoon on for shits and giggles.
Finally saw Maximum Overdrive, written and directed by Stephen King while he was doing some serious cocaine.
Holy shit, this movie is an insult. Hands down, the best character in the movie is the boy...because he keeps his fucking trap shut.
Let me tell you why I hate these characters.
Homicidal vehicles/machines:
1. Start off by killing whatever humans they can and fully intend to kill any that leave the gas station where the story takes place. Then, when the cars start running out of gas, they threaten (by car horn morse code) to........kill the humans if they don't get more. And the humans agree. Sure, why the hell not. I mean the machines also had a jeep with a machine-gun, and it could've said "Give me some more ammo or else I will kill you!"
2. So which is it? Do you want to kill humans or did you want gas? If you wanted gas, then wouldn't it have made more sense to PRETEND to be normal, so that the humans would give you gas BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING NORMAL?
3. If you wanted to kill the humans, why the hell are you taking so long to do it? At the end, we see the large vehicles easily destroy the building and cause it to explode. Why didn't you do that yesterday.
Billy and girlfriend who's name I don't care about:
1. They hook up and bone each other within hours of meeting each other. But Billy is the main character so we know he won't die due to having sex.
2. Billy agrees to give fuel to the homicidal trucks.
3. Billy fires a Law rocket launcher from the hip. Twice.
Bubba
1. Corrupt, fat prick who talks like he's drunk.
2. Fires rocket launcher from the hip. Three times.
3. Has a rocket launcher in the first place because....?
4. Taunts Billy about his criminal record when machines are going apeshit.
Curtis and Connie (married couple)
1. Connie doesn't shut the fuck up. As in ever. I hate horror movie characters that talk and talk and talk and don't DO ANYTHING.
2. Curtis doesn't slap her for not shutting the fuck up or telling her to do something.
Blonde waitress and husband:
1. Blondie keeps screaming at the vehicles that "we created you!" She runs out twice screaming that, nearly getting run over the first time and getting shot by the machine-gun jeep.
2. Husband decides the best thing to do when a machine gun is tearing through the building is to stand up.
Assorted morons I don't care about:
1. Decide the smartest thing to do when a machine-gun is tearing through the building is to remain standing.
Baseball kid:
1. Is silent most of the movie and is pretty smart.
2. Thank fucking Christ.
3. See above.
Stephen King
1. Coked out of his mind while writing and directing this film.
2. What the fuck Steve?!
UFO:
1. The credits begin by saying there was a fucking UFO outside Earth's atmosphere and nobody knew about it and it's not explored at all. Surprise! At least the Russians shot it down!
2. What the fuck Steve?!
Minus infinity out of 10. If there are any homicidal aliens or trucks or both, we DESERVE IT for even being born in the same star system this movie was made.
Damn, Savior, you ruined my favorite movie. I used to think it was great?! I hated that kid--loved Bubba. I thought it was one of Kings more realistic movies.
The Drop 9/10
Character study set in the world of organized crime. I'm becoming a Tom Hardy fan. There is something compelling about his acting, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is. They used the extra time that would ordinarily be used up in car chase scenes to develop the plot.
The Maze Runner 6/10
I thought it was an interesting premise, but the movie doesn't even attempt to explain what it's own point is. It's obviously set up for a sequel, and the point may become clearer then. But I have to say I'm not anxious to see the sequel, because the first movie isn't interesting enough to go back for more. The maze itself is really cool, but beyond that there's not much. I'm enjoying the Hunger Games. I liked Divergent, even though it's hard to see the point of that movie too. But dystopian future movies for teenagers, with unrealistic and rather shallow plots requiring 3 or 4 trips to the theater over a 4 to 6 year period seem to be a big thing now. I think I'm getting bored with them. I'll go out on a limb here and predict that this current rage will not be as long lasting as the superhero genre, and many of the come lately films cashing in on the trend will die before their final sequel. We shall see.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 15, 2014, 11:42:14 PM
Damn, Savior, you ruined my favorite movie. I used to think it was great?! I hated that kid--loved Bubba.
Question: where you abusing cocaine at the time?
QuoteI thought it was one of Kings more realistic movies.
Well, I guess that answers my question. =D
I didn't like Maximum Overdrive because the premise is fucking idiotic.
Quote from: Savior2006 on September 20, 2014, 08:31:42 PM
Question: where you abusing cocaine at the time?
Well, I guess that answers my question. =D
Well, savior that was my poor attempt at sarcasm. :) My real thoughts about the movie matches stromboli.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 20, 2014, 09:47:43 PM
Well, savior that was my poor attempt at sarcasm. :) My real thoughts about the movie matches stromboli.
Oh man, I feel stupid. =D
Really, had the movie been 90 minutes long with just the kid trekking through what's left of America with killer cars. THAT would be a good movie.
The Fifth Element. The only Bruce Willis movie I've watched more than once. 8/10.
Quote from: Savior2006 on September 20, 2014, 11:31:35 PM
Oh man, I feel stupid. =D
Really, had the movie been 90 minutes long with just the kid trekking through what's left of America with killer cars. THAT would be a good movie.
Quote from: stromboli on September 20, 2014, 11:48:20 PM
The Fifth Element. The only Bruce Willis movie I've watched more than once. 8/10.
You only watched Die Hard once? How is that even humanly possible? Just mentioning it makes me want to watch it again.
In fact, I've just convinced myself to go and watch Die Hard right now. :popcorn:
The Signal 8/10
Wow! A very engaging film, but totally incomprehensible. It recently hit Redbox. One of the stranger movies I've seen. It reminds me of a David Lynch film, except it's more futuristic. If you're into bizarre, this might be the movie of the decade... if you're into bizarre. If it's important that a movie makes sense, then skip this one. I thought it was great fun, but I'd be apprehensive about recommending it to anyone.
I just check the town of Matewan on the map, and the railroad does run through it. I don't know if it's the mainline, but I imagine all of those old coal mining towns looked the same.
The Equalizer starring Denzel Washington:
Great action movie, if cliche. 8 out of 10.
Maze Runner:
I remember someone on this forum complaining about the fad of dystopian, young adult fiction. Here the plot is more post apocalyptic than dystopian. There's plenty of tension in being trapped in a maze and trying to figure out how to get out while avoiding the half-beast, half-machine monsters within it.
Of course, as it's part of a trilogy so the reveal as to why the boys are in the maze doesn't actually explain much of anything.
Overall another decent 8 out of 10.
Equalizer 7/10
I'm a sucker for this variation of super hero. While not endowed with mysterious powers, he just a human, but indestructible. Sure, you understand that he's potentially vulnerable like anyone else, but he just kicks ass and always wins. And unlike traditional super heroes with special powers, he never meets an opponent that presents a challenge (Oddly, I don't like it when a superhero meets the inevitable super villain. Who says he has to have a foil? Hollywood? For me, that doesn't add any interest to the script). But the Equalizer just kicks ass and keeps going. Like Clark Kent, he's got an alter ego, but it's just him. Everyone else thinks he just a clerk in a hardware store. The movie lost momentum a couple of times, where I got a little bored.
I don't think I ever caught even a segment of the TV series.
X-men: future is the past or some shit. 8/10
The Brass Teapot (2013) Which starts out funny but lames out in the end. Has one redeeming feature: Juno Temple. Anything she is in rates at least 5 stars with me, so I'll give it 5/5 This is Juno:
(http://galleryplus.ebayimg.com/ws/web/151111627219_1_0_1/1000x1000.jpg)
And she can act.
Rain 1932 ..Sadie Thompson vs. The Puritans. Maxwell Anderson's screenplay of the W. Somerset Maugham story.
Joan Crawford. Walter Huston, William Gargan Great flick and things don't turn out to spiffy for the puritan preacher.. Great old flick and Joan Crawford was hot in 1932..
https://archive.org/details/rain1932
Lots of soul saving of the ho Sadie and the preacher really screws the pooch in the end. Good flick for atheists..
Matewan 8/10
Story of the unionization of West Virginia coal miners in the 1920s. It authentically captured the feel of a West Virginia coal mining town from what I can tell. I rode the Amtrak Cardinal through West Virginia a couple of years ago. And I have to wonder if I saw the actual coal mining town where this was filmed. There were several along the route, and I remember one in particular that looked just like the film. It appeared to be abandoned, with closed storefronts facing the railroad right of way instead of a main street.
A well known, but much younger cast does a good job. Filmed in 1987.
The Book of Eli. -1 stars.
Ultimate love/hate.
Loved the first half--it hooked me because of my addiction to Fallout 3 and Fallout:New Vegas. The post nuclear world is perfect (well, represented as it should be). Great action movie with the ultimate action hero in Denzil Washington. Then the second half just fucked that all up! The 'book' of course is the bible--braille no less. The bad guys want it and good old god enhanced denzil won't give it up. Turns out it the only one left and he has it all memorized in his head so that when he gets to SF there is a guy who has a huge book collection and all he lacks is a bible. So, not even a world wide nuclear war can wipe the hideous book off the face of the world. Highly disappointed and repulsed by the ending.
I was disappointed by the ending too.
Gone Girl
What can I say, but it's kind of like every other David Fincher directed movie. Well photographed. Well acted. Haunting score. Impressive story. But somehow unsatisfying and I do not know why.
It's difficult to discuss why without spoiling the movie. Much of it hinges on a midway twist that had been spoiled for me, which may be why I'm not liking this movie all that much.
but then, I also didn't like Rosewhatever Pike who plays the titular gone girl, whom we see in flashbacks. Some praised her acting ability. I didn't like her. I didn't believe she was a person. Much less this person.
The ending is kind of dissatisfying, too. I get what they were trying to do with the masks people wear and the roles they play when living their own fucking lives, but I don't think it was done very well.
More I think about it, the less I like it. I don't think that can be blamed on knowing the midpoint twist. It's not a very smart twist. It just seems smart because movies and novels have been so dumb lately.
The last movie I fell asleep 3 minutes into: "Let em have it"1935 starring...well..nobody really.
Lucy - 8/10
I think this film has way too much and/or to harsh criticism. I knew before I saw it that it had the 10% of the brain fallacy and avoided it for a while because of that. This weekend, we desperately needed to see a fun movie, so we picked this anyway, going in with low expectations for the plot and just hoping for good entertainment.
Not too far into the movie it is pretty apparent to me that it was taking a more fantasy-superhero route than a sci-fi one, so I was able to overlook the silly science. At any rate, it is no sillier (or more scientifically inaccurate) than Spiderman getting his abilities being bitten by a genetically altered radioactive super spider, or about any other superhero premise, so I don't get all the hate.
The movie is fun, visually great, and I actually like the blend of silly and serious it delivers. I didn't even know until I came home that the director also made The Fifth Element, which has a like mixture of silly and serious, visual eye candy, super-hero-like action fun food for thought. It certainly has touches of Akira as well (particularly the second half), which my hubby noticed before I did.
Go in thinking of this as a superhero genre movie with a side of wacky philosophy (ala Fifth Element), and you will most likely love it. Go in expecting a serious sci-fi and you will not be pleased.
I liked Lucy too. Sure it had unscientific stuff in it, but it was entertaining, and that's near the top of my list of movie requirements.
Gone Girl 10/10
I found this movie highly interesting. I was always waiting to see what would unfold next. It's a drama about treachery. Like Antithesis, I think a different ending would have been more satisfying, but the ending did work, even though I'm not sure it reflected normal human behavior. It might, not mine I don't think, but maybe for other people. I would describe this movie as fun. Even the tension was fun. I found myself laughing out loud at the cleverness of the treacherous behavior involved, even when it was very diabolical.
Saw Movie 43. Some of the greatest crude humor I have ever seen. Horrible linking of story though.
Also saw the Live action Ruroni Kenshin. 1 million out of 10 recommend.
Quote from: SGOS on September 29, 2014, 09:45:37 PM
The Signal 8/10
Wow! A very engaging film, but totally incomprehensible. It recently hit Redbox. One of the stranger movies I've seen. It reminds me of a David Lynch film, except it's more futuristic. If you're into bizarre, this might be the movie of the decade... if you're into bizarre. If it's important that a movie makes sense, then skip this one. I thought it was great fun, but I'd be apprehensive about recommending it to anyone.
I just check the town of Matewan on the map, and the railroad does run through it. I don't know if it's the mainline, but I imagine all of those old coal mining towns looked the same.
Which The Signal did you watch, the 2007 or the 2014 one?
We just picked up the 2014 one and it is pretty weird, but not incomprehensible. Kind of vaguely reminded me of Dark City. I would give the 2014 version a 7/10. It's a bit slow in places, but weird and interesting.
Riddick 5/10
First part is good but movie is overlong, overhyped and some of the shit is just ridiculous. And the ending is stupid, imho. Good special effects.
Recently re-watched Godzilla, Mothra, and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack. Just rolls off the tongue.
Out of all the Godzilla films, this is easily in my top 5. The plot gets a bit silly in a couple places, and a few things won't make sense if you're not familiar with Japanese mythology, but overall it's well-paced and succeeds at building up anticipation for the fight scenes; which are amazing, by the way, best in the franchise in my opinion.
I just saw Hercules, and it wasn't nearly as bad as I'd heard. From what I can tell the main beef must have been that the trailers were misleading about what kind of movie it was...more of a 'man behind the myth' thing than straight up 'mythic adventure' like Immortals or Wrath of the Titans.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 07, 2014, 01:42:31 PM
Recently re-watched Godzilla, Mothra, and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack. Just rolls off the tongue.
Out of all the Godzilla films, this is easily in my top 5. The plot gets a bit silly in a couple places, and a few things won't make sense if you're not familiar with Japanese mythology, but overall it's well-paced and succeeds at building up anticipation for the fight scenes; which are amazing, by the way, best in the franchise in my opinion.
Mothra--that jiggled some memories. That was my daughters favorite movie when she was 4 thru 8 years of age. Just loved to watch it--and as kids do, over and over again. :)
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 07, 2014, 02:18:54 PM
that jiggled some memories.
Did their lips move before the sound came?
I'm really disappointed nobody watches the same extremely boring shit that I do..
Quote from: Aroura33 on October 07, 2014, 12:58:10 PM
Which The Signal did you watch, the 2007 or the 2014 one?
We just picked up the 2014 one and it is pretty weird, but not incomprehensible. Kind of vaguely reminded me of Dark City. I would give the 2014 version a 7/10. It's a bit slow in places, but weird and interesting.
It was the 2014 one. You can bet I'll watch it again. Maybe it will make more sense the second time around, although I wouldn't necessarily be watching it to make more sense out of it. I just think it's a cool movie. Dark City is also one of my favorites. I have that one in my private collection, and I couldn't tell you how many times I've watched it. Dark City is comprehensible to me, however. Along those lines, have you seen The Thirteenth Floor? Another older favorite for me.
Lone Survivor 8/10
But it was tense. I almost turned it off because I couldn't take any more, and I think my blood pressure was going up.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 07, 2014, 03:04:56 PM
Did their lips move before the sound came?
Yeah--yeah they did. And the rubber suits drove me nuts. But my daughter ate it up.
Brick Mansions 3/10
This movie was dedicated to the star, Paul Walker. I think maybe he's the guy that got killed a few months back in some high speed car accident in a city someplace.
I think the actors were potentially good, but the script stunk. The heroes were too fast, too strong, too cool, and too heavy on the macho comments to be anything near realistic. Considering I mentioned before how much I like the theme where the heroes are almost indestructible, it's odd this fell so short. It reached too far and came off as written by a jr. high school student. While the target audience was maybe the late teens and 20 somethings, I think it would probably be more entertaining to 6 and 7 year olds. I'm serious about that.
And then there was the cat fight scene; One gal in leather, and the other in an outfit vaguely reminiscent of a catholic school girl. They fight it out with chains and whips, but no skin ever gets shown for fear of shocking the ten and under crowd who wouldn't understand the point of a cat fight in a movie, anyway. It's kiddie porn at its finest. I think 3/10 is generous.
Gone Girl - Amazing. Loved the book and I loved the movie!
Grade: A
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 07, 2014, 03:41:33 PM
Yeah--yeah they did. And the rubber suits drove me nuts. But my daughter ate it up.
Yeah, kids latch on to a theme and can go with it forever sometimes. Mine latched on to saying poopoo. They still say it to me in their 30s..
Warren Jeffs: Outlaw Prophet 8/10
Very interesting, and highly disturbing. You won't fall asleep watching this movie.
Not sure if I reviewed Maze Runner already.
8/10. More post apocalyptic than it is dystopian for people not caring much for the Hunger Games fad.
Dracula Untold 6/10
The premise of this looked interesting. It explains (or invents) the origin of Dracula. As with superhero movies, I always enjoy the details of the origin. And Dracula is a superhero in this film. He is the a count, which we all know, but his kingdom is under attack, and he sells his soul to the Devil to gain the power to save his kingdom. And you know the rest. Although parts of the movie seemed kind of pointless, most of it was passable entertainment.
It's been a week now since I've seen Gone Girl and I am now certain it is not a good movie. A week later and that film has barely even crossed my mind, except at how disappointed I was in it. When it's a good movie, I get obsessed. I think about the characters and wonder what happens to them next. I didn't do that, despite the ending being kind of open and supposed to be leaving you wondering what happens next.
I just didn't care.
I don't know these characters. I wouldn't recognize them if I met them on the street. And I sure as hell do not want to know what happens next.
And yet, this movie is popular. Now it is. In ten years, people will be wondering what they were thinking, if they ever think about Gone Girl ever again, and they probably won't.
Quote from: Savior2006 on October 11, 2014, 12:07:05 PM
Not sure if I reviewed Maze Runner already.
8/10. More post apocalyptic than it is dystopian for people not caring much for the Hunger Games fad.
I fail to see how that's an improvement, nor do I think the problem with Hunger Games was that it's supposed to be dystopian.
Quote from: the_antithesis on October 11, 2014, 12:40:25 PM
When it's a good movie, I get obsessed.
The last time I've been obsessed with a movie was Mulholland Drive, but the obsession was more from being at a complete loss to make sense out of it, although I do think it's an excellent film. Most people just don't like it.
I just watched this move, and thought it had a really good plot that had you guessing all the way to the ending.
QuoteBasic is a 2003 American/German mystery-thriller film directed by John McTiernan and starring John Travolta, Connie Nielsen and Samuel L. Jackson. The film is McTiernan's final film to date. In Panama, a team of Army Ranger trainees and their instructor, Master Sergeant Nathan West, engage in a training exercise: navigate the jungle in hurricane conditions using live fire to hit targets before rendezvousing at a bunker.
Quote from: Solitary on October 12, 2014, 12:20:12 AM
I just watched this move, and thought it had a really good plot that had you guessing all the way to the ending.
So what movie was it?
Quote from: Solitary on October 12, 2014, 12:20:12 AM
I just watched this move, and thought it had a really good plot that had you guessing all the way to the ending.
I didn't like Basic because John Travolta, period.
Rush. 8/10. Better than I thought. The race scenes are very well done and Christian Hemsworth is a better actor than I thought him to be. Think of it as a love story with edge of your seat excitement and explosions.
OIC Basic Duh?!
Quote from: SGOS on October 12, 2014, 02:53:06 AM
So what movie was it?
It says BASIC. Actually, Travolta was good in it, but after seeing Ron's movie he was in it is hard to take him serious.
Quote from: SGOS on October 12, 2014, 05:42:23 PM
I don't know how I missed that.
Basic has a "twist" ending that you more or less see coming, but Travolta is playing pretty much the same character he plays in Swordfish, the dominant, commanding know it all. I don't like him, his acting or the characters he portrays. For that matter, Swordfish and Basic have similar plot twists throughout. At least Swordfish had Halle Berry.
Yeah, I've never understood Travolta's popularity either.
Quote from: SGOS on October 07, 2014, 03:32:21 PM
It was the 2014 one. You can bet I'll watch it again. Maybe it will make more sense the second time around, although I wouldn't necessarily be watching it to make more sense out of it. I just think it's a cool movie. Dark City is also one of my favorites. I have that one in my private collection, and I couldn't tell you how many times I've watched it. Dark City is comprehensible to me, however. Along those lines, have you seen The Thirteenth Floor? Another older favorite for me.
Nope, I've never seen the Thirteenth Floor (that I recall anyway). I looked it up and it does look interesting! I will have to check it out.
As to The Signal, I think the last 5 or 10 minutes are where the movie either makes sense or it doesn't. I guess I just interpreted it in a way to force it to make sense, but maybe it really doesn't, lol. Kind of makes me want to rewatch it, too.
Quote from: Aroura33 on October 12, 2014, 07:51:07 PM
As to The Signal, I think the last 5 or 10 minutes are where the movie either makes sense or it doesn't. I guess I just interpreted it in a way to force it to make sense, but maybe it really doesn't, lol. Kind of makes me want to rewatch it, too.
LOL That's what I was thinking. Yeah, you can invent your own ending, but you have to kind of plumb the depths of your creativity to do it.
The Thirteenth Floor is 16 years old, but very good. But the state of computers in 1998 when the movie was made required those clunky monitors of the time. Here these guys are writing software for highly advanced virtual reality programs, but they appear to be doing it all from DOS prompts. That part is both nostalgic and jarring at the same time. But the rest of the movie is convincing, at least as far as Sci Fi goes.
Don't miss this movie! Hilarious. http://youtu.be/4ORtLAxueLU
Quote from: Solitary on October 16, 2014, 02:22:45 PM
Don't miss this movie! Hilarious. http://youtu.be/4ORtLAxueLU
I missed this when it was at the theater, but it looks good. I'm looking forward to it. It reminds me of an older movie I love, Rustler's Rhapsody, funny as Hell. I just looked up "Rustler's Rhapsody" on rotten tomatoes. Critics gave it an 18. Audience gave it an 87. I give it a 9.5.
Anyone here watch 12 Years A Slave? That was a tough movie, but incredible acting, and a sadly incredible true story.
Quote from: Deidre32 on October 19, 2014, 04:00:38 PM
Anyone here watch 12 Years A Slave? That was a tough movie, but incredible acting, and a sadly incredible true story.
Yeah, I watched it. It was unusually disturbing for me. I give the director credit for that. It was a good movie, but I wouldn't describe it as great fun.
Fury 8/10
Sometimes I got a little bored. But the tank battles were gripping. I don't know if they looked like real tank battles. I've never seen a tank battle, but they were breathtaking. And I'm not talking about the usual Hollywood massive explosions with fire balls. The tracer fire in the evening was both pretty and frightening at the same time. It added an eerie dimension to the film. I've never seen anything in a movie quite like it.
Just re-watched The Big Lebowski.
One of my favorite movies of all time
Saw Gone Girl with dad last Sunday. It's twist came so early, and I was expecting it to be over at that point. Then there's still an hour of a half of movie to go. All the same, it was well done and tense, which is how a mystery should be. But...it loses it's label as a mystery, partly because the twist comes so early.
Snow Piercer 8/10
While the premise takes Sci Fi beyond the normally unbelievable, the story is unique and done well enough to deserve a look. In fact, the plot is no more unbelievable than a superhero movie. It's more like it falls outside the Hollywood rules that insure big box office turnouts. I'm drawn to those kinds of movies, so I guess I was predisposed to like this one. Critics liked it too, although I'm not sure any of these opinions matter.
Watched Bliss about a young rape victim condemned to die in an honor killing. She's taken to a seaside town by the man tasked with killing her.. Very good flick.. Subtitles in Turkish (I think)
Live Die Repeat.. not bad. Think Ground hog day but as a drama and getting whacked a couple dozen times. Kinda funny in the way that happens. The aliens are a little overboard, but hey so is the premise. Good evening flick if nothing else is on and you have a six pack and a bag of pop-corn you need to get rid of.
Quote from: aitm on October 27, 2014, 03:20:02 PM
Live Die Repeat.. not bad. Think Ground hog day but as a drama and getting whacked a couple dozen times. Kinda funny in the way that happens. The aliens are a little overboard, but hey so is the premise. Good evening flick if nothing else is on and you have a six pack and a bag of pop-corn you need to get rid of.
I enjoyed that at the theater. I'll watch it again when it shows up at Redbox.
I can't imagine any downside to watching Tom Cruise die over and over again.
Quote from: aitm on October 27, 2014, 03:20:02 PM
Live Die Repeat.. not bad. Think Ground hog day but as a drama and getting whacked a couple dozen times. Kinda funny in the way that happens. The aliens are a little overboard, but hey so is the premise. Good evening flick if nothing else is on and you have a six pack and a bag of pop-corn you need to get rid of.
I find it amusing that they retitled "Edge of Tomorrow" "Live Die Repeat." I don't know of many movies that had their title changed so fast like that.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on October 27, 2014, 03:47:08 PM
I can't imagine any downside to watching Tom Cruise die over and over again.
don't be a hater.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on October 27, 2014, 03:47:08 PM
I can't imagine any downside to watching Tom Cruise die over and over again.
Neither can I.
Watched "Rush" finally. It was pretty good.
Sent from your mom
Quote from: stromboli on October 28, 2014, 12:35:59 AM
Neither can I.
There you go again persecuting the scientologists.. They work hard at duping people in the name of god and science fiction.. and their...uhhh... money..
I like this movie for two reasons, conservatives hate it, and Joan Jett is in it, both ahead of their times.
http://youtu.be/cJl6e2ggpu0
Chef 7/10
I usually don't like foodie movies where so much time is devoted to scenes where people act like they are having orgasms from tasting some indescribably fancy food preparations. But this movie had a plot, not entirely predictable, in that you didn't know how Hollywood was going to bring about the desired ending we all knew was coming. Very good cast with some big names, and it held my interest when I was expecting a snorer. I thought the characters were likeable people. I could connect with them.
Quote from: SGOS on October 29, 2014, 02:13:01 AM
Chef 7/10
I usually don't like foodie movies where so much time is devoted to scenes where people act like they are having orgasms from tasting some indescribably fancy food preparations. But this movie had a plot, not entirely predictable, in that you didn't know how Hollywood was going to bring about the desired ending we all knew was coming. Very good cast with some big names, and it held my interest when I was expecting a snorer. I thought the characters were likeable people. I could connect with them.
Chef... Man..You'd watch a movie based on the phone book wouldn't you? :lol:
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 29, 2014, 02:28:02 PM
Chef... Man..You'd watch a movie based on the phone book wouldn't you? :lol:
I guess I watch a lot of movies. I enjoy a wide variety of them and for a lot of different reasons, but I frequently turn them off 20 minutes into the film. Sometimes I walk out of theaters. So I am discriminating, but I admit my tastes differ from most people.
Having said that:
Night Crawler 8/10
This is one creepy movie, but not Halloween creepy. It deals with slimy human bottom feeders. You won't like anyone in this film. The most redeemable characters play minor roles. They are about as important to the film as Batman's girlfriend. I don't think they are even given names. But it will keep your attention. It's one of those, I can't look away situations.
Duma, a great family movie, or if you like nature and adventure. 10
Sex Tape With Cameron Diaz. Funny movie.
Quote from: Solitary on November 10, 2014, 10:20:00 PM
Sex Tape With Cameron Diaz. Funny movie.
I moved your post to the movie thread, Solitary. No need for an extra thread for such a small post about an already existing topic.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 10, 2014, 10:34:58 PM
I moved your post to the movie thread, Solitary. No need for an extra thread for such a small post about an already existing topic.
Thanks, I couldn't find the movie thread, and I'm not going to spend time looking too long for it. Good Job!
Quote from: Solitary on November 10, 2014, 11:39:29 PM
Thanks, I couldn't find the movie thread, and I'm not going to spend time looking too long for it. Good Job!
It actually has been stickied at the top for quite a while now lol
Sent from your mom
made the mistake of watching Hercules..... hoy boy.......wait for a wintry night and you're stuck in the house with no food or drink, half way through you will be desperate you may just kill yourself to avoid any more agony.
Manilla Metro.. Great flick if you have Netflix and like movies with subtitles.. The women are really hot too..
Sin City part two. Who doesn't like sin?
Instructions Not Included---a don't miss movie---try not to get a lump in your throat at the end! Also see who it is in the trial audience!
http://youtu.be/-rlFr2lu0IY
Interstellar - 9.5/10
Brilliant movie, but got a bit too sci-fi-ish in the end.
I thought Insterstellar was pretty good, but not spectacular. Didn't really care for the ending. But lots better than Inception to me. I really did not care for Inception, despite how many people loved it.
Mockingjay: Not as good as Catching Fire, and it lacks really exciting moments, but I still enjoyed it.
Grade: B+
Let's Make Money-- If everything in the movie is true and I have no reason to believe it isn't then the global economy is about 1000 times worse off than we're lead to believe, perhaps millions of times worse.
Quote from: Notthesun on November 22, 2014, 02:33:42 PM
Mockingjay: Not as good as Catching Fire, and it lacks really exciting moments, but I still enjoyed it.
Grade: B+
I will see it over the Thanksgiving weekend when I visit my sister. I did read the book. From what I can tell, there's not enough in the book to stretch out into two full movies.
Quote from: SGOS on November 23, 2014, 04:05:40 AM
I will see it over the Thanksgiving weekend when I visit my sister. I did read the book. From what I can tell, there's not enough in the book to stretch out into two full movies.
Welp, they didn't let that keep them from milking the fans for as many pennies as they can squeeze out of them.
Lucy. 4/10 - cheap gimmicky story and vapid ideas about Scienceâ,,¢ and Philosophyâ,,¢. A 12-year old kid could come up with better analogies they tried to push through in that movie about reality and knowledge, really rustled my jimmies. Well, at least there were a bunch of ridiculous special effects and colours.
Predestination.
I don't even know how to rate this movie! I enjoyed it and I think it had a lot of fun intentionally not making sense and screwing with the audience, so based on that I'll give it an 8 out of 10. IF you are one of the people who sees this and thinks that there is a gaping plot hole, you might not like it, but personally, I think it's intentional on the part of the writers, kind of making fun of time travel movies and having a good ole time doing it.
Spoilers:
[spoiler]A time travel agent who is hunting a time traveling terrorist goes out of his way to set himself up with himself (prior to a sex change) in order to impregnate himself with himself, so he can become the time traveling terrorist he is hunting and ultimately kill himself. [/spoiler]
Quote from: Aroura33 on November 27, 2014, 03:03:41 AM
Predestination.
I don't even know how to rate this movie! I enjoyed it and I think it had a lot of fun intentionally not making sense and screwing with the audience, so based on that I'll give it an 8 out of 10. IF you are one of the people who sees this and thinks that there is a gaping plot hole, you might not like it, but personally, I think it's intentional on the part of the writers, kind of making fun of time travel movies and having a good ole time doing it.
Spoilers:
[spoiler]A time travel agent who is hunting a time traveling terrorist goes out of his way to set himself up with himself (prior to a sex change) in order to impregnate himself with himself, so he can become the time traveling terrorist he is hunting and ultimately kill himself. [/spoiler]
That spoiler just wrinkled my brain. That sounds amazing lol.
Gravity is free to add to your movie library in Google Play. I'll be watching that a little later this week.
https://play.google.com/store/movies/details/Gravity?id=3nsimcpL5Ho&hl=en
Predestination - 7/10
Could be better, IMO. The angle of this movie was that it is a mystery to unfold, to find out who the bomber is, wrecking chaos, but if you follow the very first minutes, it becomes obvious who it is; at least it did to me.
Transformers: Age of Extinction
No kidding its not a great movie. The jokes were not very funny. The dialog, particularly by the Transformers, was pretty corny, stilted. Yet, for some reason, I still found it more enjoyable than I should In other words, it wasn't as bad to me as it is to most other people. I'll give it a 6/10.
Edge of Tomorrow
It is well known to be a Groundhog Day meets Sci-Fi movie. And, well, I just couldn't help but keep thinking about GD every time Cruise's character dies and comes back. Its a fun movie. But forgettable. 6.5/10.
Schindler's List... not sure my heart will know how to ever feel happy again.
Insterstellar Not a great movie but at least I wasn't disappointed.
Evilenko 2004. Andrei Evilenko murdered 55 women and children in the Kiev area back in the 80s and was allegedly executed although rumor has it that westerners offered $$$$ to Russia to turn him over to them for unknown reasons. The murders were very gruesome and he reportedly also ate several.
If you have the Roku service you can watch it on The Grindhouse Channel
Pretty good movie if you like grindhouse kind of stuff.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 29, 2014, 04:25:32 AM
Schindler's List... not sure my heart will know how to ever feel happy again.
yeah, thats one of those movies where one wants to see again but never wants to see again.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on December 09, 2014, 07:36:41 PM
Evilenko 2004. Andrei Evilenko murdered 55 women and children in the Kiev area back in the 80s and was allegedly executed although rumor has it that westerners offered $$$$ to Russia to turn him over to them for unknown reasons. The murders were very gruesome and he reportedly also ate several.
If you have the Roku service you can watch it on The Grindhouse Channel
Pretty good movie if you like grindhouse kind of stuff.
I wonder if this is one I watched on Amazon Prime a month ago. It was a riveting story, and if not the same movie, it's probably the same killer.
Quote from: SGOS on December 09, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
I wonder if this is one I watched on Amazon Prime a month ago. It was a riveting story, and if not the same movie, it's probably the same killer.
Being on Grindhouse I figured it would be gory, but it wasn't. More suggestive for a mature audience. Malcolm McDowell was in it.
I just watched a movie for the second time that is a favorite of hunters: Powder
Just watched Guardians of the Galaxy…..s'okay….about a 7 outa 10 kinda fun but even for a marvel a touch over the top.
Quote from: aitm on December 09, 2014, 09:59:15 PM
Just watched Guardians of the Galaxy…..s'okay….about a 7 outa 10 kinda fun but even for a marvel a touch over the top.
Over the top? It's perfectly normal for a talking raccoon to save the universe.
If only I had the time to see a movie. I want to see Interstellar. No idea if it's still showing. I will sneak away from my craazy peak-season work schedule to see The Hobbit, which comes out next week.
a sentient
Quote from: SGOS on December 10, 2014, 03:32:59 AM
Over the top? It's perfectly normal for a talking raccoon to save the universe.
a sentient mobile tree and your compliant is the raccoon? LOL.....
Horrible Bosses II
I just truly hope this will be the last one. Jennifer Aniston is great as always, but overall, the movie is boring.
I just watched the Wicker Man, about a man from the mainland of Scotland that is a police officer looking for a missing girl, he is a Christian, and the people on the Island are Pagans, and they sacrifice him at the end. A good example of how magical thinking is insane, and results in man's inhumanity to man. :wall: Solitary
Too drunk to finish atm,but watching the original 1973 wicker man with Christopher Lee... I absolutely love the concept of the pagan and Christian cultures competing in our.
I watched a more recent version staring Nicolas Cage a year ago. I didn't know the story. I found it shocking.
Quote from: SGOS on December 15, 2014, 08:32:12 AM
I watched a more recent version staring Nicolas Cage a year ago. I didn't know the story. I found it shocking.
I know it is suppose to be a complete disgrace to the original.
The original... finished it earlier, and yeah it was crazy. So many questions... was the main "villain" (Sir Christopher Lee) actually a pagan or just exploiting them? Was he even a villain, really? Was the Christian even suppose to be taken as a "good guy" or just a character caught in the story? And holy crap, the plot twist doe.
I enjoyed it.
November man with whatshisface....meh...mildly entertaining....about a 6.
Quote from: aitm on December 15, 2014, 10:01:50 AM
November man with whatshisface....meh...mildly entertaining....about a 6.
I saw it at the theater. I had about the same response. Peirce is getting older and his career seems to have peaked, but I still go to his movies because I think he's a good actor, even if his roles aren't as compelling as they used to be.
The Equalizer-----If you like movies about the bad guys getting what's coming to them, and gore. I liked it.
As Above, So Below. Meh. 5? Maybe a 6? It wasn't terrible, but it was a pretty straightforward full of cliché's horror movie. I didn't fall asleep, but I did find myself playing Candy Mania on my tablet near the end.....not a good sign.
I wanted to see the Interview--but that aint gonna happen now. I don't go to many movies, but I would have gone to that one as a 'fuck you' to the cyber bullies.
The Lego Movie
Manages to be a pop culture critique and an anti-fascist propaganda film disguised as a fun movie for all ages. Will Farrell plays an evil corporate overlord and it is up to a construction worker, Nyan cat, ninja girl, Batman, hippie Morgan Freeman and robot pirate to stop him. The most bizarre yet entertaining movie I've seen in a while.
Wild 7/10
The first time I've ever taken notice of Reese Witherspoon as more than just shallow fluff. The movie is not great, but it held my interest. I would have preferred fewer flashbacks about her tormented past and dysfunctional family, which actually tended to dominate the movie. I would have preferred more scenery and hiking adventures.
Quote from: SGOS on August 15, 2014, 09:47:24 PM
At the time that series aired, there was nothing like it. I haven't watched an episode in years. It might seem a bit dated to me now, but I remember it being great fun. There is one character who doesn't appear very often, just a few times in the entire series. Colonel Flag. Watch for him. Every time he showed up, I knew it was going to be a great episode, and it was. But I have a strange sense of humor sometimes. It may not be like that for you.
Nothing like a good Flag-waving episode, is there?
I watched Guardians of the Gallaxy today. A fun science fiction movie to watch that starts off like---what the hell is this? It's well done, and worth watching.
Just saw the Hobbit, good movie, though a bit drawn out. I enjoyed it greatly, but it really felt at times like it was just making the trilogy a biut longer, I guess that's what the criticism was about. Still glad I saw it, 8/10!
teenage mutant ninja turtles…..not of my own choice…but there I was…so it was kinda fun…my daughter enjoyed it which is sadly more reflective of her intellect. Like the cartoon I still cannot explain the need for masks, as if taking them off would somehow make them less noticeable in the general public eh? But of course it IS a cartoon based on……..eh……..magic..so there ya go. I would give it a 3. Okay on a night when you are not interested in anything thought provoking and most certainly one I will never watch again, once was a quite enough.
Slumdog milionaire.
What a film, what a film!
So painful ter beautiful! 9,4/10
Compliance. STRANGEST MOVIE EVER, and the fact that it was based on actual events, is beyond strange.
I give it 9/10 for acting, but overall a 6/10.
I felt like I had to shower after watching it. Eek. Anyone else see this?
Just saw Wild. I guess Witherspoon is an actress--I was a bit surprised. To have a movie made about hiking means it has to be good--surprised again, for it was good. It was interesting to note that the most dangerous thing she faced on the hike (1200 miles in the wild) was a pair of male hunters. I'd give it an 8.5/10. See it...............
Ripley Scott's Exodus god of Kings was in a word spectacular. Liked the tsunami scene and those vistas of spectacular rock formations alone. I was dreading some faith proselytizing Bible epic which is why I put off seeing it for so long but was not as bad as I feared. Ridley Scott said it was based on a tsunami that was generated by and earthquake off the coast of Italy about 3000 years ago but is also could well of been due the Minoan eruption a few hundred years earlier. Such food for thought for Bible skeptics like myself. I would rate it 6 out of 10. The 4 deducted for those “pyramid building scenes†which did not belong to that period at all. BTW I met a few fundy Christians who were very pissed off by this movie, perhaps it was the 12 year old "kid God" which I found very humorous. What did they expect some old guy with a long white beard peering behind the clouds with a big booming voice!
Equalizer 8.5/10
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 21, 2014, 07:17:46 PM
Just saw Wild. I guess Witherspoon is an actress--I was a bit surprised. To have a movie made about hiking means it has to be good--surprised again, for it was good. It was interesting to note that the most dangerous thing she faced on the hike (1200 miles in the wild) was a pair of male hunters. I'd give it an 8.5/10. See it...............
Have you ever seen her in Walk The Line? She was extremely great in that.
I read Wild. I liked the story and disliked the main character, she made a long series of bad decisions. I hear they left out the part about her having an abortion from the movie.
The Gambler (Mark Wahlberg) 7/10
I like Mark Wahlberg. This is not his greatest work. He does fine, but the script is kind of thin.
What? Nobody saw The Interview now that it's free on Youtube?
I didn't think anybody would.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 27, 2014, 11:30:23 AM
Have you ever seen her in Walk The Line? She was extremely great in that.
I read Wild. I liked the story and disliked the main character, she made a long series of bad decisions. I hear they left out the part about her having an abortion from the movie.
No, did not see Walk The Line. I don't see a large number of movies, so going to Wild was to mainly keep my wife company. She read the book and was very excited about going to the movie. I was glad that I went; it was well done and the acting was good. The abortion was in the movie. And as it was portrayed in the movie, it was the right choice on her part. Yes, she made many, many bad choices, in that they were self-destructive. And because of that, she destroyed her relationships as well. Yet, she had something inside her that finally saw that--she bottomed out and reached for something positive. She found the hike. That would not have worked for me, but I realize that it could work for someone else--different strokes for different folks. I think she paid for her bad decisions--and overcoming so many was quite an accomplishment. I was happy for her by the end of the movie. I still rate it an 8.5 to 9. Which is remarkable, since the kind of movie I like is the Hunger Games type.
rewatched Gattaca. It's been so long since I've watched it that I forgot how good it is. 9000000/10
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 27, 2014, 02:29:09 PM
What? Nobody saw The Interview now that it's free on Youtube?
I didn't think anybody would.
its five bucks on youtube
Big Hero 6,
My daughter gives it a 10/10 and says the only movie she's ever liked more is How to Train your Dragon (and maybe HtTYD2). I thought it was full of awesome, but will give it a 9/10 because I thought it lost pacing a bit near the end. I 100% recommend it to everyone though, unless you really hate Disney just on principal or something.
Last day of Christmas vacation for us, and I wanted to make it special, this movie seen in a theater was perfect!
Finally saw The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.
The government is either run by complete idiots or they're in it For the Evulz. They do so much stuff to provoke the districts for seemingly no benefit for them. Let's storm towns and burn their crap because...I dunno. Let's do (presumably televised) summary executions on the spot and right in front of crowds. Let's deny the districts basic services so we can feast and vomit and feast some more! I mean, there's inequality in the our world, but this takes it to a whole new level. We're talking futuristic airplanes and forcefields and holograms and all that jazz, but food production is apparently too difficult. And just so pointlessly cruel on top of it all. Do you want a rebellion? Because that's how you get a rebellion. And Jeez, the Prez is taking governing advice from the GM?! Get that man a Cabinet, stat! Next thing you know, the Tributes will be manipulating this guy, saying that they'll eat poison berries if he doesn't do what they want. Can you imagine?
And the worst thing is it's not even internally consistent. A major part of the first movie was that the Hunger Games victors are set for life. Dragging them back seems incredibly deceitful.
As for the eponymous games, I'm glad they went a different way with that. It would have been a drag if it was just a repeat of the last movie. But it strikes me as strange how it always becomes a team-based game instead the expected free-for-all.
My quips during the airing:
"That Tribute (the white guy with the beard) looks pretty cool, can't wait to see more of him!"
"Let's all stumble and fall while running away from the lethal gas. Oh yeah, carry the old lady. That'll work out well."
"Wouldn't it be funny if the old lady wins the games? Like all smeared with blood?"
"No monkey I've ever heard of is that aggressive. Stealing stuff, I can understand. But these guys are on the warpath."
*Katniss wakes up with an oxygen mask on* "We interrupt this movie to bring you Resident Evil."
I actually sort of liked the ending. I also really liked how Katniss's escort to the Capitol (Effie something or another) actually feels sympathetic for the team and, like Haymitch, apparently doesn't like her role in this sick system. But this movie was still a trainwreck. 5/10. 6/10 tops.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 29, 2014, 10:18:05 PM
Finally saw The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.
That was perhaps the most scathing, while not inaccurate, review of Hunger Games I've ever read. While I had to suspend my sense of reality way beyond what is usually required by science fiction, I have still enjoyed them so far. Although #2 lost a lot of interest for me. I believe I read somewhere that the books are being promoted as a "young adult" series. I think this means written text without any pictures or illustrations in an extra large font that renders less than 100 words per page. But mostly, I think it means that the content is much more violent than what is usually associated with books of a 5th grade reading level.
In fact, that was my impression when I read the last two books of the series. I'm not sure if I would call them poorly written, or simply written in a way that does not tax young readers. The dialogue was especially simplistic. It was pretty much just: Then he said, "... bla bla," and then she said, "... bla bla."
Frankly, given the quality of the writing, I'm amazed that Hollywood managed to turn the books into a block buster series. I think the movies target mostly late teens, while the books targeted elementary level children, so I wouldn't expect the plot lines to make a lot more sense than basic readers for schools, "Dick and Jane Go Postal."
Quote from: SGOS on December 30, 2014, 08:14:15 AM
That was perhaps the most scathing, while not inaccurate, review of Hunger Games I've ever read. While I had to suspend my sense of reality way beyond what is usually required by science fiction, I have still enjoyed them so far. Although #2 lost a lot of interest for me. I believe I read somewhere that the books are being promoted as a "young adult" series. I think this means written text without any pictures or illustrations in an extra large font that renders less than 100 words per page. But mostly, I think it means that the content is much more violent than what is usually associated with books of a 5th grade reading level.
In fact, that was my impression when I read the last two books of the series. I'm not sure if I would call them poorly written, or simply written in a way that does not tax young readers. The dialogue was especially simplistic. It was pretty much just: Then he said, "... bla bla," and then she said, "... bla bla."
Frankly, given the quality of the writing, I'm amazed that Hollywood managed to turn the books into a block buster series. I think the movies target mostly late teens, while the books targeted elementary level children, so I wouldn't expect the plot lines to make a lot more sense than basic readers for schools, "Dick and Jane Go Postal."
Yes, the Hunger Games books are in the Young Adult section of the bookstore. I found that I like that 'level' of writing--although I don't really understand what that actually means. I've now read several more books of the post-apocalyptic type. I enjoyed them all. Then tackled a book named The Last Ship--a very adult level book. It is right in my wheelhouse! This is about the last surface ship in the world left after a true world wide nuclear war. There is one more ship, but it is a sub. On The Beach, move over! Well, not so fast. This writer of adult fiction (an actual naval officer) was so verbose I got to the middle of the book and stopped reading. He would belabor each and every point over and over again. He took two paragraphs for what a sentence or two would do better.
I also like Orson Scott Card quite well. His books are in the regular sci-fi section. So, I guess when all is said and done, we simply like what we like. And one never knows until one gets into any particular book if one will like it or not.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 30, 2014, 02:23:18 PM
Yes, the Hunger Games books are in the Young Adult section of the bookstore. I found that I like that 'level' of writing--although I don't really understand what that actually means. I've now read several more books of the post-apocalyptic type. I enjoyed them all. Then tackled a book named The Last Ship--a very adult level book. It is right in my wheelhouse! This is about the last surface ship in the world left after a true world wide nuclear war. There is one more ship, but it is a sub. On The Beach, move over! Well, not so fast. This writer of adult fiction (an actual naval officer) was so verbose I got to the middle of the book and stopped reading. He would belabor each and every point over and over again. He took two paragraphs for what a sentence or two would do better.
I also like Orson Scott Card quite well. His books are in the regular sci-fi section. So, I guess when all is said and done, we simply like what we like. And one never knows until one gets into any particular book if one will like it or not.
Don't ever read Game of Thrones then! The characters and plot lines are excellent, but Martin can take an entire page to describe what another writer would probably do in a sentence or two. Particularly clothing and food. I don't mind it most of the time, I actually enjoy reading a description so vivid I can really visualize the people in my head, and almost smell their dinner. But that kind of verbosity isn't for everyone.
The Hunger Games wasn't too bad. The movies are worse than the books, though the books are fairly simplistic. I really didn't like book 2, and felt that most of book 3 was better, although by the end it felt extremely contrived.
I'm so tired of YA dystopian books. I loved Enders Game and I don't mind others, like City of Ember and Hunger Games, but it's overrunning the industry, or feels like it! Maze Runner and ~gag, choke~ Divergent. Man, Divergent was so bad, I have NO idea how it was selected to become a movie, or even how it made it to print!
Saw "The Desolation of Smaug" again. I really enjoy the LOTR works, they are just so rich in color and epicness that you fall right into the fantasy and a talking dragon...why...perfectly normal! Why shouldn't a dragon be able to talk? Always a fun time and looking forward to the next one. I rate all of the LOTR and Hobbits at 9.5.
Quote from: Aroura33 on December 30, 2014, 03:00:13 PM
Don't ever read Game of Thrones then! The characters and plot lines are excellent, but Martin can take an entire page to describe what another writer would probably do in a sentence or two. Particularly clothing and food. I don't mind it most of the time, I actually enjoy reading a description so vivid I can really visualize the people in my head, and almost smell their dinner. But that kind of verbosity isn't for everyone.
The Hunger Games wasn't too bad. The movies are worse than the books, though the books are fairly simplistic. I really didn't like book 2, and felt that most of book 3 was better, although by the end it felt extremely contrived.
I'm so tired of YA dystopian books. I loved Enders Game and I don't mind others, like City of Ember and Hunger Games, but it's overrunning the industry, or feels like it! Maze Runner and ~gag, choke~ Divergent. Man, Divergent was so bad, I have NO idea how it was selected to become a movie, or even how it made it to print!
I have actually been toying with the idea of reading the Game of Thrones and the others in the series. I too, like good description--but in the Stephen King vein. If it is done well, describing one's surroundings gives the story and world depth--I like depth. But the author of The Last Ship was not only verbose but his choice of vocabulary was obnoxious--words that were very obscure, or outdated. His editor must have been very lazy to let that pass. So, I will probably go to my local Barnes and Nobel bookstore (since that is the only one we have), grab The Game of Thrones, buy a cup of coffee and sit and read for an hour or so. If I like it, I'll start it. If not--I'll do something else.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 30, 2014, 02:23:18 PM
It is right in my wheelhouse!
OK, I've got to ask: Are you living on a boat?
Quote from: aitm on December 30, 2014, 03:14:30 PM
Saw "The Desolation of Smaug" again. I really enjoy the LOTR works, they are just so rich in color and epicness that you fall right into the fantasy and a talking dragon...why...perfectly normal! Why shouldn't a dragon be able to talk? Always a fun time and looking forward to the next one. I rate all of the LOTR and Hobbits at 9.5.
Just saw the new one and really, really enjoyed it. I know alot of LotR purists and whatnot have criticised the Hobbit Trilogy, but I loved every minute of it. The third is just as good imo as the first two, so I don't think you will be disappointed by it.
Saving Christmas by Kirk Cameron. What a masterpiece of cinema!! Probably the best movie I've seen since that magnum opus The Room! Through superb acting, clever camera angles, flawless logical reasoning and a complex plot filled with unexpected twists and turns, Cameron actually convinced me to give up my evil, god-hating, monkey-ancestor-having atheistic ways and bow the knee before Christ Jesus himself! Praise the LORD! The BIBBLE is true!!!!
Quote from: SGOS on December 30, 2014, 10:19:02 PM
OK, I've got to ask: Are you living on a boat?
I have one for my bathtub. :)
Quote from: SGOS on December 30, 2014, 08:14:15 AMThat was perhaps the most scathing, while not inaccurate, review of Hunger Games I've ever read.
Thank you. It's partially that the second one felt too much like the first one. Going to the Capitol was cool and all the first time when it was all shiny and new. But the second time is just boring and forgettable. And the really weird thing is the uprising sorta just pops up out of nowhere. Katniss is apparently a symbol for it, despite initially being completely compliant with the government. Didn't make a whole lot of sense.
I also didn't really like the villain. It was extremely strange to hear him practically obsess about her. "I want her dead!" Then do it! You're the dictator, you can make it happen. I'll get my gun and we'll shoot her together. Sheesh, Dr Evil was a more competent villain.
I sort of like Katniss, but her love triangle was just nauseating. And she's probably the only halfway decently developed character. Seriously. Describe the main characters of the Hunger Games franchise without using any of their titles or relationships. Katniss is courageous, selfless, defiant, compassionate, and as of the second film, slightly traumatized. Her romantic interest is...oh right, no relationships. That guy brings absolutely nothing else to the table. Peeta is...I honestly don't know. Haymitch is drunk and hates himself. The dictator is cruel. Not exactly wowing me in the character department, either.
The action's good and all, but damn, the buildup to it is such a drag that I'm not really emotionally invested at all. Maybe I'm just an overly harsh critic, but it didn't seem like the film brought much to the table.
Quote from: Aroura33 on December 30, 2014, 03:00:13 PMDon't ever read Game of Thrones then! The characters and plot lines are excellent, but Martin can take an entire page to describe what another writer would probably do in a sentence or two. Particularly clothing and food. I don't mind it most of the time, I actually enjoy reading a description so vivid I can really visualize the people in my head, and almost smell their dinner. But that kind of verbosity isn't for everyone.
Yeah, I was torn between my love of painting with words (the descriptions really help visualize the scene and also give you a sense of the hugely divergent lifestyles of the rich and the poor) and my irritation with extraneous and trivial details. Depending on the book, you could cut out anywhere from 50 to 100 pages and not notice the difference.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 30, 2014, 07:53:36 PMSo, I will probably go to my local Barnes and Nobel bookstore (since that is the only one we have), grab The Game of Thrones, buy a cup of coffee and sit and read for an hour or so. If I like it, I'll start it. If not--I'll do something else.
Definitely worth a shot. A Game of Thrones is the best-paced one of the bunch, imho. Further in the series, and the author starts to ramble.
Just be ready for a peppering of medieval jargon like nameday (similar to, but not the same as birthday), on the morrow (tomorrow), craven (coward), hauberk (chainmail shirt), gorget (armor protecting the neck), mare (adult female horse), smallclothes (underwear), etc.
And it's practically impossible to remember all the characters, so writing down key characters and what's going on with them is a good idea.
Quote from: Atheon on December 31, 2014, 06:55:39 AM
Saving Christmas by Kirk Cameron. What a masterpiece of cinema!! Probably the best movie I've seen since that magnum opus The Room! Through superb acting, clever camera angles, flawless logical reasoning and a complex plot filled with unexpected twists and turns, Cameron actually convinced me to give up my evil, god-hating, monkey-ancestor-having atheistic ways and bow the knee before Christ Jesus himself! Praise the LORD! The BIBBLE is true!!!!
Obviously I know you are being sarcastic, but, did you by any chance get stuck actually watching it? Apparently it is so bad even evangelical Christians say it sucks.
The Woman in Black (2012)
(http://www.tavistockwharf.com/images/library/events/cinema/the_woman_in_black_angel_of_death.jpg)
I'm going to give this one a 5/10. The movie was overall very boring and used pretty predictable scare tactics. The story line was "okay" at best.
Mr. Potter's acting was mediocre and I really felt that he just didn't belong in the scare business. This movie felt more like a Disney special than it did a horror film in my personal opinion.
(http://images.moviepostershop.com/the-werewolf-of-washington-movie-poster-1973-1020249839.jpg)
Quantum Leap fans take note, this stars a very young Dean Stockwell as the titular werewolf.
The plot is about 40% retread of the original Wolf Man with the other 70% a lame attempt at a comedy-horror hybrid. It's mostly dull or painful when the President tries to deliver a "humorous" speech or something, but it really comes alive when Stockwell is in the wolf make up. He really fucking goes for it here, acting like a dog and shit. One scene where he attacks a woman in a phone booth is worth watching this pile alone, so try to find clips on youtube of that.
Overall, it's silly and dull only made watchable by its star and his gusto performance when in wolf form. Unfortunately, he's rarely in wolf form. Would have been better if he was a wolf more often.
Silence of the Lambs
Yes, it took me this long to watch it, but...
Gr8 movie m8, I r8 8/8.
(For real though, it was a ridiculously good movie...)
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2015, 03:26:40 PM
Silence of the Lambs
Yes, it took me this long to watch it, but...
Gr8 movie m8, I r8 8/8.
(For real though, it was a ridiculously good movie...)
One of my favorites. The first time through you don't realize how little that Lector is actually shown because he dominates every scene that he is in.
Quote from: gussy on January 06, 2015, 11:42:09 PM
One of my favorites. The first time through you don't realize how little that Lector is actually shown because he dominates every scene that he is in.
Every time he was off the screen, I was counting down the minutes till he was back. Such a great performance :D.
As Above So Below 4/10
That rating may be a bit too high, but compared to other horror flicks, it was more creepy and had better surprise scares, so I bumped it a little. It reminded me of The Blair Witch Project, but is more professionally done and moves along faster. Lots of periods of whispering and sneaking. Then something happens, and everyone starts screaming and arguing creating periods of frightened chaos, and then more quiet creepy stuff. Lots of horror cliché. And it's done in shaky cam, which I hate. It does add to the chaos, so I see the point of shaky cam here, but mostly I found it annoying.
Interstellar 9.5/10
An extraordinary film overall. The special effects are so awesome you don't even notice them most of the time. The plot is wonderfully interesting, and though you find yourself thinking of many authors and other films throughough, non of them were like rip offs, the overarching plot was very thoughtful and well done.
Kill Bill Vol. I - 10/10
First time I have watched it (I didn't start watching movies till I was about 21-22, that's why I'm so late on all these great films)...
The artistic style... the themes... the the soundtrack... oh god, just everything about this movie is great. Tarantino is such a master of suspense. The fight between Lucy Lu and The Bride... ok, not the most action packed (especially after the fight scene it followed [the blue room sequence was beautiful!]), but man... is good. Lu's back story as an anime-style, the suspense in the first fight...
Yeah, it was a great movie.
Selma - What an incredible film. I believe this movie should win Best Picture.
Grade: A
Interstellar - A beautiful piece of work and very fun to go on.
Grade: A-
QuoteSelma - What an incredible film. I believe this movie should win Best Picture.
My only problem with the movie, and this is a historical gripe rather than a knock on the movie (it probably helped the movie) is how LBJ is shown as being an opponent... LBJ was a supporter of MLK and was one of the few in Washington who asked him to keep on doing what he was doing. I think it's one more piece of media where LBJ is slandered, which is sad since he was one of our better presidents.
But again, that is nitpicking at the historical accuracy rather than the quality of the movie itself as a medium of entertainment and conveying an idea.
X-Men: Days of Future Past (or as I call it, X-Men: Second Class) 7/10
I know I'm going to catch hell for this, but I was pretty disappointed in this one. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't horrible, but there were a lot of things that didn't really work in this one.
I liked the doomed future scenario and Kitty Pryde's team under attack, but we could/should have seen more of things falling apart, so there's more of an impact when they do the whole Timetraveler fix gambit. Starting the movie right at the last stand is a nice in medias res, but at the expense of tension. That and it's hard to feel for people we have never seen before. I also have no idea why we have to see the doomed future slowly doom even after Logan has been sent back in time. When you send someone back in time, your timeline effectively ceases to exist. I realize that in this movie, timetravel doesn't work exactly that way somehow, but whatever. Honestly, I wouldn't have shown any more of the future timeline after Logan goes back because it doesn't matter anymore.
I didn't like most of the first half of the movie at all. If it had stopped at the assassination attempt, I honestly would've given this a 5/10 or a 4/10. We see Logan adjust to the 1970s, which was about as entertaining as it sounds. It was really bizarre seeing Logan as Mr. Calm and Collected and Xavier as the who doesn't have his act together. Then they gather the gang. I freakin' loved Quicksilver, especially his slo-mo takedown scene. Pure awesomesauce. Mystique was great as always. And Peter Dinklage was good, but I don't think Trask's character was very accurately represented here. This guy had a personal hatred for mutants and feared for the future of humanity, so he made it his life's goal to protect humanity from mutants. It's a very twisted sense of heroism. Instead, we got someone apparently with no grudge who, bizarrely, even expresses admiration of mutants. *shrugs*
I also didn't understand why Magneto couldn't have just used the sentinels to terrorize the humans after taking them over. As long as you're not standing right next to them, everyone would just assume that the sentinels had gone haywire, and in the aftermath, Trask and the Sentinel project would've withered on the vine. And while it wouldn't exactly bring about human-mutant peace, it would set back anti-mutant initiatives, which would be a big win for mutants. Instead, he stands right next to them so it's obvious that it's his doing, shouts at the camera that mutants are a threat, and tries to assassinate the President. It's like he's deliberately trying to get mutants wiped off the face of the Earth.
And speaking of squandered opportunities, Mystique could have sabotaged the hell out of stuff like this instead of operating as an assassin. She can masquerade as anyone. She could ruin this guy's career - hell, his whole life if she wanted without firing a shot. She could touch off a series of gaffes and scandals that could ruin anti-mutant organizations. Instead, she's focused on killing just a single guy. And honestly, killing him after he's already developed sentinels doesn't really accomplish anything, so what's the point?
And Logan gets to have this crowning moment of awesome where he saves the day. Or drowns. Whichever.
Bottom line, the action scenes are really good, but the story is lackluster and the characters are bland; it's really hard to feel for any of them. The movie felt very restrained and ultimately, boring for much of its runtime. I honestly think that First Class was better. Or even the X-men cartoon two-parter of the same name, which is really sad because I was really hyped for this movie. I badly wanted it to be freakin' amazing and it was just okay. Its saving grace was that it retconned X-Men 3 out of existence. Hallelujah.
You know, after reviewing this thread, I've realized that I consistently rate movies lower than most of you guys. Stuff that mostly gets a 10/10 or 9/10 from the crowd gets an 8/10 or a 7/10 from me. I almost never give a movie a 9/10 or 10/10, so on the rare occasions that I highly praise something, I really mean it!
I also overanalyze stuff, which tends to magnify small flaws. That and I might just be really hard to please. Dammit, I'm going to give a movie a 9/10 one of these days, it just has to earn it!
Also, I used to be funny. :(
QuoteI've realized that I consistently rate movies lower than most of you guys. Stuff that mostly gets a 10/10 or 9/10 from the crowd gets an 8/10 or a 7/10 from me. I almost never give a movie a 9/10 or 10/10, so on the rare occasions that I highly praise something, I really mean it!
I think a lot of people, myself included, often use a rating scale that that seems to range from 7/10 to 10/10, so ten simply means above average. When 0 to 10 is used, a score of 10 would be rare indeed, and would occur about as often as a 1 (a score of 1 has probably shown up once or twice here, whereas a 10 is quite frequent).
It's not like only 1 out of every 10 movies normally would reach a score of 10 either. Movie scores would normally form a bell curve, with the vast majority hovering around 5, with 1 and 10 representing rare extremes, maybe on the order of one out of a hundred or less.
I guess I've had to forego my love of the bell curve in order to communicate with others about movies, which obviously I really like doing. I remember giving a 6/10 to a movie long ago and being asked why I didn't like it, which was not what I was saying.
However, I wouldn't expect the reviews here to represent a normal bell curve either. The ratings will be skewed high, because people avoid going to stinkers or things that have no appeal for them at all, so you won't see many ones and twos. Still it seems to me that a score of 10 would be reserved for truly extraordinary movies. In my opinion, most Academy Award winners wouldn't even come close to a ten. I think of a ten as being a movie that shows up once every 5 years, movies that you want to watch several times over the course of the next 20 years, and such movies are rare. Think in terms of your favorite top 5 movies of all time. Those are the 10s, IMO.
But, I've adapted to the ratings here, and there is a lot of personal taste involved. When I see a 9/10, it suggests I should probably consider seeing that movie, but it certainly doesn't mean I'm going to think it's extraordinary.
Saw Boondocks Saint's. The part where the hitman turns out to be the boy's father and joins them in their spree I was like "Okay?"
Otherwise, it was bloody good fun. 4 out of 5.
My dad keeps talking about how he's got God's Not Dead, and Heaven's For Real. Obviously, I don't have much interest in that, but once he gets that out of his system, there's Fight Club, which I got on Blue Ray from my brothers at Alpha Sigma Phi during a Secret Santa thing.
Quote from: SGOS on January 14, 2015, 04:32:42 AMI think a lot of people, myself included, often use a rating scale that that seems to range from 7/10 to 10/10, so ten simply means above average. When 0 to 10 is used, a score of 10 would be rare indeed, and would occur about as often as a 1 (a score of 1 has probably shown up once or twice here, whereas a 10 is quite frequent).
For me, 5/10 is average, 7/10 is good but flawed, 9/10 is amazing, 10/10 is essentially perfect, and 1/10 indicates that I hated the movie with every fiber of my being. Like you said, it is skewed towards the upper numbers because I simply won't see movies that I think are horrible. But I actually have given a 1/10 to Battlefield Earth. That movie was awful in every conceivable way. And the first and third LOTR movies are 9/10 with me, The Two Towers is one of my extremely few 10/10s.
Bell curve, represent.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 12, 2015, 03:27:54 AM
My only problem with the movie, and this is a historical gripe rather than a knock on the movie (it probably helped the movie) is how LBJ is shown as being an opponent... LBJ was a supporter of MLK and was one of the few in Washington who asked him to keep on doing what he was doing. I think it's one more piece of media where LBJ is slandered, which is sad since he was one of our better presidents.
But again, that is nitpicking at the historical accuracy rather than the quality of the movie itself as a medium of entertainment and conveying an idea.
I'm not sure I agree with what you've said. LBJ was on MLK's side in general. But like a politician, he had parts where he diverged. From my understanding this is accurate. He didn't do anything in Selma, and MLK met with him often.
I recently saw Into the Woods...it's a story about four fairy tales combined together with a twist. I loved it. I give it a 10/10. If you like musicals, you'll like this. A lot of singing, but it just worked. :)
Saw ''The Other Woman'' with friends earlier tonight...it was HILARIOUS. I mean, I was crying I was laughing so hard.
I highly recommend... :)
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 14, 2015, 02:26:23 AM
You know, after reviewing this thread, I've realized that I consistently rate movies lower than most of you guys. Stuff that mostly gets a 10/10 or 9/10 from the crowd gets an 8/10 or a 7/10 from me. I almost never give a movie a 9/10 or 10/10, so on the rare occasions that I highly praise something, I really mean it!
I also overanalyze stuff, which tends to magnify small flaws. That and I might just be really hard to please. Dammit, I'm going to give a movie a 9/10 one of these days, it just has to earn it!
Also, I used to be funny. :(
Can you list three movies (all time) you would score 10/10?
I can list a bunch. I realize that perhaps these are just movies I really like for one reason or another and may not technically deserve a 10.
Blade runner 10/10. I've seen this movie dozens of times and I've owned it in almost every format. Lots of hidden storyline.
Forbidden Planet 10/10. Classic Sci Fi. I started watching it when we got our first TV. TV was black and white but it didn't matter. I actually have the Movie poster framed in my rec room.
The shawshank redemption 10/10. Just blew me away. I think I cheered out loud when he emerged from the tunnel of shit.
Quote from: Deidre32 on January 16, 2015, 01:00:41 AM
I recently saw Into the Woods...it's a story about four fairy tales combined together with a twist. I loved it. I give it a 10/10. If you like musicals, you'll like this. A lot of singing, but it just worked. :)
I don't mind musicals, but I can't stand the singing.
Quote from: Berati on January 17, 2015, 10:07:45 AMCan you list three movies (all time) you would score 10/10?
The aforementioned LOTR Two Towers. The Matrix. Terminator 2.
Quote from: Berati on January 17, 2015, 10:07:45 AM
Blade runner 10/10.
Definitely. I caught it when it came out on cable TV after the theaters had their shot at it. I'd never heard of it at the time. It was just something I blundered onto. Later, I was excitedly telling my sister from Chicago about this great movie I had found. Of course she knew about it, and said they were holding discussion groups around the Chicago area devoted to Blade Runner. That movie must be 30 or 40 years old, but it still deserves respect and still holds up to any of today's films.
I have tried to watch Blade Runner several times and just couldn't get through it. I will probably try again sometime but... eh...
Do androids dream of electric sheep?
Blade runner was a good movie, I'd give it an 8/10
10/10's are rare, I agree with hydra about Two Towers, definite 10/10 there. Other movies, Schindler's list would be a 9.5/10. And Empire of the sun would be a 9.8/10, if not a perfect 10
Let's Be Cops
Well, I could say it was ok.
I've been watching a BBC series called Father Brown. It's worth watching. Solitary
Expendables lll, horrible acting, just horrible….still fun to watch because why not pull every "action hero" into one crappy movie? Lousy acting….really really lousy…..but fun to watch.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 17, 2015, 10:22:27 AM
I don't mind musicals, but I can't stand the singing.
haha that might be a problem then.
on another note, I looked up the critics reviews of ''the other woman,'' and I'm starting to think I like bad movies. lol
:=P it received 23%.........
it was the funniest movie I've seen in ages. ohhh well.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 14, 2015, 02:26:23 AM
You know, after reviewing this thread, I've realized that I consistently rate movies lower than most of you guys. Stuff that mostly gets a 10/10 or 9/10 from the crowd gets an 8/10 or a 7/10 from me. I almost never give a movie a 9/10 or 10/10, so on the rare occasions that I highly praise something, I really mean it!
I also overanalyze stuff, which tends to magnify small flaws. That and I might just be really hard to please. Dammit, I'm going to give a movie a 9/10 one of these days, it just has to earn it!
Also, I used to be funny. :(
This is why I don't rate on a numerical scale.
Selma
I don't know what to think about this movie. What I can say is I didn't like it much. I'm not saying it's a bad movie by any means. I'm just saying I'm unlikely to willingly watch it again anytime soon.
I should probably start off saying I don't give a shit about the politics involved because I do not give a shit about politics, period. I went to see Malcolm X in the theaters because it was a Spike Lee movie and I hadn't seen one yet and decided to watch that one since it was the new one at the time. At the end of that movie, a woman-- one of the few other people at the screening-- applauded excitedly. This reaction puzzles me to this day because Malcolm X wasn't an exciting movie. But, she was black, so maybe I just don't understand.
I am all about story, character, performance, the art of film making. I don't care whose life is being portrayed so long as it's being made into a good movie.
I can't say with certainty what the movie gets wrong. As far as I can see, it doesn't really do anything wrong. I caught a glimpse of artistic flourishes here and there. (I gave a golf clap to a church bombing. I haven't seen a better use of shock in quite some time) But mostly I was kind of bored. It's kind of talky and dull in stretches. And I don't know why. Usually, it's because I can't follow what's going on and stuff. But I could follow what was going on. It may be just drawn out. Scenes going on for just a touch too long to be effective.
I do hope that black guys bring back that little mustache of King's.
Wreck it Ralph. Score is --ẘ̘̊rÌŠÍ–ÌŠe̼̊̃̊cÌŠÍŠÌŠkÌŠÌÌŠeÌŠÍŸÌŠd̪̊̊--
Thoroughly entertaining. The whole video game characters living outside of the game thing has been done before *coughRebootcough* but it was a really touching story about outcasts finding their place in the world and not being defined by your label. Remember, just because you're the bad guy, doesn't mean you have to be the bad guy. Unless you're Shao Kahn. I mean that guy has a skull as a helmet.
Tmnt 2014
Worse than I'd hoped. Better than I'd expected.
But still pretty bad.
I recently saw The Grand Budapest Hotel.
I don't know what score to give it because while I can see the talent involved in making this film I just couldn't get into it.
If I had to give it score based on how much I enjoyed it I'd only give it a 6/10
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs - 7/10
Despite being quite original in plot and performance, I thought it could be better in terms of unfolding the story.
I saw Fight Club yesterday and absolutely loved it.
Guardians of the Galaxy. 8/10. Great soundtrack, and my kids loved it.
(http://www.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/28/jem-holograms-casting-600x450.jpg)
This is an outrage!
American Sniper. I really don't understand the flap over this. Yes, its a war story with hero's and villains, but also shows the horror of war, the brutal cost of it. I do not see this as anti-islamic as much as a war movie. Pretty darn good, but only because it is so emotionally charged, they really spent less time with the idea of being a sniper and more being a soldier which was probably better because the portrayal of a sniper only would probably come off as really heartless. Not a bad film, probably will never watch it again because stuff like that I have no interest in seeing again. I give it 7.5
Quote from: aitm on January 25, 2015, 09:47:55 AM
American Sniper. I really don't understand the flap over this. Yes, its a war story with hero's and villains, but also shows the horror of war, the brutal cost of it. I do not see this as anti-islamic as much as a war movie. Pretty darn good, but only because it is so emotionally charged, they really spent less time with the idea of being a sniper and more being a soldier which was probably better because the portrayal of a sniper only would probably come off as really heartless. Not a bad film, probably will never watch it again because stuff like that I have no interest in seeing again. I give it 7.5
I think the flap is not over the movie as much as it is just over the flap. It seems to generate feelings about both of two opposing socio-political view points, depending on an individual's personal point of view. But that's the thing about war, any war, not just a war involving Arabs or Islam. There are always opposing points of view on going into war and the perceived motives behind it. Governments vilify the enemy, as do large cross sections of the voters, while some voters think the whole thing is misguided, based on some sort of bias. That this movie is seen in two different lights by viewers pretty much reflects the way a population views wars.
Was Kyle a hero or an asshole? That's not really the point. He was who he was. He was worshiped by some, and vilified by others. It's almost a testimony to Eastwood's story telling abilities that he creates such a mixed bag of responses.
Take the end of the movie where Kyle's funeral paints a picture of a hero. Does Eastwood tip his hand and show his personal bias when he includes this in the movie? We can't know. Whether Kyle was a hero or not, the fact remains that he had a following who thought he was. While that pisses off a lot of people, I don't think it's a reason to fault the movie as a having a flawed perspective.
Tusk
This is one weird movie. It's too weird for me to rate. Did I like it? I don't know. It's engaging and revolting at the same time. It's a sick fantasy, but you can't stop watching it. I give it a 10 for creating an unusually strong visceral response, but beyond that I dunno what to think.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 24, 2015, 12:02:11 PM
(http://www.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/28/jem-holograms-casting-600x450.jpg)
This is an outrage!
What even is this?
Quote from: Shiranu on January 25, 2015, 11:50:36 AM
What even is this?
It's the movie version of this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jem_%28TV_series%29)
Well, Transformers was a good movie. Now the girls get one.
Quote from: SGOS on January 25, 2015, 11:04:43 AM
Tusk
This is one weird movie. It's too weird for me to rate. Did I like it? I don't know. It's engaging and revolting at the same time. It's a sick fantasy, but you can't stop watching it. I give it a 10 for creating an unusually strong visceral response, but beyond that I dunno what to think.
That movie started as a joke on Kevin Smith's podcast. He then took the joke way too far and actually made the movie.
Now You See Me (Now You Don't) - This movie was a 10 for me.
It's rare that I so enjoy a movie this much. It's back again at Red Box, which mostly specializes in new releases, so others must have liked it too, although probably not as much as I did. I love this film. I can't remember it being at the theaters, and I read one review that totally trashed it. While tastes vary in film, I am stunned how anyone could not enjoy this movie.
I was completely absorbed by this story about a group of street magicians who team up and are propelled onto the national stage with the help of a mystery benefactor. While their magic tricks are wonderful, there is a clever agenda taking place behind their lavish performances. Even they are unaware of their ultimate purpose until the end.
I've watched it four times, and I'm still putting together those little things I missed along the way. Fascinating!
I remember that movie SGOS, it was a good flick.
I just watched "Lucy". I stopped it when whats-his-face said to the audience that we only use 10% of our brain and told the wife it was BS, but she actually thought they were telling the truth. But overall the movie was engaging, but the woo was a little too much. About a 3 as far as movie, but a 6 for enjoyed watching it.
Quote from: aitm on January 27, 2015, 08:23:40 AM
I just watched "Lucy"... About a 3 as far as movie, but a 6 for enjoyed watching it.
Enjoyment is what I weigh the most. I think critics weigh things like probable general appeal, the inclusion of some currently important social issue, or some insight into the human condition. While these often add something to make a movie better, I hardly weigh them in at all.
Having said that, I enjoyed Lucy in spite of the fact that it seems to have been put together by someone who didn't have a clue of how to blend reality with science to create credible science fiction, and ended up with a movie that was over the top. It was embarrassingly simple as well as flawed, but I enjoyed watching an indestructible babe smashing her way through evil doers. That I did enjoy.
The Other Woman...I thought I posted about this here, but maybe not. I'm in such a fog these days. :/
I loved this movie, absolutely hilarious! I didn't expect to enjoy it that much, but really funny. About two women, one is the wife of a cheater, the other is the mistress. The two meet up, and realize there is a third woman to contend with...and the they plot to get him back. As far as plots like that go, they're usually not my thing, at least in the sense of a comedy. I tend to like thrillers, mysteries, etc. But, this was so funny, I was crying.
I'd give it a shot if you're looking for something funny. Kind of leans more towards a chick-flick comedy, but guys might think it's funny, too. ^_^
haha I looked back a page, and I did mention The Other Woman. ^_^
The Identical 1/10
The premise of the movie had good potential, even though it was heavy handed with Christianity. It featured supporting roles by Ashley Judd and Ray Liotta, but they were acting in a stilted script. I felt sorry for them having to work in this film. The rest of the actors were unknown to me. Besides that, the movie is bad on so many levels. Two identical twins are separated at birth and each is born with musical talent, and while everything is lip sinked and not very convincing at that, it started out with some great old time rock and roll that got my juices flowing. I'm thinking, I might make it through this after all, but then the good music is replaced by some forgettable Ballad crap that doesn't work at all. It's reminiscent of early Evils Presley, with some really cheesy beach scenes that the one of the twins starred in, and the lead actor who plays both twins looks like a Presley imitator, and he gets drafted by the army. What a rip off.
The guys in the special effects studio apparently didn't know how to produce a scene where both of the twins being played by the same actor could appear on screen at the same time. When they finally meet, this problem which Hollywood does know how to deal with effectively, is just unconvincingly ignored.
The minster father thinks his son has a calling from the Lord to carry on the ministry, but the lad fights back and proves that the Lord's calling is his musical career. So everything works out according to God's will. The movie was so poorly written and directed, I'm guessing it was part of the same cheapo industry complex that has been churning out the second rate Christian movies of late, but with a slight nod to secularism. Actually, even though I knew I was taking a chance when I read the movie description before renting it, I still felt like I had been set up with a back door attempt by the Christian industry to save my soul from damnation. I could have lived with that except the movie would still have sucked anyway.
Fury…..not a bad flick, another war movie, the usual war is good, war is bad, war is righteous, war is evil stuff. I tried to pay more attention to the acting because the plot really was worn, I think Pitt did a nice job Laboof or whatever his name is was okay as a little preachy kid, some nice acting by nobodies. All in all, a nice flick when nothing else is on, its rainy or snowy and it won't get you all fired up and pumped like some other war movies so you can sleep pretty easily afterwards. About a 6 I thnk.
I enjoyed the first tank battle in the evening with the tracer fire. That scene impressed me. I wonder if it was realistic or not.
Grand Budapest Hotel 8/10. The reason is because I'm old enough to understand some of the culture around which the movie is portrayed; a turn of the century bourgeois culture being funneled against its will into the 20th century a la the upcoming war. the visible trappings of a decadent and decaying society run behind the scenes by an army of hotel managers, clerks, chefs, lobby boys, and so on. This is the era of the Orient Express that traveled from London to Istanbul, where the old rich of a dying era were traveling in utter luxury by train from one grand hotel to another. The producer/director was making a statement about that era and the death throes it was going through.
It was comedic and done with set pieces that were quite gorgeously dressed in keeping with the era. If you understand the intent of the writer and producer et al, it makes more sense. Wes Anderson also made the Royal Tenenbaums and the Aquatic Life of Steve Zissou, and Moonrise Kingdom. either you buy into his quirky premises or you don't. I like his work.
I was never aware of Wes Anderson until I saw Moonrise Kingdom, which offered a respite from the standard Hollywood formula approach. True Anderson has his own formula, very much so indeed, but it's a different formula, and I enjoy different. I liked Grand Budapest Hotel for the same reasons, and I'll be looking for more Wes Anderson in the future.
Wes Anderson's humor is so deadpan that you miss the intent sometimes There is never an outright laugh and the basis for humor is the situations, like the incidents on the train with the soldiers. But he does a good job of portraying personalities in quirky situations, and the humor works for me.
Birdman 1/10
92% at Rotten Tomatoes from critics, and 84% from audiences. I got up and left the theater mid movie, leaving a total audience of two sitting in the seats. Granted it was a Tuesday afternoon. I'm not sure what the point of the movie was, but I'm quite sure I wouldn't have cared. It was much too artsy fartsy for my tastes as it apparently tried to delve into the existential angst that all Broadway actors can relate to. The actors acted like they were acting like actors.
Each of the main characters took turns delivering those long monologues of three pages of script delivered with intense anger and indignation. This always seems so unrealistic in my opinion, but plays use the device frequently. In real life, if someone was ranting on with such intensity telling me all I ever thought about was myself, bla, bla, bla, and the world wasn't just about me, bla, bla. I would just say, "Fuck off," and leave. I'm not sure what the other actors were doing while these scenes were being filmed. Maybe they went out for snacks and returned just before whoever was firing off his turn at monologue.
Maybe someone can explain to me why this film gets such high ratings, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care, even if I understood.
Atlas Shrugged Part III 5/10
Good Grief! I might need to reread the book. I actually remember liking it, but that was many years ago. I don't remember the plot being so heavy handed. It's not unusual for Hollywood to exaggerate a message or concept, but they are usually more subtle, even attempting to be thought provoking. This brings the Libertarian ideology down like thunder with such intensity that it tends to drown out any evaluations you have going on in your head. It's Ayn Rand speaking in person: "Do not consider disagreeing with what I say. Any attempt to think on your own shall be considered an act of treasonous defiance."
Now aside from the transparent acting and the heavy handed plot, I did enjoy it, as I did the first two parts. It has a visceral appeal which I can't account for. It might have something to do with the black and white divide between good (Corporate greed in the best sense) and evil (the rest of the riff raff wanting to be fed and housed without lifting a finger). Apparently, there was nothing in between in Rand's ideology.
I would have rated it higher, just because I found enjoyment in it, but it's mostly for the niche group of Ayn Rand's followers. The fundamentals of the ideology are laid on much too thick to be seen as anything more than blatant propaganda.
Racing Hearts 9/10
I don't know whether to call it a movie about romance or pigeon racing. Both I suppose. No explosions or special effects. Just a solid movie that capitalizes on good story telling. I enjoy these kinds of movies that don't seem dependent on Hollywood formulas. I put this one off for awhile, but was delightfully surprised when I watched it tonight.
American Sniper
I oppose the war. But, I want to try to discuss the film on its own merits. Occasionally when I watch a movie, for whatever reason, I'm not able to "get into it", for lack of a better word. Obviously, whenever you watch a movie, you are, well, watching a movie. But you are supposed to, to some degree, feel as if the story is unfolding before you. But on occasion, I can't do that. I just feel like I'm watching actors saying lines. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad movie or bad acting. I'm not sure why I feel that way. But, through this movie, that is how I felt, I felt constantly aware that I was watching actors saying lines.
The Islamic enemies are portrayed one dimensional, they are just guys that have to be killed. The scenes while he is at home, you are to understand that he is becoming emotionally distant. The wife tells us this. But, I didn't feel like I was really being shown his change.
So, just from a movie perspective, I didn't particularly like it. I've seen worse. But, I can't recommend it.
Night Stalker….Holy Crap gang. Now this here is pretty fucked up, but the acting….Jake.. man,, he creeps you out within a couple minutes and it gets so bad and so creepy that you start to admire the guy. I am serious. This is a seriously wonderful script, sick, but wonderful script. You know the acting is good when the guy gives you the fucking willies. I think this is one of the best I have seen as far as acting and plot. Normally this is not my type of movie because creepy doesn't do it for me. But man, I am giving this a 10.
Jupiter Ascending - 6/10
thin plot, with spaceships and shit.
The Pink Angels (1972)
When you watch a lot of shit movies, occasionally one comes up that puzzles you for days after, perhaps forever. The Pink Angels is the latest of to do so for me. It's about a gay biker gang. beyond that, I am not sure how to describe it.
It has no plot. Anything that could have been a plot is dropped at some point when you're not looking. It's just composed of a series of things that happen. None of it adds up to anything. It doesn't say anything. It's not pro-gay. It's not anti-gay. That these bikers are homosexual is mostly used for comedy. They go into a shoe store and try on women's shoes while some old lady looks at them all shocked and shit. Yes, that kind of humor. The kind of humor that's not funny.
There are a couple threads that could have been developed into, I don't know, something but they don't. I have a theory on this which I'll get to in due time.
First thing that could have gone somewhere is there's mention of a drag ball that they're heading to. This really doesn't do much except keep them moving. But part of the reason this does not pay off is because of the baffling ending, which we'll get to.
Second is while the gay bikers (they never refer to themselves as Pink Angels in the film) are eating lunch at a rest stop picnic table (complete with table cloth, polished silverware, candles and candelabras, and champagne. Gays, amIright?) a group of straight bikers show up. They party for a bit until the straight guys pass out and the gay bikers doll them up with make-up and hair ribbons. The straight bikers act all mad about this and give chase with the stated purpose of killing them. But when they finally catch up with the gay bikers having cocktails in the hotel lounge in drag, they just sit down and talk with them and decide to go to that drag party with them.
Wait. What?
I guess they're all gay bikers? I really don't know. It isn't very clear.
There are a couple other nuggets that could have paid off. The leader of the gay bikers is apparently someone important. When they check in to their hotel, the nerdy desk clerk asks for a deposit. the leader says his signature is good enough. The clerk looks at his signature and enthusiastically agrees. So he's someone important or rich. Want to know who? So the fuck would I. This is never mentioned again.
Now we get to that fucking ending. This is going to take a bit, so stay with me.
While the nothing that happens in place of the plot unfolds, the film is intercut with scenes of this general character. His presence here is completely baffling because he doesn't have anything to do with the gays bikers or their quest to be the prettiest queen at the ball. These scenes were obviously filmed after the principle photography and added later because the movie needed a villain and shit. So this guys isn't general whatever his name is, he is the personification of "The Man" as they used to say back then. He is the establishment, the previous generation who does not understand or tolerate bikers, gay or otherwise, or anything else that might corrupt America's precious traditional values or some kind of shit.
His scenes don't do much except remind us that he's there for the most part. He does have one interesting scene where he cleans his handgun blindfolded while his secretary times him. He falls short of his own minimum time so he raises the minimum. This is kind of interesting because it's symbolic and shit. The Man is all judgmental but he can't even meet his own standards. So he's a hypocrite. It's pretty ham-fisted, but it's the only thing in this movie that has anything, and I mean anything going on beneath the surface. So I harp on it a bit.
So now we get to the ending, which I'm going to spoil in case anyone else want to see this movie and have the full impact of the ending.
[spoiler]Actually, the opening of the movie is the ending where the gay bikers in drag and their straight biker dates (one of whom is played by Dan "TV's Grizzly Adams" Haggerty) arriving at a mansion for the drag ball. There's a bunch of people here but it becomes obvious quickly this isn't the drag ball. The leader of the gay bikers takes of his wig and pulls the stuffing out of his bra shouting "Wrong wrong wrong wrong party party party party," with a cheesy echo effect. It's a weird place to start the movie, but it's all we get of the original ending before the general's scenes were added. So many questions unanswered. So many plot thread that do not pay off.
At the end, they arrive at the mansion but once inside one of the gay bikers is ushered into the general's office because he was the only actor who wasn't doing anything that Saturday. The general can't tell he's a dude until he takes his wig and reveal long hippy hair that was longer than the wig he was wearing, which spoils the effect. The general exclaims "faggots!" as if the very presence of homosexuals in the same room makes him rock hard. Then in the final shot, we see the general standing outside his mansion and all the gay bikers are being hanged from a tree!
Well, it's a bunch of fake-looking dummies that are wearing similar clothes. This is quite a sharp left turn for an otherwise light movie where we mostly see the spectacle of a gay dudes acting like stereotypes. I guess this is a convention of the biker movie genre since Easy Rider, which I haven't seen. [/spoiler]
In the final analysis, The Pink Angles is not a very good movie. It's interesting from a political standpoint in that back then gay, transvestite, transsexual, etc were all lumped into one because even sleazy exploitation filmmakers didn't understand the different hues of the homo rainbow and probably didn't care to educate the masses even if they did. Kind of like listening to old episodes of Amos and Andy in regards to civil rights.
Most of the running time is fluff that goes nowhere with the few potential plot points unresolved because of the added scenes and ending. So it becomes a mystery where those things were originally going and how bad they were that they completely changed the ending to a total downer.
Star Trek… I admit a heavy bias as I grew up with the series and was always partial to the movies despite them being..er…..not so good, but I love this one, the "into the darkness" not so much but this one I love. The idea of presenting it as an alternative universe is a spectacularly obvious choice to maintain the original idea without infringing upon it. I truly enjoy watching this with enthusiasm. To me it is an 15/10. And if you disagree,,,,,fuck off.
Watched "The Imitation Game" which was about Turing.
Excellent movie. Recommend watching it; you will not be disappointed.
They really brought to life the heartaches, triumphs, and injustices that Turing had endured. How he managed to keep it together is an enigma in itself. The man was awkward, but a hero nonetheless. He deserved better from the world.
Citizen Four (the Edward Snowden documentary)
I'm not going to rate this like i would a movie, but I found it gripping and well put together. For your own opinion, you can watch it here
http://www.anonsweden.se/?p=6925
Whiplash 6/10
OK, that's not a very high score, but the movie has some good things in it. If you have an interest in movies about music, the story of this young drummer might interest you. Of all the instruments, I don't have a lot of interest in drums, but given that almost every modern band has a drummer regardless of what other instruments compose the make up of the band, the drums are important, and some drummers occasionally catch my attention. The movie ends with a long drum solo that knocked my socks off. That was worth the rental price at Redbox.
The plot is an old worn out formula pitting good against evil, and there is no subtlety in the good and evil, as the movie exaggerates the evil to the point where it becomes unrealistic, almost bordering on absurd. It's as if the director was trying to hard to make a point. When a character is being a jerk, he's a jerk more than he needs to be. I wanted to say, "Yeah, OK, OK. I get it. This guy is a jerk." That and the fact that the plot is based on a time worn formula, are the weak points.
Having pointed that out, this film held my attention, and offered some nice surprises along the way. I liked the big band jazz music, and the drummer was excellent.
Night Club (1989)
(https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w500/uY4L6y4yKjmvMi5eyyHANNBZ1UM.jpg)
I....
Every once in a while, I come across a a movie that utterly baffles me.
I could not tell you what happens in this movie.
Wait, I should explain that a bit. I can tell you what happens in this movie in that it's about a guy who wants to open a night club in an old industrial building with his (fingerquotes) "hot" new wife. He runs into a snag when there is toxic waste in the building and he's having trouble either getting it cleaned up or just making the bank take back the property and refund his money. This is bad for him because he had borrowed money from a mob guy to buy the place and he's putting the squeeze on our hero to get his money back. Tensions mount and then his wife leaves him and things somehow work out and he gets his night club.
That all happens in the movie, but I can't tell you what of that actually happens in the movie because the movies is made out of dream sequences.
I am not kidding. There appear to be dream sequences piled on top of dream sequences. I do not know what actually happens here. It's also why I said "things somehow work out" earlier because at that point, I had no idea what was going on.
The film is framed with scenes of the guy after he has his club up and running, so most of the running time is a flashback after he receives a letter from his estranged wife as he remembers everything that happened with trying to open the club. Early on there are weird editing choices. There is a scene where they first go to the building for the club after they'd bought it and suddenly it's months later and obviously things aren't going well. It's a jarring transition that would have been a minor mistake in a better movie. Here, it becomes a running theme.
At first I wasn't even sure if there were dream sequences and I thought he was just having an affair with a woman who happened to look like his wife. I wasn't even sure if she was played by the same actress or played by a similar-looking talentless bimbo. He called her by a different name, so I was confused until the end credits confirmed it was the same actress.
I fear I may be making this movie sound more fun than it is, though. If I were to tell you that at one point he comes home (he and his wife are living in the industrial building full of toxic waste because it's unsafe to have a night club here, but perfectly fine to live there. And no, the hallucinations are not explained by this) to find a blow up doll on the ceiling, which then floats to the floor that turns into the dream woman, you might thing that's pretty amazing, right?
Well, it isn't. It's dull.
No wait. It's DULL.
I can't even begin to express how dreary this movie is. I only noticed it was mostly dream sequences after I hadn't been paying attention for a while and suddenly realized I didn't understand what the fuck was happening. So I backed up and tried to pay better attention. I have wasted my life.
So in the end, it's just not a good movie. It's boring and only noteworthy for it's bizarre dream-ladened narrative and boobs. Not nearly enough boobs to make it worth it.
Left Behind... shit movie, shit script, shit acting, and nicholas cage.. 1/10
I pray to god you didn't pay money to see that movie.
No mate, i was browsin movietube the other nite an i thought i would give it a wee watch, i was drunk but thats no excuse, nearly 2hours of my life gone for ever, iv'e seen a coupla nick cage movies that have been ok but this was really dire.................ill know better next time hopefully. :shifty:
Cage is really the human embodiment of "hit or miss".
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on February 21, 2015, 06:55:13 PM
American Sniper
I oppose the war. But, I want to try to discuss the film on its own merits. Occasionally when I watch a movie, for whatever reason, I'm not able to "get into it", for lack of a better word. Obviously, whenever you watch a movie, you are, well, watching a movie. But you are supposed to, to some degree, feel as if the story is unfolding before you. But on occasion, I can't do that. I just feel like I'm watching actors saying lines. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad movie or bad acting. I'm not sure why I feel that way. But, through this movie, that is how I felt, I felt constantly aware that I was watching actors saying lines.
The Islamic enemies are portrayed one dimensional, they are just guys that have to be killed. The scenes while he is at home, you are to understand that he is becoming emotionally distant. The wife tells us this. But, I didn't feel like I was really being shown his change.
So, just from a movie perspective, I didn't particularly like it. I've seen worse. But, I can't recommend it.
I just saw this last night. Or most of it anyway. I didn't make it to the end. It's rare I don't finish a movie and don't care.
I completely agree with your review. Normally, I cry at the drop of a hat in movies, and they don't have to subscribe to my own belief system to do so (Ala the fairly religious Le Miserables, I still bawl like a baby at the end, even though I obviously don't think that is what is going to happen when we die). If a movie is well done, I'm still able to sympathize with the characters, or at least feel SOMETHING about the story being told.
American Sniper was, simply put, not a good movie. It's bland, everything is very black and white. Or brown and white, as the case may be. Like CAF says, the Arabs are all one dimensional bad guys, not a one of them ever turns out to be anything but a bad guy. The hero is also very one dimensional. His wife and friends do (very, very briefly) say things indicating they aren't all gung-ho for the war, but none of that ever penetrates super snipers thick skull. He's got his duty, and he does it without much (if any?) hesitation. And he's always, always right. He never makes a mistake. Even Superman makes mistakes! Tha'ts why people love Superman, he's still human and errs.
Perhaps that is what I found boring about the movie, the complete lack of any moral ambiguity or real humanity out of the main character. I'd like to make it clear this is not the actor's fault, it is the way the character is written, and apparently the way the book is as well. Why he even has to see a councilor when he gets home is a mystery to me that makes no sense based on the rest of the movie. He doesn't seem to doubt himself or what he's done at all, ever. Why is he there? This entire part of the plot reads as false, inserted to try and add depth to the main character, but is transparent as a plot device to gain the audience sympathy and nothing more.
This movie is about a superhuman sniper who never makes mistakes, a great hero doing great things to protect his great country, that's it. There is no more substance here than that.
I missed the final bit of the movie, my daughter woke up crying, and I had to go tend to her. I told my husband to leave the movie going, I didn't care if I missed the end.
No out of 10 rating, but I don't recommend it either.
Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters.
"Whatever you do, don't eat the fucking candy."
- Hansel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9246msCh7x4
Hoooboy, where to start with this one! First off, I knew exactly what I was getting into. I knew it was bad, but I wasn't sure if it'd be so bad it's good or so bad it's horrible. The first half is just plain awful, but it did build up to actually pretty thrilling action scenes. All it all, it falls more on the so bad it's good side.
It's a completely braindead movie along the same lines as Doom or 300. If you're looking for something other than action and spectacle, you're not gonna find it. It's like John Carpenter's Vampires with witches instead of vampires.
Fun facts:
* Hawkeye is Hansel. Jean Grey is a witch.
* Surprisingly Wraith-like witches and holding pens. The Stargate Atlantis people should sue. :P
* Everyone casually cusses and uses modern lingo like "that was awesome!".
* The weapons are absolutely ridiculous for the time period. For any time period. We're talking automatic dual crossbows, some sort of collapsible rifle, and even a minigun in a setting where the primary building material is wood. WTF.
* Midget witches are called mitches. Or at least, they should be.
* Nude bathing scene. Bow chicka bow wow. (hat tip to SGOS)
* Gretel is served some porridge that is "just right". *groans*
* No breadcrumbs, Gretel? *sad face*
* Witches fly through the dense forest instead of over it like Endor-based stormtroopers, with similar results.
Drinking game:
* Take a shot whenever Hansel or Gretel is knocked unconscious, when Hansel falls down, or someone says the word witch.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 03, 2015, 11:08:23 PM
If you're looking for something other than action and spectacle, you're not gonna find it. It's like John Carpenter's Vampires with witches instead of vampires.
Edit Fun facts:
Don't forget the scene of bathing with the "good" witch in the magic healing pool. OK, that's not a fact, but it's at least worth the price of the rental. I wish that scene would have lasted a few more seconds, though, or maybe just rent a continuous loop of that 5 seconds of erotic bliss that lasts for an hour. And I'd pay $1.50 to see Gemma Arterton (Gretel) even with her clothes on.
Just saw the Babadook. Whatever expectations I had for the movie was turned on its head, what I thought would be a general monster movie, turned into something very deep, relatable, intense and altogether a very human movie/ Essie Davis' role in this was some of the best acting I've seen in a horror movie in a long, long time, I was on the edge of my seat because of her role.
Great movie, might not be for everyone, but if you take what this movie aimed to be instead of what you expected it to be, your realize how good it is.
Foxcatcher 8/10
Back in the late 80s or early 90s John Dupont, heir to the Dupont fortune, shot and killed an Olympic wrestler who was living and training on his estate. I remember the incident, but didn't follow the story closely enough to know many details. It received quite a bit of news coverage. It was rumored (or perhaps decided. I can't remember) that Dupont was off his rocker. This is the account of that very disturbing story.
Steve Carrel plays John Dupont. It's the first time I've seen him in a serious role, and it was indeed serious. I think he may have smiled once in the film. In fact, his character scared me a little. He played an eccentric who didn't try to act intimidating or tough, but was weird enough to be frightened of, and he played the role well. Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo also star.
Cinderella (2015) 9/10
It lags for the first 20 minutes. I usually prefer the original Disney frame by frame animation, rather than live actors, but I liked this one. Stays pretty close the original Disney script. Has a lot of poignant moments, and is the quintessential happy movie. I usually get pissed off by people talking in the theater, but of course this is a children's story, and I rather enjoyed those little voices expressing wonder at various times during the movie.
Vice 7/10
I'm thought the 40 year old movie Westworld (Yule Brenner, Richard Benjamin, and James Brolin) was a wonderful movie built on the Michael Crichton plot of a theme park gone berserk, and I wished there would have been more of it. Vice at first seems like a ripoff of Westworld, but soon takes a slight twist and presents the same situation but more from the perspective of the androids than the guests of the park. I gave it points just because I loved seeing more of the Westworld scenario. It had lots more potential that wasn't developed, however, and I thought the characters were a bit wooden. I don't think it's as good as Westworld, which I'd recommend before this movie, even though Westworld was made in 1973.
Blackmail (1927)
The boxed set of cheapo DVDs I've been watching boast 20 classic films directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock is one of those directors whose work I have not seen. Not much, anyway. So this is a nice opportunity. Most, nay, all of it is his early work. Nothing older than 1940. It's got several of his silent flicks. It's educational.
The film in question today made me realize something: Alfred Hitchcock was the Michael Bay of his day. The scene that made me realize this was when the titular blackmailer flee from the police in the British Museum. Why in the museum? So we can have an exciting chase sequence in an exotic location. That's why, motherfucker. In the rough outline, it probably just said something like "the blackmailer is killed while trying to escape the police." In fact, the whole chase probably happened off-stage in the original play. But here we get a ten minute sequence that isn't very good, either because they actually filmed it in the museum and were limited in where they could film or this was on sets and were even more limited. In either case, the British Museum is an unimpressive-looking place. Just a bunch of boxy glass cabinets containing things you can't really make out in long shot.
But there are differences between Bay and Hitchcock. For one, Hitchcock gives a shit about telling a good story. Or at least telling a mediocre story well.
I am reminded of the 2005 film Derailed starring Clive Owen and Jennifer Anisto that was also about blackmail. Owen plays a sad sack who nearly starts an affair with some woman he meets on the bus, only they get attacked and robbed while they're in the hotel and then the robber starts blackmailing them both. So for a decent chunk of the running time, we have to watch this sad sack get toyed with by the blackmailer. That kind of shit pisses me off. I just can't stand that kind of shit. It's not entertaining to me. It's the opposite. I do not hate it, because hate is an attracting force. I loathe it. I find it repellant. And ultimately boring because nothing new is really happening. The whole movie is twiddling its thumbs until the unbelievable resolution. Why I watched the whole thing puzzles me in hindsight. Must have been married, I guess. She would have me watch all kinds of horrible shit with her.
Blackmail, on the other hand, does not have the blackmailer show up until nearly an hour into the film and then less than fifteen minutes later, the tables are turned on him and he has to go run into a museum and die.
That said, it's not a particularly interesting film. The plot isn't, I mean. These days that sort of thing has been done to death, see the above mentioned Derailed. The lead actress is not very good. I found her shrill and annoying rather than sympathetic. The only interesting thing she did was right after she'd killed her near-rapist, she's standing there in her underwear still holding the knife in a daze. It's a nice still photo, but this is supposed to be a motion picture.
Blackmail is historically significant in being Britain's first "talkie" according to Wikipedia. Also according to Wikipedia, it started as a silent production and switched to talkie later. This was obvious during the opening scene where the girl's police detective helps bust some guy for having a criminally bad comb over. This action-packed opening is also reminiscent of Michael Bay since it has fuck-all to do with the rest of the film. The whole sequence is done silently, making me think this was another silent film until the dialog started in a later scene. During this Hitchcock use an interesting technique used to add dialog to a silent picture.
You see, silent films weren't silent as they had a musical score but without dialog because they had trouble synchronizing the sound with the image. (this was an element in the film Singing In the Rain) While some theater smay have lacked a way to play recorded sound and would have a musician play along with the film (as seen in The Three Amigos, of all things) others could and dialog could be played as easily as any other sound.
In this case, Hitchcock filmed his actors from the back so you could not see their faces while the dialog was played. It still doesn't work very well, but it got the job done.
All in all, it's a nice enough film but probably not a very memorable one beyond the observations I've listed here.
I saw several films on an international flight.
John Wick 3/10
I'm surprised it got 83% on the Tomato Meter. I thought it was pretty crappy. Keanu Reeves is some badass assassin who left the business to have a normal life with a wife. The wife dies. The son of his former boss kills the dog his wife got him. So, of course, he has to go kill everybody in his former organization. When his boss explains who this John Wick is to his son, the son says, "who is this guy, the Boogie Man?" The father says, no, Wick is the guy the Boogie Man is afraid of. Uh, yeah....
The Equalizer 8/10
This one got 61% which seems low to me. It's another "former assassin who left the business gets back in business again". Except Denzel Washington is more fun to watch than Keanu Reeves. And, apparently, his character was always a good guy badass instead of a bad guy badass. So, he finds himself platonic friends with a hooker (Chloe Grace Moretz) that gets beat up by her bosses. When he goes to protect her, he gets more than he bargained for...
High Noon. 5/10
A classic, highly regarded western that I had never seen before. I didn't feel it aged well. Maybe great for its time, but, not very sophisticated. The bad guy is a guy that was previously apprehended by the hero. Originally sentenced to die. Sent up north where his punishment was first downgraded to life. Then pardoned after 5 years. (Damn northern liberals, LOL) So, he comes to town with revenge on his mind. In a plot contrivance, the hero just got married to a pacifist Quaker and retired. And the new marshal wasn't due in town until the next day. So, for a day, the town was to be without an official marshal. When news breaks that bad guy is coming to town, he un-retires even though his new wife says she will leave him and leave town on the next train if he does so.
One plot point that just drove me crazy the whole movie... We're told that the bad guy and his gang are coming in on the noon train. Uh, no, they are already at the town's train station and for some reason are merely waiting until the noon train to come in before walking into town. In fact, for a while, the wife and the bad guys are all at the train station. She's there because she says she is leaving on the noon train. And them, just waiting for the noon train for no explicable reason. Did I miss some plot point there???? The whole movie I was saying "what the fuck are the bad guys waiting for???" Drove me crazy. Did I miss something?
So, the noon train comes. That is the queue for the bad guys to walk into town to try to kill the marshal. The bad guys are just plain one-dimensional bad guys that inexplicably like to wait at train stations. The hero had tried to find people to help take out the bad guys. Several people had said yes, but back out. So, he has to take on the bad guys by himself. Though his pacifist wife winds up successfully shooting one. Even though she presumably never shot a gun in her life. Bad guys die. Movie ends. Hope I didn't spoil anything.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on March 24, 2015, 06:46:06 PM
High Noon. 5/10
A classic, highly regarded western that I had never seen before. I didn't feel it aged well. Maybe great for its time, but, not very sophisticated.
I actually saw that in the theaters when it first came out. Mostly, I remember going to movies with my little friends. This is one of the few movies that I saw with my family. This thing was hyped big. Maybe mostly by my father; I'm not sure. It may have won an award. I was excited to see it. My father even more so. Afterwards, my father talked about how good it was. It was about cowboys, so I liked it pretty much, but apparently not as much as my father. I rented it a few years ago from Netflix. I have no idea why the movie got so much acclaim. I think maybe it had something to do with Gary Cooper and the theme song.
Snow White and the Huntsman. 6/10
Cheap, subpar entertainment, I enjoyed my coffee more than this movie ... mmmmm coffee.
6/10 seems high for a movie that you really didn't seem to like at all...
Quote from: SGOS on March 24, 2015, 07:58:06 PM
I actually saw that in the theaters when it first came out. Mostly, I remember going to movies with my little friends. This is one of the few movies that I saw with my family. This thing was hyped big. Maybe mostly by my father; I'm not sure. It may have won an award. I was excited to see it. My father even more so. Afterwards, my father talked about how good it was. It was about cowboys, so I liked it pretty much, but apparently not as much as my father. I rented it a few years ago from Netflix. I have no idea why the movie got so much acclaim. I think maybe it had something to do with Gary Cooper and the theme song.
Tex Ritter theme song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX0RakvyZ1I
High Noon was just a vehicle to get Cooper an Oscar. Good gritty drama, but simplistic by today's standards.
Quote from: stromboli on March 25, 2015, 12:31:01 AM
High Noon was just a vehicle to get Cooper an Oscar. Good gritty drama, but simplistic by today's standards.
Fair enough. But, I'm still mind boggled about why we were told the bad guys were coming in on the noon train when they were at the local train station the whole time and simply walked into town when the noon train came. I'm still utterly baffled unless there was some plot point I missed...
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on March 24, 2015, 11:43:35 PM
6/10 seems high for a movie that you really didn't seem to like at all...
My scale is logarithmic.
Netflix recommends that I watch "God is Not Dead" with Kevin Sorbo because of my interest in Breaking Bad... am I missing a connection here?
However, with an average of 4.2 stars, they think I'll rate it 2.7. But, I watched the Bible Reloaded review and think I don't have to bother watching the whole thing.
Who wants to film God is Not Not Dead with me? We'll do a scene by scene reshoot with a Christian strawman played by... who's the opposite of Kevin Sorbo? Elvira? Sarah Silverman? ...yeah, one of those two.
Nudity? See, there's the problem. If you made a movie with copious nudity people would watch it. Make sure it is guilt laden, like the Cecil B. DeMille movies of yore. Lots of skin, gyrating dancers, all kinds of implied sininining, women moaning and orgasming off camera, make it all evil with the obligatory redemption at the end. I swear I'd watch it.
And fuck Kevin Sorbo.
I watched a stack of movies on an international flight. A couple of movies that should appeal to your inner geek:
The Theory of Everything. 9.5/10
Fantastic. Can't say enough about this. Loved it. Loved it. Loved it. It is about Stephen Hawking's life. It is more about his personal life. The actor playing Hawking did a great job of portraying him loosing his muscular control. It reminded me of My Left Foot. There was some religious discussion. His girlfriend is a Christian. She had a cute comeback, at least in her dialog in the movie. Since most religious comebacks are crappy, I have to give some props for the writer of the one line. (Or of the girlfriend if it really happened that way...) Minor little spoiler:
[spoiler]The girlfriend asks why he doesn't believe in God. He responds, "physicists can't have their equations muddied up with supernatural agents." The girlfriend retorts, "that sounds more like an argument against physicists than against God"[/spoiler]
The Imitation Game 9/10
I loved this also. Just a touch less than The Theory of Everything. But, almost as good. I understand it takes fairly significant liberties with the actual history for dramatic effect. But, it at least in board strokes it tells the story of Alan Turing and his breaking of the German Enigma code in WWII. Stars Bennidict Cumberbach (sp?) as Turing. Turing was gay and he eventually committed suicide.
Fury 7/10
WWII film about the final days of the war. Pitt is the commanding officer in a tank within Germany pushing back against the weakening German defenses. Very well filmed. I read on Wikipedia that the actors went through 4 months of preparation including a week of boot camp run by real Navy Seals. And the directory made them live in the tank for extended periods, eating, sleeping, shitting in the tank. It used real working WWII tanks for the filming. But it seemed to not have a real point, other than "war is hell". I'd say its worth watching. Its not particularly gory, but, there is pretty intense war violence depicted.
There was actually a fourth film I saw on that 14 hour flight, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. I remember thinking it was good, but, with the 3 above sticking in my mind, the fourth just completely eludes me... LOL
Interstellar with whats his face,,,,you know the voice of that car guy,,Mccannaehy or whatever, anyhow,,,,a nice flick kinda sciencey that goes off into human emotion as the base of the entire fuckin universe,,,so,,,,,,,meh. Still a nice watch and all, if you can remove the realization that space has no gravity so some of the gyrations they go through are for drama,,,but…meh,,,,,still HEY! its okay……about a 5 outa 10 until the woo then it drops.
Quote from: aitm on April 04, 2015, 10:14:27 PM
Interstellar with whats his face,,,,you know the voice of that car guy,,Mccannaehy or whatever, anyhow,,,,a nice flick kinda sciencey that goes off into human emotion as the base of the entire fuckin universe,,,so,,,,,,,meh. Still a nice watch and all, if you can remove the realization that space has no gravity so some of the gyrations they go through are for drama,,,but…meh,,,,,still HEY! its okay……about a 5 outa 10 until the woo then it drops.
I actually got into an argument with my husband over weather or not there is really woo in this movie or not.
Fact, they went to great lengths to get the science (mostly) right. A physicist worked heavily on the script, as well as many other professional collaborations.
As to the woo stuff?
[spoiler]I thought the same about the love stuff, crossing time and whatever. But my husband said first, it sounds nice and appeals to the masses, but the MESSAGE of the movie is not that. Love is not magic, it simply focuses one's mind on the subject of that emotion, like any other strong emotion. The construct the others opened, he just filtered it with his thoughts, which happened to be about his daughter for very realistic reasons. That was simply the filter through which he viewed the construct.
The message of the movie, the things that saves mankind is NOT love or magic or god or woo....it's science. Without understanding the full nature of gravity, no amount of love would have saved anyone. They needed a LOT of very advanced science even for plan B.
So I thought about it, and I agree. It's just a message of hope, and one of fear, too. We can and will reach the point in that movie someday, for real. But will we secretly be using science to plan to save the world? Or will we dismantle NASA and abandon our scientific advancements (like SOME people want us to?) and the possible future of mankind? People are pushing for that. [/spoiler]
So IMO, this movie was PRO SCIENCE and kind of specifically PRO NASA, which I agree with fully. We always need to look forward to the future with hope, to explore the next horizon.
Anyway, Michael Caine (one of my favorite actors of all time) reciting Do Not Go Gently with the fate of the entire race in the balance was one of the most beautiful moments in movie history for me.
At any rate, I totally disagree. 10/10. check out their special feature on the science of Interstellar. It's out on DVD now so you might be able to find the special feature...out in the nets.
It might change your mind a bit. :)
I thought the ending of Interstellar, whether you call it "woo" or not, was too silly. It was good up to that.
But, the fourth movie I saw on the plane, how could I forget!
Gone Girl 7/10
I enjoyed it a lot. And there was some T&A in the movie, that was blurred on the airplane screen. Dammit. Though I didn't really care for the ending. I guessed who the primary villain was, but, I think that you probably were supposed to. But, the story doesn't even really get twisted until after the villain is revealed. After that it gets really twisted. Its a David Fincher film. LOL It has Neil Patrick Harris in a small role. He's not really like his Barney Stintson character. But, his character here is also straight. And when we see his high tech residence it did make me think of Barney. LOL.
The basic premise, if you haven't heard, is that Nick Dunne's (Ben Affleck) wife goes missing. Most people thought they had a happy marriage. But as the investigation proceeds, it seems it wasn't so happy after all. And maybe Nick killed her.
I just watched Interstellar last night, and thought it was OK. Some of the character development and the science fiction required me to stretch my imagination too much, but I did like it better than when I saw it the first time at the theater, when I was more or less unimpressed. The intersection of the dimensions was depicted in a way that didn't make sense to me: You can't talk to people in other dimensions, but you can communicate with them by moving small objects around in mysterious ways. Why can you do one thing, but not the other?
I understand not going anywhere without leaving something behind, but sacrificing crew members to change a circumstance with no guarantee that things will work out favorably, was just weird. It reminded me of Dorothy leaving Oz by deciding all she had to do was click her heels together: "Lets see we are stuck in space, and maybe I can kill another crew member to get me home, or alternately, I could try clicking my heels together. I think I'll try killing another crew member first."
The Rewrite 8/10
Showed up at the Redbox last week, with Hugh Grant and Marissa Tomei. I wouldn't call it a romantic comedy, although it has elements of one. It's very light. I enjoyed being entertained without having to do a lot of deep thinking. It's just fun. Hugh Grant plays his usual Hugh Grant character. Marissa Tomei shines.
Skammerens Datter (Shamer's Daughter) - 5/10
Pretty boring fantasy film about a girl and her mother with the gift to ... shame people and able to detect shame in people or some shit. Was pretty original angle, but the cinematography was amateurish at best.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on March 24, 2015, 06:46:06 PM
High Noon. 5/10
A classic, highly regarded western that I had never seen before. I didn't feel it aged well. Maybe great for its time, but, not very sophisticated. The bad guy is a guy that was previously apprehended by the hero. Originally sentenced to die. Sent up north where his punishment was first downgraded to life. Then pardoned after 5 years. (Damn northern liberals, LOL) So, he comes to town with revenge on his mind. In a plot contrivance, the hero just got married to a pacifist Quaker and retired. And the new marshal wasn't due in town until the next day. So, for a day, the town was to be without an official marshal. When news breaks that bad guy is coming to town, he un-retires even though his new wife says she will leave him and leave town on the next train if he does so.
Next time, try Outland.
Quote from: stromboli on April 01, 2015, 10:30:37 PM
Nudity? See, there's the problem. If you made a movie with copious nudity people would watch it. Make sure it is guilt laden, like the Cecil B. DeMille movies of yore. Lots of skin, gyrating dancers, all kinds of implied sininining, women moaning and orgasming off camera, make it all evil with the obligatory redemption at the end. I swear I'd watch it.
And fuck Kevin Sorbo.
Yeah. I think a lot of nudity will work for my movie. But, I'm not too sure about the Kevin Sorbo being fucked scene... but, I'll put it in there for you. What should be fucking him? Horse?
Tremors... all fucking four of them.
Finally got around to watching all four Tremors movies. The first one is a classic, the others not so much.
The original Tremors, for those who haven't seen it, and if you haven't stop reading this and go watch it right the fuck now. Jesus. Anyway, if you haven't seen it, it's a movie where Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward play two dimwitted handymen in a tiny Nevada desert town that gets attacked by giant underground monsters. Now go fucking watch it.
For the rest of us, the movie is brilliant because it does two things well. The first is it slowly reveals the monsters over time and the nature of the monsters keep us thinking the wrong thing so that more can be revealed. This keeps the mystery going and fresh for a decent chunk of the movie. The second is it establishes these characters are dumb, but they need to think their way out of their situation. They whole movie is they get into one situation, and then have to come up with a plan to get out of it. This was a delicate balancing act to have the characters do dumb, even childish things yet make it believable that they could think their way out of the situation.
Less successful were all of the sequels, even beyond the constraints of much smaller budgets for effects and actors. Part of it is I think the writers were working on the script for over a decade before the movie actually got made. Writer S. S. Wilson mentions that the original title was Land Shark until the SNL sketch forced him to come up with a new title. That was 1975. So the first film had a very nice polish that can only come from years of tinkering. It didn't hurt that they simply had better actors, either.
The sequels were made much, much more quickly and it shows. The scripts have some shining moments but most of the humor is more dumb than funny and the cleverness is more than a bit lacking, probably hitting a low point in the third movie when a new life stage for the monsters is christened "ass blasters." *sigh*
Overall, the sequels are enjoyable if disposable. I'll probably forget I saw the third one by tomorrow morning and in two weeks I'll remember I saw the fourth one but forget most of what happens in it.
So it's yet another unnecessary franchise that would have been better if it were just one movie, see also Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Matrix, Star Wars, and The Miracle Worker.
After seeing the first movie, I thought what would have been a good idea for a sequel would be to have Bacon and Ward's characters in another place dealing with a new monster. I thought an underwater monster would be a good way to go and call it Undertow or something stupid like that. Oh well.
I just watched Seventh Son wi jeff bridges an whatshisface who plays John Snow in Game of Thrones, he dies right at the beginning bythway, anyhow , Bridges plays the Gandalf type character who's fighting the Evil Witch and other assorted Demons & Witches etc...
it was nobad ah must say, but Bridges daft accent sounded like a cross between Welsh & Heavy Devon, but apart from that it was ok. ill give it 7/10.
Russell Crowe: Noah... so, it's on Netflix. I read the reviews and people were complaining that it doesn't match the source material. So, I'm going to watch it.
I'm crossing my fingers and sacrificing a goat so that it turns out halfway entertaining.
Confirmed at only eight minutes into it.
(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/southpark/images/f/f6/TerranceandPhillipMovieTrailer01.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100315040547)
Surprising primary conflict in Noah:
[spoiler]The primary conflict in the story is finding Noah's three sons wives capable of giving birth...[/spoiler]
We Need to Talk About Kevin - 9/10
This movie is just...good. The acting is amazing, the premise never feels forced or as though it has a politicized message at all, which is a real feat once you realize what the premise really is.
Tilda Swinton is a good actress, but this is the best I've ever seen her.
The Hobbit: Battle of the Nine Armies, or Five Armies, or something. 1/10
What a pointless movie. The story had been told, but they still made another two hours of hacking Orcs and slashing gobblins. By the middle of the movie, I was so bored with an hour of hacking and slashing that I skipped ahead a half hour, and they are still hacking away on the same movie set, a castle up in the high mountains of New Zealand. Everybody kills 10 Orcs in rapid succession, but suddenly someone gets pooped and is in trouble. A friend comes to the rescue (every now and then a particularly troublesome Orc shows up). Now the helpful friend is subdued and is just about to get killed, but a surprise attack from an elf or wizard kills the Orc in the nick of time. Over and Over. Each main character gets in trouble but is saved at the last second by repeating the sequence. This drags on for what seems like most of the movie.
Finally I skipped to the end, and Bilbo is returning home in what is actually a welcomed, and compared to the rest of the film, a delightful 5 minutes before the final credits, which to me were more interesting than the movie itself.
1/10? Wow... I haven't seen the movie yet. But, I'm sure the production was well done with a decent score. That alone should be worth 2 or 3 points. But then again, we don't have an established rating scale with weighting.
The scenery was spectacular, and the village sets were charming, but the plot was non existent for the most part. It was just fighting. As far as I could tell, what little there was of the plot was unnecessary to support the battle scenes. I'm probably the exception. I kind of enjoyed the first Hobbit movie, but couldn't get into the others at all.
I didn't get much out of the Lord of Rings either. It's odd because I loved the book (The Hobbit) and I very much enjoyed The Trilogy that followed.
So what are 5 armies going to do, knit booties?
They could be more like real armies, with a lot of brass making dumb ass decisions, backed by politicians swaggering around in front of the public, and pandering to the egos of voters.
Watched Night and Day again, its a fun movie, got good action of course (mostly unbelievable) but Diaz and Cruise play well off each other. A nice fun movie when there is nothing else you want to watch. 5
Captain America: Winter Soldier. It was okay. Great action, but the rest of it was sorta luckluster verging on bad. Out of uniform, I honestly had a really difficult time believing that was Cap and that was Black Widow. No wonder they gave the bad guys the slip.
Bucky was awesome. No dialogue, just badassery. Villainous to the core. Then, in one scene, he turns good(ish). Wow, that was sudden.
The abandoned but completely still functioning apparently sentient mainframe really threw me for a loop. I mean, there's so much wrong with that sentence... Oh, and its tape drives are USB compatible, because why not. And then Black Widow yanks the thing out without hitting eject first. At least a couple times. Good thing there's nothing important on that drive, because doing that risks damaging the data on the thumb drive.
Penguins of Madagascar - 8/10
Fun entertainment, pretty good despite the sorta loose plot.
Quote from: SGOS on April 25, 2015, 10:41:01 PM
It's odd because I loved the book (The Hobbit) and I very much enjoyed The Trilogy that followed.
IIRC in the book, we don't get to see much of the fight. Bilbo gets knocked out during the first charge and find out what happened after he comes to.
Personally, I disliked the idea of the Hobbit movies when I heard it was going to be two movies, much less three. the story just isn't strong enough to hold that all up.
I saw about half the first movie and had to stop due to outside circumstances and never went back to see the rest because I thought it was a load of cold hamster vomit. It just cemented into place that prequels are a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea.
Most people watched the Hobbit for revisitng the Middle Earth and they knew that. That's why I enjoyed it too honestly, I never expected something really good. Dwarves...and Martin Freeman was enough for me as young Bilbo. I liked the casting. still too pretty, but hey could have been worse. I also wanted to slap Legolas in a few scenes.
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Saw it last night. Honestly, I enjoy superhero movies. But, for the most part, they are forgetable. A few, like The Dark Knight, stuck with me for longer. But that's a rare exception. This one was fine entertainment for a couple of hours. But, very forgetable. David Spade does good vocal work as Ultron. Makes for a pretty good villain. As everybody knows, this one has many many characters. Pepper Potts is mentioned by Tony Stark a few times, but doesn't appear.
Ultimately, if you like these kinds of movies, you'll probably like this one. If you don't in general, this probably won't be the exception.
Minor spoiler regarding IM3 continuity: [spoiler]At end of IM3, Tony Stark destroyed, supposedly, all of his Ironman suits. For Pepper Potts. We of course knew that wouldn't last. But, they didn't even deal with that at all. Tony Stark is just back to being Ironman. I seem to remember Joss Whedon saying that the IM3 ending left him with a problem to deal with. I guess he just decided not to.[/spoiler]
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 01, 2015, 11:35:27 AM
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Saw it last night. Honestly, I enjoy superhero movies. But, for the most part, they are forgetable. A few, like The Dark Knight, stuck with me for longer. But that's a rare exception. This one was fine entertainment for a couple of hours. But, very forgetable. David Spade does good vocal work as Ultron. Makes for a pretty good villain. As everybody knows, this one has many many characters. Pepper Potts is mentioned by Tony Stark a few times, but doesn't appear.
Ultimately, if you like these kinds of movies, you'll probably like this one. If you don't in general, this probably won't be the exception.
I completely forgot about this movie. Sounds like I'll like it though.
I loved the first Avengers, and I was jacked for this one. Last night, I noticed that it was going to start playing at 9:00 AM today (Friday), and then repeat a jillion or so times during the day. I don't like crowds, but I've had good luck with going on opening day on Friday afternoon. I figured I'd beat the crowds big time on this one, so I arrived at the theater at 9:00 AM, only to find a convoy of school busses in the parking lot, and a line of elementary kids that stretched for 50 yards outside the theater. I passed. It's a good thing I had three other things to do in town, because it's 80 miles round trip for me.
Quote from: SGOS on May 01, 2015, 02:27:13 PM
I loved the first Avengers, and I was jacked for this one.
The general consensus is, not as good as the first one.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 02, 2015, 07:21:33 AM
The general consensus is, not as good as the first one.
Which is usually the case. I was hoping Joss Whedon would be able to break Hollywood's tradition of uninspired sequels. I think the guy is a bit of a genius. But it's too easy to coast to a sequel knowing it's going to generate revenue on the strength of the original. In preparation for my trip to see the Age of Ultron, I broke out my personal copy of the Avengers and watched half of it before I fell asleep (an omen perhaps). I loved Hollywood's exploitation of Marvel Superheroes, but I may have reached a saturation point. I've kind of felt this coming on over the last two years.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 02, 2015, 07:21:33 AM
The general consensus is, not as good as the first one.
There's a reason for that, as outlined in this video:
The main reason the first one worked is because of the meta-narrative of audiences going to see if this Marvel movie universe, and that movie in particular would even work. The second movie didn't have that benefit and probably couldn't help but feel like a lesser effort as a result.
Minuscule: Valley of the Lost Ants
Epic fantasy. Lol. Animation. It's good.
Quote from: SGOS
I don't like crowds,
I'm actually cool with crowds. I think it is more fun to go to an "event" type of movie with a crowd. So that you can feed a bit off the energy of the crowd. So, I intentionally go opening day pretty frequently. It was kind of funny, I went to 6 AM (as in the morning) to both The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. For both movies, when I went to buy tickets, the midnight and 3 am shows were sold out already.
Quote from: SGOS
I loved Hollywood's exploitation of Marvel Superheroes, but I may have reached a saturation point. I've kind of felt this coming on over the last two years.
Ultimately, there is only so much you can do with the genre. I will still probably continue to see them. Maybe not all of them. But, its hard to keep going to the same well and pull out something that seems new and fresh.
The trailer for Batman V Superman actually got some applause in my theater. As did the trailer for Star Wars. And the trailer for Terminator Genysis. They were ones I'd already seen online, the most recent ones for each.
QuoteI think it is more fun to go to an "event" type of movie with a crowd. So that you can feed a bit off the energy of the crowd.
I honestly completely agree with this.
Edit: Just got done watching "The Imitation Game"... holy shit, that was an amazing movie. Yes, I realise... historical inaccuracies, but that isn't what art is (or has to be) about. It terms of creating feelings, it does an amazing job.
Watching "A Dangerous Method" now, and it is also really interesting so far. It has mixed reviews, but I think that has alot to do with the uncomfortable-ness of the subject matter... its about Jung and a patient of his, and of course there is the Freudian obsession with sex.
Still, it's off to a really good start.
The short synopsis...
QuoteSet on the eve of World War I, A Dangerous Method describes the turbulent relationships between Carl Jung, founder of analytical psychology; Sigmund Freud, founder of the discipline of psychoanalysis; and Sabina Spielrein, initially a patient of Jung and later a physician and one of the first female psychoanalysts.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 03, 2015, 10:55:56 AMI think it is more fun to go to an "event" type of movie with a crowd. So that you can feed a bit off the energy of the crowd.
It's the opposite with me. It's a draining experience. And the more there are, the faster it drains.
Think of every person as a small bird. A few chirping away on a tree are pleasant enough. Add a couple hundred to the mix, and you have cacophonous and most unpleasant swarm.
QuoteUltimately, there is only so much you can do with the genre. I will still probably continue to see them. Maybe not all of them. But, its hard to keep going to the same well and pull out something that seems new and fresh.
Eh, there's enough of a diversity of characters and major events in the Marvel universe for them to milk it for quite a long time. Civil War, Infinity War, Captain Marvel, Inhumans, etc. Very exciting!
Mad Max: Fury Road 8/10
Drive from Point A to Point B. Survive a gauntlet of psychotics who want to kill you because... well... just because. Act like it's normal.
So, is it filled with "feminist propaganda" like the wingnuts are claiming?
Quote from: Atheon on May 16, 2015, 09:23:39 AM
So, is it filled with "feminist propaganda" like the wingnuts are claiming?
Hmmm. I hadn't heard that claim, but yeah, now that I think about it, I suppose there is some of that. There are liberated older women who aren't afraid to blow a guy's head off if he has it coming. There are some young maiden types that provide mostly window dressing, but they occasionally have to kick some guy's ass when it's necessary, although they don't resent having a man come to their rescue as long as he's hunky enough. But none of this seems out of the ordinary. That part is pretty much a reflection of reality as I see it.
Quote from: Atheon on May 16, 2015, 09:23:39 AM
So, is it filled with "feminist propaganda" like the wingnuts are claiming?
I must plead ignorance--when you use the term 'wingnuts' what are you referring to? Around here that term is use for somebody in the Air Force. I live close to a closed down AFB, which houses one of the best air museums in the world, so 'wingnuts' abound here. :)
"wingnuts" is pretty common slang phrase for right-wing nutcases. Like Teabaggers, Glenn Beck types, Pat Robertson types.
Quote from: SGOS on May 16, 2015, 09:41:08 AM
Hmmm. I hadn't heard that claim, but yeah, now that I think about it, I suppose there is some of that. There are liberated older women who aren't afraid to blow a guy's head off if he has it coming. There are some young maiden types that provide mostly window dressing, but they occasionally have to kick some guy's ass when it's necessary, although they don't resent having a man come to their rescue as long as he's hunky enough. But none of this seems out of the ordinary. That part is pretty much a reflection of reality as I see it.
So, in other words, some of the characters are strong women.
Like in many major movies for many many decades.
Quote from: Atheon on May 16, 2015, 10:00:01 AM
So, in other words, some of the characters are strong women.
Like in many major movies for many many decades.
Yep, pretty much.
Quote from: Atheon on May 16, 2015, 09:56:12 AM
"wingnuts" is pretty common slang phrase for right-wing nutcases. Like Teabaggers, Glenn Beck types, Pat Robertson types.
Thanks--once again time passes me by. :) I'll have to stop using that with my ex-Air Force guys. :))
Quote from: SGOS on May 16, 2015, 09:41:08 AM
...but they occasionally have to kick some guy's ass when it's necessary, although they don't resent having a man come to their rescue as long as he's hunky enough. But none of this seems out of the ordinary. That part is pretty much a reflection of reality as I see it.
Like men letting hot women get away practically with anything? :lol:
It's considered bad policy to point out to a hot woman when she's doing something stupid or harmful. I think it's a genetic thing.
Quote from: SGOS on May 16, 2015, 11:02:26 AM
It's considered bad policy to point out to a hot woman when she's doing something stupid or harmful. I think it's a genetic thing.
It's considered a bad policy to kick a hunky guy's ass when he is trying to rescue you. Esp. if you don't need it. It's a genetic thing.
Ex Machina - 6/10
A bit overrated "cottage in the woods" drama where they replace the prisoner with a shallow A.I. character. I really can't get why Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 91% while a visionary masterpiece like Transcendence gets 19%. Meh.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 17, 2015, 05:49:22 PM
Ex Machina - 6/10
A bit overrated "cottage in the woods" drama where they replace the prisoner with a shallow A.I. character. I really can't get why Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 91% while a visionary masterpiece like Transcendence gets 19%. Meh.
Which falls in line with my opinion of movie critics in general. One step below celebrity chefs and one step above fashion critics.
The Livingston Gardener.. 8/10 Great for a low budget flick.
Interesting take on a serial killer and the interview inside prison. You'll think it's full of violence, but the violence is all implied and the killer turns beliefs in gods on its head to point the finger back at society and turns the smug reporter for good or bad. You decide.
I'm really interested in the take some of you will have..
Their fb https://m.facebook.com/TheLivingstonGardener?refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FTheLivingstonGardener#!/TheLivingstonGardener/photos/a.851442238214941.1073741827.851432651549233/945294342163063/?type=1&source=44
Mad Max - 9.9/10. Nothing really wrong with it, it's just hard to give a pure action movie a 10/10... even though, for what it is, it gets a perfect score.
Mad Max 4:Fury Road. Typical romcom.
Mad Max: FR
Absolutely loved it.
Grade: A
Quote from: Shiranu on May 22, 2015, 12:16:43 PM
Mad Max - 9.9/10. Nothing really wrong with it, it's just hard to give a pure action movie a 10/10... even though, for what it is, it gets a perfect score.
I saw Fury Road and loved it.
10/10
Mad Max Fury Road: Two thumbs up and a fuck yeah!
Rest assured the movie 100% delivers what the trailer promises. The hype is justified. Hollywood needs to take notes from this film, because this is how you make an actionflick with strong visual storytelling. Tom Hardy gets upstaged by Theron... but Max was never the typical protagonist type to begin with (just someone who ends up in the protagonist's camp). And that works out great here. Furiosa is right up there with Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor.
Tomorrow Land 3/10
Nothing of great importance happens here. If there is a point, I missed it.
Cake 7/10
Jennifer Aniston plays a new type of character here, a woman suffering from chronic pain, who has become a bitchy cynic. She manages not to even look like herself. It's a character study, which may not appeal to most movie goers. In fact, I don't recall this in the theater. It may have gone straight to DVD. In spite of the depressing subject matter, good old Jennifer delivers some funny lines with her usual aplomb, although she does it dryly so as not to ruin the cynical mood of the plot.
Quote from: SGOS on May 23, 2015, 10:40:55 AM
Tomorrow Land 3/10
Nothing of great importance happens here. If there is a point, I missed it.
Got fairly mediocre reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, so it went from being a must see from me to a "eventually dad may get it on Blu Ray for his theater room and I guess I'll watch it then."
KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park
KISS is embarrassed by this movie. I don't think anything else need be said, really. If KISS finds something shameful, it must be pretty fucking bad.
And it is pretty fucking bad. Bad in ways that are hard to explain.
First of all, the script reads less like a finished work than a rough draft. No, scratch that. It's not a rough draft. It's a rough
idea. Nothing in this movie is thought all the way through.
Who are KISS? What are they? Where did they get their super powers? How do they work? What do those magic talismans have to do with anything? Did they lose their powers when the bad guy stole them? What are their super powers, since we're on the subject. What are the bad guy's motivations? What is he trying to
do? Does he make life-like looking robots or does he turn people into robots? What for? What the hell just happened? Why did that happen? and many other questions like these will absolutely NOT be answered in this movie. And fuck you for asking.
It's kind of a shame because the story itself is a piss-simple Scooby Doo plot that you'd think the Hanna-Barbera company could do a show like this in their sleep.
Oh yeah, this was produced by Hanna-Barbera. Peter Kris is even dubbed by Michael Bell, Zan from the Wonder Twins.
Basically an inventor of all the animatronics is fired from an amusement park and he decides to take revenge and KISS, a rock band that also happens to be super heroes, has to stop him. That's not a bad story. It's just executed so fucking poorly.
Gene Simmons probably comes off the worst in all this of the four. For starters, his costume at that stage was fucking ridiculous. When the mad scientist makes a Gene Simmons robot and it runs amok, (hint: it's just Simmons running amok) he looks so awkward. The boots are impossible to walk in and he hunches his back because he wanted to scare people into thinking he had degenerative bone disease. He also had a stupid reverb on his voice, which I am positive was his own stupid idea to make the demon more demonic. It's just dumb, though. He also wears a high collared dracula cape in some scenes. Redundant with those wing thingies under his arms. This is all weird since Simmons is the only one of the four to have an acting career after all this. He was great in Runaway.
KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park was never going to be a good movie, but it turned out to be much worse than it should have been. I'm not sure who to blame for it except the rushed production that left the script in a half-begun state while they were shooting. I saw it a week ago and I'm already forgetting it, which is better than some that I was forgetting as I was watching them.
Oh c'mon..nobody watched The Livingston Gardener? Geeez folks..
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 23, 2015, 10:34:07 PM
Oh c'mon..nobody watched The Livingston Gardener? Geeez folks..
I haven't heard of it. Is it an old movie? I remember Peter Sellers in the Gardener, which was pretty good.
Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2015, 04:56:08 AM
I haven't heard of it. Is it an old movie? I remember Peter Sellers in the Gardener, which was pretty good.
No, in fact it was released just a few weeks ago. http://www.thelivingstongardener.com/
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 24, 2015, 08:09:55 AM
No, in fact it was released just a few weeks ago. http://www.thelivingstongardener.com/
Ha, I would have bet this had something to do with your recent interest in gardening. Actually, it might be a good movie, but I haven't seen it at the theaters yet.
Half way through "John Wick", really enjoying it so far. The cinematography is great.
I have watched Land Ho! because the movie was taken in Ireland. We could see the nature and human how fit in the movie. It didnt make me borred.
6/10
Taken 3 7/10
This got a 9% from critics on Rotten Tomatoes and 47% from users. I liked the first film a lot, didn't care for the second, and this one goes somewhere in between the two. But 9% from critics. Wow! That's bad.
Saw the original Dune movie two days ago and Blade Runner after that.
With Dune, the acting was atrocious in many ways. But I do like some of the concepts. The sonic weapon that you have to speak into to use. Paul Atreides gaining more and more powers and abilities. He's going to be treated like a messiah, and the good and bad that will come of that. I'm eager to start reading the books.
But the acting was atrocious. Sometimes the crew apparently couldn't be bothered to have special effects: a gun fires with sound but no muzzle fire and the guy it hits doesn't receive a wound. He falls over like Jasper the Douchebag Ghost just socked him one. At one point, Jean-Luc Picard, allied with House Atreides, goes into battle with a gun in one hand and a pug. Seriously there's pugs all over the place, as if Dean Koontz had a cousin who went into film making.
It's a fun movie though and generally cool at times, and you are able to ride with it. Then Paul's sister, uses her Mind Control Voice and she sounds like a 40 year old chain-smoker trying to talk after giving head to a dragon. So yeah...that happened.
5 out of 10.
Blade Runner was good, but I certainly didn't like it as much as dad did. It's noir more than it is sci-fi, to me at least. The romance between Ford and the female lead wasn't convincing and seemed to be there because "well that's what happens in noirs." I can't help but feel that the replicants deserved MUCH more characterization than the Blade Runner hunting them. Shoot, even the briefly touched upon romance between Mr. Howling with Wolves and Ms. "I've disarmed you, but I'm going to run to the end of the hall and cartwheel toward you like a retard" seemed more convincing.
6 out of 10. I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I should have.
Mad Max: Fury Road: 9/10
Action packed from the get go, and it never stops, save for a few brief moments. I'm so glad this is a sequel, not a remake or a reboot, further fleshing out the insane post-apocalyptic world in which Max lives. But Charlize Theron steals the show... she is absolutely fantastic, and a more central character than even Max. This one actually has some character development. And it's beautifully shot, with stunning vistas and well-planned camera angles. The Mad Max series has the all-time best car chase scenes ever filmed, and this one outdoes the others.
John Wick: 9.5/10. Second favourite movie of the year, just after Mad Max. It knows what type of action movie it is and didn't try to over-do it or be pretentious. Just an overall solid revenge flick.
@Saviour: It's weird, I like noir and sci-fi, like Ford... but Blade Runner just didn't impress me. I haven't finished it yet, but the first... however long, I just didn't enjoy it.
Saw San Andreas, starring the Rock.
I do like the gorgeous and nightmarish destruction. What I don't like is the pointless goddamned love triangle between the star, the ex-wife, and the ex-wife's new boyfriend. Who is rich and turns out to be a jerk. Seriously, this crap gets old.
8 out of 10.
Quote from: Savior2006 on May 28, 2015, 03:01:48 PM
Blade Runner was good, but I certainly didn't like it as much as dad did. It's noir more than it is sci-fi, to me at least. The romance between Ford and the female lead wasn't convincing and seemed to be there because "well that's what happens in noirs." I can't help but feel that the replicants deserved MUCH more characterization than the Blade Runner hunting them. Shoot, even the briefly touched upon romance between Mr. Howling with Wolves and Ms. "I've disarmed you, but I'm going to run to the end of the hall and cartwheel toward you like a retard" seemed more convincing.
6 out of 10. I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I should have.
I'm reading the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, right now. At about half way through, it is not at all like the movie. At best, if Blade Runner were a series, "Androids Dream" would be a separate episode. The book provides nothing more than a rough premise (so far). It's like someone said to a movie producer, "Why don't you make a movie about a guy that hunts down rogue androids, and ends up falling in love with one of them?" So the movie producer hires someone to write a story about that scenario. Philip Dick, the author of "Androids" should not be legally entitled to any of the movie rights IMO. The idea is there, but it's a different story.
In the 80's, I never heard any hype about Blade Runner. Never even heard of the movie until I accidently caught it on HBO or something. It was a sleeper as far as I knew. I was telling my sister about it, and she nodded knowingly and pointed out that around Chicago, there were formal discussion groups people could attend to talk about it. Wow! That big, huh?
I agree with most of your criticisms about the movie, except for it being more noir than science fiction, and I could add some criticisms of my own about scenes that I found jarring and nonessential to the plot. But there is so much on the other side of the scale that mesmerized me. It was delightfully surreal and enigmatic, the sets were haunting, and the characters were unusually striking. I think it was Rutger Hauer's finest role. Like you, I can't see Rachael (I think Sean Young was the actress) as a love interest. That part of the story was never developed, but I was intrigued by her, and in no small way. At one time, I believed that movie was the end all be all of science fiction, something to shoot for, and while you see it as more noir than science fiction, I see modern day sci fi as more action than science fiction.
I liked the older style of thought provoking story telling sci fi, like the original Star Trek series, Planet of the Apes, Blade Runner, Fire Fly, and The Thirteenth Floor. Maybe it has something to do with what you grow up with, but I do miss good story telling. Not that story telling isn't part of today's sci fi. It's just become a crude backup for most of action/sci fi movies, with exceptions here and there. Iron Man I had a fairly good story, even the First Transformers, but story telling is treated more as a nonessential today.
Quote from: Savior2006 on May 29, 2015, 10:31:46 PM
What I don't like is the pointless goddamned love triangle between the star, the ex-wife, and the ex-wife's new boyfriend. Who is rich and turns out to be a jerk. Seriously, this crap gets old.
Might have been more interesting if the Rock winds up hooking up with the new boyfriend?
Blackhat…..not a bad flick..the premise was promising,,need the worlds bad boy hacker to help the Chinese and American find another hacker, but the idea they let him out of the country and into actual combat situations is pretty stupid from any logical standpoint. Still from the view of a complete tech moron it was interesting to watch higher tech at "work" so to speak since they could have been talking about random shit and I would have thought it was just as techie….shit…you know…..anyway. Not a bad flick. Maybe a 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS5P_LAqiVg
KUNG FURY is 30 minutes of WTF did I just watch, but in a good way, a great way.
It has a deliberate eighties-feel, complete with damaged VHS tape effects, cheesy dialogue, a Miami setting, outdated props and voice-cameos by David Hasselhoff.
Spectacularly absurd and absurdly spectacular. Over the top fast kung-fu action, lasershooting dinosaurs, viking warriorbabes with machineguns, Hittler and a Lamborghini Countach... this kickstarter-project out of Sweden has it all.
Quote from: Jutter on May 31, 2015, 12:06:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS5P_LAqiVg
Hey that was good. Is this a one time only deal or some series on TV? The production values are pretty good. Someone needs to make fun of this shit we pay good money to watch. I think some thought went into this:
Guy is hanging onto the outside of a speeding car <transmission interference with nothing but white snow> <Picture comes back 4 seconds later> Now guy is hanging on a helicopter. How did that happen in 4 seconds? Who cares? <transmission interference> Now he's slammed into an orbiting satellite. How did he get from a helicopter into an outer space brawl? Who cares?
And speaking of Hitler, all of those self appointed history experts that say Hitler was a great orator... I never got that. Without the sound, he looked like a silly caricature of, well, himself. With the sound he's speaking in German, but so what? He still looks like a silly caricature. And that stupid mustache didn't help his image either. If he wasn't sending people off to the gas chambers all the time, would anyone have taken him seriously?
[quote author=SGOS link=topic=80.msg1076650#msg1076650 date=1433090220
And speaking of Hitler, all of those self appointed history experts that say Hitler was a great orator... I never got that. Without the sound, he looked like a silly caricature of, well, himself. With the sound he's speaking in German, but so what? He still looks like a silly caricature. And that stupid mustache didn't help his image either. If he wasn't sending people off to the gas chambers all the time, would anyone have taken him seriously?
[/quote]
Yeah, he seems that way to me, too. :) His voice does not seem beguiling to me--only grating. But I do think he was in touch with the zeitgeist of his country and that he was speaking directly to that. I don't feel that force, so I just can not make a connection with him or his antics. They do look comical. If only they really had been..................
Quote from: Jutter on May 31, 2015, 12:06:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS5P_LAqiVg
KUNG FURY is 30 minutes of WTF did I just watch, but in a good way, a great way.
Is it as good as Miami Connection?
EDIT: Alright. I take it back.
Quote from: the_antithesis on May 30, 2015, 08:52:34 AM
Might have been more interesting if the Rock winds up hooking up with the new boyfriend?
Yep. =D
Quote from: SGOS on May 30, 2015, 07:12:40 AM
I'm reading the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, right now. At about half way through, it is not at all like the movie. At best, if Blade Runner were a series, "Androids Dream" would be a separate episode. The book provides nothing more than a rough premise (so far). It's like someone said to a movie producer, "Why don't you make a movie about a guy that hunts down rogue androids, and ends up falling in love with one of them?" So the movie producer hires someone to write a story about that scenario. Philip Dick, the author of "Androids" should not be legally entitled to any of the movie rights IMO. The idea is there, but it's a different story.
In the 80's, I never heard any hype about Blade Runner. Never even heard of the movie until I accidently caught it on HBO or something. It was a sleeper as far as I knew. I was telling my sister about it, and she nodded knowingly and pointed out that around Chicago, there were formal discussion groups people could attend to talk about it. Wow! That big, huh?
I agree with most of your criticisms about the movie, except for it being more noir than science fiction, and I could add some criticisms of my own about scenes that I found jarring and nonessential to the plot. But there is so much on the other side of the scale that mesmerized me. It was delightfully surreal and enigmatic, the sets were haunting, and the characters were unusually striking. I think it was Rutger Hauer's finest role. Like you, I can't see Rachael (I think Sean Young was the actress) as a love interest. That part of the story was never developed, but I was intrigued by her, and in no small way. At one time, I believed that movie was the end all be all of science fiction, something to shoot for, and while you see it as more noir than science fiction, I see modern day sci fi as more action than science fiction.
I liked the older style of thought provoking story telling sci fi, like the original Star Trek series, Planet of the Apes, Blade Runner, Fire Fly, and The Thirteenth Floor. Maybe it has something to do with what you grow up with, but I do miss good story telling. Not that story telling isn't part of today's sci fi. It's just become a crude backup for most of action/sci fi movies, with exceptions here and there. Iron Man I had a fairly good story, even the First Transformers, but story telling is treated more as a nonessential today.
Good points.
Serenity (sequel to Firefly TV series). Funny moments. Engaging characters. Thoughtful on the concept of individualism vs conformity. 8 out of 10.
Cube, in which people are stuck in a maze-like cube (duh filled with deathtraps). Tense and scary each time they step into a new room because nearly each method the people use to deduce if the next room is trapped at one point fails them. Short and doesn't outstay it's welcome. It's kept deliciously vague why they are there in the Cube in the first place. Recomended.
9 out of 10.
Quote from: Savior2006 on May 28, 2015, 03:01:48 PM
Blade Runner was good, but I certainly didn't like it as much as dad did. It's noir more than it is sci-fi, to me at least. The romance between Ford and the female lead wasn't convincing and seemed to be there because "well that's what happens in noirs." I can't help but feel that the replicants deserved MUCH more characterization than the Blade Runner hunting them. Shoot, even the briefly touched upon romance between Mr. Howling with Wolves and Ms. "I've disarmed you, but I'm going to run to the end of the hall and cartwheel toward you like a retard" seemed more convincing.
6 out of 10. I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I should have.
Blade Runner is one of those tragically flawed movies that movie snobs overrate and the unwashed masses generally ignore.
It's big problem is the weak story. Harrison Ford's character is an uninteresting block of wood. Rutger Hauer's antagonist character is more interesting and more sympathetic for the audience. This led to confusion and lower box office.
They keep making re-edits of the movie trying to make it work, but they can't overcome the fundamental story structure flaws. It may be an influential film, but few are the people who can honestly rate it as their favorite film.
It has since been treated as a collection of neat ideas. Sort of like a model kit that is popular with hobbyists because they can use the parts to build other things, but never to build the actual thing it was meant to make.
The Signal - 8/10
Was entertaining, but rather predictable for its genre.
Quote
And speaking of Hitler, all of those self appointed history experts that say Hitler was a great orator... I never got that. Without the sound, he looked like a silly caricature of, well, himself. With the sound he's speaking in German, but so what? He still looks like a silly caricature. And that stupid mustache didn't help his image either. If he wasn't sending people off to the gas chambers all the time, would anyone have taken him seriously?
From the German history professor I had, those gestures meant alot more then than they do now. Just how giving someone the peace sign 80 years ago would have meant nothing and looked goofy. Or how the hand-language of Italians, Greeks and other Mediterraneans can be seen as obsessive by other cultures. It's all a matter of when and who. For his time, Hitler's motions made perfect sense, and some of them still have a place in German gestures.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 02, 2015, 07:21:33 AM
The general consensus is, not as good as the first one.
Just saw Age of Ultron. I actually liked it more than the first one.
It had more and better action scenes. I liked how even the non-supers played important roles in the fights. I loved the new villain. Ultron > Loki, imho. And I love Loki, so that's a pretty high bar to hit. The movie introduces new characters who are all pretty memorable. They get some fleshing out, but the writers thankfully didn't forget the main 6 Avengers - we get some of Black Widow's backstory, a dip into Tony Stark's psychology, see Hawkeye's private life, and relationships between teammates, particularly Romanov and Banner, as well as Stark and Banner. There are even cameo appearances by the Falcon and War Machine. Even though this one was far more serious, there are a couple good jokes in it. War Machine's tank story. Thor's hammer in the elevator thing (my personal take is that while the hammer cannot be directly manipulated by someone unworthy, they could freely manipulate whatever the hammer is resting on. So, the elevator would still work normally even if Thor had left his hammer there)
Have I mentioned lately that I really, really like powered armor and robots? This movie had it in spades.
The only things that really irked me were the ludicrously fast development time on the strong AI project (it's not exactly the sort of thing that you can knock out in a weekend) and that the result is basically a crapshoot.
Overall, I give it a 1001 out of 1010.
Watched Platoon. Tough thing to watch, especially their raid on the village. But the scenes were memorable, especially the intense ho yay vibes given off by the Green Goblin toward Chris Taylor.
Funny, 'cause I didn't even recognize the guy as Charlie Sheen when I saw clips of the movie years ago.
This is one of the movies that irks the shit out of conservatives, with its strong anti-war theme, and its criticism of certain bad leaders like the inexperienced Lt. letting the soldier run amok during the village raid; as well as said soldiers, sociopaths like Bunny and Barnes, who you will be happy to see die.
10 out of 10.
John Wick - 8.5/10
Punk kills his dog and steals his car, he goes on a killing spree is the plot of the movie, but dang good one at that.
Black Sea 8/10
High tension sea faring heist movie. Just came out on redbox.
As far as "Androids" vs Bladerunner, I read the book long before I saw the movie. The movie was a disappointment. Every other Philip K. Dick book as a movie was a disappointment, with he possible exception of "A Scanner Darkly" which I haven't seen. Dick writes in layers, wrapping his ideas (with Android it was the nature of humanity/ the nature of human empathy/ and what makes us human/vs whether a human could learn to love a human construct; in that respect the movie was right)in such a way that you have to immerse yourself to get the whole effect. Part of the problem is the movie centers of Harrison Ford, but the real story is about the animals Deckard owns (his a malfunctioning fake) versus his neighbor, who owns a real one, a horse. That and the interplay between J.R. Isadore and the female android as well as the warrior droid played by Rutger Hauer. Why he kills humans and why he went rogue.
I think Dick is one of the greatest writers of that era, period. Read Ubik and then spend the rest of your life trying to figure it out. Ubik is still being discussed by forums on the internet. He is that deep. Bear in mind that Dick was one fucked up monkey drug wise. A Scanner Darkly probably comes closer to identifying him as a person. V.A.L.I.S the first of a 3 part series still rates as one of the best- a treatise on god and whether god is good or evil. I read his stuff when I was a teenager, so maybe that explains all my quirky behavior......
Hellraiser 1 2 and 3. I wanna say 7, 7, and 6. I'm more of a fan of horror books than I am horror movies because often times even the ones that aren't pure slashers have enough of their tropes and cliches to make me roll my eyes.
By the third film, the pattern is all but clear:
1. Blood gets on Artifact of Doom, partially reviving a soul in Hell that activated the Artifact of Doom before hand,
2. Soul is trapped to artifact and managing to convince the fucking idiot/villain who witnessed the event to bring the soul more blood (with murder).
3. Soul is momentarily completely revived.
4. Then gets thrown back into hell, either getting fucked by the Cenobites, or fucked by the main Artifact of Doom (the puzzles) being reversed into their original positions.
When it comes to gore in movies, less is more if you are trying to scare people. Cube was a lot scarier BECAUSE there was less gore, because there were extended lulls which could give way to a nasty shocking death as a trap was activated; which would happen even when the prisoners thought they had a safe way of determining trapped rooms. It also helped that the main cast wasn't full of idiotic pricks with shitty decision making skills and motivations.
In the second movie, the evil doctor antagonist falls in love with the villain Julia from the first film. Why? No clue. He partially revives her for what seems like little more than curiosity, and starts making out with her skinless body not long after that.
The concept of Hell is interesting, and I wish more of that world was explored rather than, "Okay, now THIS guy is going to kill people to revive the villain. Now THAT guy is going to do it." In the third film, TWO people are convinced by the villain to sacrifice people to him/her/it/I don't care.
Um....yeah. I told my dad I probably wouldn't watch any of the other sequels with him, because after the third one is where they started to suck more ass than Michael Jackson. Probably for the best.
AI: Artificial Intelligence gets a 9 out of 10 from me. The ending was very bittersweet, and would've been a downer ending if not for the emergence of the advanced robots at the end.
There's an interesting shift in tone, from a women adjusting to this robot boy in her home to the boy's fairy-tale like quest.
Quote from: Savior2006 on June 05, 2015, 06:31:16 PM
AI: Artificial Intelligence gets a 9 out of 10 from me. The ending was very bittersweet, and would've been a downer ending if not for the emergence of the advanced robots at the end.
There's an interesting shift in tone, from a women adjusting to this robot boy in her home to the boy's fairy-tale like quest.
I liked that movie too. I heard it didn't fare well at the box office, but I checked Rotten Tomatoes: Critics-73, viewers 64, so it wasn't a bomb. I must have read some comments once from people who hated it. Rotten Tomatoes also notes that it was one of Stanley Kubrick's projects, which is something I didn't know, but the film was taken over by Spielberg when Kubrick died. I was totally blown away by Dr. Strangelove back in the 60's, and later came 2001 Space Oddessy, and I became a Kubrick devotee. I think he may be one of the most important directors in film. Well, for my tastes, anyway.
Matrix 1 and 2.
Great blend of philosophy and kick-assery. I do think that perhaps Neo powers up too quickly, being able to fly at the end of the first movie when he's in the Matrix. And prophecies and Chosen One stuff is kinda lame; that's what I feel nowadays. It's more interesting when someone makes their own decisions and gets their own special powers. Not when "fate" does it for them.
Otherwise, 10 out of 10 for both.
https://youtu.be/l6bmTNadhJE Worth seeing. If these ever come to be, we are in trouble.
Well, last night for me was the 24th Annual Smithee Awards (http://smitheeawards.com/), so the last movie I saw (clips of) was utter crap, but hilariously crap. :)
Quote from: SGOS on June 06, 2015, 08:14:29 AM
I liked that movie too. I heard it didn't fare well at the box office, but I checked Rotten Tomatoes: Critics-73, viewers 64, so it wasn't a bomb. I must have read some comments once from people who hated it. Rotten Tomatoes also notes that it was one of Stanley Kubrick's projects, which is something I didn't know, but the film was taken over by Spielberg when Kubrick died. I was totally blown away by Dr. Strangelove back in the 60's, and later came 2001 Space Oddessy, and I became a Kubrick devotee. I think he may be one of the most important directors in film. Well, for my tastes, anyway.
The funny thing is, it's been said that many of the warm-fuzzy moments came from Kubrick and not Spielberg.
Quote from: SGOS on June 06, 2015, 08:14:29 AM
I liked that movie too. I heard it didn't fare well at the box office, but I checked Rotten Tomatoes: Critics-73, viewers 64, so it wasn't a bomb. I must have read some comments once from people who hated it. Rotten Tomatoes also notes that it was one of Stanley Kubrick's projects, which is something I didn't know, but the film was taken over by Spielberg when Kubrick died. I was totally blown away by Dr. Strangelove back in the 60's, and later came 2001 Space Oddessy, and I became a Kubrick devotee. I think he may be one of the most important directors in film. Well, for my tastes, anyway.
Agree 110%. Kubrick is absolutely my favorite director, and if you've ever seen his photography for
Look in the late 1940s, you can see his director's eye (and love of natural light) developing.
Quote from: Savior2006 on June 07, 2015, 12:35:03 PM
The funny thing is, it's been said that many of the warm-fuzzy moments came from Kubrick and not Spielberg.
I don't usually associate Kubrick with warm-fuzzy, but I never know what to expect from him.
Fifty Shades of Grey 5/10
I feel like I'm supposed to give this a higher score, but I had to struggle through it. I actually turned if off midway, and took an hour and a half to take a flight with my Flight Simulator from Chicago to Cleveland. The sex was too complicated for my taste. While it was different, it wasn't very thought provoking, although I'm not sure if it was supposed to be thought provoking. I thought the acting was convincing enough, but the story, not so much. I kept wanting the plot to move along faster.
I liked an older movie called Secretary much more. While the sadomasochistic sex was stranger, cruder, and more disturbing in Secretary, it gave me a deeper appreciation of the nature of consensual sex between what we would normally consider dysfunctional adults. But Shades of Grey, was just something odd to watch. I think it was supposed to be erotic, but I'm not really sure. It seemed to miss the mark if it was.
Spy is one of the funniest movies I have seen in a long time. We were laughing so much I was concerned we were disturbing other people in the theater.
Creature From the Black Lagoon
Sigh.
I wanted to like this one. I really did. It's a classic and the introduction of the last classic Universal horror monster after Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, etc. I wanted to like it, but didn't. It lacks the atmosphere and style of the others. I was just so bored!. God damn!
I think deal is this movie has two things going for it.
A cool-looking monster.
It was in 3D, but my DVD isn't in 3D.
I know I've ranted about how shit 3D is before and no doubt will in the future, but I do like 3D as a dead technology. That it's still being used as a sales gimmick and that people are still falling for it is disheartening. But if it was a gimmick that wasn't used anymore, I would kind of like it then as a curiosity. Like incandescent light bulbs.
I couldn't help but think that this flick would have benefited from having a headache because of the fake depth.
Without that headache, it's too straight and well done to be cheesy fun like some other 50's movies but not quite good enough to be a genuinely good movie, like Robinson Crusoe On Mars. It occupies that middle ground of decent, but not particularly memorable. Unfortunately, since it's a famous movie with a famous monster, it's also in the overrated camp.
I just watched about 95% of something called Jupiter Ascending…or something jupiter with the lil hottie Mila whatsherface……not a bad flick…if you like flicks where you have no fucking idea what the plot is. I mean, this is of the greatness of a 70's porn movie. Completely plot less and a whole lot of action that seems like a complete waste of time..only in the porn movie the guy squirts on the gals face, for some reason that even today 30 years later I have no idea the reason, and this show,,,which I have no reason..er….hell I can't even remember the reason for the revie…..shit man, I gotta go dig up my 70's videos.
so its like a 1 out of a 10. Not horrible, just really really bad in a weird sort of way.
Jurassic World - Using the same scale I gave Max and John Wick, I give this movie a 9.5/10. It clicked all the boxes for what I wanted out of it...
-Main character I liked
-Action/Suspense
-Nostalgia
The only thing that knocks it down from a 9.8 is that there were times when it focused too much on the children "leads" that you are suppose to feel for, when all I wanted to see was more dinosaur carnage going on, and the beginning of the movie it felt like all the good scenes had already been done by the trailers. But besides that it was really good, expecially after half-way in the movie when it almost all felt new (minus the Chris Pratt on the Motorcycle with the raptors around him scene).
So yeah, I really enjoyed it. It got an ovation at the theatre, which I think was a little over kill... but you know what, if you enjoyed it that much, fucking go for it. Slight tangent, but why should you be ashamed of showing excitement or appreciation at a piece of art meant to entertain you? I feel bad for, at the time, judging them for that.
Chappie 9/10
Transhumanists masturbatory fantasy. Good one at that too.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 14, 2015, 01:57:45 AM
So yeah, I really enjoyed it. It got an ovation at the theatre, which I think was a little over kill... but you know what, if you enjoyed it that much, fucking go for it. Slight tangent, but why should you be ashamed of showing excitement or appreciation at a piece of art meant to entertain you? I feel bad for, at the time, judging them for that.
Nothing wrong with going to a movie for no other reason than it's a hell of a lot of fun. After all, having fun is a most important goal in life. There should be categories at the Academy Awards for Most Fun Movie and Most Fun Actor, but for some reason, the awards seem to be given out for more heady message carrying movies. I'm going to see this one on Tuesday afternoon, when the crowds are thinned out. I still pull out my copy of the original from time to time and watch it again.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 14, 2015, 01:57:45 AM
Jurassic World - Using the same scale I gave Max and John Wick, I give this movie a 9.5/10. It clicked all the boxes for what I wanted out of it...
-Main character I liked
-Action/Suspense
-Nostalgia
The only thing that knocks it down from a 9.8 is that there were times when it focused too much on the children "leads" that you are suppose to feel for, when all I wanted to see was more dinosaur carnage going on, and the beginning of the movie it felt like all the good scenes had already been done by the trailers. But besides that it was really good, expecially after half-way in the movie when it almost all felt new (minus the Chris Pratt on the Motorcycle with the raptors around him scene).
So yeah, I really enjoyed it. It got an ovation at the theatre, which I think was a little over kill... but you know what, if you enjoyed it that much, fucking go for it. Slight tangent, but why should you be ashamed of showing excitement or appreciation at a piece of art meant to entertain you? I feel bad for, at the time, judging them for that.
You liked it? I thought it was pretty bad. But I was just in for the nostalgia and couldn't get that I guess.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 14, 2015, 12:36:29 PM
You liked it? I thought it was pretty bad. But I was just in for the nostalgia and couldn't get that I guess.
I'll be completely honest... I have REALLY low standards for movies. And I definitely see how if you're looking for anything like the original, your going to be highly disappointed.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 14, 2015, 01:57:45 AMSlight tangent, but why should you be ashamed of showing excitement or appreciation at a piece of art meant to entertain you? I feel bad for, at the time, judging them for that.
You shouldn't feel ashamed at all. And I really dislike shaming and judging people for their interests. But that is a rant for another day.
I've found an IMAX theater in reach that is showing Jurassic World in 3D IMAX. After my thread about 3D, I'm going as a hypocrite to see it in 3D, but the main reason <ahem> is for the IMAX. Actually, it's a new IMAX and I'm kind of excited about having one within 50 miles of where I live. Now get this, they also have seats that move in conjunction with the film. I've been on carnival rides that do this and create a reasonable sensation of movement, but that's in an enclosed space where the whole viewing area including the screen moves as a single unit. I don't know how it would work in front of a stationary screen in a stationary theater. God, talk about your gadgets. Movies are going to Hell in a hand basket. :biggrin:
Godzilla vs Spacegodzilla
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0b/GXSG.jpg/220px-GXSG.jpg)
Watched it for the first time in almost a decade recently as part of my personal Heisei marathon... and now I remember why I normally avoid this film. Basically, it's a 60's Godzilla film made in 1994, and about as cringe-worthy as that description suggests. Need I go on?
Though it's a step above Godzilla vs Megaguirus (my all-time least favorite Godzilla film), this movie is by far the single largest special effects failure of the entire franchise. There is, of course, the infamous space scene in which the background is completely black, the asteroids look like the props they are, and the strings on the monsters are clearly visible throughout. Then there's the issue of "Little Godzilla." If you thought Godzilla's son in the 60's had a face only a mother could love, get a load of this abomination:
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100512020900/godzilla/images/7/76/Little-godzilla.jpg)
Jesus fucking Christ!
Spacegodzilla himself is a constant problem throughout the film. His design is just fine, he looks amazing in later video games, but in this film the suit is so stiff and bulky that it's hard not to see a man in a rubber suit. The crystals he seeds around Fukuoka have no scaling detail, causing the set to look like a set and not like a city. This lack of scale causes Godzilla himself to lose a lot of his majesty as well, since he too now looks like a man in a rubber suit next to these things.
There are so many competing plot threads in this film, I don't even know where to start. One of our main characters has a grudge against Godzilla and wants to hit him with some sort of blood coagulant to bring Godzilla down (in vials so small I doubt an elephant would feel it, much less the King of the Monsters). Another group including recurring character Miki Saegusa want to stick a transmitter onto Godzilla and control him with psychic powers. Then there's a weird side-plot where the Yakuza kidnaps Miki to try and use Godzilla for terrorist purposes.... or something, it's kinda dumb. None of these have anything to do with the main plot, and are mostly forgotten by the halfway point of the film. Oh, and Spacegodzilla kidnaps Little Godzilla for no reason. No, really, there is no reason given, it is never explored, and Junior does not appear onscreen at all after this until Spacegodzilla dies. It doesn't really help that this movie is completely skippable: If you went straight from "Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla II" to "Godzilla vs Destoroyah," you would not be confused. Like, at all.
Also, can I just point out how ridiculous Spacegodzilla's name is? They seriously couldn't come up with a better name for Godzilla's supposed "ultimate enemy"?
The music throughout the film sounds incredibly out of place; you can tell right off the bat that this is definitely
not the work of Akira Ikufube. I don't even know how to describe it other than it sounds like the soundtrack of a movie about a caped crusading elephant out to save children from an evil baboon. I can't tell if the brass is that shitty synthetic brass that was popular in a lot of 80's films or if it's just that badly conducted.
Overall, I would only recommend watching this film if you just want something for you and your friends to riff on, or if you've never seen it and are just curious. Otherwise, go ahead and skip it.
I watched 3 movies over the weekend an the best of them was San Andreas, great movie great special effects and really enjoyed it, ill give it a 8/10.
Chappie, this is a really gd movie if ur into this kinda thing, i thought it was great, 8/10 also
Jurassic world, well its just more of the same ud expect , didnt expect anything different an thats what i got, 6/10.
Jurassic world, well its just more of the same ud expect , didnt expect anything different an thats what i got, 6/10.
I saw Jurassic World in IMAX 3D last night. I couldn't wait until mid week when the theaters emptied out. It was OK, but as the first in a possible revival of a series, it didn't compete with the original. Yeah, 6/10 would be about right for me, too.
I saw Jurassic World yesterday. It was OK I guess, nothing impressive. Not a big fan of those movies but like most of you I just saw it because of nostalgia. Didn't compete with the original at all.
5/10
Quote from: Green Bottle on June 14, 2015, 07:43:48 PM
I watched 3 movies over the weekend an the best of them was San Andreas, great movie great special effects and really enjoyed it, ill give it a 8/10.
Chappie, this is a really gd movie if ur into this kinda thing, i thought it was great, 8/10 also
Jurassic world, well its just more of the same ud expect , didnt expect anything different an thats what i got, 6/10.
Watched Chappie yesterday. It was indeed very good. I think it was even better than District 9, and better technical details, specifically in image resolution.
Revenge of the Creature and The Creature Walks Among Us.
So, rounding out the Creature From the Black Lagoon trilogy, I watched the other two flicks. I have to say that I enjoyed Revenge much more than the first one. The third is a different ball of yarn altogether.
Revenge was planned before the original was even released because they were expecting a big hit and probably marks the last time when a major studio's expectations were ever met by a film's actual box office performance. The first two Creature films are a rip-off of King Kong, intentionally so. Revenge seems to have a meatier story while Creature seems to stop just as the story starts. It involves scientists attempting to study/train the gill man at an aquarium and then it escapes, causes some havok and then carries a woman around until it's shot by police. A typical Thursday night for me.
there isn't much else to say about this flick except that I'm not sure if nostalgia is coloring my opinion. I saw Revenge as a kid when a local TV station ran it in 3D. They had a promotion where you could get 3D glasses at certain retailer and shit. I recall stuff from this movie and that familiarity may be coloring my opinion.
That said, I doubt it's coloring my opinion that much. Creature involves people going into the jungle and for half the movie, they don't even know there's a creature to find. It's not so much a slow burn as it takes half the movie to find its lighter. Revenge starts with a brief foray into the jungle where they secure the gill man and then they bring it back and they try to do things with it. i really ought to chart these two movies to show the story beats and see if it can be objectively said that Revenge is the better movie.
Couple of side notes. Revenge costars john Agar, a 50's B-movie actor who is most notable for this flick and being Shirley Temple's first husband. It wasn't a happy marriage and Agar became a drunk, but he got it together and remarried by the time he made this.
The re-appearance of these DVDs on store shelves had me wondering if a remake was being made and I was right. hopefully if they follow the plot of the originals at all, they cram these two movies together to make one good movie instead of two half-done movies.
Creature Walks Among Us is weird because early on they "burn the scales" off the creature, fundamentally changing its look which is a damned shame as the creature's design is one of the selling points. Turning the gill man into a fish-lipped version of the Frankenstein's monster is something nobody asked for. Even so, the flick gets points for taking the series in a new direction, even if that direction cuts the legs out from under it.
Not a lot to say about this one, either. There's a crazy scientist who escaped from an audition for Human Centipede who is obsessed with turning the gill man into a human because fuck you, that's why. He has a pretty wife whom he's insanely jealous (this guy is insane in everything he does. He insanely boils water to make tea) She seems to be getting attention from some other guys and there's some good scientists and stuff. This soap opera shit is only broken up with stupid 50's-era pseudo-scientific doublespeak regarding how the gill man has lungs and they were able to turn them on or something to save its life since its gills were burned away and the meaning for humanity in general and shit. None of it makes any damned sense and the conversations just go on and on. The creature takes a back seat in his own fucking movie because of this.
Walks is not a good movie and it's an even worse follow up to the first two. Even fans of the originals don't tend to like it. The only good thing is the DVD is not hampered by not being in 3D because Walks wasn't released in 3D, so it has always looked this bad and there's no mythical gimmick-o-vision that could have made the presentation better.
So, my recommendation is to watch Revenge of the Creature and skip the other two if you can. Unfortunately, Revenge is only available with the other two as part of the "Legacy" collection.
A note about these legacy collections, the apparently have the same movies in multiple boxed sets. I picked up the Frankenstein one because it had the most films, but three of those movies are in the Dracula collection, four of them are in the Wolf Man collection, etc. There is a big boxed set with all these movies, which is the better buy.
Wild Tales 10/10
Filmed in Argentina, I think (of all places). It's in Spanish with English subtitles. I'm not usually into subtitles, but this is a great movie. It consists of 5 or so unrelated short episodes of dark comedy. Very well done, superbly acted, and really interesting. A couple of the episodes you could get by without reading the subtitles, because it's so obvious what is happening, but reading the subtitles wasn't a problem. I forgot I was doing it at times. Some episodes you can predict the ending, but most of the time you don't have a clue what is going to happen next.
This one just came out at Redbox. I thought I'd take a chance. If you're a film buff, god knows how many films you will slog through, and then accidently find an unexpected treat like this. Viewers at Redbox are giving it 3/5 stars. From what I could tell, people either loved it and gave it 4/5 or 5/5, or they hated it and gave it a half star or 1/5, almost exclusively for not being in English. It won some kind of nomination for best foreign film, but apparently a lot of people can't tolerate subtitles. I guess I can understand, but that's not really a fair criticism of the movie.
Jurassic World was awesomely fun, but maybe it's because I haven't seen the others.
Spoilers.
There are some logic gaps. Detective Goren/Private Pyle really thinks that Owen's raptors can be effectively used for combat in war. He thinks of them as large dogs that will easily follow commands. This is in spite of the first seen with them and Owen, in which he demonstrates that he only BARELY has control over them.
Goren/Pyle says that the raptors would be effective because they could root out terrorist in tunnels, and wouldn't be vulnerable to hacking like a drone. Owen reminds Goren that even Owen's raptors will attack ANY human with little hesitation (which later turns out to be true).
Goren Pyle then says he plans on developing more monsters like the Indominus Rex. Once again, he really seems to think that we would have control over a highly aggressive, highly intelligent, isolated monster that killed other dinosaurs, like the "long-necks," simply because it could.
I guess there could be a way to genetically modify them to follow the orders of their handlers. Or....you could simply use tanks and airplanes like the rest of us normal people.
Yes, I know that Terminator Genisys is getting generally poor reviews. Yes, I know the trailer unimpressed fans. Yes, I know that 1 & 2 made complete story and attempts to continue it come across as picking over moldy scraps. Finally, I'm not a great critic and often like movies that are considered mediocre by movie goers and critics alike. And, OF COURSE I know know that "Grandpa Terminator" is really really corny.
And, despite all that, I enjoyed the hell out of. There were plenty of cringe-worthy moments. "Don't put Gramps Terminator in an old folk's home! He's still got plenty of life in them legs! He doesn't even need a walker yet!" (or something like that...)
So, yeah, take it with lots of caveats. But for me, I think it should be getting better reviews than it is getting. No, of course its not as good as the first two, only an idiot would have considered that a remote possibility. But its only getting 25% on tomatometer right now, and I think it should be higher than that. Of course, YMMV.
As far as Jurassic World, they basically played the classic sequel playbook: tell basically the same story, but up the stakes. So, with the Park, er, World now open with thousands of guests every day, you got limitless potential victims for the taking. And eating.
I found the basic way it was handled was competent. The idea that the former management would just put on a new name and some new paint and continue on after the first disaster seemed like what would really happen. So, no specific complaints. But, still had a "been there, done that" feel to it.
With Jurassic World I could believe scientists created dinosaurs but I couldn't buy the lead character running through a muddy jungle in spiked heels.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03344/jurassic-world-sho_3344248b.jpg)
Focus
Will Smith and Margot Robbie 8/10
Very surprising grifter movie will all sorts of twists and turns. I've always liked Will Smith, and Margot Robbie is a pleasant sight, as well as a convincing actress.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 01, 2015, 12:55:18 PM
With Jurassic World I could believe scientists created dinosaurs but I couldn't buy the lead character running through a muddy jungle in spiked heels.
I had the same reaction. They should have fired the wardrobe designer.
Going to watch the Harry Potter series for the first time this weekend, I'll see how that goes.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 04, 2015, 02:05:10 AM
Going to watch the Harry Potter series for the first time this weekend, I'll see how that goes.
All of them??? Damn, that is a shit load of popcorn!!!
Terminator Genysis
A solid 8 out of 10. I dunno how this time traveling shit is supposed to work. I doubt the screenwriter knows either.
But it's got great action.
I wish I had a deeper review. I watched Terminator 1 about 3 years ago. The third movie even further back than that. I missed Salvation.
Got bored last night and watched Kingsmen. Yeah, mix up James Bond and some whack a doodle ideas, typical good guy bad guy, well dressed skinny kid beats the fuck outa 6 large brawlers and ,oh yeah, lots of hookum. But it was still fun and a good laugh once in awhile. About a 4, but I liked it.
Quote from: aitm on July 08, 2015, 10:56:50 AM
Got bored last night and watched Kingsmen. Yeah, mix up James Bond and some whack a doodle ideas, typical good guy bad guy, well dressed skinny kid beats the fuck outa 6 large brawlers and ,oh yeah, lots of hookum. But it was still fun and a good laugh once in awhile. About a 4, but I liked it.
Watched Max with my grandson. I thought of it as Rin Tin Tin in modern time. He liked it. He rated it 7/10. I love dogs, so I rated it about the same. Or put another way, a solid B movie.
I thought Terminator Genysis was going to be terminator 2 all over again, u know, the same storyline/plot,but no, a few twists an turns an surprises, i thought it was well done.
8/10
The Woman in Gold
Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds 8/10
It's strange to see Ryan Reynolds playing a straight role, but he's good at it, and Helen Mirren is excellent as always. A Jewish woman escapes the Nazis who kill her family and steal their possessions. She ends up in the in California. After the war, a valuable piece of art stolen from her family ends up as a beloved centerpiece in the Museum of Art in Vienna, and 50 years latter she tries to reclaim it, but the Austrians won't give it back. She takes on a young American lawyer of Austrian descent who becomes obsessed with the case and risks everything in an attempt to win it back. Based on a true story.
I just watched some of the new version of "Conan, the barbarian" the new version,2011ish……holy crap…can you believe the original almost 30 years ago is a fucking masterpiece compared to this new piece of crap? Wow. I give it a -infinity…really…..really.
Do excuse me if documentaries do not count.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAMCZKDgL04
10/10 Next only to nature movies and other documentaries
Great information on early life and early philosophy, as well as late life and accurate information of Sartre's ideas
Home - 9.5/10
A pretty good feel-good movie with a happy ending.
Quote from: aitm on July 11, 2015, 09:31:33 PM
I just watched some of the new version of "Conan, the barbarian" the new version,2011ish……holy crap…can you believe the original almost 30 years ago is a fucking masterpiece compared to this new piece of crap? Wow. I give it a -infinity…really…..really.
I thought that one had potential, it just didn't gel for some reason. I don't know why. When after the opening action scene when he rescues a bunch of slaves and suddenly a topless woman appears, I was like "Yeah, that's Conan." But things petered away after that. I don't know if it was just a bad translation of Conan the Barbarian or if it was a superbly accurate translation and Conan doesn't work anymore these days.
Part of the reason Conan doesn't work these days is because his macho sexist bullshit doesn't sell these days.
https://youtu.be/dHeHIMFa_HU It's a hell of a lot better than the original!
https://youtu.be/KaOC9danxNo
Inside Out 10/10
Adults can appreciate this Pixar animation. Ever wonder what goes on inside of the mind of a child? Well, it appears there is a committee of characters each predisposed to a particular set of emotions. They send messages to the child using a large control board with an array of buttons and switches. The area they work in is appropriately called HEAD quarters, and it contains a huge amount of stored memories stored in bowling ball sized spheres. They constantly consult with the memory storage to determine what messages they should send to the child. The characters consult with each other in chaotic fashion, the end result that they don't always send the correct message. This accounts for the child being happy, sad, goofy, sulky, or whatever. A really delightful premise and well done.
Ant Man 8/10
This was way better than the coming attractions led me to believe. Let's face it. Superheroes are absurd. This one is just a little more absurd than the others, but it's very interesting.
Train Wreck 8/10
Excellent romantic comedy that strikes me as a little bit different. Sure, it's the same old romantic cliché that follows a formula, but very entertaining. Never knew anything about Amy Schumer before, but she's funny, and I laughed a lot.
I had a busy weekend. Saw Ant Man and Inside Out back to back. I was trying to avoid sheet rocking the garage.
Lila & Eve 2015
A mother takes revenge on the drug dealers who murdered her son in a drive-by shooting.
excellent movie, 8/10
All American Bully 0/10
Really bad movie. Gosh, it was bad. It reminds me of a freshmen college class media assignment. Even the editing was bad. The only person involved with this film that is beyond my criticism would be the Best Boy, but that's only because I have no idea what the Best Boy listed in the credits does.
Pixel: No intention of watching it, but it is getting absolutely slaughtered by critics. Good... fuck Adam Sandler in every way possible. Shame it brought down my opinion of Dinkledge though :\.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 29, 2015, 04:29:20 PM
Pixel: No intention of watching it, but it is getting absolutely slaughtered by critics. Good... fuck Adam Sandler in every way possible. Shame it brought down my opinion of Dinkledge though :\.
I didn't think it was as bad as the critics said, but it's not a good movie either. The premise was a good one, and I think they could have done more with it, but they settled for much less. I'd give it a 4 or 5 out of 10. Typical Adam Sandler.
Mission Impossible 7/10
These James Bond type films are always somewhat hard for me to follow. I'm never sure what it is that the bad guys are doing that will allow them world domination in the end, and I never know why all these films require the hero to make a trip to Morocco. Is Morocco, like a home base where all spies get together once a mission? Is there a travel agency that books world tours for spies, usually 5 to 10 exotic locations per film, including a casino in Rio, and a bank vault in Switzerland?
MAD MAX Fury Road. Was exciting and fun to watch until I fell asleep.
Ted 2. 9/10 a rollercoaster of a ride.
Half-way through The Raid 2... an Indonesian... action?... film. It's just as badass as the first one, Indonesia isn't necessarily the first place I think of when I think action movies but fuck... they have the insane martial arts of the Asian tradition AND some really gritty, cringe-inducing violence that tops anything the U.S. puts out.
If you want violent, bloody, gore-y, action then the Raid 1 and 2 are right up your ally.
Well, had a friend over and we watched Unfriended. The trailer looked meh, somewhat appealing...we decided to give it a go. HORRIBLE. It had potential, but the plot wasn't fleshed out enough, you felt nothing for the characters, and the script was pretty awful. It's a story about a group of high school friends who go to a party one night, and everyone gets drunk, with one girl passing out. Someone takes a video of her, and posts her all over face book...and then, she is humiliated, and commits suicide. The movie takes place almost entirely on Skype, and the girl who died enacts revenge on everyone by haunting them on Skype. lol It sounds almost as silly as it actually is.
I mean ...what ghost haunts people on Skype sending them hand crafted memes? lol I found myself laughing as it went on.
A friend told me to watch Life is Beautiful and The Theory of Everything, so might look for these over the weekend. Think they both won awards. Life is Beautiful is a movie from the 90's he said...I think?
Hot Pursuit with Vergara and er….oh Witherspoon….meh. It is amusing in that noting else was on and it was slightly better than pre-season football, but not better than 4 re-runs of Big Bang Theory. 3/10
Ex Machina: Holy fuck.
Sci-fi thriller, dealing with the topic of A.I. and all the philosophical and ethical questions that arise from that. Art house style, so a bit slower paced for alot of people's liking and doesn't play to the lowest common denominator.... but stays followable and intended to make you think. Basically only three characters on the screen for the entire run-time, and just their interactions with each other... but it is amazing.
Seriously, this movie is fucking great.
Here is someone who takes their reviews more seriously...
Yeah, I thought Machina was pretty great too, even considering nothing blows up. For some reason, I thought it would be more complicated, but it's a simple, although chilling, premise.
Oh, no! Not more of this shit:
Starts Friday
90 Minutes in Heaven
Don Piper died on January 18, 1989, when a truck crushed his car. Declared dead by the first rescue workers, Don’s body lay under a car. Yet, when a pastor’s prayers helps bring Don back to life, he becomes a living miracle.
A Walk in the Woods 2/10
The movie mostly misses the fun and intensity of the book, which is filled with interesting detail, description, humor. The actors seem wooden, rather than human. And there's too much interesting stuff left out. I usually like Redford, and Nolte is usually OK for me, but I end up not liking the characters here. It's not like I dislike them. I just don't enjoy them much. The writer, Bill Bryson has a very active mind, constantly interjecting observations and items of interest. Redford was unable to capture that personality. He ends up just being a guy doing things. He's got a couple good lines, but not much personality comes through.
The Tale of the Princess Kaguya 8/10
Beautifully animated Japanese storytelling, from legendary studio ghibli. The movie has an art style like watercolor paintings, with fleshed out characters, all presented in a fairytale like way. Its in japanese no english, but that doesn't take anything away from it, a deep story of myth and one worth watching at least once.
The Scorpion King 3- Battle for Redemption.
Shit acting
Shit storyline
shit battle sequences
all in all a shit movie...
0/10, an thats me being generous.......... :shifty:
The mask of Zorro...
8.9/10, it's kinda funny, has that old school swashbucklingness to it and stars Antonio Bandera and Anthony Hopkins.
The Age of Adaline. 7/10
An OK romantic drama. Nothing particularly spectacular. Just a basic plot about a woman who stops aging after a car accident until she's 107 when she resumes aging normally, and the hurdles she has to overcome.
Ora (https://www.nfb.ca/film/ora_en), a 15 minute short from the National Film Board of Canada. Interesting more for its technical achievement than anything else -- shot entirely in HD infrared with the only lighting source being the dancers' own body heat. I'm not much on dance (modern or ballet), but this was fascinating simply for the technological accomplishment. It had to be shot in Vermont because the camera technology is not approved for export, even to Canada. The dancers had to perform in the dark, in a cold room, in two minute bursts because the camera's memory filled up that quickly. Even the cameras had to be cooled to prevent them from recording their own heat signatures.
It's no Fantasia, but it's still remarkable to watch.
Quote from: trdsf on September 27, 2015, 10:32:23 PM
Ora (https://www.nfb.ca/film/ora_en), a 15 minute short from the National Film Board of Canada. Interesting more for its technical achievement than anything else -- shot entirely in HD infrared with the only lighting source being the dancers' own body heat. I'm not much on dance (modern or ballet), but this was fascinating simply for the technological accomplishment. It had to be shot in Vermont because the camera technology is not approved for export, even to Canada. The dancers had to perform in the dark, in a cold room, in two minute bursts because the camera's memory filled up that quickly. Even the cameras had to be cooled to prevent them from recording their own heat signatures.
It's no Fantasia, but it's still remarkable to watch.
Trying to find somewhere to watch it more affordable, sounds really interesting. I might just have to settle for a few clips though :\.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 27, 2015, 10:43:20 PM
Trying to find somewhere to watch it more affordable, sounds really interesting. I might just have to settle for a few clips though :\.
It's free to watch online at the NFB website; the name of the film in my original post links to the page.
Quote from: trdsf on September 27, 2015, 10:48:48 PM
It's free to watch online at the NFB website; the name of the film in my original post links to the page.
Yeah, I'm an idiot. It wasn't supported by my browser, so I thought you had to buy and download it. Time to give it a go!
The Martian
Very good. Basically a space mission gone wrong and the protagonist has to figure out how to survive. There are obvious comparisons to _Apollo 13_ and to _Gravity_. Though I would say this is not quite as good as either. A bit slower, not as taught. But, should generally appeal to viewers who like their science fiction with plausible science.
I saw it in 3D. The 3D is not as compelling here as in Gravity. I think it would be fine to see it in 2D. Though there are some scenes that evoke Gravity. So, up to you if you want the 3D or not.
Mad Max Fury Road - 9/10
Absolutely amazing action and stunts combined with a really appealing visual style. It's pretty much Awesome Chase Scene: The Movie. Also, it has Grunchlk and Granny from Farscape in it. :P
A few things sort of rubbed me the wrong way, but didn't hurt it enough to really take away from the experience. The titular character doesn't really get a whole lot to do. He's pretty much just a bystander for the first half of the movie. The film is definitely centered around Furiosa. You could probably write Max out of the movie and it wouldn't be all that different.
That and the surprisingly frequent embarking/disembarking from the tanker truck. One guy basically ran behind it and caught up to it, probably not the best pace when you're trying to outrun a motor convoy.
Also, the tremendous water wastage (both by the tyrannical warlord and the runaway girls) really peeved me. I wouldn't even waste water like that and I live in a state that's flooding right now. These people are living in some sort of post-apocalyptic wasteland where potable water is such a tremendously rare commodity that if you own an aquifer, you can rule your own little kingdom. It's liquid power. You don't just spill that stuff on the ground if you can help it.
Additionally, my roommate really took an analytical bent to it. Like what practical purpose does flamethrower guitar guy serve to the warband - why is he even there except for us, the audience? What exactly motivates the Bullet Farmer and the People Eater - what's in the chase for them? How does the Citadel sustain itself in terms of food and fuel and munitions and vehicle parts? That question is partially answered by surrounding towns with specializations as fuel and munitions producers. But how do those places have the resources and infrastructure and know-how to produce it? He really wanted to know exactly how this society ticks and they didn't really go in much detail in the film though there's probably some book or wiki or something that does.
I didn't care too much for Mad Max Fury Road. I just found it too silly. Yes, good stunts, I agree. But, flame throwing guitar guy was ridiculous. And then there was the bad guy that looked like he got wardrobe advice from Slipknot. And of course it was just too convenient for the male audience that Mad Max happens to come across the bad guy's harem. And we don't even get to see their tits or anything.,
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on October 02, 2015, 12:18:07 AM
The Martian
Very good. Basically a space mission gone wrong and the protagonist has to figure out how to survive. There are obvious comparisons to _Apollo 13_ and to _Gravity_. Though I would say this is not quite as good as either. A bit slower, not as taught. But, should generally appeal to viewers who like their science fiction with plausible science.
I saw it in 3D. The 3D is not as compelling here as in Gravity. I think it would be fine to see it in 2D. Though there are some scenes that evoke Gravity. So, up to you if you want the 3D or not.
8/10 for me. However, I'm one of the small minority that didn't find Gravity that interesting.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on October 02, 2015, 11:02:09 AMAnd then there was the bad guy that looked like he got wardrobe advice from Slipknot.
That part I actually understood. He's diseased and looks horrible. He covers it up to keep up appearances and not show weakness. Probably helps to intimidate people, too.
Rented Paranormal Activity 4 last night, as is a tradition of mine to watch horror films with friends during the halloween ''season.'' It was pretty scary, but I kept a pillow in front of my face the whole time...and peeked out now and again. You can diminish a movie's scareyness by doing this :=P
Also rented Cinderella...the recent version by Disney. It was amazing. They did a great job of taking a classic, and keeping it pure to the story, yet bringing in a deep message for the viewer. Loved it.
I went to Cinderella because nothing else was playing that week. I could never imagine anything being better than Walt Disney classical animation. But I was surprised how much I liked it. It was delightful. Well acted with a talented cast. It felt to me like someone put some thought into making that film.
My daughter is a fan of that chunky Melissa somebody who has the new movie "Spy"…..meh. This gal is making some serious dinero for being a fucking lousy actress in lousy movies…..fuck man…..I am so fucking jealous.
Quote from: SGOS on October 19, 2015, 05:09:50 AM
I went to Cinderella because nothing else was playing that week. I could never imagine anything being better than Walt Disney classical animation. But I was surprised how much I liked it. It was delightful. Well acted with a talented cast. It felt to me like someone put some thought into making that film.
You know I've always got a soft spot for the live action version of 101 Dalmatians starring Glenn Close, it's not the same as when the dogs could talk, but it has a real charm, and Glenn is amazing as cruella de vil.
Quote from: Munch on October 20, 2015, 01:43:15 PM
You know I've always got a soft spot for the live action version of 101 Dalmatians starring Glenn Close, it's not the same as when the dogs could talk, but it has a real charm, and Glenn is amazing as cruella de vil.
It happens sometimes.
Bored and clicked on " My Cousin Vinnie" ,,just as funny as it was 10 15 or whatever years ago it was. Not a great movie, but a fun movie. If you have never seen it, it'll be a 7, it you have seen it once, it'll be an 8. Its good fun.
Spectre so soon... so soon...
Hope to see Spectre today.
Last night, among other videos, I watched Manhattan project stuff to celebrate Veteran's Day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTRVlUT665U
Rent
I'm not opposed to musicals. I hope to play JC and Frank N Furter someday. Rent is a horrible musical. The music, script, and story are incredibly bland and contrived. The acting in the movie is sad. I understand that the live version is even worse.
It's not like I haven't been a bohemian, so it doesn't go over my head. It's more like an insult.
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2015, 09:56:34 AM
Hope to see Spectre today.
Saw it yesterday. Don't get your hopes up.
Quote from: SGOS on November 11, 2015, 11:07:42 AM
Saw it yesterday. Don't get your hopes up.
Saw it today, and liked it anyway. It is a sequel within a larger franchise. Would have been better to see all four of the new ones, all at once. Like LOTR all at once. Directing was still good ... perfect timing and music as usual.
Saw "The Last Witch Hunter" yesterday.
I would recommend it as a mate with "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" for a drinking night double feature.
३ इडियटà¥à¤¸ (3 Idiots) -
A good intro into Bollywood films, it's a solid "coming-of-age", "comedy drama" staring Aamir Khan (and some other people, but he is THE actor in Bollywood and is the star of this film).
The short of it is that it takes place in an extremely competitive, exclusive engineering school that is run by an incredibly strict headmaster who values memorization over learning. Rancho, played by Khan, has complete distaste for this system and truly believes people should learn for the pleasure of it, which places him in contest with his professors. His two friends end up getting caught up in this struggle between what is the real purpose of learning. It also addresses the pressure put on Indian students to perform well, including an extremely dark scene early on that sets a dark and serious undertone for the rest o Khan's criticisms for the rest of the film. He also comes into conflict with the rich, and offers contrast to the view that life is all about net gain/loss and who you associate with you should be based on how they socially, economically or politically value you rather than any attraction for them.
It's a good film, it's definitely making me want to look into more Bollywood art... in the West, I think we tend to see only the crappiest bits and then say, "Wow, Bollywood is trash, I would never watch that stupid shit!".
Thanks for the suggestion of Three Idiots. I will definitely watch more clips after the scene where they mix up the professors grading ;-)
Young men from another culture, break the stereotypes ... so it is possible to appreciate again how wonderful it was to be that young.
The musical clip is frat ... but the final scene is sobering ... we had one student commit suicide when I was an undergraduate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-LltgOtFSg
And I had a fellow frat brother flunk out of Freshman year ... because of alcoholism.
I see that Creed, the latest in the Rocky series is getting amazingly good reviews. Believe it or not, I've never seen any of the Rocky movies. I've seen a few clips of the original, and the one with Mr. T. But not seen any of them complete. If I see this one, will I have trouble understanding the references to the other movies? Like I have no idea who Creed is supposed to be the son of. Anybody seen Creed and can comment?
I loved Spectre. I know that it has only gotten modest reviews, not as good as Skyfall. Well, at least for me, I loved Skyfall but I loved this one even more. I was not expecting a more subdued pace, more like a mystery than an action movie or a Bond movie. Yes, there are action set pieces. But, even they are more restrained than expected. In some ways, it has a few more touches of the classic Bond than the other Daniel Craig movies. It has Blofelt. It has Q. It has some gadgets. It has Moneypenny. But it still has a way different feel than Bond films usually do. I found it surprising and fun.
Spectre was good. I liked the story. 8/10
On Spectre; I was sold once I saw the opening Dia de Muertos sequence and theme song bit. My only gripe is needs more Waltz.
Godzilla (2014) - 9/10
Very entertaining.
Rebirth of Mothra Trilogy - 7/10
Definitely aimed much more at kids compared to the majority of Godzilla films, as indicated by a much lower effects budget and a focus on child characters. The twin fairies (shobijin) are gone, replaced by ancient aliens called the Elias who mostly serve the same role. Lora and Moll fill the role of Mothra's priestesses, while their sister Belvera is the main antagonist of the first two films (later becomes and anti-hero). The star of the show is not Mothra, but rather the son of Mothra: Mothra Leo. Though he is still called Mothra within the films, he is a different character with his own powers and personality. Over the course of the trilogy, he fights two new monsters and one that returns from the Godzilla franchise: Desghidorah, Bagahra, and King Ghidorah. Very entertaining, if you can forgive the low budget.
If you watch it in English, be aware of these things:
-Desghidorah's name is a botched translation. It should be "Death Ghidorah."
-Moll is called "Mona" in the first film for some reason.
-The English dub often refers to Mothra Leo as a she, even though he is confirmed to be male.
-The third film was dubbed much later than the others, and has a different English dubbing cast.
-Bagahra is called "Bagarla" in the English dub for some reason.
No Escape with uh……what his face..um….dammit,,,hang on….(googles) oh yeah, Owen Wilson. Not a bad flick, good action, pretty much non-stop but most of all, very believable action. No crazy shit. Not bad. I would say about a 7.5
Think I'm going to rewatch the godfather, then watch second for the first time.
So.. this was a thing..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3Pq-4oAZbtI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWMu4kS8yIs
If it seems like something the cinema snob should be reviewing, just say this trailer misses out any notion of it being a gay porn.
Heres the notsafeforworkgaypornhotguysdoingnaughtythingstogether trailer.
http://whorreypotter.com/
[spoiler](http://i.imgur.com/ziKd7Eq.jpg)[/spoiler]
apparently this won awards.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on November 25, 2015, 07:30:28 PM
I see that Creed, the latest in the Rocky series is getting amazingly good reviews. Believe it or not, I've never seen any of the Rocky movies. I've seen a few clips of the original, and the one with Mr. T. But not seen any of them complete. If I see this one, will I have trouble understanding the references to the other movies? Like I have no idea who Creed is supposed to be the son of. Anybody seen Creed and can comment?
Haven't seen it, but I'm supposing Creed must be the son of Apollo Creed, who was Rocky's first (I think) match for the Heavy Weight Title. In that movie or in a subsequent film in the trilogy, Rocky and Apollo become good friends after the fight. So I assume in the new movie, Rocky becomes a mentor to young Creed out of friendship and respect for this father. At least, that's how I would do it if I were a Hollywood writer.
Maze Runner (2014) - 6/10
It starts out well, with a mystery just waiting to be unraveled and .... tanks. Becomes this action-something-evil-illuminati-whatever stupid story in the end. The Maze itself never gets that much attention, but the Glade is well done. Hopefully they won't do the same deal in the sequel.
Krampus (2015) - 7/10
Loved the characters, especially German Grandma and the homicidal gingerbread men, and the off beat humor was pretty entertaining. I liked the Henson-esque Krampus and elves too, nice touch. I think the story was lacking a little bit, but still worth a visit to the movie theater.
American Ultra 9/10 - For being a unique surprise.
Jessie Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, Bill Pullman, Topher Grace
44% Rotten Tomatoes 48% Users
I love it when movies step outside of the Hollywood formula just a bit and cross over into what the general Hollywood target audience considers too untypical to be taken seriously. Sometimes such movies fail miserably, but every once in a while, they hit pay dirt. I like the regular movies that over and over rework the same concepts that have met success before too, but when there is something unique about a movie that slaps me in the face and wakes me up from the usual movie humdrum, I appreciate it immensely.
American Ultra centers around the CIA trying to terminate one of their trained assassins, who unknowingly breaks protocol, and now he must fight for his life. OK, we've seen this plot line like what? 50 times? Finally, someone realized this plot has become an embarrassing cliché, and thought it might be time to have some fun with it by making it just a little bit twisted.
Usually the folks at Langley are scripted as a well trained and formidable force that the hero has to thwart to stay alive. In this this movie, the CIA, while dangerous enough, seems to be operating in the middle of an acid trip (OK, I exaggerated. Maybe it's more like I'm watching the movie from the middle of my acid trip). I wouldn't call it goofball by any means. It's a refreshing surprise. While I laughed a lot, I was never sure if the director was aiming at being serious or not.
I realize few people would give it a high score. But I'm buying a copy for myself.
My kid wanted to watch the latest version of the "transporter" series….uhg……wow…..just be a little 12 yr old boy and it will be a 20 out of 10…..sheeesh.
Inside Out - 10/10
Another perfectly crafted Pixar animation from Disney.
Quote from: SGOS on December 07, 2015, 09:11:48 AM
Haven't seen it, but I'm supposing Creed must be the son of Apollo Creed, who was Rocky's first (I think) match for the Heavy Weight Title. In that movie or in a subsequent film in the trilogy, Rocky and Apollo become good friends after the fight. So I assume in the new movie, Rocky becomes a mentor to young Creed out of friendship and respect for this father. At least, that's how I would do it if I were a Hollywood writer.
Haven't seen it yet. But, a friend of mine who has seen it told me similar, and I think you have basically the story correct as I understand it. I plan to see it soon. Supposed to be good.
Turkey Hallow 1/10
OMG, Disney failed on this one. Mary Steenburgen was directed to play a totally flat character. The others could be excused for lacking talent. Even Henson's Muppets failed. In defense of the director, he wasn't given much of a story to work with.
This was pretty much my reaction to the trailer for Star Trek Beyond:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7z_FgbGFRo
Thought I'd pop by to give you, without spoilers, my micro-review of
STAR WARS THE FORCE AWAKENS
Me heading for the theatre: "This better be good".
Me leaving the theatre: "Good. This is better."
9/10
I just saw Contact a few days ago
8/10
basically it was science: the movie.
Torn between starting "Citizen Kane" (never seen it before) or some good ol' film noir flicks. Probably gonna go with Kane.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens!
Thumbs up! However, I think the part where Jar Jar Binks creates an army of Darth Vader clones to battle the Hutt Empire was a little overdone. But it was saved when Chewie's kids Itchy and Scratchy intervene, making use of their Jedi training.
I kid, of course.
Or am I? Muhahahahahah!
Quote from: mauricio on December 17, 2015, 12:47:59 AM
I just saw Contact a few days ago
8/10
basically it was science: the movie.
Science... and the politicians that can't wait to use or oppose it for whatever means it offers them.
Rob Lowe does the best imitation of a Jerry Falwell type "God vs. science" sleaze bag.
Quote from: SGOS on December 17, 2015, 05:22:48 AMRob Lowe does the best imitation of a Jerry Falwell type "God vs. science" sleaze bag.
I think his sleazy smarminess was based on Ralph Reed. Even his name: Richard Rank...
Quote from: Atheon on December 17, 2015, 07:35:07 AM
I think his sleazy smarminess was based on Ralph Reed. Even his name: Richard Rank...
I never caught his name in the movie. "Richard Rank" That's perfect! He should get an Academy Award for Best Pompous Religious Harangue in a Motion Picture.
But seriously, though I'm still absorbing it and still have some questions I need to resolve, I would give The Force Awakens a tentative 9/10.
I have some nitpicks, which I will not get into yet (for the sake of avoiding spoilers), but it feels like Star Wars is back! It definitely towers above the prequels (an easy feat, I admit), and I would also rate it above Return of the Jedi. It's back to the humanness of the first two of the original trilogy. It also has a good deal of humor, but of a good kind, not the stilted attempts at humor in the prequels. You don't need to know anything about the prequels to see this movie, but you should see the original trilogy first of you haven't. (And who but some isolated Amazonian tribesfolk hasn't seen them?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRVD32rnzOw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozfGeGYe-lY
Seriously, wtf about this even reminds you of Star Trek, the kickboxing or motorcycle stunts? Those would probably be great for another franchise, but in this setting, it just doesn't work. And Beastie Boys? Who the hell thought that was a good idea? Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally opposed to high octane action in Star Trek, but this completely overshadows all other aspects of the franchise. The beating heart of Star Trek is its journey into the unknown (testing humanity's resolve and ability to solve major problems, to prove itself worthy as a new galactic power) and its exploration of the human condition. Without that, it's just Fast 5 in Space. Vacuous. Pointless. A waste of everyone's time.
I never thought I'd see the day, but Star Trek is slowly dying as Star Wars flourishes. :(
Going to be lazy and just quote myself from facebook...
QuoteMy review of Star Wars: It returned to it's roots... to what made Star Wars great... and it felt like I was finally back in the Star Wars universe. Was it a perfect movie? No... but it returned me to a galaxy that I loved and missed. A perfect 10 for me for emotional reasons.
I absolutely loved it.
Edit Edit: I will expand; I think it's only the second time in my life that I have been truly head-over-heels in love with anyone or anything. There was not a moment in the film my eyes weren't wide, the stupidest grin of my life on my face, bitting my finger or covering my face just to try and hide how enamored I was with it. And this isn't so much the film itself as the universe being brought back to life... but the film brought me back into this universe in a way only Empire Strikes Back, Star Wars Galaxies, KotOR, all the great books and A New Hope have done... KotOR, Star Wars Galaxies and the books really BEING my childhood as I lived in the middle of no where or was at a hospital the majority of my childhood and they were basically "my parents".
Edit: In hindsight I will say this...
WARNING: SPOILERS[spoiler]Kylo Ren is not powerful enough... I realise he is still an apprentice to the Dark Side... but I just feel that him and Rey would likely grow at the same pace (although the Dark Side is "stronger" so perhaps he can have the power advantage in the second film) which means he will always be second best.
But perhaps they find some Sith holocron or something that grants him much more immediate power... or in killing his father it pushes him into all out anger and "Sithness" and that exponentially makes him more powerful as he stops holding back.
However I have seen people complain about his "teen angst" lightsaber wailing on walls and shit... but honestly it fits how a Sith should be... overpowered by their anger. Only a master Sith should be able to hide and control their emotions whereas a Sith trainee should behave exactly as he did. I also hope he doesn't put up with subordinate shit as much as he did in this one (much as Vader did in the first and then didn't in the second and third).
All in all... the actor didn't feel quite as inspired as I would have liked and the character is a bit weak... but there is a shitload of potential with Ren and I believe the new trilogy is in good hands so... I believe he can be a proper evil bastard in due time.[/spoiler]
QuoteIt's back to the humanness of the first two of the original trilogy
I have to disagree here... Return is perhaps one of the most human of them all... at least as much as A New Hope. The entire scene between Vader-Luke-Emperor is just an emotional and psychological roller coaster for Luke and Vader.
The Force Awakens.... SPOILERS!!
[spoiler]
...parallels Episode IV very closely in many ways; almost a remake.
Secret information stored in a droid
The bad guys looking for the droid
Orphan on a desert planet meets old man who becomes mentor, who is later killed by bad guy
Bad guy is servant of even more evil bad guy who appears as gigantic hologram
Info delivered to rebels who analyze it and launch attack on planet-destroying weapon[/spoiler]
Quote from: Atheon on December 17, 2015, 03:00:00 AM
I kid, of course.
Or am I? Muhahahahahah!
Reminds me of when The Return of the Jedi came out. A woman at work was a big Star Wars fan. But, she didn't see it opening day, she was going to wait until the weekend. So I saw it first. I get back to the office and jokingly said, "Luke dies". She yelled how I ruined it! I said I was only joking. She said well now she knows Luke doesn't die. I said, c'mon, you know Luke wouldn't die. She was still mad and said well he could have and now she knows he doesn't.
LOL.
I really enjoyed The Force Awakens. It is getting overall stellar reviews. But, for people that don't like it, they complain it is too much of a rehash of the original movie. And, they have a point. There are lots of near identical plot points. You can also see bits of Empire Strikes Back and even Raiders of the Lost Arc.
But, after the maligned prequels, the way to get the franchise back on its feet probably required going back to the beginning.
Still, to me, the idea of sword fighting with light weapons when you can use a blaster from a distance seems hokey. That and droids that can't speak. I agree it was brilliant in '77. But, seems dated to me. I'm surprised the franchise has survived as strong as it has. The franchise has managed to survive the prequels, and having a number of things that to me seem pretty dated, and yet here it is, still popular.
I give force awakens a 6/10
I just saw that big-budget movie everyone's been raving about. The Hobbit was okay, I guess. Some pacing issues and numerous deus ex machinas really hurt my impression of it. Overall, it was okay. Not amazing, not terrible, just okay.
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on December 18, 2015, 11:45:18 PM
I give force awakens a 6/10
...
...
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/d7/d778d86a9be900044c0b57d70737250d8724b38d251073d08ed0cac1c233ad64.jpg)
Any particular reason?
Quote from: Shiranu on December 19, 2015, 02:37:48 AM
...
...
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/d7/d778d86a9be900044c0b57d70737250d8724b38d251073d08ed0cac1c233ad64.jpg)
Any particular reason?
Wasn't impressed with the story to be honest; liked some of the actors but not a fan of Finn, (just a name not spoilers) the shock was predictable to me at least, and I'm a little tired of the trope of the hero always winning. The movie itself felt like a rehash of the original, didn't like the humor, also felt like I was watching another Star Trek movie not another Star Wars movie. Also everyone I've told about my opinion has attacked me and said "if you don't love if you hate it" so my opinion is further soured
I'll stick with expanded universe. Not paying to see episode 7 again
Quote from: Shiranu on December 17, 2015, 02:58:06 AM
Torn between starting "Citizen Kane" (never seen it before) or some good ol' film noir flicks. Probably gonna go with Kane.
Citizen Kane was top movie of all time ... for a long time. Recently displaced by Vertigo. Under what rocks have y'all been hidin'? Oh yeah ... young people ;-) But to appreciate Citizen Kane, you have to visit the mansion of the man it was based on, William Randolph Hearst ... Hearst Castle in CA. Citizen Kane stars the young Orson Welles ... but Vertigo stars James Stewart ... my favorite actor of all time. And don't forget The Maltese Falcon with Humphrey Bogart ...
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 18, 2015, 11:21:12 PM
I really enjoyed The Force Awakens. It is getting overall stellar reviews. But, for people that don't like it, they complain it is too much of a rehash of the original movie. And, they have a point. There are lots of near identical plot points. You can also see bits of Empire Strikes Back and even Raiders of the Lost Arc.
But, after the maligned prequels, the way to get the franchise back on its feet probably required going back to the beginning.
Still, to me, the idea of sword fighting with light weapons when you can use a blaster from a distance seems hokey. That and droids that can't speak. I agree it was brilliant in '77. But, seems dated to me. I'm surprised the franchise has survived as strong as it has. The franchise has managed to survive the prequels, and having a number of things that to me seem pretty dated, and yet here it is, still popular.
George Lucas understands cyclic metaphysics aka Hinduism/Buddhism. Of course events repeat themselves! Usually boy meets girl, girl has baby kind of cycle ;-))
There is a genre ... where distance weapons are considered cowardly, that real men use edged weapons. This goes back to the Illiad. There is a whole sci-fi book series by one author based on this ... semi-medieval idea ... by Marion Zimmer Bradley. In this world you could use psy weapons, but not sci weapons.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 18, 2015, 11:21:12 PM
I really enjoyed The Force Awakens. It is getting overall stellar reviews. But, for people that don't like it, they complain it is too much of a rehash of the original movie. And, they have a point. There are lots of near identical plot points. You can also see bits of Empire Strikes Back and even Raiders of the Lost Arc.
But, after the maligned prequels, the way to get the franchise back on its feet probably required going back to the beginning.
Still, to me, the idea of sword fighting with light weapons when you can use a blaster from a distance seems hokey. That and droids that can't speak. I agree it was brilliant in '77. But, seems dated to me. I'm surprised the franchise has survived as strong as it has. The franchise has managed to survive the prequels, and having a number of things that to me seem pretty dated, and yet here it is, still popular.
Haven't seen it yet. But I will try to enjoy it, just like I did the prequels, and overlook the flaws. Until they let me direct my own, their will always be flaws. For me, it's more an emotional stimulation than an intellectual one. I don't try to pick apart Star Wars, too much.
And a blaster is no match for a lightsaber, in the hands of a Jedi. :geek:
Just saw the force awakens. What did you guys think of the new unicorn jedi? I was ok with it until he piloted that x-wing. I mean how did he even fit in there?
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 19, 2015, 10:04:47 AM
Haven't seen it yet. But I will try to enjoy it, just like I did the prequels, and overlook the flaws. Until they let me direct my own, their will always be flaws. For me, it's more an emotional stimulation than an intellectual one. I don't try to pick apart Star Wars, too much.
And a blaster is no match for a lightsaber, in the hands of a Jedi. :geek:
Yeah I mean lets be clear. Basically everyone who isn't a trained force user uses blasters and other more conventional seeming weaponry. Which is a percentage of people so close to 100% as to almost be mathematically indistinguishable from it. Jedi can get away with it because of the force which, as we have seen before, can be used to just swat blaster fire aside bare handed.
Quote from: Nonsensei on December 19, 2015, 10:06:26 AM
Just saw the force awakens. What did you guys think of the new unicorn jedi? I was ok with it until he piloted that x-wing. I mean how did he even fit in there?
Now you went and spoiled it for me! Just don't tell me if his horn turns into a lightsaber...
Quote from: Nonsensei on December 19, 2015, 10:09:07 AM
Yeah I mean lets be clear. Basically everyone who isn't a trained force user uses blasters and other more conventional seeming weaponry. Which is a percentage of people so close to 100% as to almost be mathematically indistinguishable from it. Jedi can get away with it because of the force which, as we have seen before, can be used to just swat blaster fire aside bare handed.
Didn't Qui-Gon Jin explain that, in a way, in
The Phantom Menace? He said Jedi can anticipate the future, and therefore seem to have quick reflexes (thus Anakin's ability to pilot the pod-racer).
Quote from: Nonsensei on December 19, 2015, 10:09:07 AM
Yeah I mean lets be clear. Basically everyone who isn't a trained force user uses blasters and other more conventional seeming weaponry. Which is a percentage of people so close to 100% as to almost be mathematically indistinguishable from it. Jedi can get away with it because of the force which, as we have seen before, can be used to just swat blaster fire aside bare handed.
I've only seen the first Star Wars, but it just occurred to me that fighting with light sabers might be an advantage, where dazzling your blaster packin' opponent with artful skill and cool moves causes your opponent to throw in the towel and become honor bound to let you kill him, because shooting a light saber guy in the face with a blaster would be cowardly and bring shame upon your family and culture, at least in a galaxy far far away, where honor is valued over victory.
.308 rifle with a scope. See if Jedi can anticipate a 2500 FPS 150 grain bullet from 200 yards. Yeah I know; buzzkill.
They have Star Wars movies planned out for the next 6 years. So, what to do after that??? Well, I've got a great idea!!!! Why not do Episodes 6.1, 6.2, 6.3? We can call them the "sequel prequels". In these movies, we learn how young and promising upcoming Jedi Ben Solo eventually falls to the Dark Side. We can see him as a young boy doing pod races. To show his nativity, he can yell, "yippie". Nobody's ever seen anything like that before, amiright???
No need to recast Luke Skywalker, Princes Leia or Han Solo. Simply have Andy Serkis play them all in mo-cap and have them all CGI characters. They might even be able to get George Lucas to come back and direct them. Whaddya think? I think its brilliant!!!!
Quote from: stromboli on December 19, 2015, 11:59:49 AM
.308 rifle with a scope. See if Jedi can anticipate a 2500 FPS 150 grain bullet from 200 yards. Yeah I know; buzzkill.
This may not have been specifically enunciated (or very well portrayed) anywhere in the movies, but blaster fire is "intense light energy" and therefore presumably moves at the speed of light and jedi don't seem to have any problem deflecting them.
Quote from: Nonsensei on December 19, 2015, 02:28:29 PM
This may not have been specifically enunciated (or very well portrayed) anywhere in the movies, but blaster fire is "intense light energy" and therefore presumably moves at the speed of light and jedi don't seem to have any problem deflecting them.
It varies a lot (http://www.wired.com/2012/05/star-wars-blaster-speed/) in the movies and tv shows, but it's portrayed as definitely much less than the speed of light and arguably slower than real-world bullets. It's slow enough that even non-jedi can dodge or block the shot, and they do on occasion in the TV shows.
Anyways, the perfect Jedi-killers are area-effect weapons like Bubba Fett's flamethrower. Those cloaks catch on fire really easily.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 19, 2015, 01:55:22 PM
They have Star Wars movies planned out for the next 6 years. So, what to do after that??? Well, I've got a great idea!!!! Why not do Episodes 6.1, 6.2, 6.3? We can call them the "sequel prequels". In these movies, we learn how young and promising upcoming Jedi Ben Solo eventually falls to the Dark Side. We can see him as a young boy doing pod races. To show his nativity, he can yell, "yippie". Nobody's ever seen anything like that before, amiright???
No need to recast Luke Skywalker, Princes Leia or Han Solo. Simply have Andy Serkis play them all in mo-cap and have them all CGI characters. They might even be able to get George Lucas to come back and direct them. Whaddya think? I think its brilliant!!!!
See, technology ruins theater. You need a cold marble seat in the open air ... and actors shouting thru painted clay masks. And Darth Vader .. come on .. nobody messes with Oedipus Rex ;-)
Quote from: Nonsensei on December 19, 2015, 02:28:29 PM
This may not have been specifically enunciated (or very well portrayed) anywhere in the movies, but blaster fire is "intense light energy" and therefore presumably moves at the speed of light and jedi don't seem to have any problem deflecting them.
The gravity of their heroic dignity is enough to bend space-time. So they only have to deflect it, not dodge it. But if you are the guy standing next to the hero ... watch out! ;-)
If Qui-Gon Jin could anticipate the future, then he should have realized he needed to play a different role in the story ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 19, 2015, 04:09:47 PM
It varies a lot (http://www.wired.com/2012/05/star-wars-blaster-speed/) in the movies and tv shows, but it's portrayed as definitely much less than the speed of light and arguably slower than real-world bullets. It's slow enough that even non-jedi can dodge or block the shot, and they do on occasion in the TV shows.
Anyways, the perfect Jedi-killers are area-effect weapons like Bubba Fett's flamethrower. Those cloaks catch on fire really easily.
Yes it does vary a lot in the movies. Most strikingly, the amount of time it takes for a blaster shot to travel from Han Solo's gun across a dining room to Darth Vader's hand is depicted as being almost exactly as fast as a turbolaser shot takes to travel the gulf of space between a Star Destroyer and a Corellian Corvette , a distance many times greater.
I think its supposed to move at the speed of light, but Lucas didn't want flashlight beams but instead wanted something approximating bullets and ended up depicting light speed shots as moving ridiculously slower than the speed of light so the audience could see what was happening in a way that would make sense to them.
The "problem" in my opinion, is many of you take movies far to seriously, really, you know the name of third hand characters and I don't even remember the names of the main. I watch movies for pure escapism, some of you seem to see alternate life in them. It's a movie.
Quote from: aitm on December 19, 2015, 09:58:32 PM
The "problem" in my opinion, is many of you take movies far to seriously, really, you know the name of third hand characters and I don't even remember the names of the main. I watch movies for pure escapism, some of you seem to see alternate life in them. It's a movie.
Hate to say it, but I agree with aitm here... and I am provably one of the largest star wars nerds around. It's magic and dramatics, not a episode of Cosmos.
Bah. I like to analyze the details of stuff. It's fun and it can sometimes lead to some interesting insights. I see no reason to stop simply because someone else is not so inclined.
Quote from: aitm on December 19, 2015, 09:58:32 PM
The "problem" in my opinion, is many of you take movies far to seriously, really, you know the name of third hand characters and I don't even remember the names of the main. I watch movies for pure escapism, some of you seem to see alternate life in them. It's a movie.
Yeah we remember the details of, and like to discuss, things we like. What ever the fuck could be wrong with us?
Nothing wrong with discussing, just realise it's a movie that had severe technological limitations so accuracy may not be included.
Jeremy Jahn's spoilerless review is very much how I came out of it feeling...
Or the spoiler-heavy one more accurately...
Fascinating to see a franchise (but not as old as Dr Who) travel from generation to generation ;-) Sort of validates Joseph Campbell.
Quote from: Nonsensei on December 19, 2015, 02:28:29 PM
This may not have been specifically enunciated (or very well portrayed) anywhere in the movies, but blaster fire is "intense light energy" and therefore presumably moves at the speed of light and jedi don't seem to have any problem deflecting them.
And I totally believe that, yes I do. Anticipating trigger pulls milliseconds ahead, we are.
Btw: they shoot plasma, not light.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 20, 2015, 06:06:10 PM
Btw: they shoot plasma, not light.
So we can defeat the Empire/First Order ... by not donating at the blood bank? ;-) What if we only donate red blood cells, and no plasma?
If you mean the other kind of plasma, it seems too contained to be weaponized ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAi7Ju43rDc
Hey, I am sorry, I don't mean to harangue anyone. I just see movies as entertainment not a lifestyle. On a different but somewhat related topic, I am banning headphones, ear-buds and any amplified music from my job sites and expect some backlash. I see way too many people walking around construction sites unable to hear or not paying attention while they FB or sexsnap or whatever they want to do instead of work. This may be a difficult battle.
Quote from: aitm on December 20, 2015, 09:17:36 PM
Hey, I am sorry, I don't mean to harangue anyone. I just see movies as entertainment not a lifestyle. On a different but somewhat related topic, I am banning headphones, ear-buds and any amplified music from my job sites and expect some backlash. I see way too many people walking around construction sites unable to hear or not paying attention while they FB or sexsnap or whatever they want to do instead of work. This may be a difficult battle.
You have my support. I worked construction when I was 14 (for my brother- it was legal) And I have some scars to prove it. Anything that makes the workplace safe is fine by me.
Just saw Star Wars Force Awakens. 8/10. Very good. Better than I expected.
[spoiler]I really liked this one. I especially liked the new look of the Imperial Remnant First Order. A little more black in the stormtrooper armor, things seem shinier and cleaner. They seem more competent now, more hardcore, and less goofy. You really get the sense that these guys are here to stomp some ass, not wrangle wampas. And that speech to the assembled troops got a pretty emphatic Bellamy salute from me. (What? It was a very good speech!) And I really liked that silver-plated stormtrooper despite the fact that she does practically nothing throughout the film. She's the new Boba Fett, imho.
I like Red Mist Kylo Ren. He's a Vader wannabe with some serious anger issues (those poor, poor computers). He wants more than anything to be a badass villain, and he does look decently fearsome in his mask, but underneath it all he's very conflicted and actually sort of a small fry. I alsolo saw the main spoiler coming a mile away.
There were a few things I didn't like. The pacing felt rushed. They do the running-for-our-lives thing from early on till pretty much the end. I didn't really get much of a chance to breathe and really take in the setting.
Speaking of, very little is revealed about the geopolitical situation. We know from the wreckage that the Imperials and the Rebels did a lot of fighting. We know there's a Republic now, though its relative power is unknown, and given the devastating strike and General Organa's relatively small force, it's not particularly powerful. The Empire has less sway now than it used to, but it still seems like it has a lot of its former power. If anything, the Empire might actually be the dominant one now.
I really dislike how Rey (and others) seem awfully skilled at tasks they've never done before. Fly a space freighter in combat? No prob! Fire a blaster? Piece of cake! Lightsaber duel a well-trained opponent? Sure thing! Blow up the shield generator? I was assigned to sanitation duty, but sure, why not.
Also, the plot's structured a little too closely with a New Hope. Imperials looking for a droid on a desert planet. Imperials gunning down civilians. Hero from humble beginnings on said desert planet meets old, wise teacher. Desperate rebel assault on planet-destroying superweapon. Definitely had a paint-by-numbers vibe.
And speaking of superweapons, the multi-planetkiller (I can't remember the name, so I'll just call it Black Sun). I don't get how that works. It's an installation (planet?) that sucks in a whole star somehow and then channels all that energy into an incredibly destructive energy volley. Then what? Moves on to the next one? How? Besides, it seems like it would be a lot easier to just build a dozen or so star destroyers and then just bombard rebel world after rebel world. Rendering two star systems lifeless per volley (the target star system and the sucked-dry star system) seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Presumably, the Empire wants to reoccupy these systems, not destroy them utterly. The fact that they're going this route indicates desperation.
A couple more really petty things, but I feel like I should point them out. 1) I would've liked to have seen Y-wings with the X-wings. I know the X-wings are the iconic rebel craft, but those are interceptors, not bombers. 2) Finn and Rey's outfits never change throughout the film. Desert, forest, and icy forest - still wearing exactly the same thing.[/spoiler]
Quote from: aitm on December 19, 2015, 09:58:32 PM
The "problem" in my opinion, is many of you take movies far to seriously, really, you know the name of third hand characters and I don't even remember the names of the main. I watch movies for pure escapism, some of you seem to see alternate life in them. It's a movie.
I think discussing movies is no different than a classroom discussion of literature or mythology (well, maybe more like a book-club discussion). You have the superficial comments, as well as the deeper insights. Star Wars may not rank with Shakespeare in everyone's eyes, but many of us under 50 grew up with this series, and learned the names and concepts when we were kids. Then we've shared it with our own kids, who have embraced it enthusiastically. So it's fun to talk about the details with other fans. What works, and what doesn't. What moves you, and what is just silly. I don't need the internet for those discussions though, as my whole family are Star Wars fans.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 20, 2015, 11:40:54 PMI don't need the internet for those discussions though, as my whole family are Star Wars fans.
I feel you there. My cousins are deeply into that stuff. I'm talking reading all the books and walking to the movies in cosplay. Sadly, Trekkism is only on my dad's side of the family. Part of the reason I watched the new movie was just so I could talk about it with them on Christmas Eve. Also, now I can browse Reddit without fear. Well, as much fear.
I expand what I said... Blasters ( generally) shoot super heated gas particles ( like what is mined on Bespin).
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 21, 2015, 12:18:30 AM
I feel you there. My cousins are deeply into that stuff. I'm talking reading all the books and walking to the movies in cosplay. Sadly, Trekkism is only on my dad's side of the family. Part of the reason I watched the new movie was just so I could talk about it with them on Christmas Eve. Also, now I can browse Reddit without fear. Well, as much fear.
I wouldn't call my dad a sci-fi fan, so much as just someone who enjoyed the genre. He introduced me to Star Trek as soon as I was old enough to watch TV. I probably watched the original series, on his lap, when it first aired in the 60's. Built all the Star Trek models and, in 5th grade, my teacher turned me on to the
Starfleet Technical Manual. I initially didn't like the new Trek movie series (and I still think it was a stupid waste of the Planet Vulcan), but the second movie earned my attention. I hope the next Trek movie is as good as Into Darkness.
I was 11 when Star Wars came out, so it was a really big deal to me being an avid sci-fi book and movie lover. In fact I had the paperback movie-adaptation novel (the one with the Ralph McQuarrie cover) before I even heard of Star Wars the movie. I remember, on the back cover, it said,
"Soon to be a major motion picture from 20th Century Fox." I started to read it but didn't get beyond the first chapter.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 21, 2015, 01:27:32 AM
I expand what I said... Blasters ( generally) shoot super heated gas particles ( like what is mined on Bespin).
One thing I've noticed about blasters, is that they have yet to portray one running out of ammo. :think:
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 21, 2015, 02:11:58 AM
One thing I've noticed about blasters, is that they have yet to portray one running out of ammo. :think:
According to Wookiepedia, they can fire up to 500 times without needing to be reloaded. But you're right, I've never seen one run out of ammo. IIRC, they also rarely jam or malfunction, even if submerged in water or fall off a building. That's some nice craftsmanship.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 21, 2015, 01:53:41 AMBuilt all the Star Trek models and, in 5th grade, my teacher turned me on to the Starfleet Technical Manual.
I loved the technical manual. For all Trek's technobabble, they did a great job of selling viewers on the idea that this fantastic technology is possible if we just put in the time and energy to figure it out.
Putting in a plug ... the Shakespeare does Star Wars series by Ian Doescher.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 21, 2015, 12:18:30 AM
Part of the reason I watched the new movie was just so I could talk about it with them on Christmas Eve. Also, now I can browse Reddit without fear. Well, as much fear.
LOL. I do that too. I always go to the movies that are hyped as blockbusters. Sometimes it's because I hope to find that thrill that everyone else is excited about, often to my disappointment. But, it's about trying to understand why a movie is considered important. It may or may not be a movie that is meaningful to me, but I can at least be part of future discussions.
[spoiler] RIP Han Solo[/spoiler]
If Harrison Ford can survive being blown up in a nuclear explosion by hiding in a lead lined refrigerator ... he can survive a little light saber hole and a long fall into the power shaft ;-)
Heads up to everyone reading this thread who hasn't seen the new Star Wars movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQTp8Ozj1JQ
We're keeping this about as hush-hush as the Family Guy episode where Brian dies.
Luke kills Dumbledore.
Solo will reappear in the next episode stronger than ever. Fans will be amazed and wonder how he could come back to life until the next action scene distracts them. This is what Star Wars fans consider a "thought provoking" film. After the movie, people will be honking their horns, and everyone will be shouting the event to strangers passing by on the street, and the movie will be totally spoiled 5 minutes after the Midnight Premier. Then other fans will have to go to the movie to see if Solo really does come back to life, and they will reaffirm the event to skeptics that haven't had a chance to go to the movie because it's only been in the theater for two days. :biggrin:
Quote from: Shiranu on December 17, 2015, 02:58:06 AM
Torn between starting "Citizen Kane" (never seen it before) or some good ol' film noir flicks. Probably gonna go with Kane.
The first time I saw Kane, I thought, "Jeez, this looks like every '40s movie ever made". And then I remembered that it was the
first movie to look like that and I understood what the fuss was about. It's not often you can point to a single movie that completely redefined the craft, but Citizen Kane did.
Force Awakens was great. 10 out of 10.
The Big Short 9/10
An account of the sub prime mortgage con that lead to the great recession. It did a fairly good and uniquely entertaining job at explaining the complexities of credit default swaps and the fraudulence of Wall Street in highly entertaining cut scenes, like having a super model doing a better job than the media ever did of explaining what a credit default swap is, while drinking champagne and taking a bubble bath no less.
But they scrunched too much of the book into the time allotted for the movie. Had I not read the book, I would have been a little confused by who was who, and what was going on at times. In fact, I was confused part of the time. And for those not having read the book, I'll guess parts of the movie might seem like something that was just edited in for meaningless filler, when it was actually a major part of the story.
Oddly, I felt sad for an hour or two when I left the theater thinking about how Wall Street and government worked together to transfer such a huge chunk of middle and lower class wealth to the egregiously rich in such a mean spirited way and brought the global economy to it's knees in the process.
SGOS ... there are winners and losers ... guess which one you and I are? So when are they doing a movie when the American people decide they have had enough and overthrow the bankers and their political lackeys? Not happenin' bro! Don't want to give the peasants any ideas.
Quote from: Baruch on December 25, 2015, 09:52:26 AM
SGOS ... there are winners and losers ... guess which one you and I are? So when are they doing a movie when the American people decide they have had enough and overthrow the bankers and their political lackeys? Not happenin' bro! Don't want to give the peasants any ideas.
Bernie Sanders 2016. That is all.
88.
I seriously have a problem with the lead actress here. Why the fuck did I just watch her in a LEAD role? I guess because the movie itself wouldn't have done worse with someone else. It could have been another Leaving Las Vegas if not for the guessable plot. You knew she shot him after a few minutes? I watched it to the end so I suppose the jokes on me, but I liked her better in Supernatural.
New meme, mild Star Wars spoiler. Thought I'd share it here instead of the Funny Pictures thread.
[spoiler](http://i.imgur.com/8rpwa0m.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/vhXbd8L.gif)
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/056/777/e72.gif)[/spoiler]
Saw Creed. I really loved it. As I said in an earlier post, I've never seen any of the Rocky pictures before, though I've seen clips. The Stalone mumble turned me off. But, it didn't bother me in this film, it seemed to fit his retired boxer turned trainer/mentor role. There were maybe a couple of scenes that didn't 100% work for me. I didn't entirely buy his quit his cushy office job to be a boxer plotline. But, overall, great. And I was in love with his girlfriend. Hot damn.
Minions.
Like taking a shit when very constipated… a lot of work for a little action and in the end all the work left you somewhat exhausted with nothing to show for the time you put into it. A very very bad shit…er….movie
Last night I have watched Noah (2014).
It was the first Noah and the second of the sort (Passion of the Christ) I have seen.
It was depressing for nothing overall. Usually, there is a good reason for the depressive atmosphere, all that dead and a plot matching it. Here is nothing ffs. Just an invisible pure pyshcopathic mass murderer who keeps killing men and women and babies. I liked the watchers.
About SW: The Force Awakens:
[spoiler]
QuoteI really dislike how Rey (and others) seem awfully skilled at tasks they've never done before. Fly a space freighter in combat? No prob! Fire a blaster? Piece of cake! Lightsaber duel a well-trained opponent? Sure thing! Blow up the shield generator?
The Force is strong with her. [/spoiler]
I have just seen it. I liked it. Made me happy. It was much much better than I expected.
And I want a BB-8. :sad2:
Quote from: Atheon on December 28, 2015, 08:00:17 AM
About SW: The Force Awakens:
[spoiler]The Force is strong with her. [/spoiler]
Lol. The thing about sci fi is you can project in a lot of different directions without worrying except in the post tense: case in point being devices like Roddenberry's Star Trek communicators- we've practically surpassed their techno capability far ahead of the 25th century timeframe, now they looked dated in retrospect.
One can infer stuff like instant learning methods (Matrix) to account for people being able to do things they otherwise wouldn't know, so one is still projecting. Stuff a plot hole with whatever reason/excuse works for you.
One of my beefs generally with both Star Wars and Star Trek is that by that period of advancement, humans or what we see as human would likely have incorporated themselves into quantum interfacing or other mechano-tech mods (think Borg-lite without the master control) As one who has been reading sci fi since the 50's, I've noticed that sci-fi projections are always lopsided. Star Trek you've got super zoomy transporters and blasters and Dilithium crystal-based warp drive, but still have people in most respects straight out of the 20th century.
Star Wars even more so. We are practically to the point where we can interface with computers physically and be connected into a matrix like simulacrum, but Star Wars runs like a cowboy shoot em' up including ridin' the wild pony (pod racing) and quick draw OK Corral duels.
Good observation. I think at the time (1966) Star Trek was considered a Space Western wanting to be a Space Opera.
Just watched Star Wars again. It's still great. Probably going to see it with family later this week.
Just finished watching Ant-Man on blu-ray. Wow! What a fun ride! All we need now is Wasp, and we'll have all five original Avengers, from their first appearance in 1963: Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, Ant-Man, and Wasp. :geek:
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 29, 2015, 08:38:35 PM
Just finished watching Ant-Man on blu-ray. Wow! What a fun ride! All we need now is Wasp, and we'll have all five original Avengers, from their first appearance in 1963: Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, Ant-Man, and Wasp. :geek:
Yes, that one was a surprising treat. I never imagined the Ant Man concept would be that good.
Beware the original villain group ... R.A.I.D ;-)
Oh my god... the cameos...
Also... my god I hope this is true.
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]
Quote from: SGOS on December 29, 2015, 08:58:29 PM
Yes, that one was a surprising treat. I never imagined the Ant Man concept would be that good.
I read a book when I was a kid called, "The Micronauts." It was about miniaturization, and the adventures of some ant-sized explorers.
As for the movie, I thought Paul Rudd was perfectly cast, and I enjoyed seeing that Micheal Douglas had a very large part in the film. There's a lot of humor in it as well, especially with Ant-Man's close friends.
I heard they're doing an "Ant-Man and Wasp" movie in the near future.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 30, 2015, 06:52:31 AM
As for the movie, I thought Paul Rudd was perfectly cast,
That was another surprise. He turned out to be an excellent choice for the part, but I never would have anticipated that. In fact, I discounted the movie somewhat when I heard he was going to be ant man. I always get Paul Rudd confused with Ryan Reynolds, and never thought of either of them as serious actors, but they both seem to have broken out of their usual one dimensional roles this year.
More Star Wars spoilers
[spoiler]I just watched Angry Joe and co's discussion (https://youtu.be/xUoDmgVEoUM?t=10m48s) and they bring up one thing that I absolutely disagree with. The guy on the left says that Kylo Ren should've been scarred under the mask, "like a Sith should look". This plays into a pair of tropes that the good guys should look attractive (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeautyEqualsGoodness) while the bad guys should look unattractive/disfigured (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilMakesYouUgly). I don't blame him for this expectation - Palpatine and Vader, the two most famous Star Wars villains, were both heavily disfigured - but it's a terrible trope to keep using, so I'm glad they didn't do that this time around. Because obviously, looks are unrelated to evil. Villains can come in a variety of forms, just like heroes. It'd be stupid to have the villain be some deformed guy every single time.
Also, I don't think Rylo Ren was an unbearably angsty teen. I think he pulled it off decently. And compared to prequel Anakin, he's great. I count this as an example of Abrams and Disney successfully pulling off what Lucas couldn't - a young man seduced by the dark side.[/spoiler]
Just watched Star Wars on the IMAX in 3. Fun. Good tie in with older stuff. Nothing too wacky, I thought the "mind channeling" or whatever you call it was drug out a little more than need be but hey, I had fun. Its a movie. But holy cow the previews of shit coming! Star Trek looks interesting, Independence day looks fun, Capt America and then we have the Superman,Batman, Wonderwoman thing looks fun. Crap I might spend a week n the theatre.
Quote from: aitm on December 30, 2015, 01:12:01 PM
Star Trek looks interesting, Independence day looks fun, Capt America and then we have the Superman,Batman, Wonderwoman thing looks fun. Crap I might spend a week n the theatre.
Yep. :celebrate:
Quote from: aitm on December 30, 2015, 01:12:01 PM
Just watched Star Wars on the IMAX in 3. Fun. Good tie in with older stuff. Nothing too wacky, I thought the "mind channeling" or whatever you call it was drug out a little more than need be but hey, I had fun. Its a movie. But holy cow the previews of shit coming! Star Trek looks interesting, Independence day looks fun, Capt America and then we have the Superman,Batman, Wonderwoman thing looks fun. Crap I might spend a week n the theatre.
What about the force awakens score ? How do you rate the movie?
Pk (2014) - Another Bollywood film staring Amir Khan alongside Anushka Sharma, this one takes place after an alien (Khan) arrives on Earth and almost immediately finds himself in trouble as his way back home is stolen from him. Unable to speak Hindi at first, and then not understanding anything of human culture, finds himself in multiple hijinks... first of a male/female dynamic but then later religious. He "adopts" the name PK after many people call him it... not realising the peekay is the Hindi word for "drunk" which they believe he is.
Anushka's role as a TV personality mean while has her in Belgium where she falls in love with a Pakistani guy... just to have her family and religious leader tell her he will betray her and sure enough he does. She ends up meeting PK and tries to get his story because of his appearance and he is posting and hading out fliers everywhere "Lost: God. If found him please call" and thus she ends up learning about how he has survived.
The middle and final acts become a fight between PK's naive view on religion and how it conflicts with the religious leaders and different sects in India, culminating in a debate with one of the largest prophets in the country. It is very condemning of religious expenditures on prestige and temples rather than the poor as well as religious leaders who make false claims... and it wasn't something I was expecting from an Indian film. There were one or two people actually set themselves on fire in protest of this so it wasn't something that certain sects apparently appreciated.
All in all it was a good film; it is mostly comedy but dealing with a very controversial subject. The romance part is not over-done and it doesn't end with the main character magically ending up with the romantic lead... which I appreciated.
Indian version of Mr Bean? Things look much clearer thru eyes of an alien ;-)
Also to add, first time to the big theatre since the last Star Trek. Don't go often. Also first time I have had popcorn since the same time. Don't each much popcorn either…..don't know how they do it, but you can't argue most movie popcorn is the frickin best.
Quote from: aitm on January 01, 2016, 11:18:16 AM
Also to add, first time to the big theatre since the last Star Trek. Don't go often. Also first time I have had popcorn since the same time. Don't each much popcorn either…..don't know how they do it, but you can't argue most movie popcorn is the frickin best.
http://www.mostmetro.com/dayton-dining/food-adventures/secrets-why-movie-theater-popcorn-tastes-so-good.html
According to the link, canola oil and the buttery topping.
Quote from: SGOS on December 30, 2015, 07:35:44 AM
That was another surprise. He turned out to be an excellent choice for the part, but I never would have anticipated that. In fact, I discounted the movie somewhat when I heard he was going to be ant man. I always get Paul Rudd confused with Ryan Reynolds, and never thought of either of them as serious actors, but they both seem to have broken out of their usual one dimensional roles this year.
I have to agree with you all, here. This was such a surprise to me, especially Rudd -- I don't believe that could possibly have been better cast. He was perfect. Great movie, very well done.
I really liked Ant-Man, which surprised me because I'm not much of a fan (https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/KKCi42TtHl4TFQFnSeGZwAZ2Yeg=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2914298/antmanviolence.0.jpg) of the hero (http://www.styleforum.net/content/type/61/id/1087014/width/350/height/700/flags/LL) or his shrinking/enlarging powerset. It just seemed goofy (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5b/e6/9c/5be69c384a470a8db292700882397a03.jpg), and I mean goofy (http://www.hulklibrary.com/superhero-library/Img/Covers/IAM/IAM-010-m.jpg). There were lots of ways this movie could've disappointed or under-performed.
Well, it didn't. The initial plot - "Baskin Robins always finds out" - was a chore to get through and followed some dubious logic (is it really impossible for a felon with a masters in electrical engineering to find a job?) but it built to some amazing action sequences, heartfelt moments, and actually pretty funny jokes. I liked the new, more Star Lord-looking helmet. And I even liked the ants.
Not my personal favorite by a long shot, but a solid superhero movie worth seeing, imo.
Yep. Ant Man surprised the heck out of me.
The Martian, I really liked it. Not being as smart as most of you, I can easily dismiss the science stuff that would make it a no-no….but hey I like Star Trek which is pretty much the same boogie boogie.
Anyway, I liked it. To the average person it was just right…right on the edge of believability and your confidence that science could pull it off. Not a great flick, but I liked it. Overall as a movie that I would rate for real fun…about a 7.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2015, 09:58:42 AM
More Star Wars spoilers
[spoiler]I just watched Angry Joe and co's discussion (https://youtu.be/xUoDmgVEoUM?t=10m48s) and they bring up one thing that I absolutely disagree with. The guy on the left says that Kylo Ren should've been scarred under the mask, "like a Sith should look". This plays into a pair of tropes that the good guys should look attractive (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeautyEqualsGoodness) while the bad guys should look unattractive/disfigured (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilMakesYouUgly). I don't blame him for this expectation - Palpatine and Vader, the two most famous Star Wars villains, were both heavily disfigured - but it's a terrible trope to keep using, so I'm glad they didn't do that this time around. Because obviously, looks are unrelated to evil. Villains can come in a variety of forms, just like heroes. It'd be stupid to have the villain be some deformed guy every single time.
Also, I don't think Rylo Ren was an unbearably angsty teen. I think he pulled it off decently. And compared to prequel Anakin, he's great. I count this as an example of Abrams and Disney successfully pulling off what Lucas couldn't - a young man seduced by the dark side.[/spoiler]
And my not very spoilery comment to this, but just in case:
[spoiler]What blew it for me with Kylo Ren is not the angsty-teen thing (which I do happen to think was overplayed just a touch), but that he looks very like a 1965 pre-bearded Jerry Garcia. Especially when he's just opened his mask and his hair is all poofed out. While I can take that look seriously on a musician, it just doesn't work on a villain.[/spoiler]
Frankly of all the movie, by far, the fight scene blew the big one. I mean Ren could stop a lazer with his mind power and not just kick the fuck outa two newbs, even if one was a beginner? Nah.
I remember an old Tarzan movie and back then the special effects were really really bad, but in one scene he somehow got hauled into court trying to get his kid back from some circus that swiped him. Any-hoo, when the protaganist faced off in court, Tarzan lept to his feet over the table and one handed threw the guy into the wall, and it looked like it should, brute strength just overpowering. and then of course he jumped through a ten story window barely catching himself on the ledge, physics be damned, and swung ledge to ledge to escape....ah....the good old days of reality...
Quote from: aitm on January 27, 2016, 02:34:14 PM
Frankly of all the movie, by far, the fight scene blew the big one. I mean Ren could stop a lazer with his mind power and not just kick the fuck outa two newbs, even if one was a beginner? Nah.
Yeah, but the Noob is this trilogy's Chosen One. And if you ask me, Ren's not a terribly good (er, so to speak) Evil Overlord. He's already broken some of the rules on the list of things not to do if one is an Evil Overlord (http://legendspbem.angelfire.com/eviloverlordlist.html).
Is it bad of me that I think of the captain Ren had to deal with as Stimpy?
Quote from: trdsf on January 27, 2016, 02:03:45 PMWhile I can take that look seriously on a musician, it just doesn't work on a villain.
That's the thing, though. He doesn't have a particularly villainous look. For me, that's what makes the reveal more disturbing that it otherwise would be. Monsters look like just like us.
Just watched the woman in black 2. I've been a fan of the woman in black for a while now, since I saw the original theater production in london, loved how the play gave me the chills. And I was impressed by the movie adaptation of the story, it gave me the chills too, really atmospheric.
This movie however, it comes off as nothing more then a cash grab, the story was never adapted from a theater and was just the writer reprocessing the same elements from the first, but in such a dull, unimaginative way, it gave nothing to the story.
The set was nice, but so was the original, the actors were good people, but the way they were written was awful, the story was rushed at times and other times you just wanted them to get to anything possibily scary, and yet the scares where five nights as freddys jump scares, cheap and forgettable.
See this movie only if its free, your regret paying anything to see it otherwise.
"Safety First"
A Belgian (Flemish) flick, following a comical series by the same name. I never watched the series because, while done by a great production-house, the humor I saw in the snippets that flashed by on tv, were not my kind of humor. I also heard bad things about it from people with about the same tastes as me.
My girlfriend loved the show however, so we decided to give it a go at the cinema. For going in with low expectations, I was pleasantly surprised. Not the greatest film of the year, by far. But definitely amusing.
Story is that an independent security-company called Safety First does some odd jobs here and there and have lots of trouble allong the way. In the film they land a job guarding the VIP at Tomorrowland, a huge festival in Belgium. The lead of the lead characters, finds out/admits to himself in this film that he is gay and most of the film is about him coming to terms with this after meeting a crush from his youth. It tells the internal struggles very well, without ever losing sight of the comedy.
It's in dutch, however, so it may be a lot of reading if you ever come across it.
7.5/10
Just saw Horns, with Daniel Radcliffe.
It was.. eehh.. kind of okay I guess. it wasn't terrible, but it wasn't no oscar winner either. It came from the horror section of move video stores, but there was really next to very little horror elements in it. Radcliffe was great as always, though the way he put on an american accent was kind of offputting, since its not his natural voice and it sounded very put on most of the time, while other times, it broke and it sounded like his normal voice.
The acting in it overall was good, all the actors gave it their all, nothing outstanding but same time they played their parts well. The setting and lighting was good, nothing I haven't seen before.
The biggest premise of the movie is when radcliffe's character develops his token 'horns', the effect he has around people being able to force them into confessing their sins and real desires was hilarious at times, dark in others. Forcing the homophobic cop to admit he was gay and start to undress and make up with his partner in his cop car had me laughing, while when his mom and dad admitted to having to real feelings for him and wishing he wasn't around anymore was pretty dark. The funniest was when he got the tv reporters to fight one another and the last one alive at the end would get an interview with him.
But overall the movie kind of barreled out after the first half and lost itself, the story was predictable, and special fx were kind of lacking for the time the movie was made. Radcliffe did a good job with his character, but the movie didn't really seem to know what it wanted to be.
C+
Superbowl 50....meh.....6/10
Quote from: aitm on February 08, 2016, 11:59:39 AM
Superbowl 50....meh.....6/10
I have as of today, reached a new level of awareness concerning my environment. For the first time, on the day after the Superbowl, I still don't know where it was played, who won, or even who the contestants were.
The Maze Runner 6/10
AKA "OMG run, the movie" due to the frequent chase scenes. A bunch of kids (including Jojen) are stranded in a small patch of wilderness surrounded by an ever-shifting maze. Their little society reminded me a little of Lord of the Flies and the amnesia plot reminded me a lot of Resident Evil. Midway, the plot picks up from its earlier doledrums as the characters are now trying to escape. Their escape attempt was pretty exciting, but imo, it had a lackluster ending complete with sequel bait. This isn't a bad movie, but it's not a good one, either.
Maze Runner: Scorch Trials 7.5/10
AKA "OMG run, even runnier". I'll be honest, I picked this one up mainly because of Aidan Gillen - the smirking schemer I love to hate. This movie somehow got worse reviews than the first one, which I don't understand because I liked it much more. I really liked the worldbuilding and the action sequences weren't bad. The set work was great, looking awfully similar to Fallout (though minus the radiation). I also really enjoyed some of the new characters (especially Littlefinger), but a couple were pretty forgettable - Alan Tudyk was criminally underused.
They're both decent movies if you don't try to think too much about the setting. The big picture - why everything is the way it is - doesn't make any sense. I don't understand the villains' gameplan at all. Plus, a couple characters make bafflingly stupid moves. And there's a scene where a character falls onto a glass pane that starts breaking. Then another character falls onto it, but it inexplicably doesn't break immediately. Instead, it shatters at the most dramatic point possible. Because fuck physics. But, all in all, not bad. I'm looking forward to the third movie.
Deadpool 9.5/10. Go see it.
My roommate practically begged me to see it. He loves DP way more than I do. He probably wants more DP right now and we just got done with DP. He's insatiable.
Ryan Reynolds gets Deadpool. His portrayal is 100% spot on. Seriously, this guy is to Deadpool as Heath Ledger is to the Joker. Except he's around for a sequel. Deadpool is his normal, jokey, 4th wall breaking self. Plus, you get to see that underneath that wackiness, he's an asshole, a merc, an asshole, another asshole, and a screw-up, but underneath all that - he's a troubled guy trying to fix his life.
The action was good, the jokes were good, the plot was...what's the opposite of overwhelming? Underwhelming? Nah, it wasn't that bad. It was whelming. I feel whelmed. Also, the post-credits scene kinda sucked. Not as bad as Guardians of the Galaxy, but it was still pretty bad.
A couple nitpicks:
[spoiler]Where the hell are the cops? Seriously. Not one anywhere. What was it, free hot coffee and blowjob day at Dunkin Donuts? Is it doughnuts or donuts? I can never remember. Fuck it, people know what I mean. And blowjob is an alcoholic drink, you pervs. Hot coffee is the sex act.
The X-Men were more or less filler. Nice to look at, but didn't really add much to the film. Superwhelming. And I don't mean like the Latin root indicates - above whelming. I mean that they took whelming, sprayed it with chrome, put it in spandex and told it that it was substantially contributing when it wasn't. It was just kind of there.
Also, I feel bad for the chronically underpaid uber driver and possible felon - if cops even exist in this universe. If they don't, he's probably going get lucky. Either way, he has a ticket to pound town.
Also, the Weapon X clinic (which has been privatized, thanks Obama!) makes no sense. They basically just torture people then give them superpowers. No way that's going to bite them on the ass. Spoiler! It does. And they don't even necessarily have to do torture to get the adrenaline up. And selling them to the highest bidder sounds like a bad business model. When they get one, they just kidnap the rest. Or kill you during the handoff and blow up the clinic. Kinda dumb, and this is coming from a guy who thought for years that the capital of Australia was Vienna.
Also, Deadpool should have recognized and pointed out Stan Lee! Golden opportunity wasted!
Anyway, Deadpool was great.[/spoiler]
Ryan Reynolds ass and cock. Also lots of gore. That's all I have to say.
(For those degenerates attracted to vag, there's plenty of that.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw
I feel like someone shat on my shoes.
First off, I'm kinda having trouble believing these super educated geniuses wouldn't have normal jobs. The world's foremost expert in quantum physics is just chilling out in some NYC rathole instead of CERN or NASA. Seems kinda unlikely. I could tolerate the streetwise black lady cliche if she didn't have the "Aww hell no" line. Cringe.
Second, it seems like a real generic, stupid comedy banking completely on nostalgia, like Pixels. I don't remember the original Ghostbusters all that well, but I'm pretty sure it had better jokes.
Then there's the acting. It seems goofy. Like Jar Jar squared goofy. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea?
Just all in all, real bottom-bin garbage. The best thing about this is probably the CGI. I feel bad for the CGI team working hard for such an enormous flop.
The first Ghost Busters was kind of cute, I guess. It became somewhat of an icon for reasons I never quite understood. It's not a movie I would have considered worth a reboot.
Quote from: SGOS on March 05, 2016, 04:13:04 PM
The first Ghost Busters was kind of cute, I guess. It became somewhat of an icon for reasons I never quite understood. It's not a movie I would have considered worth a reboot.
Yeah, me neither. I could see a reboot if and only if Bill Murray could return in a sort of Han Solo role. Otherwise, nah.
shutter 6.5
The Monuments Men, actually not bad. A rather melancholy movie. One of those you kinda watch because you're bored and end up liking. I give it a 7 because it does exactly that. It exceeds your expectations as the movie goes along.
The Divergents: Allegiant
I watched this with a mild and detached interest. I know these youngsters are committed to saving the world and all, but I kept having the feeling that their efforts weren't really worth the bother. They escape the dystopia they are in and wander about the wasteland finding better societies, which then turn out to be flawed and as bad as the evil they are trying to escape. While I like movies about dystopian futures, I don't connect with this one. The first in the series was worth the price of a ticket, however. Or at least I thought it was.
A Tale of Two Sisters.
Shit horror movie. 4/10
Quote from: Sal1981 on March 21, 2016, 10:05:40 AM
A Tale of Two Sisters.
Shit horror movie. 4/10
My two nieces weren't happy sharing the same bedroom.
Batman V Superman
In my theater, there was NO LESS THAN 3 CRYING BABIES! And I think it was actually 4 or 5! Goddammit! If you can't afford a baby sitter than you can't afford to go out on a date. Sorry, but that's life.
As far as the movie, well, I basically enjoyed it. Certainly better than the reviews. I thought that it had a generally overly self-serious overly dramatic tone to it. And the score seemed to scream at you, "this is serious, dude!". But, I thought the pluses did outweigh the negatives and say its a 7.5 out of 10.
(slight trivial spoiler....) I thought when Batman turned from anti-Superman to pro-Superman, it was too quick and cheesy. "I was gonna kill you a second ago, and I was super duper serious about it and all that shit, but now you're my BFF!"
But, for the people that thought Affleck would suck as Batman, they were wrong. He was good.
As far as Eisenburg as Lex Luther, well, I thought he did a pretty good unhinged performance. Though some might say he was too influenced by Ledger's Joker.
Still, way better than you might think from the reviews. At least in my opinion.
OH MY GOD, yes about the babies! And kids who would not shut. The. Fuck. Up. about superman at closing scenes... Fuck me...
Watched Landmine Goes Click..
Some American tourists get caught up when one accidentally steps on a landmine and can't move while his girlfriend is supposedly brutalized and raped by the local bad guy, but the part that is so ridiculously fake is from the moment the bad guy arrives (he has a shotgun and a Rottweiler) and seems willing to help, but the couple start right off being insulting calling him asshole, etc., which by any standard they're in no position to be rude to anyone much less a guy with a shotgun and a big mean dog.. .. 1 out of 10.. Be sure to watch it..
I have been watching Hunger Games. I am at the last one. It's pretty good.
My daughter (25) liked the series, speaks to her generation, but not mine. Timing is critical ... she didn't like the Twilight series ... it was directed at girls just a bit younger than her. I am odd, I have a liking for modern-made Chinese historical drama that is close to a soap opera.
No, it is pretty good, Baruch. Give it a shot. I thought it is for youngsters too, so I didn't watch it in the big screen. May be I should look into books one day.
The nature of revolution, nature of dictators and dictatorship. Heroism. Rebellion. Rebels. Basic dynamics. Pretty good explained. Surpisingly good explained actually.
What We did On Our Holiday - 9.5/10
A very different movie with familiar English setting. Go watch it.
10 Cloverfield Lane 9/10
Did well with critics, but I put off seeing it because I thought it was going to be my least favorite genre (supernatural thriller). I was pleasantly surprised, however. It didn't follow the formula I expected. It was more Sci Fi than supernatural, but definitely a thriller. I'll look forward to putting this one in my private collection when the DVD comes out.
Saw the reverent. Dam good movie, given the theme it one I don't usually go for, and I completely thought this movie would be based on something else.
leonardo dicaprio was so good, his role was so rugged and brutal, you just felt the pain he went though just from how well it was directed.
9.5/10, well worth seeing.
The Hateful 8- Tanatino movie so not much for plot or substance but lots of blood and violence. Was a bit surprised at the concentration of the Nigger being used, not so much that it was inappropriate, because it wasn't for the time, but I wasn't expecting it and I had to keep muting it around the g-kid.
the movie as a whole was- meh…about a 5….mid level bs
However I was caught off guard by the last song in the movie….never heard it before but I new voice of Roy Orbison…..
very somber song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT-tFOXdwSI
Youth Michael Caine and Harvey Keitel.
Somewhat interesting, but I won't rate it because me rating a movie with artsy fartsy intent would be unfair, as I would deduct 9 points simply for the genre. There are a few moments of levity, and of course, some full frontal nudity, which is required to gain full artsy fartsy status. I like movies that make me think and wonder, but when the thinking revolves around wondering why someone would make a movie like that, it makes the movie seem pretentious, as if I lack a level of intelligence necessary to appreciate whatever the Hell is going on. Having said that, Youth does have a plot, and it's carried to completion, but it happens in an environment of 2 hours of non-essential surreal angst and other assorted emotions interspersed with the actors engaged in long periods of dark contemplation.
Victor Frankenstein 7/10
Trashed by critics and almost as badly by movie goers, I thought it was a fun diversion. It doesn't follow the original story, but goes off on it's own. The first prototype monster they create is just a pile of junk made from animal parts. The final monster is more realistic than the monsters from older movies, I think. Starts out a little lame, but is redeemed somewhat by the finish. It's probably not going to help the actor's careers much.
Night and Day….I really like this fun movie. Not a great movie, but just a fun watch. I give it a 8 only because I watch it whenever it comes on. Tom Cruise in one of his only fun movies and Cameron Diaz..you know..the gal with man hands. Still, its a fun movie.
Rewatched one of my favorites: The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, an absolutely perfect parody of/homage to the bargain basement sci fi movies of the 50s. Recommended, especially if you're an MST3K fan -- not that it would be a good movie for MSTing, but that it parodies all the tropes that make a movie MSTable.
I suppose I should next watch the sequel, The Lost Skeleton Returns Again...
Lucy 6.5/10
[spoiler]Saw it on HBO. Only got that score because of Scarlett Johanssen. The plot wasn't bad- girl caught up in drug trafficking gets dose of super drug that enhances the human brain megafold. Idea is good but application not. Going from "10%" (which is BS; the human brain cannot be damaged in any part without affecting cognition) to 100% Lucy does everything including time travel to the past to meet the first Lucy to being able to levitate bad guys, whatever. Has some trite hollywood schlock like last minute saving of the heroine and other supposed "cliffhanger" shit which actually is pretty stale. [/spoiler]
I like Luc Besson but when you get into interesting possibilities I'd like to see a more nuanced and intelligent and well developed scenario. That said, Scarlett looks good in anything.
Last movie I saw was Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. I give it a 3.5/5 Cuz of the zombie and gore part of it, which i loved. But what I didn't like about it is that the marriage subplot was confusing. It didn't help that I forgot the names to boot. Once I saw Sarah Cersei Connor I knew things was gonna get confusing.
Quote from: AkiraTheFighter on April 13, 2016, 11:33:41 PM
Last movie I saw was Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. I give it a 3.5/5 Cuz of the zombie and gore part of it, which i loved. But what I didn't like about it is that the marriage subplot was confusing. It didn't help that I forgot the names to boot. Once I saw Sarah Cersei Connor I knew things was gonna get confusing.
Yup you are definitely going to fit in here. :2thumbs:
(Re)watched The Lost Skeleton Returns Again!, the sequel to The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra. Blamire has mastered the art of the completely bizarre Ed Wood style non sequiter, and the extensions to the core team that made up the original movie fit in perfectly. And the Dance to the Cantaloupe Goddess needs to be seen to be believed... if you love those sci fi weirdies of the 50s, you owe it to yourself to get this.
The Forest 7/10
I don't consider that too high a score. For a horror/thriller, one of the most humdrum genres to work from, this was generally creepy good and had a couple of effective jump scares. If you like creepy thrillers, I think you will like this one. Otherwise, disregard this post entirely.
I am watching bad, 80s movies.
Right now, Teen Wolf. Yeah the one with Michael J. Fox. 1985. :lol: It's terrible of course but I am happy, because I am freaking 11 years old right now.
I may even try Bloodsport after this, but not sure if I could stand it. There is a difference between feeling 11 and actually being 11...
Jungle Book 9/10
A lot of funny nonsense that's just fun to watch.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on April 25, 2016, 10:02:03 AM
I am watching bad, 80s movies.
Right now, Teen Wolf. Yeah the one with Michael J. Fox. 1985. :lol: It's terrible of course but I am happy, because I am freaking 11 years old right now.
I may even try Bloodsport after this, but not sure if I could stand it. There is a difference between feeling 11 and actually being 11...
Be sure to pause Bloodsport randomly to capture priceless Van Damme faces.
(http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/23fb3651-a6d9-4ab9-846b-c0ff73e9a5cd/8eab11f0-5d4c-4f20-9b3b-3032a37c8b8c.jpg)
Quote from: kilodelta on April 25, 2016, 08:52:00 PM
Be sure to pause Bloodsport randomly to capture priceless Van Damme faces.
(http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/23fb3651-a6d9-4ab9-846b-c0ff73e9a5cd/8eab11f0-5d4c-4f20-9b3b-3032a37c8b8c.jpg)
LOL Decided not to watch. But I remember it completely. Who knows how many times I have seen it as a kid. :lol:
Brooklyn - 9/10. Very beautiful/ emotional film. Fantastic job by Saoirse Ronan.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on April 26, 2016, 01:08:44 PM
Brooklyn - 9/10. Very beautiful/ emotional film. Fantastic job by Saoirse Ronan.
Yes indeed. It's unique in its simplicity. There are no surprising plot twists, blood, or gore. Just a simple story that you watch quietly unfold, but it immerses you in without bashing you on the head or shouting at you.
Quote from: kilodelta on April 25, 2016, 08:52:00 PM
Be sure to pause Bloodsport randomly to capture priceless Van Damme faces.
(http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/23fb3651-a6d9-4ab9-846b-c0ff73e9a5cd/8eab11f0-5d4c-4f20-9b3b-3032a37c8b8c.jpg)
EYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
The Visit - 6.5/10
Ok, I suppose.
Just reenabled one of my cable providers movie packages for the HBO Game of Thrones Season!
Watched two flicks I hadn't seen yet:
The Drop/Tom Hardy & Noomi Rapace---artsy film boring as ****! Critics liked it.
Furious 7--it was OK; B- or C +; this series is pretty tired; verging on a satire of itself.
Been meaning to get out and see Criminal with Kevin Costner, Gary Oldman & company..............but haven't made it yet. :(
the revenant….
I don't get it. yeah…hey leo, were gonna make a movie about you getting the bejebus fucked out of you, and its gonna be like real cold all the time so…act cold…..
frankly I don't see all the hoopla. Didn't much think it was all that good of a plot. I mean really, its crazy enough to survive a grizzly…okay yeah. possible…..float down a river in the dead of winter for over a half hour and survive….yeah… not so much…and then crawl out into air almost as cold in wet clothing and still not get hypothermia?…jesus, the possibility of spiderman looks pretty easy compared to that.
As for an oscar for acting? Hoo-boy….act cold and hurt a lot…. meh…5
Zootopia. Great movie. Nice visuals, interesting characters, decent gags, and an actually pretty good message.
Lots of questions about how this stuff works logically:
[spoiler]How does one city support so many ecosystems? How did obligate carnivores go vegan? It's not like you can feed a lion soybeans and it's a-okay. That 48-hour rule is bullshit. Such a totally unnecessary sense of urgency. Man, that fox is slowly going from "helping" with a case to getting shanghaied into it. How many regs did that bunny break? Wouldn't that plant's properties be common knowledge? Is every species sentient? Where are the reptiles, birds, aquatic species, and invertebrates?[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 30, 2016, 11:18:05 PM
Lots of questions about how this stuff works logically:
I somewhat enjoyed the movie, but to focus on one of your examples of the movie's questionable logic:
Quote[spoiler]How did obligate carnivores go vegan? It's not like you can feed a lion soybeans and it's a-okay.[/spoiler]
This one example is such a glaringly poor comparison to the message against making unfair generalizations and totally misses the mark on the message of discrimination that I actually stopped taking the good intentions of the film seriously. I'll put it in a spoiler, so as not to let out aspects of the movie you're trying to keep secret.
[spoiler]
They make this big satirical fuss about carnivores eating other animals, and boldly imply that they should not be feared because of our own short coming of falsely perceiving that "it's only in their nature." And the cure mind you, is not to accept them as they are, but to change their basic nature (or at least to change our perception of carnivores to animals that really gain sustenance from tofu). I kept thinking such an undertaking could only be achieved by a quack psychiatrist, who converts gay people to straight people in his afternoon sessions.[/spoiler]
I have such a hard time writing that spoiler that I couldn't say exactly what I wanted. I have had this same problem in the past when debating people whose logic is so warped that I end up totally baffled by their incoherent reasoning, and I stop taking their arguments seriously.
Yeah, the movie was cute, but I'd have a talk with my kids (if I had any) about the nature of reality on the way home from the theater.
Quote from: aitm on April 30, 2016, 10:20:55 PM
the revenant….
I don't get it. yeah…hey leo, were gonna make a movie about you getting the bejebus fucked out of you, and its gonna be like real cold all the time so…act cold…..
frankly I don't see all the hoopla. Didn't much think it was all that good of a plot. I mean really, its crazy enough to survive a grizzly…okay yeah. possible…..float down a river in the dead of winter for over a half hour and survive….yeah… not so much…and then crawl out into air almost as cold in wet clothing and still not get hypothermia?…jesus, the possibility of spiderman looks pretty easy compared to that.
As for an oscar for acting? Hoo-boy….act cold and hurt a lot…. meh…5
It kind of reminds me of Robert Redford's classic, "Jeramiah Johnson", but without the moments of joy that would make such an existence bearable.
Just rewatched 'Aliens'. Along with the original it can be concidered a masterpiece imo.
Old school sci-fi horror at it's prime.
Quote from: SGOS on May 01, 2016, 08:04:15 AM
It kind of reminds me of Robert Redford's classic, "Jeramiah Johnson", but without the moments of joy that would make such an existence bearable.
Good point, JJ had at least some sub-plot that allowed for active interest in the characters development, I swear with Revenant I just wanted the guy to die already, it was too much work to watch him survive.
Quote from: SGOS on May 01, 2016, 08:04:15 AM
It kind of reminds me of Robert Redford's classic, "Jeramiah Johnson", but without the moments of joy that would make such an existence bearable.
When I saw the trailers, this movie popped into my mind. I liked it when I saw it; but that was very long ago.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 03, 2016, 10:29:46 PM
When I saw the trailers, this movie popped into my mind. I liked it when I saw it; but that was very long ago.
Supposedly, the movie, Jeramiah Johnson, was loosely based on a real person named John Johnson, who was affectionately known locally as Liver Eaten' Johnson, because he would cut out the livers of Native Americans and others he deemed to be vermin, and cook them up. I think he was down around the Yellowstone Area. Of course, Redford's characterization made him into a gentler soul that wasn't quite such a maniacal psychopath.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver-Eating_Johnson
Quote from: SGOS on May 04, 2016, 08:36:11 AM
Supposedly, the movie, Jeramiah Johnson, was loosely based on a real person named John Johnson, who was affectionately known locally as Liver Eaten' Johnson, because he would cut out the livers of Native Americans and others he deemed to be vermin, and cook them up. I think he was down around the Yellowstone Area. Of course, Redford's characterization made him into a gentler soul that wasn't quite such a maniacal psychopath.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver-Eating_Johnson
I had no idea! One would have to be sort of a psychopath to have lived through what Jeramiah supposedly did--but the real thing was a bit over the top.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 04, 2016, 08:39:58 AM
I had no idea! One would have to be sort of a psychopath to have lived through what Jeramiah supposedly did--but the real thing was a bit over the top.
Wacky guys those mountain men. Redford filmed the movie on Mount Timpanogos (Northeast of Provo Utah) and then bought a large chunk of it and turned it into a ski resort. Hunted there with my brothers before I joined the Navy. Couldn't hunt there when I got out. A lot of the locals really, really don't like him.
After I worked for the Provo City FD. Provo City did all the firefighting and ambulance work for his resort, and he bitched continually about paying the fees to support us. I personally don't like the guy. Used to tool around the area in his yellow Corvette being all cool and shit.
Glass' account has a lot of historic backing, Johnson not so much. But the liver eating thing I would believe. You live in the wilderness long enough, civilization starts to slide off. :agreenod:
Quote from: stromboli on May 04, 2016, 09:13:18 AM
Wacky guys those mountain men. Redford filmed the movie on Mount Timpanogos (Northeast of Provo Utah) and then bought a large chunk of it and turned it into a ski resort. Hunted there with my brothers before I joined the Navy. Couldn't hunt there when I got out. A lot of the locals really, really don't like him.
After I worked for the Provo City FD. Provo City did all the firefighting and ambulance work for his resort, and he bitched continually about paying the fees to support us. I personally don't like the guy. Used to tool around the area in his yellow Corvette being all cool and shit.
Glass' account has a lot of historic backing, Johnson not so much. But the liver eating thing I would believe. You live in the wilderness long enough, civilization starts to slide off. :agreenod:
I kinda figured that Redford would be like that--after all he is part of America's royalty, is he not??! I think the mountain man thing has been hyped quite a bit. I used to read, as a kid, stories of mountain men like Kit Carson and Bridger, and thought they were neat. But then I grew up. I do admire people who can live off the land--I just don't want to do it.
The Mountain Man era was actually pretty short, from about 1810- to the 80's, though after the Civil War died away quickly. Was all about trapping Beaver. When white civilization moved in and fashion changed (Beaver skin hats)
(http://cf.collectorsweekly.com/uploads/2010/04/mighty-mo-261.jpg)
The Beaver nearly got wiped out. Fashion statements- love em'. I may be the only person on the forum that has seen them in the wild. Caught a lot of fish out of Beaver ponds.
wish I hadn't sold my stuff- had a Thompson/Center .54 Hawken I made from a kit. Loved that rifle. Killed 2 deer with it. Made my own Possibles Bag and some other gear. Still miss that. One of my best friends back then was a Reenactor that worked with Grizzly Adams. That is a bit of my "former Mormon" history right there.
Although the OP probably meant to ask that we rate movies we've seen for the first time, I just recently rewatched "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring." It still holds up today. The first two The Hobbit films were good (the last was horrible), but they don't compare to the original trilogy. 9/10.
Quote from: stromboli on May 04, 2016, 09:49:49 AM
The Mountain Man era was actually pretty short, from about 1810- to the 80's, though after the Civil War died away quickly. Was all about trapping Beaver. When white civilization moved in and fashion changed (Beaver skin hats)
(http://cf.collectorsweekly.com/uploads/2010/04/mighty-mo-261.jpg)
The Beaver nearly got wiped out. Fashion statements- love em'. I may be the only person on the forum that has seen them in the wild. Caught a lot of fish out of Beaver ponds.
wish I hadn't sold my stuff- had a Thompson/Center .54 Hawken I made from a kit. Loved that rifle. Killed 2 deer with it. Made my own Possibles Bag and some other gear. Still miss that. One of my best friends back then was a Reenactor that worked with Grizzly Adams. That is a bit of my "former Mormon" history right there.
Yeah, I have watched a few beaver in my day (the four legged kind, not the two legged kind---well, I'm not referring to the two legged kind in this post.). There are a few places along the Columbia River that have allowed beaver to flourish. I've hiked those areas a little and have been lucky enough to come across them every now and again. Haven't seen any with kits, but maybe one day.
Went to see zootopia/zootropalis today (why its called 2 different things I don't get)
9/10, LOVED this movie, can't wait to own it on both download and blueray. The main character, Judy, is one of my fav disney protaganists in a while, really loved the story and how it progressed with her. Chief Bogo, voiced by the ever sexy Idris Elba, was a lovable stud. And my most fav side character, officer clawhauser, was just so dam adorable. Characters I wish we could have seen more of were the sexy dancing tigers.
That said, like all movies, I did have a few nit picks, which contain some big spoilers, so spoilers from here on.
[spoiler]1 - And this is a big one, its like when you watch lord of the rings all the way though, and then ask the question why didn't they just use the eagles, or like watching harry potter and ask why didn't they just use the time turner to solve all this. In this movie we see how food in a part of the culture, it shows from the start how the animals evolved into sentient beings like humans, and it shows things like rabbits being farmers producing all fruit and veg, including mircowave carrots that Judy did for a dinner before throwing it away. But heres the question that turns this whole story on its head.. if 10% of the population are predator based, what do they eat?
This adds some darker tone to the movie that doesn't get addressed, we see herbivores eating fruit and veg, but it never addressed what the predators eat. Are we meant to believe they only eat fruit and veg to? Are fish sentient like them and if not do they only eat fish based products? We know bugs exist since we see bugs flying around the stoned out of his brain yak, so do all carnivores eat bugs in this world?
Really makes you wonder, since its ever addressed, we see Nick Wild eating a berry from Judys farm, but nothing else besides that.
It just seems a weird thing to overlook, since the theme of this movie is heavily lying on the theme of prejudice, that you shouldn't judge people who are different, as the herbivores look at the carnivores for, kind of like how in human culture people look at each other for different skin color or nationalism. But unlike humankind, who except in the most extreme of cases, do no eat each other, they eat other animals. So in this movie either their are none sentient animals they do eat, or all carnivores no longer eat meat so thus they can't be carnivores anymore...
Yeah, you see how this one issue unravels the whole plot of this movie. Don't get me wrong, I loved this movie so much, but once you think about the one obvious plothole, that how can the 10% predators be predators if all animals are evolved to be sentient, meaning it would be classed as cannibalism if they ate other sentient evolved animals and..
Yeah, overthinking this, but still.
The other more smaller nit picks are
2 - The 'nudest' camp, given the poses they were doing, nobody has assholes, dicks or vaginas, so why Judy got embarrassed is puzzling. Yeah of course its a pg rated cartoon so they couldn't show that, but some of the poses they simply would have shown everything if they had anything to show, which they didn't, not even assholes, which is a scary prospect that how do they even poop?
3 - The major plot twist at the end was that the assistant major, Dawn Bellwether, was behind the plot of making all predators go wild in order to push for making everyone fear them so all the herbivores would see them as a threat and have them locked up or worse. But why then even after she was found out as the real bad guy, and locked up, why did major lionheart still remain locked up? He was accused of kidnapping, when his honest reasons for doing so was to protect people and find out why it was happening, yet at the end of the movie he's still locked up?
Minor nit picks.
-How could Judy drive that massive hummer at the end of the movie if she was so short her feet were off the ground when sat at the beginning of the movie.
-sheep and rabbits all evolved to be the same height?
-never enough dancing tigers.[/spoiler]
That said, I still loved this movie, the small issues are like with all movies, they all have their questionable issues. But overall the movie is nicely paced, the characters are really enjoyable, the animation is just wonderful, and it wraps itself up nicely.
Zootopia was a fun movie, but I saw the usual movie cliches that just made me cringe. Such as...
[spoiler]*The forced conflict between Hopps and Nick, when Hopps stupidly reaches for her fox spray when Nick is quite obviously goading her on. That just came out of nowhere. Never before did Hopps show the least bit of fear around Nick, and was portrayed in all the rest of the movie as the least prejudiced person in the world.
*The typical odd-man-out protagonist that everyone underestimates until the end of the movie when she proves her worth, and then everyone loves her.
*The weak James Bond villain who feels the need to explain her secret agenda to the enemy before killing them. But even after the explanation, I still didn't get the point. She thinks that the world would be somehow be better if all of society turned against the predators? Wuh?[/spoiler]
It was fun, but kind of a mindless, don't think about it too much kind of fun.
I wouldn't say it was mindless, the movie has some virtue in the sense of striving against the odds, overcoming prejudices, and even reflecting some real life plot from the 1980s of the US government planting drugs to African-Americans to fuel the race hatred of them.
It has flaws of course, but I like a movie that can make me question it and yet still enjoy what it gives me.
Edit: HA! I was just watching on channel frederator 107 facts about zootopia that there's notes on how all predators in the film eat bugs instead of each other. Guess those theories of mankind eating insects instead of mammals followed into this movie.
Antman. I loved it! Size. Does. Matter.
And I love ants!
Captain America - Civil War ... was interesting because I am not a "consumer" of the Avenger or Captain America series. I found it interesting to see it, out of the context of the other movies ... though I have seen clips (my favorite is the Hulk telling Loki he is a puny god!). So this was one designed to get people to think. Will people like to do that? Anyway, I would give it an 8/10. I don't like it as much as the new James Bond movies though. Shoe will like it, because it has her new favorite tiny hero in it ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 12:13:05 AM
... though I have seen clips (my favorite is the Hulk telling Loki he is a puny god!).
My favorite scene too, hands down.
Mine to, it's such a short scene, and yet doesn't need much more explanation then what's said.
Quote from: Munch on May 08, 2016, 06:32:43 AM
Mine to, it's such a short scene, and yet doesn't need much more explanation then what's said.
The punch line itself is rapid. Sneeze and you'll miss it, but the punch line gains its strength from Loki, who first sets it up with his long arrogant diatribe about being indestructible god. It's priceless, and it's a movie moment, I'll never forget.
A religious horror. Appareantly the hell has three gates on earth. One in the desert, one in the sea, guess where the third one is. It's bad. But not toooo bad. Execution is somewhat OK. If you really, really don't have anything to do. I had no idea what it was just clicked it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTIwfN-4hZ4
That is how things have been for all three Abrahamic religions there ... pretty much a horror story at times ... though man made, not G-d made.
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 06:10:35 PM
That is how things have been for all three Abrahamic religions there ... pretty much a horror story at times ... though man made, not G-d made.
Abrahamic religions pretty much horror stories at times---yeah, all the time! Though man made and not god made???? Isn't that a 'no shit' comment? When can a fictional cartoon create anything? Well, except laughter.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 08, 2016, 06:37:38 PM
Abrahamic religions pretty much horror stories at times---yeah, all the time! Though man made and not god made???? Isn't that a 'no shit' comment? When can a fictional cartoon create anything? Well, except laughter.
There is justice, and there is mercy. I keep leaning toward mercy. Of course that is me, you don't have to forgive these desert mirages and their bastard offspring. Maybe you are more of a forest guy, or a sea guy. Actually memes in people's heads can do a lot of damage.
The Money Monster
55% from critics, 62% from audiences, a paltry 14.7 million box office take the first weekend. I give it a 10/10. Oh well. Different strokes for different folks.
(http://i.imgur.com/SDWN2VJ.jpg)
I have just seen The Revanant. And I LOVED IT. Apperantly I am one of the few people who did though. Who fucking cares about the academy awards, seriously. Or why Di Caprio got an oscar with this one OR how bad the message of the movie, because the protagonist supposedly after revenge. What fucking message? We need a brand new SJW group against movie critics. :P
It's really good. Watch it.
Nice Guys
Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe, so that's a positive probability. As a comedy/drama, somewhat dark, I'd rate it higher, because it definitely had some good laughs, which I don't often get from what gets passed off as comedy. Overall, compared to the better movies, a 7/10.
Avengers: Civil War.
Liked it. I didn't get bored. Need to see a few times though, I kept being distracted. Couldn't get into it much.
I'm giving High School High an arbitrary 5.5. If you're into that sort of thing, it's a good thing. OMG! Louise Fletcher!
The Wolf of Wall Street. A Scorcese formula picture. It was good. It wasn't his best. Di Caprio was good. Not his best, either. He was re-doing Catch Me If You Can.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 09:50:50 PM
Catch Me If You Can.
That's the only Spielberg production I've liked. It's the subject matter and setting. It all seems familiar.
Frank Abagnale, Jr.: Brenda, I don't want to lie to you anymore. All right? I'm not a doctor. I never went to medical school. I'm not a lawyer, or a Harvard graduate, or a Lutheran. Brenda, I ran away from home a year and a half ago when I was 16.
Brenda Strong: Frank? Frank? You're not a Lutheran?
Quote from: gentle_dissident on May 27, 2016, 01:12:54 AM
Frank Abagnale, Jr.: Brenda, I don't want to lie to you anymore. All right? I'm not a doctor. I never went to medical school. I'm not a lawyer, or a Harvard graduate, or a Lutheran. Brenda, I ran away from home a year and a half ago when I was 16.
Brenda Strong: Frank? Frank? You're not a Lutheran?
That's a very good movie, not often discussed, and filled with interesting personal encounters like the one above. I pulled it out and watched it again a month ago, and had the same reaction I did from two years before that: A movie that tells a good story well. Who would have ever thought of a thing like that? Hell, it didn't even have an explosion in it.
(500) Days of Summer - 9.3/10. It's the type of movie I needed right now, but there were parts that felt a little draggy to me where I ended up pausing the movie, getting something to eat, checking youtube, etc.. But for every other part, damn it is a good movie. Not the type of movie I would have watched a week ago for sure.
Saw warcraft: the beginning. 8.0, it was a pretty good adaptation of the games lore from the lore books, the characters were as I pictured them more or less, and despite a few changes, the odd bad bit of CGI (surprisingly not the orcs themselves), and the odd actor not being that great, overall it was a pretty good movie, one of the best game adaptation movies, which honestly isn't saying much since gaming adaptions have never been the best, but this did fine.
Quote from: Munch on May 31, 2016, 08:07:39 PM
Saw warcraft: the beginning. 8.0, it was a pretty good adaptation of the games lore from the lore books, the characters were as I pictured them more or less, and despite a few changes, the odd bad bit of CGI (surprisingly not the orcs themselves), and the odd actor not being that great, overall it was a pretty good movie, one of the best game adaptation movies, which honestly isn't saying much since gaming adaptions have never been the best, but this did fine.
How was Ragnar?
Quote from: Shiranu on May 31, 2016, 08:13:45 PM
How was Ragnar?
(plot spoilers)
[spoiler]He wasn't in it, neither was drek'thar, mannaroth, and Grom didn't have a speaking part. They had to make a lot of cut backs to make it all fit in[/spoiler]
Quote from: Munch on May 31, 2016, 08:07:39 PM
Saw warcraft: the beginning. 8.0, it was a pretty good adaptation of the games lore from the lore books, the characters were as I pictured them more or less, and despite a few changes, the odd bad bit of CGI (surprisingly not the orcs themselves), and the odd actor not being that great, overall it was a pretty good movie, one of the best game adaptation movies, which honestly isn't saying much since gaming adaptions have never been the best, but this did fine.
The plot line of games is never a strong point to begin with. One that is marginally good stands out. So movie adaptations don't have a lot to start from. They actually have a lot of license to turn the marginal plot of a game into something very good. Although that's not usually the case. Warcraft has not made it to the theaters around here yet. I saw X Men today, and it was fair. Considering it's something like movie #7 or #8, I think that's holding up fairly well.
Just re-watched James And The Giant Peach. I remember reading the book a loooong while back as well.
Haven't watched it in forever because I lost my VHS of it when I moved years back, but HOLY SHIT that is such a good story. Watching it years later... I have a whole new appreciation for that story. Yeah it's a children's story, but it's deep. FUCK! It's so good.
Marvel Civil War. I liked it. Imho, it wasn't as good as either Avengers movie, but it was good. An already huge cast with a few new additions. Loved Black Panther. I liked Crossbones. Vision was good but shades of Hal 9000 in some circumstances. Spider-Man was okay, but he was a tad too young and green. Ant Man was pretty good. Could've been a lot worse. 7/10.
[spoiler]I've gotta go with Team Iron Man in this debate. Bucky definitely had to be apprehended. Cap was aiding a fugitive from justice and was in the wrong the instant he kicked a policeman. If Cap had made assurances that Bucky would go quietly, then he might have a case for doing it his way, but he didn't. And no, being mind controlled isn't a good reason for why Bucky shouldn't be in detention. Just the opposite, actually. As long as he's a threat to others, you have to keep him locked up.
In the comics, this debate is a little different because a school inadvertently got blown up because some F-list heroes and villains had a showdown that spiraled out of control. A bunch of dead kids makes a pretty good case for why supers should be subject to some form of oversight. Having a Wild West style showdown isn't a particularly good idea within dense cities, especially when the combatants wield powers that are dizzyingly effective at annihilating said cities. Obviously, those sorts of outcomes are not going to make the public happy or particularly trusting of Supers. Also, this is a world with the Punisher. If there was ever a poster boy for vigilantism run amok, it'd be that skull-painted psycho having a shootout with the mob at the state fair.
Registration makes superheroes answerable to the community at large and also enables the superhero community to better pool its resources, operating as teams rather than lone wolves. Imho, the only good point Team Cap made was that superheroes shouldn't be forced to divulge their secret identities. But in theory, it's not impossible to balance anonymity with some form of super secret registration known only by a single trusted individual. One's secret identity wouldn't necessarily have to be common knowledge.
So yeah, Team Iron Man in both instances.[/spoiler]
Binge watching Leone's Dollars trilogy. Felt appropriate, just getting home from the West.
Last movie I watched was Jason X - utter rubbish don't waste your time.
Latest movie is that new X men crap - gf enjoyed it, for me it's the same damn thing over again.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The Lobster
Some spots of humor, but mostly weird and dark, and weird, and perhaps artsy-fartsy, but mostly weird. The acting is purposely stilted to create a of a dystopian future lacking in emotion. A couple might talk about love, or be in love, but their characters are completely lacking in affect.
I went on a Sunday, and the theater had a fair turnout (maybe 30 people) crowded into a small auditorium up stairs, but it was a theater specializing in in movies the big chains avoid, so it tends to draw a niche group from a large surrounding area of patrons often starved for the bizarre.
Rated by Rotten Tomatoes at 90%, I think because the movie got quite a bit of pre-release hype. Otherwise, I think it would have been mostly ignored by critics. It appeared for a day or two on Rotten Tomatoes "Movies Opening this Week" highlights, but it no longer appears there. Oddly viewers are giving it a 72%. I would expect high a critic review because they always give lots of extra points for the artsy-fartsy, but viewers aren't usually so easily impressed, even if it's only rated by the niche following.
Now You See Me 2
Apparently opens on Friday. Critics are giving it 49% at Rotten Tomatoes, but then, they only gave the first movie 48%, and I thought it was a great film. I don't mean that I just liked it a lot. I mean it was a great film. But maybe that's misleading. Gone with the Wind is a great film, although I consider it of marginal interest, and not all that important. On the other hand, I thought Now You See Me was great because it reached the most significant achievement a movie can hope for (IMO); It was wildly entertaining! And it was the next 5 times I watched it. I've been waiting for this sequel for three years. Got my fingers crossed because while Hollywood makes a lot of sequels, they aren't all that good at it.
I'm debating on going to see the conjuring 2. Despite being atheist I still like a good horror movie and something to give me chills. Despite the fact this movie, a continuation of the stories of ed and lorraine warren, the paranormal investigators, where the first movie was based on the story from Harrisville of a haunted farmhouse, this new movie is based on the story from Enfield, called the Enfield Poltergeist.
I've found that despite now believing cases of hauntings to be dunk, I can still give myself a disbelief when watching a good horror movie, letting me enjoy hauntings and supernatural movies even today, and so far this ones been given a good write up.
Quote from: Munch on June 07, 2016, 08:21:09 AM
I'm debating on going to see the conjuring 2. Despite being atheist I still like a good horror movie and something to give me chills. Despite the fact this movie, a continuation of the stories of ed and lorraine warren, the paranormal investigators, where the first movie was based on the story from Harrisville of a haunted farmhouse, this new movie is based on the story from Enfield, called the Enfield Poltergeist.
I've found that despite now believing cases of hauntings to be dunk, I can still give myself a disbelief when watching a good horror movie, letting me enjoy hauntings and supernatural movies even today, and so far this ones been given a good write up.
I have no problem with using supernatural or religious contrivances to revolve a plot around. Movies don't have to mirror reality. Where they lose my interest is when they pitch an ideology as a reality. But borrowing a concept from religion, like demon possession, is fine if done right.
Quote from: SGOS on June 07, 2016, 08:41:32 AM
I have no problem with using supernatural or religious contrivances to revolve a plot around. Movies don't have to mirror reality. Where they lose my interest is when they pitch an ideology as a reality. But borrowing a concept from religion, like demon possession, is fine if done right.
I now look at the horror the same way I do comic books and cartoons, if these are things that are written well, and animated to a good extent, then it fills in that entertainment I went to see the movie for. Horror movies are designed to be scary, and I allow myself to get immersed in the world they write, a world in which scary things like Freddy Kruger or the poltergeist in the original poltergeist movie exists, if its written well and draws you in, I can forget about the real world for a couple of hours and get into the story.
Of course, if they do things in movies that knock you out of the depth, like bad movies using dated references and gimmicks, or being overly preachy, then I feel its just not worth it.
Quote from: SGOS on May 18, 2016, 05:15:39 AM
The Money Monster
55% from critics, 62% from audiences, a paltry 14.7 million box office take the first weekend. I give it a 10/10. Oh well. Different strokes for different folks.
Free Birds got a 17 and 44 on RT. However, the movie was made for me. I'd make it a Thanksgiving tradition if I celebrated Thanksgiving.
Deadpool. It was not everything I hoped for, but it was acceptable.
Watching School of Rock. I know I'll be crying in a while, so I'm going to rate it hardcore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmxLybfGNC4
I give it a 3/10 and I'm being generous.
Admittedly, I only watched it for Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz). She was the best part of the film.
How the rest of the film? Standard alien invader plot. Good for about 30 minutes, then it went to shit bigtime. Imagine a better version of Signs for the first 30 minutes, then the second 30 minutes is some really bad Outer Limits episode (there's a twist, but you'll see it coming a mile away), and finally a really bad version of The Scorch Trials written by a 10-year-old who had just binged Twilight. And there's no ending. So yeah, pretty bad all around.
[spoiler]I don't get why there's even a fifth wave. The first 4 disasters pretty much annihilated civilization. The aliens EMP the world, knocking out transport, communications, running water, etc. Then they hit us with earthquakes and the ensuing tidal waves wipe out every coastal city and small island, killing a surprisingly large chunk of the population. Then, there's avian flu. With no hospitals. It's overkill.
And the final dastardly alien attack is just to have a good ol' fashioned 2nd amendment blowout. But they don't march tripods down Main Street. Nope, nothing that cool or effective. They just pick people off with hunting rifles and recon drones. Because reasons. And the plot twist 2/3 through makes precious little sense.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 11, 2016, 02:59:35 AM
How the rest of the film? Standard alien invader plot. Good for about 30 minutes, then it went to shit bigtime.
My limit of interest in the film was thinking about the current wave of 3 and 4 part films usually based a sets of books for young adults, all utilizing dystopian fantasy or science fiction. It's a good concept for making epic blockbusters, that can end up carrying parts 3 and 4 on name recognition alone. Hollywood gets this gimmick, and understands the profit potential. But it acts like that's all it takes to make movies. In fact, most of these movies for kids seem to forget that a well written story is still a bottom line required for a good movie. You can't replace story telling with special effects and a 3 or 4 part format.
Now You See Me 2 3/10
What a disappointment after loving the first movie so much. I didn't expect the sequel to be as good as the first, and I knew that the mysteries of the first had already unfolded, and could not be used again, but whatever creative sense captured the movie team's imaginations the first time around were used up or lost by the second attempt.
One thing I enjoyed in the first movie was a bumbling law enforcement team always being two steps behind the magicians. The sense of chaos created by the wild chase the first time could not be duplicated again using nothing but a shaky cam and unintelligible plot. When the scenes would be cut to half second glimpses and the camera man was shaking the camera as hard as he could, I would be thinking, "Yeah OK. This jingly part is supposed to represent chaos," although instead of experiencing chaos, I would just be mildly annoyed at the use of a shaky cam attempting to create a visceral sensation that something was actually happening on the screen.
I found the plot hard to follow. I understood it in general terms, but much of the time, I would wonder why something or other was introduced to the plot when it didn't seem important enough to include. Maybe watching it a second time would shed some light on things I just didn't get, but from reviews I'm reading, I'm getting the impression that a lot of other people aren't getting it either.
Edit: In the last 24 hours the critic approval has dropped from 49% to 37%
Quote from: SGOS on June 11, 2016, 05:15:39 AMHollywood gets this gimmick, and understands the profit potential. But it acts like that's all it takes to make movies. In fact, most of these movies for kids seem to forget that a well written story is still a bottom line required for a good movie. You can't replace story telling with special effects and a 3 or 4 part format.
Yeah, that was pretty much the problem right there. Good pitch, terrible implementation. It looks like they ran out of ideas 1/3 of the way though. It's an adaption, so maybe the movie didn't do the book justice. (After a brief skim of the book plot, it seems significantly better). Hollywood alchemy - turning silver to lead every chance they get.
Just showed up at Redbox: A Royal Night Out 9/10
Princess's Elizabeth and Margaret talk the King and Queen (against their better judgment) into letting them out of the Royal Estate to celebrate the evening of VE Day. Of course, they are chaperoned by two officers selected to make sure they don't get into trouble (yeah, like that's going to help). The movie doesn't plumb the depths of the human psyche, reflect much of reality, or make any great observations about the plight of mankind. I just rated it high because I thought it was great fun.
The Conjuring 2.
Just say "no".
Warcraft.
Very... very bad. Don't waste your money. And if you can download it for free... don't waste your bandwidth.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 21, 2016, 12:55:02 AM
Warcraft.
Very... very bad. Don't waste your money. And if you can download it for free... don't waste your bandwidth.
I actually enjoyed it. True it wasn't the greatest movie of all time, or the greatest action movie of all time, but it developed the central warcraft characters well, captured the setting well, and despite the over reliance on cgi, the orcs looked good. The only major problem I had with the movie was it's pacing. 7/10
Quote from: Munch on June 21, 2016, 01:26:39 AM
I actually enjoyed it. True it wasn't the greatest movie of all time, or the greatest action movie of all time, but it developed the central warcraft characters well, captured the setting well, and despite the over reliance on cgi, the orcs looked good. The only major problem I had with the movie was it's pacing. 7/10
I'd say 4.2/10...
Move over Ghostbusters, I think I found my new reboot nemesis.
Roland Emmerich plans on rebooting Stargate. As a trilogy.
For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, the movie is about the discovery of an ancient alien portal in Egypt and the US military powering it up and using it to send expeditions to alien worlds. The alien they encounter is pure evil and conflict ensues. Great premise. The special effects (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-hoEoga8no&feature=youtu.be&t=120s) weren't bad for the time, either.
The movie spawned an extremely long-lived and popular TV show which itself had spinoffs. It had a superb cast that really fleshed out the universe and had this great blend of deadpan comedy with military adventure and even brought up some weighty philosophical and moral issues on occasion. And for us atheists, the show has a little extra appeal because this military conflict is also an ideological battle between humanism and faith.
TL;DR: 'Gate was great.
Now the director wants to wipe the slate clean and start it back from scratch, which is a real shame because the TV show brought a lot to the table. And judging from the director's past works (he has racked up quite a lot of stinkers since his directing heyday), I'm not at all sure he could do the franchise justice anymore. In fact, I'm not sure if Stargate's initial success was intentional or not. I'm fearful that his intent in going back to Independence Day and Stargate is just to capitalize on name recognition to make serious cash with a minimal effort.
I know I'm doomsaying a bit early on this, but if this goes like I think it will, close the iris and lower the blast doors, because Earth is in for one hell of an unscheduled activation.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 21, 2016, 03:37:16 AM
a superb cast that really fleshed out the universe and had this great blend of deadpan comedy with military adventure and even brought up some weighty philosophical and moral issues on occasion. And for us atheists, the show has a little extra appeal because this military conflict is also an ideological battle between humanism and faith.
This is good news for sci fi fans. Stargate may have been one of the best science fiction TV series that nobody ever heard of. I missed all of it, and never watched a single episode until long after the 10 year series ended. And was I surprised! I was vaguely aware that the program existed, and I would occasionally see it listed in a TV guide section, but I never bothered to tune in. Frankly, I was not impressed with the original Kurt Russell/James Spader feature film. I had friends that liked it, but it did nothing for me. I'm not sure why. After watching the series, I got a copy of the original film and watched it again. Still unimpressed.
For one thing, the premise of space travel through a circular gate that looks like a magic pool of water a 4 man team can step through and suddenly find itself 750 million light years away on a distant planet, was initially too much stretch of my imagination. It seems like a space travel concept that a 7th grader would dream up. But the concept grows on you as the series moves along. Granted, the first two years of episodes are weak in my opinion, and during that first two or three years, the series could have been justifiably canceled. I've seen better shows canceled faster. But the episodes pick up a bit in quality in he third year, but just a bit. By the fifth year it seems the production staff has reached their stride, but the show continues to get more polished and more interesting each of the following years, and it ends with a brilliant 2 part episode that I never wanted to end.
The upcoming movie will depend a lot on execution. The concept of a space gate can't stand by itself, I don't think. Must be handled with care, and if they make the reboot all about special effects without an intelligent and thoughtful plot, or a cast without the necessary chemistry, all bets are off. I wish them luck, and hope they new movie doesn't screw up all the great possibilities that were opened up by the original series. Perhaps the TV series is sacred enough that it should even be left alone. Still I'll be looking forward to the new movie, even being a bit fearful of it being botched.
Much of the appeal of the original was its hint of atheism and it's expose' of religions. In this day and age, with religious zealots looking at every turn to feel victimized and subsequently offended, will Hollywood have the courage to tap that well of no nonsense pragmatism, or will they attempt to fix what isn't broken with the addition of woo and supernatural? Gee, there are a lot of ways to kill this stargate thing for good.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 11, 2016, 02:59:35 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmxLybfGNC4
I give it a 3/10 and I'm being generous.
Admittedly, I only watched it for Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz). She was the best part of the film.
How the rest of the film? Standard alien invader plot. Good for about 30 minutes, then it went to shit bigtime. Imagine a better version of Signs for the first 30 minutes, then the second 30 minutes is some really bad Outer Limits episode (there's a twist, but you'll see it coming a mile away), and finally a really bad version of The Scorch Trials written by a 10-year-old who had just binged Twilight. And there's no ending. So yeah, pretty bad all around.
[spoiler]I don't get why there's even a fifth wave. The first 4 disasters pretty much annihilated civilization. The aliens EMP the world, knocking out transport, communications, running water, etc. Then they hit us with earthquakes and the ensuing tidal waves wipe out every coastal city and small island, killing a surprisingly large chunk of the population. Then, there's avian flu. With no hospitals. It's overkill.
And the final dastardly alien attack is just to have a good ol' fashioned 2nd amendment blowout. But they don't march tripods down Main Street. Nope, nothing that cool or effective. They just pick people off with hunting rifles and recon drones. Because reasons. And the plot twist 2/3 through makes precious little sense.[/spoiler]
Lol. Chloe Moretz ftw. Her Hit Girl probably one of the bigger perv secret lusts after Hermione in Harry Potter. Any alien invasion movie is stupid if you think about it. An advanced civilization could wipe us out without ever making contact, with biological weapons or just waiting around for global warming to do us in. I gave up on invasion movies after Independence Day. Won't be seeing the sequel.
Quote from: stromboli on June 21, 2016, 05:54:38 AMAny alien invasion movie is stupid if you think about it. An advanced civilization could wipe us out without ever making contact, with biological weapons or just waiting around for global warming to do us in.
That's essentially what happens. They hit us where it hurts and most of the world's population dies. Then, instead of waiting for nature to take its course, they go on foot to deal the survivors on an unexpectedly level playing field. It doesn't make much sense.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 21, 2016, 12:55:02 AM
Warcraft.
Very... very bad. Don't waste your money. And if you can download it for free... don't waste your bandwidth.
"Download"? Why the fuck for? Do people still do that?
Just watch until you need to own:
http://www.putlocker.is (http://putlocker.is)
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 21, 2016, 03:37:16 AM
Move over Ghostbusters, I think I found my new reboot nemesis.
Roland Emmerich plans on rebooting Stargate. As a trilogy.
Hold everything. Now they're going to do a Blade Runner sequel.
http://collider.com/blade-runner-2-poster/
Quote from: SGOS on June 22, 2016, 07:10:02 AM
Hold everything. Now they're going to do a Blade Runner sequel.
http://collider.com/blade-runner-2-poster/
Fingers crossed so it will be a good one.
http://popcorn-time.to/
I heard someone say that Warcraft was just a big budget fan film rather then a well told movie.. which.. yeah, thats pretty much how I'd describe it, but from knowing the warcraft lore, thats really all warcraft is, the games writing was never to the level of game of thrones or lords of the rings, and this really was the best they could pull off.
Its just the fact that it MMO made so much money they were able to make the movie
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 21, 2016, 06:05:29 AM
That's essentially what happens. They hit us where it hurts and most of the world's population dies. Then, instead of waiting for nature to take its course, they go on foot to deal the survivors on an unexpectedly level playing field. It doesn't make much sense.
It made perfect sense to me. The "alien invasion" was faked by the NWO by projecting a spaceship in the sky or building a space ship and putting it up in the sky to fool everyone into thinking there was an invasion. The NWO then wipes out millions/ billions of people, and the army brainwashes the young people into killing their fellow Americans (everyone who isn't microchipped) by telling them that their fellow Americans are really aliens that have the technology to disguise themselves as humans.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on June 26, 2016, 05:01:43 PMIt made perfect sense to me. The "alien invasion" was faked by the NWO by projecting a spaceship in the sky or building a space ship and putting it up in the sky to fool everyone into thinking there was an invasion. The NWO then wipes out millions/ billions of people, and the army brainwashes the young people into killing their fellow Americans (everyone who isn't microchipped) by telling them that their fellow Americans are really aliens that have the technology to disguise themselves as humans.
Heh. That's an interesting fan theory, though I've always found it strange how the NWO allegedly wants to wipe out millions/billions of its own people and destroy a ton of major cities in the process apparently just for the hell of it. Though I suppose that's to be expected; tinfoil doesn't do a good job of closing plot holes.
Quote from: JBCuzISaidSo on June 22, 2016, 01:15:42 AM
"Download"? Why the fuck for? Do people still do that?
Just watch until you need to own:
http://www.putlocker.is (http://putlocker.is)
Bandwidth is bandwidth. I don't recommend wasting it on the movie
Quote from: SGOS on June 22, 2016, 07:10:02 AMHold everything. Now they're going to do a Blade Runner sequel.
http://collider.com/blade-runner-2-poster/
It's been so long since I saw the first Blade Runner. Did it even have room for a sequel? Regardless, it seems like a bad idea. Also, is Hollywood greenlighting any original content anymore is it just reboots and sequels from now to eternity?
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 26, 2016, 06:19:10 PM
It's been so long since I saw the first Blade Runner. Did it even have room for a sequel? Regardless, it seems like a bad idea. Also, is Hollywood greenlighting any original content anymore is it just reboots and sequels from now to eternity?
There isn't a lot of room for a sequel. Blade Runner was a self contained plot with a beginning and an end. Mike Deckert and his love rode off into the sunset to live happily ever after (depending on which of the three cuts you watched). Supposedly, they are no longer available to round up errant androids on Earth, but if there needs to be a sequel, Hollywood will come up with something.
I doubt today's film industry can recapture the magic of the first one. I can't even explain the magic, but it's essential to that particular film. And nobody has tried to recapture whatever indefinable quality there was about the film, either because they didn't think it was worth it, or more likely, they just can't.
Blade Runner is an example of a movie that outshines the original source, at least in my opinion. I recently got around to reading the book and wasn't impressed, but some people think the book is better.
Edit to add: The original release, Theatrical Cut 1982, is the best one. It includes occasional narratives done in 1940's private eye style, from Mike Deckart. It adds an old time noir to a futuristic movie that I think is quite effective. Two other releases, the Director's Cut and Final Cut took that narration out and neither resolves the ending as well as the original Theatrical Cut 1982. There was also a Theatrical Cut for outside of the US, which is bloodier, but I haven't watched that one.
Independence Day 3/10
For all the grandeur and special effects, this is a trivial boring movie. The first one 20 years ago, wasn't great, but this one is exceptionally unimportant.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 26, 2016, 05:18:57 PM
Heh. That's an interesting fan theory, though I've always found it strange how the NWO allegedly wants to wipe out millions/billions of its own people and destroy a ton of major cities in the process apparently just for the hell of it. Though I suppose that's to be expected; tinfoil doesn't do a good job of closing plot holes.
Evil dictators are the most rational people around. You still don't get that you are a liability, not an asset, and the bill is coming due.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 26, 2016, 05:18:57 PM
Heh. That's an interesting fan theory, though I've always found it strange how the NWO allegedly wants to wipe out millions/billions of its own people and destroy a ton of major cities in the process apparently just for the hell of it. Though I suppose that's to be expected; tinfoil doesn't do a good job of closing plot holes.
Don't ask me why the NWO would want to do that. Ask the people who made the movie. Maybe the movie makers took inspiration from what the conspiracy theorists say about the NWO, and that's why they made the movie that way. A week or two after I saw the Fifth Wave, I saw the beginning of the new season of The X Files. The show had the exact same storyline as the Fifth Wave where you have a fake alien invasion, and when I saw that I knew that my immediate interpretation of the Fifth Wave was probably right. I don't actually think that the NWO is going to do a fake alien invasion IRL and kill billions of people, but Hollywood has certainly been pushing this theme lately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqOfxDWbBio
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on June 27, 2016, 08:09:02 PMDon't ask me why the NWO would want to do that. Ask the people who made the movie.
Wait a sec, the NWO interpretation of events is canon? Like "Hey guys, time to fire up the ol' earthquake machine so we can kill tons of people just because" is something an actual writer came up with? Seriously?!
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on June 27, 2016, 08:09:02 PM
Don't ask me why the NWO would want to do that. Ask the people who made the movie. Maybe the movie makers took inspiration from what the conspiracy theorists say about the NWO, and that's why they made the movie that way. A week or two after I saw the Fifth Wave, I saw the beginning of the new season of The X Files. The show had the exact same storyline as the Fifth Wave where you have a fake alien invasion, and when I saw that I knew that my immediate interpretation of the Fifth Wave was probably right. I don't actually think that the NWO is going to do a fake alien invasion IRL and kill billions of people, but Hollywood has certainly been pushing this theme lately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqOfxDWbBio
They are crowd testing ideas for the next world war. Marketing research.
Quote from: Baruch on June 27, 2016, 07:11:48 AM
Evil dictators are the most rational people around. You still don't get that you are a liability, not an asset, and the bill is coming due.
How is that people are not just assets for evil dictators -like there could be a good dictator lol? Human is just a source; actually the cheapest asset to them. :lol:
The Shallows
Woman surfer is stranded on a reef in a remote bay patrolled by a man eating shark. Not bad for a fairly common thriller scenario. I was tense while watching, which is what a thriller is supposed to do to you, so 6/10.
The Dressmaker
Apperantly everyone hated it. I liked it. I wasn't expecting that. Try it. Probbaly not traditionally boys' choice but it is full of surprises.
By the way, I love Judy Davis.
I got a huge kick out of this musical ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZnt-0fEiT0
I don't post here too much these days. Sometimes drop by for a movie review. I see Shiranu and AllPurposeAtheist hit Ubermensch! Holy crap!
So, today was opening day for the 13th Star Trek movie. And the 13th time I've seen on opening day. I was in high school in '79 when TMP opened. I of course know that lots of people don't like the Abramsverse of Trek. I admit to being easy to please, but I enjoy them. And I certainly really enjoyed this one. Possible small spoiler but you may have already heard... [spoiler]the Enterprise is destroyed, for the third time in ST movie history... They payed homage to Ambassador Spock/Lenard Nimoy[/spoiler]
I thought the uniforms they used in the first two were absolutely brilliant, being very reminiscent of the TV T-shirt uniforms, yet looking quite classy. So I can't fathom why on earth or space they had to change them...
In the first trailer for Beyond, the song Sabotage by The Beastie Boys was used and a lot of people frowned on that. How it was used in the movie was utterly moronic.
But, did I overall enjoy the movie. Yeah, I did. I enjoyed it a lot. Even if, sure, there was stuff to complain about.
I'm sure everybody knows it has a new director. But, it has similar action heavy tone as the predecessors. But, they tried to add a bit more classic character moments compared to last time. Some nice "shout-outs" to old fans.
I will probably not be seeing Star Trek Beyond. Into Darkness was the first (and so far only) movie I ever watched where I left the theater feeling angry. The trailers made it look good, the first act seemed like it was building up to something great... and then it shit the bed. It takes a special kind of stupid to perform that particular fuck-up. And now with Beyond, they changed the director even though Abrams' directing was one of the few good things about Into Darkness! I just have no faith in this studio to make a good Star Trek film, and I'm not giving them anymore of my money to see the sequel to that train-wreck of a film.
The new Star Trek movies have higher production values, but don't seem to be as engaging as the earlier stuff (remember the 1st TV series, often filmed in a large indoor sandbox against a flat background representing an alien sky). I will go to Beyond today, but it's more like I'm going because, well, it's Star Trek, and it's a tradition. There were no special effects back then, so everything depended on the story telling, which seems lacking today, or maybe I'm getting too old.
My problem with Star Trek is the narrative is inconsistent with past examples. I expect the new people with new ideas and a different set of parameters don't care about continuing the old narrative and blow off what to me are key details from the original series.
The other part is having served aboard a ship, their presentation of an intergalactic vessel doesn't ring true to me. The idea of building a vessel capable of interstellar flight with that much waste space and opulence to me is silly. The detail issues bug me bad enough I don't enjoy the movies.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 12, 2016, 03:39:00 PM
The Dressmaker
Apperantly everyone hated it. I liked it. I wasn't expecting that. Try it. Probbaly not traditionally boys' choice but it is full of surprises.
By the way, I love Judy Davis.
Judy Davis is one of those actresses that can morph into many different forms. She can dress and project a certain way and be a man convincingly or a very feminine woman. Anther one similar to her is Tilda Swinton. She can be a very feminine woman or a very masculine man with her acting skills. That to me is a real example of the craft.
I watched the batman v superman movie last night….whateveritscalled…..it was entertainment…..not as good as 4 reruns of Big Bang..but entertaining none the less. Watched Start Trek tonight on the big screen. I liked it. But I like ST anyway. I don't get as involved in movies as many here, I simply go and watch and escape for a couple hours. I liked it.
Independence Day, the sequel. 3/10
What a pile of shit that was.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 21, 2016, 11:53:12 PM
I will probably not be seeing Star Trek Beyond. Into Darkness was the first (and so far only) movie I ever watched where I left the theater feeling angry. The trailers made it look good, the first act seemed like it was building up to something great... and then it shit the bed. It takes a special kind of stupid to perform that particular fuck-up.
Wow. That bad?
The trailer didn't exactly give me a good first impression and I'm on record not particularly liking J.J. Abrams-era Star Trek (he seemed far more at home with Star Wars than Star Trek). But I hoped that it would at least be passable to most Trekkies. It has a decent metacritic rating with both critics and fans. Without giving too much away, how'd it lose your vote of confidence?
JJ Abrams fucked up Lost. One of the reasons I don't watch much TV these days.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 23, 2016, 09:48:51 PM
Wow. That bad?
The trailer didn't exactly give me a good first impression and I'm on record not particularly liking J.J. Abrams-era Star Trek (he seemed far more at home with Star Wars than Star Trek). But I hoped that it would at least be passable to most Trekkies. It has a decent metacritic rating with both critics and fans. Without giving too much away, how'd it lose your vote of confidence?
This is something I posted the very same night I saw it in theaters. (http://pathosaw.blogspot.com/2013/05/to-boldly-fart-why-star-trek-into.html) Now granted, I was a rambling sleep-deprived maniac by then and couldn't remember the name of the USS Vengeance, but I still stand by much of what I wrote. I fucking hated that movie.
The Race (or was it just "Race") 9/10 I think this one is a sleeper. I can't remember it playing at the local theaters. I got it from Redbox.
I didn't know much about the 1936 Summer Olympics. All I knew was the Jesse Owens won a bunch of gold medals, and broke all the standing records for the events he entered, much to the chagrin of Hitler and his belief in Arian superiority, so I don't know how accurate the story was, but it was fun, uplifting, and had an appropriate amount of sap, although not too gooey. I felt a lot of good emotions. Of course the story examined the early days of the Hitler Government and the Nazis at the start of their infamous shit. Considering the time period, discrimination issues both in Germany and the US, and a black athlete of stunning ability, I'm surprised this story hadn't been made into more films. The backdrop in which the story plays out, has the elements that lend a film some great potential.
I just saw Dark Knight Rises. *insert slowpoke meme*
It was weird in that nothing much happened the first half of the movie but the second half was great. The first half was just character introductions and Bruce Wayne as a recluse who doesn't want to be Batman anymore. That's it. Seriously, the first half of the movie had no plot. I'm looking at a plot synopsis and like 90% of it is stuff that happened in the second half of the movie. If I had seen this one in theaters, I probably would have walked out and missed all the great action towards the end.
I liked Bane, especially his no-nonsense villainy and his commanding presence. But his voice sounded a bit off. He sounded like a carnival barker, which is an odd voice to have for his muscular build and fearsome reputation. And between him and ashtray-gargling Batman, I had to rely heavily on subtitles to comprehend much of the dialogue.
Catwoman was good, but they really played down the cat motif. I dunno if I like that or not. I liked her not-quite-evil-not-quite-good character, though.
I LOVED the Bane takeover of Gotham. The pseudopopulism. The prison takeover. The stadium scene. The mock trials. The literal class warfare. I loved every minute of that.
The plot made sense for the most part, but some parts were puzzling. The surprisingly spacious sewers. Hacking the stock exchange on a tablet's wifi while on a high-speed pursuit. Possible, but not exactly the fastest or most reliable link in the world. And apparently, the trades that were made during a hostage situation were allowed to stand because Bruce Wayne is bankrupt the next day. The prison *coughCrematoriaRipoffcough* is just a really deep pit, completely unguarded but with a rope outside that anyone could just throw in to free everyone inside? And what are they chanting? "Deshi deshi, barra barra!" was about all I could make out. I didn't get why the army adamantly believed that the whole city would blow if anyone tries to cross the bridge. All they had to go on was Bane's group's say-so. It'd be like not pulling into Manbij because ISIS says that there are IEDs everywhere and the air is poisonous to infidels. No one's that gullible. Also, there's no way in hell Gordon would've survived the nuke truck's massive crash. I'm sorry, but Gordon would've been a gooey paste in the back with no seat belt and a ton of metal bouncing around with him. And then there's the cafe ending. I wonder how many cafes Bruce went to before he got to the one with Alfred.
I wanted to love this movie, but it was good. Not amazing, but good. 4/10 first half + 8/10 second half = 7/10 overall.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 10, 2016, 03:48:45 AM
I just saw Dark Knight Rises. *insert slowpoke meme*
the first half of the movie had no plot. I'm looking at a plot synopsis and like 90% of it is stuff that happened in the second half of the movie. If I had seen this one in theaters, I probably would have walked out and missed all the great action towards the end.
The Dark Knight has one of the longest dull voids I've ever suffered through in a movie. Sometimes there is important background that needs to be introduced so that the story makes sense, but in the DKR rises, there was no part of the backstory complicated enough to require it. It was more like Nolen was trying to force suspense by making the audience wait for Batman to appear like they used to do in the old monster movies. And unlike you, I did walk out of the theater somewhere in the middle. Some of that was from prolonged boredom, but in a large part because....
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 10, 2016, 03:48:45 AM
And between him [Bane] and ashtray-gargling Batman, I had to rely heavily on subtitles to comprehend much of the dialogue.
Excessively loud background music is one of Christopher Nolen's characteristic devices, and he won't lower the volume when people speak. I could not hear what I assumed were critical parts of the dialog, not even enough to garner a general understanding from context. So in addition to boredom, I was angry and frustrated. I left the theater, and after so much anticipation (Batman was always my favorite superhero character), I was actually angry at Christopher Nolen.
When the DVD came out, I bought it because my home theater has better acoustics, and subtitles, and I wanted to see what I missed during the part I actually sat through. Also, for reasons I can't support, I wanted to complete my Batman movie collection.
Actually, when I finally saw the last half, I wasn't that impressed. The good stuff was the stuff that wasn't even about Batman, and when he finally appeared, he didn't do any Batman stuff. He just dukes it out in a prolonged fistfight until Bane can't get up. Putting on your Batman Costume to go to a fistfight makes no sense to me at all. Dungarees and a T shirt would suffice. I loved the first Batman in the reboot, and the second was pretty good too. But eventually all I will remember about it was that there was a third movie to the series.
Christopher Nolan likes to make scenes that are cool or "deep," rather than flowing together as a proper narrative. Just look at Alfred. He's like a walking inspirational poster every time he's on screen.
Still the best live action Batman I've seen, though, with a Joker who set the bar for every Joker who will come after. Heath Ledger's Joker was so amazingly perfect.
Quote...with a Joker who set the bar for every Joker who will come after. Heath Ledger's Joker was so amazingly perfect.
*cough cough* Mark Hamill *cough cough choke choke oh god I'm dying*
Quote from: Shiranu on August 11, 2016, 01:54:22 AM
*cough cough* Mark Hamill *cough cough choke choke oh god I'm dying*
Seriously. Heath Ledger's Joker was a great character, but it was a horrible Joker. Hamill was amazing. The best. Even Cesar Romero's was very, very good. I'd say his is 2nd
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 11, 2016, 12:14:14 AMStill the best live action Batman I've seen, though, with a Joker who set the bar for every Joker who will come after. Heath Ledger's Joker was so amazingly perfect.
Mark Hamill would like a word with you.
Heath Ledger plumbed the depths of evil more than any other. I think he was the best because he was such a unexpected but widely welcomed surprise. He breathed new life into the customary character not at all intended in the original comics. The original Joker was more of a prankster Joker that fit well in a comic book. Ledger created a very realistic horror Joker.
Everything about the Batman legacy since the original comic had comical qualities about it befitting a comic book. That included the TV series and all of Hollywood's attempts to recreate him. But Batman Begins introduced a more serious and somewhat more believable Batman. One of the first criticisms I remember hearing about Batman Begins was that it was too dark and heavy. But I don't see that as a weak point as much as a difference in tastes. And a less comicky Batman Begins needed a less comicky villain. Ledger nailed it, not necessarily because Ledger was so good, although I think he was. He just created an appropriate Joker for the new Batman.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 11, 2016, 02:10:07 AM
Seriously. Heath Ledger's Joker was a great character, but it was a horrible Joker. Hamill was amazing. The best. Even Cesar Romero's was very, very good. I'd say his is 2nd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTkFeNKAW8s
This scene still gives me goosebumps today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47PwcEQm6pg
Quote from: Munch on August 11, 2016, 09:18:08 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTkFeNKAW8s
This scene still gives me goosebumps today.
Man, he was so much younger when he did that movie. I've gotten so used to his Arkham Joker voice for the past few years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WVyzy0du5Q
Quote from: Shiranu on August 11, 2016, 01:54:22 AM
*cough cough* Mark Hamill *cough cough choke choke oh god I'm dying*
Ahem... "Live action." Mark Hamill did the animated Joker.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 12, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Ahem... "Live action." Mark Hamill did the animated Joker.
Doesn't matter, Hamill's still better.
I have just watched Victor Frankenstein. Apparently everyone hated it. I loved it. But then it is a Frankenstein movie and I am strongly biased in favor. It also has an Igor in it! It's like a tiny bit of christmas ffs. We didn't need a religious Sherlock Holmes, but it is Ok I guess.
This is pretty much like Godzilla movies for me. If you don't like it from the beginning, highly likely you won't like it ever, doesn't matter how 'better' you hope it is made. There is no point in discussing how much sense it makes. And it's a genius story, it makes a lot of sense, not to mention it is probably a part of humanity's future.
Spoilers...it is aliiiiive! :P
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 27, 2016, 01:33:12 PM
I have just watched Victor Frankenstein. Apparently everyone hated it. I loved it. But then it is a Frankenstein movie and I am strongly biased in favor. It also has an Igor in it! It's like a tiny bit of christmas ffs. We didn't need a religious Sherlock Holmes, but it is Ok I guess.
This is pretty much like Godzilla movies for me. If you don't like it from the beginning, highly likely you won't like it ever, doesn't matter how 'better' you hope it is made. There is no point in discussing how much sense it makes. And it's a genius story, it makes a lot of sense, not to mention it is probably a part of humanity's future.
Spoilers...it is aliiiiive! :P
Have you ever seen this one, Shoe?
<https://www.youtube.com/embed/xjg_yhSfmdQ>
I tried to show my great nephew the Boris Karloff movie, but it doesn't hold up well today.
My favorite, is the one with Robert DeNiro as the monster.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 27, 2016, 04:52:47 PM
Have you ever seen this one, Shoe?
<https://www.youtube.com/embed/xjg_yhSfmdQ>
I tried to show my great nephew the Boris Karloff movie, but it doesn't hold up well today.
My favorite, is the one with Robert DeNiro as the monster.
Thank you. :smooch:
Finding Dory 8/10
Good & entertaining family movie.
Hell or High Water 10/10 Now at theaters
Although this impressed the critics (98% Tomatoes), I did not have high expectations as it was not my genre and it's about Texas red necks. I considered avoiding it altogether. Some violence necessary to carry the plot, and some action, but mostly it's just an interesting story. Not a thriller or edge of your seat thing with amazing plot twists, just an exceptionally interesting and very well told story. 10/10 and I don't score movies at 10 very often.
Sully 9/10
An interesting movie for sure. The one weakness was Clint Eastwood's direction. He doesn't seem to understand subtlety, and it shows up in the scenes of FAA investigations of Captain Sully's handling of the disabled plane that did a water landing on the Hudson River that saved the lives of all 153 passengers and crew. The panel of investigators all act like assholes, and Sully is the obvious hero, but Sully fixes everything and then the investigators stop being assholes. This was so over dramatized and typical of Eastwood that I'm not going to give it a ten. However, the incident itself is just too good to not make an excellent film, and it held my attention, with the investigation dramatization as a minor distraction. Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart are very convincing.
When are people going to learn? You NEVER travel with Tom Hanks. It's just asking for trouble.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/how-many-more-ways-can-tom-hanks-fuck-up-traveling-3706284.png)
London Has Fallen. Truly ridiculous in every way.
Quote from: SGOS on September 14, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
Sully 9/10
An interesting movie for sure. The one weakness was Clint Eastwood's direction. He doesn't seem to understand subtlety, and it shows up in the scenes of FAA investigations of Captain Sully's handling of the disabled plane that did a water landing on the Hudson River that saved the lives of all 153 passengers and crew. The panel of investigators all act like assholes, and Sully is the obvious hero, but Sully fixes everything and then the investigators stop being assholes. This was so over dramatized and typical of Eastwood that I'm not going to give it a ten. However, the incident itself is just too good to not make an excellent film, and it held my attention, with the investigation dramatization as a minor distraction. Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart are very convincing.
Well beyond the event itself there was absolutely no drams whatsoever. But the crash alone wasn't enough to fill 2 hours and there's no villain in the real story. Solution? The NTSB are now ass holes questioning his decision in hindsight.
There was some speculation on whether or not he could have made it to the airport after the real event but it was more of a theoretical interest. Nobody ever suggested he made the wrong decision, at least nobody in the NTSB.
Quote from: Nonsensei on September 15, 2016, 10:28:57 AM
Well beyond the event itself there was absolutely no drams whatsoever. But the crash alone wasn't enough to fill 2 hours and there's no villain in the real story. Solution? The NTSB are now ass holes questioning his decision in hindsight.
There was some speculation on whether or not he could have made it to the airport after the real event but it was more of a theoretical interest. Nobody ever suggested he made the wrong decision, at least nobody in the NTSB.
I knew form the previews about the investigators being out to get him. One could argue they were just being presented as serious and stern, but it seemed to me they were there to get him. I never recalled anything like that after the actual event, but a common theme in Eastwood movies is the fight between good and evil, and his good is usually saint like, while his evil can only be evil incarnate. The weird part was that after Sully showed them they were wrong, it was like Eastwood waved a magic wand, and presto, they were suddenly all over flowing with gratitude and praise for Sully.
Yes, the crash, which was technically a water landing, as pointed out in the movie, was actually a rather simple event, albeit an expensive event to be sure.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 15, 2016, 09:56:16 AM
When are people going to learn? You NEVER travel with Tom Hanks. It's just asking for trouble.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/how-many-more-ways-can-tom-hanks-fuck-up-traveling-3706284.png)
Reminds me of the character Jessica Fletcher from Murder, She Wrote. Every time there's a dinner and she's invited, coincidentally, there is a murder. And she comes up with some elaborate scheme to blame it on someone else.
Quote from: Sal1981 on September 16, 2016, 08:41:43 AM
Reminds me of the character Jessica Fletcher from Murder, She Wrote. Every time there's a dinner and she's invited, coincidentally, there is a murder. And she comes up with some elaborate scheme to blame it on someone else.
I remember being jarred by that series. As a movie it would be a great idea, but as an ongoing series, I used to wonder how many people happen to run into a barely solvable murder once a week?
Don't travel with Tom, and don't invite Jessica to your house, unless you like living on the edge.
Rumble in the Bronx
8.5/10
Jackie Chan movies are a guilty pleasure of mine. I like even the bad ones. The fighting scenes are always a pleasure.
But this ain't one of the bad ones. Despite the awfull dubbing and the plot sometimes jumping ahead.
It's entertaining. It's funny. It's action packed. It's creative. And just at times it's disturbing enough to make you really feel the bad guys are bad guys, and not just plot-goons. (Kids getting beat up, woodchipper-murder, ...)
It's fun. Simple fun.
Deep Water Horizon 5/10
The critics seemed to like it, but I thought it failed. Perhaps the first 15 minutes set up a possible storyline; Hard working roughnecks dedicated to oil drilling come into conflict with BP bean counters over safety issues. It's an old but tried and tested theme many movies have used to great advantage, but all plot development ends there, and it ends abruptly with finality, never to come into consideration again. The entire remainder of the film is one continuous explosion and oil rig fire. Fragments of dialog are continually repeated, "We gotta get out of here." A couple of dedicated drillers in the control room push some buttons, and occasionally some platform worker will try to turn a wheel that does something or other, and the short scene ends in another explosion that becomes part of the bigger explosion. Perhaps half the movie was filmed in shaky cam using stunt men where you could only see bodies being tossed or guys scrambling along on fiery catwalks in the dark, but backlit by bright flames. There wasn't much need for the main actors (good ones by the way) to do much of anything.
The event in real life was certainly a disaster. The film was bla, and the explosion got monotonous.
X-Men Apocalypse Rise of the Blue People It wasn't quite the disaster I had heard from reviewers, but it was kind of a letdown.
I actually really liked the first half of the movie - the Stargate opening scene, the credits scene that I swear was copied from the Carmen Sandiego animated show's intro, the adolescence of some of the X-Men (though I hear it was a pretty big departure from their comics backstories), and a lot of the action scenes were excellent. Primo special effects, though the green screen was obvious in some places.
What I didn't like:[spoiler]
Jean Grey (Sophie Turner was seriously miscast) and the sudden and contrived romance with Cyclops.
Magneto (he seemingly gives up the cause and goes off to raise a family didn't make a whole lot of sense)
Xavier mind-wiping Moira was a decidedly evil act for such a heroic character and she should've been much more upset than she was.
The Wolverine cameo felt forced (what are the odds that they'd run into each other?)
Also, the characters' powers are portrayed strangely. Apocalypse himself had very different powers in the comics. I can see why that was changed, since the costume makes it pretty much impossible for the actor to convincingly pull off any of that, but the sandomancy got old quick. Quicksilver is extremely fast, but he's not stop time fast. Psylocke's blade is seemingly 10 feet long, cuts through cars, and can change into a whip - almost completely unlike her comic powers.
The dialogue was unnaturally brief and uninteresting.
The final showdown was such a joke (I think my mind forgot most of it to protect itself) and really left me with a bad impression.
Edit - now I remember (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtU28lIwxXc). Oooh boy was that cheesy.
And what's up with Quicksilver never telling his dad the truth? He tells practically everyone else but the person he needs to tell it to![/spoiler]
First half: 7/10
Second half: 5/10
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 05, 2016, 12:50:23 PM
X-Men Apocalypse Rise of the Blue People It wasn't quite the disaster I had heard from reviewers, but it was kind of a letdown.
I actually really liked the first half of the movie - the Stargate opening scene, the credits scene that I swear was copied from the Carmen Sandiego animated show's intro, the adolescence of some of the X-Men (though I hear it was a pretty big departure from their comics backstories), and a lot of the action scenes were excellent. Primo special effects, though the green screen was obvious in some places.
What I didn't like:[spoiler]
Jean Grey (Sophie Turner was seriously miscast) and the sudden and contrived romance with Cyclops.
Magneto (he seemingly gives up the cause and goes off to raise a family didn't make a whole lot of sense)
Xavier mind-wiping Moira was a decidedly evil act for such a heroic character and she should've been much more upset than she was.
The Wolverine cameo felt forced (what are the odds that they'd run into each other?)
Also, the characters' powers are portrayed strangely. Apocalypse himself had very different powers in the comics. I can see why that was changed, since the costume makes it pretty much impossible for the actor to convincingly pull off any of that, but the sandomancy got old quick. Quicksilver is extremely fast, but he's not stop time fast. Psylocke's blade is seemingly 10 feet long, cuts through cars, and can change into a whip - almost completely unlike her comic powers.
The dialogue was unnaturally brief and uninteresting.
The final showdown was such a joke (I think my mind forgot most of it to protect itself) and really left me with a bad impression.
Edit - now I remember (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtU28lIwxXc). Oooh boy was that cheesy.
And what's up with Quicksilver never telling his dad the truth? He tells practically everyone else but the person he needs to tell it to![/spoiler]
First half: 7/10
Second half: 5/10
the cancer that is Fox can only be defended against by decent directors who are able to counter their plight on titles like the x-men with their integrity. Bad directors will just let the Fox effect seep into the x-men movies.
You know, I really can't decide who I hate more these days, Fox for being such petty, childish, money grubbing leeches who refuses to give back the marvel movie licences to marvel to create better movies from those licences, Or marvel themselves, seeing how in recent years, they are purposely killing off the x-men franchise in the comics, as a way of trying to force fox to conform to their demands on the licencing agreement. To go that far, both these companies are fucking petty.
Quote from: Munch on October 05, 2016, 08:55:06 PM
the cancer that is Fox can only be defended against by decent directors who are able to counter their plight on titles like the x-men with their integrity. Bad directors will just let the Fox effect seep into the x-men movies.
You know, I really can't decide who I hate more these days, Fox for being such petty, childish, money grubbing leeches who refuses to give back the marvel movie licences to marvel to create better movies from those licences, Or marvel themselves, seeing how in recent years, they are purposely killing off the x-men franchise in the comics, as a way of trying to force fox to conform to their demands on the licencing agreement. To go that far, both these companies are fucking petty.
I wrote off the X-Men franchise a long time ago, as being just what it is: another universe in the Marvel multiverse. There are enough heroes, villains and stories of earth shattering consequence, to be a universe in itself, separate from the rest of the Marvel lineup.
What really saddens me about Fox, is that they won't sell Marvel back the rights to the Fantastic Four, which would fit so perfectly into the Marvel cinematic universe. Along with the FF, they have the rights to all the related characters, like the Silver Surfer, Galactus and the Skrulls. Fox is fucking up that franchise worse than any. It gives me physical pain to see them releasing yet another movie of the Fantastic Fuck-Marvel. Fox sux.
I wasn't aware of the X-Men franchise licensing agreement controversy. But all in all, X-Men seems to have run the course of all such franchises. It started out like a house of fire with a gripping story and excellent premise, but wore down after repeated attempts to capitalize on what made it good to begin with. This may or may not have happened without competition and greed of two warring corporations. Actually, it had a fairly good run with what? Six sequels? Although, in my mind, compared to any of the other Marvel scenarios, it normally would have died a natural death after movie number 3 or 4. I keep going to see the films, of course. Partly because I still have a wee interest, and partly to see if they can actually redeem the series with something spectacular. In my imagination, I can't comprehend why such a feat cannot be achieved, but the common progression always seems to be the same, with the franchises becoming of less and less interest until they finally die from movie goer reactions ranging from ho hum boredom to disappointment to mild disgust.
Star Trek has managed to beat the odds, but even the Treki generation is dying out now while being replaced by a younger generation which seems a little confused about what the original fuss was all about.
Quote from: SGOS on October 07, 2016, 09:52:18 AM
I wasn't aware of the X-Men franchise licensing agreement controversy. But all in all, X-Men seems to have run the course of all such franchises. It started out like a house of fire with a gripping story and excellent premise, but wore down after repeated attempts to capitalize on what made it good to begin with. This may or may not have happened without competition and greed of two warring corporations. Actually, it had a fairly good run with what? Six sequels?
I enjoyed all the X-Men movies, but I still see them as sub-par pseudo-Marvel creations, that could have been so much better.
I also enjoyed the Spiderman movies, but thought the same about them. Now that Marvel Studios has him back, we should be in for some really fun Spiderman movies, and cameos.
Quote from: SGOSAlthough, in my mind, compared to any of the other Marvel scenarios, it normally would have died a natural death after movie number 3 or 4. I keep going to see the films, of course. Partly because I still have a wee interest, and partly to see if they can actually redeem the series with something spectacular. In my imagination, I can't comprehend why such a feat cannot be achieved, but the common progression always seems to be the same, with the franchises becoming of less and less interest until they finally die from movie goer reactions ranging from ho hum boredom to disappointment to mild disgust.
I have yet to be disappointed with a
Marvel Studios movie. I've been pleased with all of the character translations from the comics. They have captured the flavor of the whole thing. Starting with Ang Lee's Hulk, and including Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Ant-Man. For me, each one is better than the last(with the exception of Iron Man 3).
Which brings me to the latest movie I've seen:
Captain America: Civil War. I just watched it on Blu-Ray. I enjoyed it immensely. It was a well done schism between the Avengers, that has Cap and Iron Man really going at it. I loved how they included almost everybody in the big battle scene. Just a lot of fun all around.
Dr. Strange is next. Then
Guardians of the Galaxy 2. :clap:
Whatever its called with the Rock and the little black dude. CIA agent thingy, comical,,,some laughs…waiting for the hurricane so I was in for mindless laughs. I got some laughs…they were indeed mindless. 4. Probably funnier if you were on death row.
The Conjuring 2: Little girl is wack and deceives everybody 3/10
Pretty much what you'd expect from a "scary" movie. Jump scares. Demons and shit, sprinkled with the odd gore crap. Not the psychological thriller it is made out to be.
Dr Strange is interesting. Old comic book hero ... and there was a pilot for a TV series back in the 80s "The Shadow", similar idea. I like anything Cumberbatch.
I can wait for movies to show up on cable. But I might make an exception for Dr Strange
To the tune of Frer Jacque, with children singing slow and discordantly:
Dr Strange, Dr Strange
Dormammu, Dormammu
Mindless Ones are coming.
Mindless Ones are coming.
Where are you
Where are you?
Ms Peregrine's School For Peculiar Children ... was an enjoyable romp in Halloween themes ... not for little children.
The Nice Guys. It's funny and full of clever references. It's good.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 15, 2016, 06:02:05 AM
The Nice Guys. It's funny and full of clever references. It's good.
I didn't think I would like it because there have been droves of "cop buddy" movies that went from bad to really bad. Nice Guys was the first one I really liked. I don't know if it's widely recognized, but I've heard the term, cop buddy, to describe the genre by at least one reviewer. I saw it at the theater, and then rented it when it came out.
Not latest movie i've seen, but a sneek peek at one up coming:
[spoiler](https://66.media.tumblr.com/4e53ca44d192db2300ef0c0940ea7e24/tumblr_ofb2mq0Tlk1soqdfuo1_250.gif)(https://67.media.tumblr.com/ebf9bc47c8f081da94ee74287aebc7e0/tumblr_ofb2mq0Tlk1soqdfuo2_250.gif)
EEEEEEEEEP!! BABY GROOT!!! :D!!!!![/spoiler]
Seen it before, but it's been a long time, and for the first time it's going to be hosted by local late night movie host legend Fritz the Night Owl: The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Haven't seen it in a theater in more than 20 years, and having it hosted by Fritz is just the icing on the cake.
I'm taking Evil Twin and Mrs. Evil Twin. And their kids, who haven't seen it in a theater yet. They are awesome parents. :D
Meanwhile, as a county children services employee, I should probably not be as amused as I am about the prospect of taking two teenaged "virgins" to the movies... although I know which of my cow-orkers would be amused by that, and which would not
Waiting for Dr Strange. I really want to see how they depict magical spells, because unlike in those silly Harry Potter movies there was nothing to see. But in the Dr Strange comics, they were VERY visual.
I recall one one graphic picture from the 80s where Dormammu broke through one magical shield in a series of smaller circles til there ws almost none left. But a little is not none.
Hey, I can enjoy fiction...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 26, 2016, 01:48:33 AM
Waiting for Dr Strange. I really want to see how they depict magical spells, because unlike in those silly Harry Potter movies there was nothing to see. But in the Dr Strange comics, they were VERY visual.
I recall one one graphic picture from the 80s where Dormammu broke through one magical shield in a series of smaller circles til there ws almost none left. But a little is not none.
Hey, I can enjoy fiction...
The Dr. Strange trailers I've seen don't tell me much. He walks through an electrically charged portal, and then just stands there marveling how he's in a different place. Don't get me wrong, I love walking through portals more than just about anything, but there is still evil that must be confronted. Looking forward to the movie.
I recall the original Marvel comics where Dr Strange was a drunk doctor lost in an alley when The Ancient One found him and realized he had "talents". I doubt they will go back to THAT.
But mystical spells will be interesting to see depicted. Probably just glowing stuff, but I have hopes.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 26, 2016, 10:03:53 AM
I recall the original Marvel comics where Dr Strange was a drunk doctor lost in an alley when The Ancient One found him and realized he had "talents". I doubt they will go back to THAT.
But mystical spells will be interesting to see depicted. Probably just glowing stuff, but I have hopes.
And Benedict Cumberbatch, which is a Very Good Thing.
I'm thinking about going to see it, although I'm rather more likely to wait for the DVD. Wonder how much Ditko they'll try to channel in the effects...
Inferno 2/10
OMG! What a dog that was. I should've read the reviews before I went to see it, but I thought, "Tom Hanks? With Ron Howard directing? That's got to have something going for it." I didn't walk out of the theater, but I should have. It was boring and often incoherent. Don't waste your money on this one.
Epidemics movies are boring...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 12:59:15 AM
Epidemics movies are boring...
That was just a small part of the failure. It just didn't hang together, and the characters weren't believable. Not the actor's fault. They were poorly constructed and did unrealistic things. I experienced a lot of WTF?? and Yeah, right! during the movie.
Read 'Lucifer's Hammer' by Larry Niven. THAT is a great end of world story...
Spoiler alert:
Here is a thing that bothered me a lot. The evil doctor wants to wipe out 50% of humanity, because over population will eventually lead to man's extinction. While that claim could be challenged, he at least articulated it as a reason for his action. If we accept the claim, his logic does hold up.
On the other hand, the good guys don't even challenge the claim, so I'm starting to side with the evil doctor, who is actually trying to save humanity, while the heroes are busy rushing to facilitate the doom that awaits mankind because of their very actions.
There is definitely a conflict that drives the movie along, but everyone seems to proceed without actually thinking. All the thinking done by the heroes centers around deciphering the encrypted codes in some ancient diagram of Dante's Inferno, but fuck thinking about what they are actually doing. The only one actually thinking about what they are doing, seems to be the evil doctor. I want to slap someone upside the head, but they are all so idiotic that I don't know who to slap first.
The movie shifts gears at the end when Tom Hanks expresses some wackadoodle affection for a minor character that doesn't play much of a role in the movie as a whole, and I'm sitting there wondering, "What the fuck does that scene have to do with anything?" Is Ron Howard trying to insult his audience, or did he just have some Hollywood cliché just pop into his head at the last minute that he thought would add closure to what he thought should have been a romantic comedy instead of an action thriller?
Quote from: SGOS on October 29, 2016, 09:35:36 AM
Spoiler alert:
Here is a thing that bothered me a lot. The evil doctor wants to wipe out 50% of humanity, because over population will eventually lead to man's extinction. While that claim could be challenged, he at least articulated it as a reason for his action. If we accept the claim, his logic does hold up.
On the other hand, the good guys don't even challenge the claim, so I'm starting to side with the evil doctor, who is actually trying to save humanity, while the heroes are busy rushing to facilitate the doom that awaits mankind because of their very actions.
There is definitely a conflict that drives the movie along, but everyone seems to proceed without actually thinking. All the thinking done by the heroes centers around deciphering the encrypted codes in some ancient diagram of Dante's Inferno, but fuck thinking about what they are actually doing. The only one actually thinking about what they are doing, seems to be the evil doctor. I want to slap someone upside the head, but they are all so idiotic that I don't know who to slap first.
The movie shifts gears at the end when Tom Hanks expresses some wackadoodle affection for a minor character that doesn't play much of a role in the movie as a whole, and I'm sitting there wondering, "What the fuck does that scene have to do with anything?" Is Ron Howard trying to insult his audience, or did he just have some Hollywood cliché just pop into his head at the last minute that he thought would add closure to what he thought should have been a romantic comedy instead of an action thriller?
Dumb movies have dumber finales...
This is why I've always liked ra's al ghul in the batman comics and the animated series (not the movies) as a character, because despite whatever batman claims him as being, Ra's wants save the earth, from mankinds overpopulation and fucking up the planet. Its such an interesting take on a character who is a villain, but also one you can understand fully why he wants to wipe out half the planet.
Quote from: Munch on October 29, 2016, 05:07:42 PM
This is why I've always liked ra's al ghul in the batman comics and the animated series (not the movies) as a character, because despite whatever batman claims him as being, Ra's wants save the earth, from mankinds overpopulation and fucking up the planet. Its such an interesting take on a character who is a villain, but also one you can understand fully why he wants to wipe out half the planet.
I never followed those kinds of comics. I would read them at a friend's house, but that was many years ago. If Raj al ghul appeared in one, I wouldn't have recognized him as a regular. I remember Batman as cooler than Superman, but I don't remember an array of colorful superheroes back then, either. Except for one called Plastic Man, who could squeeze through keyholes and things like that.
Quote from: SGOS on October 29, 2016, 05:25:22 PM
I never followed those kinds of comics. I would read them at a friend's house, but that was many years ago. If Raj al ghul appeared in one, I wouldn't have recognized him as a regular. I remember Batman as cooler than Superman, but I don't remember an array of colorful superheroes back then, either. Except for one called Plastic Man, who could squeeze through keyholes and things like that.
honestly, batman the animated series is one of the best animated super hero cartoons they ever wrote, if you can find it online, watch it. you can get episodes over here http://kisscartoon.me/Cartoon/Batman-The-Animated-Series
Rocky Horror Picture Show, hosted by Fritz the Nite Owl (local late night movie host). An unusually subdued audience, oddly enough.
Quote from: trdsf on October 30, 2016, 02:48:32 PM
Rocky Horror Picture Show, hosted by Fritz the Nite Owl (local late night movie host). An unusually subdued audience, oddly enough.
Did everyone have their spray bottles and costumes? I always thought one of those midnight showings would be fun. Although I didn't get into the movie itself. It's cult status and fan participation is phenomenal, however.
QuoteRocky Horror is the first and only true audience partici-(SAY IT!)-pation movie. People yell back lines at the screen during the extended pauses between dialogue, dress up in costume and act out the film, and throw props various times during the film. The audience participation phenomenon was observed as early as the film's first run in 1975 (when it bombed during limited engagements in 7 of 8 cities), and was later re-released as a midnight movie where the audience participation really began to flourish.
But hey, what about the props and audience participation lines and dressing up in costume? Well, no one expects you to know much of anything your first time out. While audience participation is mandatory to keep the show alive, it is not mandatory that everyone participate, every time. Virgins are not expected to know a damn thing (just like in sex.)
If you really want to bring props, check with your local theater and ask what props are not allowed. The safest ones to bring are rice (banned at some, but not most theaters), toast (unbuttered), toilet paper and a deck of cards. A newspaper may help keep you from getting wet, but water is banned at many theaters. Watch everyone else to figure out when to throw these items. A prop list is available on this website.
Oh, and if you need to know one AP line, there is one that is almost universal to every theater, that you can use multiple times. Whenever you hear the name "Brad Majors", yell "ASSHOLE", okay? An important note here: AP is NOT fixed from theater to theater and night to night. If you feel an new line coming on, YELL IT! A big part of keeping the show fresh is creating new lines with topical humor.
"De Premier" by Erik van Looy.
A belgian movie. The prime minister (De Premier) is kidnapped, along with his wife and kids and tasked with assassinating the president of the United States, lest his family be killed. What ensues is a desperate attempt to escape this predicament as he's guided evermore to the meeting in which the deed must be done.
While the story and the reasoning behind the assassination is a bit bland, the acting is well done and makes up for most of that. You believe the characters, with maybe the exception of the big bad of the story, though he's just not given much to work with and still manages to put down a more than acceptable performance. Not a very colorful film, but seeing as it's a suspensfull action flick, I guess, it works. (Also very Belgian style to portray everything in gray, black and other dark colors.) It's pacing was also quite good. But what I really, really enjoyed about this flick, was it's rather realistic violence. Definitely not too much, and barely enough to call it an action flick. I'm guessing it might be closer to a thriller, but it's not really that either. It's a constant suspense. And it keeps it up well.
8.5/10
Independance Day part douche. Someone thought they could make a couple bucks by making a pretty crappy re-make. Luckily the kid downloaded in and we tethered to the big TV so it didn't cost me anyhthing....meh.....2/10
Quote from: aitm on October 31, 2016, 09:44:17 AM
Independance Day part douche. Someone thought they could make a couple bucks by making a pretty crappy re-make. Luckily the kid downloaded in and we tethered to the big TV so it didn't cost me anyhthing....meh.....2/10
I did like Independence Day. The initial destruction was impressive and the aliens were OK.
I Like Battleship and re-watch it when it comes on. The Indestructables is good. Dash running on water always cracks me up.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2016, 09:50:38 AM
I did like Independence Day. The initial destruction was impressive and the aliens were OK.
I Like Battleship and re-watch it when it comes on. The Indestructables is good. Dash running on water always cracks me up.
Incredibles!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5v2qBBD-gE
The conjuring 2
I saw the original conjuring, and really liked it, james wan is a good director and can make for some fun roller-coaster style horror movies. The original is infact one of my top 10 fav horror movies ever.
The acting is good in it, it had the vide of it being an american made movie shooting its take on britain, but it came off well for that, the setting of enfield made it feel like a street I could be walking down any day.
The special effects were good too, something I like about Wans directing is he doesn't rely on cgi unless he really has to, and that makes everything feel much more attached and creepy like when characters movie about, its more grounded.
Now the controversy around this, and by extension the original conjuring. As an atheist, I should hate these movies, they are 'based on true life stories' that happened of hauntings. Before I became an atheist I use to believe in ghost stories a lot, and so by extent believed in ghost files from paranormal investigators, such as ed and Lorraine warren that these movies are based around. Now over the years just like with religion and belief fox will give back the x-men rights to marvel, you stop believing in this stuff and see it as people in the real world making up stories and shit.
However, I realized like from the first movie, that it doesn't actually matter what i believe in, thats not what makes movies like these enjoyable. Just like in movies like insidious, sinister, x-men, lord of the rings, starwars, they are all fantasies set in their own world there in those worlds, whats happening is really happening to the movie characters and environments.
Its like when they make movies of jack the ripper, and make up a bunch of characters and events around it that didn't happen, or make a zombie version of Jane Eyre, as long as the story can pull you in, isn't preachy, and flows well, then it doesn't matter if it was based on true events. The real truth is the warrens weren't even involved in the enfield story, they were their for like a day and then left. But in the movie world, ed and lorraine warren are like superheroes fighting off demons and spirts like something out of buffy the vampire slayer, and that makes the movies so enjoyable, the escapism.
So, given that, ignoring the 'based on true events' thing they write in, and just looking at the movie itself, I give it a 7.5 to 8 out of 10, I like james wans directing, I like the cast, the setting, and even the mythos around it, despite it being biblical. Even the feel of the characters and the emotions on display felt genuine, probably more genuine then what happened in real life.
Also, the movie annabelle is terrible.
Quote from: Munch on October 31, 2016, 06:16:41 PM
The conjuring 2
I saw the original conjuring, and really liked it, james wan is a good director and can make for some fun roller-coaster style horror movies. The original is infact one of my top 10 fav horror movies ever.
The acting is good in it, it had the vide of it being an american made movie shooting its take on britain, but it came off well for that, the setting of enfield made it feel like a street I could be walking down any day.
The special effects were good too, something I like about Wans directing is he doesn't rely on cgi unless he really has to, and that makes everything feel much more attached and creepy like when characters movie about, its more grounded.
Now the controversy around this, and by extension the original conjuring. As an atheist, I should hate these movies, they are 'based on true life stories' that happened of hauntings. Before I became an atheist I use to believe in ghost stories a lot, and so by extent believed in ghost files from paranormal investigators, such as ed and Lorraine warren that these movies are based around. Now over the years just like with religion and belief fox will give back the x-men rights to marvel, you stop believing in this stuff and see it as people in the real world making up stories and shit.
However, I realized like from the first movie, that it doesn't actually matter what i believe in, thats not what makes movies like these enjoyable. Just like in movies like insidious, sinister, x-men, lord of the rings, starwars, they are all fantasies set in their own world there in those worlds, whats happening is really happening to the movie characters and environments.
Its like when they make movies of jack the ripper, and make up a bunch of characters and events around it that didn't happen, or make a zombie version of Jane Eyre, as long as the story can pull you in, isn't preachy, and flows well, then it doesn't matter if it was based on true events. The real truth is the warrens weren't even involved in the enfield story, they were their for like a day and then left. But in the movie world, ed and lorraine warren are like superheroes fighting off demons and spirts like something out of buffy the vampire slayer, and that makes the movies so enjoyable, the escapism.
So, given that, ignoring the 'based on true events' thing they write in, and just looking at the movie itself, I give it a 7.5 to 8 out of 10, I like james wans directing, I like the cast, the setting, and even the mythos around it, despite it being biblical. Even the feel of the characters and the emotions on display felt genuine, probably more genuine then what happened in real life.
Also, the movie annabelle is terrible.
Ouija 7/10.
I just saw Ouija at the theater. I'm not into these sorts of films, but I enjoyed it. The jump scares made me chuckle, rather than jump. However, it's actually a good plot, far better than most of this genre. You might like it.
One thing that tickled me was that the movie was set in the 1950s, and as a added device, which may go unnoticed by the younger crowd, every 15 minutes or so, in the upper right hand corner of the screen they would flash those old time circles (those things that most people assume were flaws in the film), but were there to warn the projectionist to get ready to start the next reel. It was like watching a 1950s movie that required 4 or 5 reels of film. I was taken by that little addition to a digital film.
At the end, they kind of abandon the plot line in favor of a blitz of jump scares, but that was OK, since they fit the plot. I figure they were obligated to do that since it's a horror type film.
Quote from: SGOS on November 01, 2016, 05:36:54 PMOuija 7/10.
I just saw Ouija at the theater. I'm not into these sorts of films, but I enjoyed it.
I saw a theory that Ouija is a part of The Exorcist series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IAHrfZxzB4). Seemed plausible. Apparently, in The Exorcist the girl played on a ouija board by herself (well, technically with her invisible friend Captain Howdy) which led to her getting possessed.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 01, 2016, 07:02:03 PM
I saw a theory that Ouija is a part of The Exorcist series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IAHrfZxzB4). Seemed plausible. Apparently, in The Exorcist the girl played on a ouija board by herself (well, technically with her invisible friend Captain Howdy) which led to her getting possessed.
Hmmm. Maybe. I do recall the Ouija board in the original Exorcist, which did a number on me when I first read the book. It disrupted my sleep for a month. As I recall the scenes with Ouija board were the first harbinger that foretold of the creeps to follow. It doesn't affect me like that today. Then I saw the film a few months after I read the book, and had the same reaction all over again.
Ouija, the movie, wasn't really scary, more like fun. Your link started off shitting all over it, pointing to it's 7% rating at rotten tomatoes. It's actually 82%, however. I wouldn't have bothered going if it was a 7%, and I think 82% was close to the mark.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ouija_origin_of_evil
Oh, maybe he was talking about the first movie. I didn't see that one.
I don't know if the writers of Ouija made an intentional link to the Exorcist. I think that may stretch it a bit. The movies are very different, but I'll give your critic some credit for spotting the similarities that he did. Sure, there are Ouija similarities, dictated by the encyclopedia of Ouija lore, I suppose. But recurring common lore has also been established for vampires and zombies. Everyone knows what vampires and zombies are like. They follow the same established behaviors and characteristics from movie to movie, so there is going to be continuity. OK, occasionally vampires and zombies break with traditional understanding, but those are odd exceptions. I usually find them jarring, because I consider myself knowledgeable about vampires and zombies. Not so much Ouija boards, though.
Captain America: Civil War
I expected it to be rather braindead explosions and shit, but had a rather good philosophical flare to it. 7/10
Ender's Game is both good and bad. The book was WAY more subtle. Everyone I know has a slightly different spot where they understood Ender wasn't playing a game anymore. It should have been a 3 part 2 hour per episode series. But I'm glad they made it for the message... And, no, I wasn't the earliest to catch on. But I remember WHEN. All the hairs on my neck stood up.
And just thinking about that moment, they did again.
XMen Apocalypse 10/10
I don't know why I missed this at the theater. Did it get a bad rating or something? I've followed every one since the 1st, which I thought was the best. Things got weaker with some sequels better than others, but I think they got their mojo back on this last one. I just finished it minutes ago, so I might be a bit emotionally excited and not all that critical. Loved this one, almost to the point of goose bumps.
Edit: Just checked Tomatoes. 48% Critics , Fans a bit higher. Talk about out of sync, but I am still enthralled. I just had a shot of steroids yesterday for an inflammation of a joint. Maybe I'm just pumped.
Tomorrow, I'm off for Dr. Strange. I'm going to take full advantage of the steroids.
Ah chemicals and drugs, making everything rosier
Yeah, I might watch all my movies on steroids from now on.
Quote from: SGOS on November 04, 2016, 08:59:34 AM
Yeah, I might watch all my movies on steroids from now on.
Wouldn't you end up.. you know..
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hTfj6v13P_8/U33q-FqpI5I/AAAAAAAAAi4/LLrk28bdiRc/s1600/muscle_building_steroids41.jpg)
Oh my.
Dr. Strange 10/10 Without steroids, too, I think.
A unique film. I really don't care for the new 3D, but it's an hour drive to the theater, and I took the 3D option because I had my show times mixed up. I'm actually happy I did. Usually, 3D (sometimes referred to as 2.5D) doesn't do much for most films. It does enhance certain things, if the movie is designed for maximizing the technology. Take an ordinary horror film in reality surroundings like an old creepy house, and nothing is really enhanced in the experience. But certain effects do well. Think, the floating mountains in Avatar.
Dr. Strange takes advantage of these kinds of effects. The plot line is developed mostly in regular environments and doesn't gain anything from 2.5D, even suffers from the common complaints, but about 30 to 40 minutes of the film creates environments that shine in the new 3D, and add a level of immersion not found in regular environments. They are just fun to experience. I would suggest you might take the 3D ride on this one. They are spread out through the movie in 5 minute effective scenes, but don't dominate the movie. It's like the director figured out how to use the new technology. I think a 3D movie needs to be built around 3D. You can't just film any old movie in 3D and expect much, in my opinion.
Also, you will need to embrace your imagination and accept the concept of a spirit world. Most atheists can accept the concept of the spirit world, so it's not like you can't turn off your suspension of reality when it's over. A lot of theists may not approve of the movie, because it's the wrong spirit world and therefore hogwash. It's not like they don't understand the difference between reality and concept. They can accept once concept fully and permanently, but reject the other concepts because they conflict with the "true" concept. Atheists can usually accept concepts, while understanding they are at least available to us in the imagination.
But enough preaching. The movie is unique in that Dr. Strange is not the ordinary superhero. I love to watch how the superhero finds himself and his powers. That has always without exception, been my favorite part of the genre, so I give the film a couple of points for that alone.
Stay for the credits. There is a short preview that sets up the sequel and it's very entertaining and perpetuates the bits of humor sprinkled throughout the movie. You won't walk out of the theater with any new and grand insights about the human condition, but you will have had a lot of fun.
Dr. Strange - 10/10.
Do you like movies? Go see it. If not, it probably won't make you a believer but maybe go see it just incase.
Quote from: Munch on November 04, 2016, 10:17:08 AM
Wouldn't you end up.. you know..
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hTfj6v13P_8/U33q-FqpI5I/AAAAAAAAAi4/LLrk28bdiRc/s1600/muscle_building_steroids41.jpg)
Please tell me that picture ISNT real...
Nah, think that ones Photoshop, however this guy isn't.
(https://www.t-nation.com/system/publishing/articles/10000444/original/Greg_Valentino.jpg?1397149425)
Greg Valentino, and I wouldn't look to deeply into this guy, he abused steroids so long, and rumours he injected oil into his arms, until the skin exploded. Rather gross.
Quote from: Munch on November 06, 2016, 04:11:03 AM
Nah, think that ones Photoshop, however this guy isn't.
(https://www.t-nation.com/system/publishing/articles/10000444/original/Greg_Valentino.jpg?1397149425)
Greg Valentino, and I wouldn't look to deeply into this guy, he abused steroids so long, and rumours he injected oil into his arms, until the skin exploded. Rather gross.
I doubt that is real. The biceps look too fake. I do hope his arms explode though. LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on November 06, 2016, 04:16:18 AM
I doubt that is real. The biceps look too fake. I do hope his arms explode though. LOL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJnikfx-C14
I highly recommend don't eat before or during watching this..
That one is turned away from the camera. You don't want to see that it actually is a woman, a feminist to be exact ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on November 06, 2016, 07:01:16 AM
That one is turned away from the camera. You don't want to see that it actually is a woman, a feminist to be exact ;-)
oh Nooo :S
As a kid in early high school, I got into the muscle builder thing. I used to read the muscle magazines regularly, waiting each month for the next issue. They would often print articles about Mr. America and Mr. Universe, including pictures of the winners and runners up. They were impressive bodies, although not by today's more massive standards.
Anyway, one day, the previous year's Mr. Universe was scheduled to show up at our local sporting goods store to promote interest in buying weight training equipment. It wasn't well attended, maybe 15 kids my age were there for the time I spent watching him demonstrate some simple techniques for training.
He wasn't at all as impressive as his magazine photos. Mostly he was just your well proportioned and somewhat more than average muscled guy, lacking that definition of veins and ripples that strike terror into those looking at guys like Gregg Valentino. One of the older kids authoritatively told me later when I mentioned it, that those guys go back to normal when they quit training. The rumor back then was that they got fat, but I think that was mostly old wives tales.
The guy I met was much closer to average and well proportioned. The concept of steroids were unknown to me at the time, and I don't remember them ever being talked about in sports.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 06, 2016, 04:16:18 AM
I doubt that is real. The biceps look too fake. I do hope his arms explode though. LOL!
No, it's real. They did a documentary on him called "The Man Whose Arms Exploded."
Quote from: Munch on November 06, 2016, 06:31:41 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJnikfx-C14
I highly recommend don't eat before or during watching this..
I couldn't finish it. I could have, sure, but it was more disgusting than what I was in the mood for.
Quote from: SGOS on November 06, 2016, 08:55:11 AM
He wasn't at all as impressive as his magazine photos. Mostly he was just your well proportioned and somewhat more than average muscled guy, lacking that definition of veins and ripples that strike terror into those looking at guys like Gregg Valentino. One of the older kids authoritatively told me later when I mentioned it, that those guys go back to normal when they quit training. The rumor back then was that they got fat, but I think that was mostly old wives tales.
its because they adjust their water intake before they are set to do photoshoots, pretty much holding off from drinking anything and cause the veins to pop out when they flex, tightening the skin for definition for the judges.
X-Men: Apocalypse - 10/10
Awesome story beneath all the explosions and shit.
Quote from: Munch on November 06, 2016, 12:03:37 PM
its because they adjust their water intake before they are set to do photoshoots, pretty much holding off from drinking anything and cause the veins to pop out when they flex, tightening the skin for definition for the judges.
I preferred ordinary bulk to definition. Definition was apparently starting to be a goal, but now it's extreme, and I don't like it. Also, Mr. Universe didn't just lose his definition during the off season. I would have guessed he lost a half or more of his bulk. He still looked good, healthy and fit, but not weird.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 06, 2016, 01:01:03 PM
X-Men: Apocalypse - 10/10
Awesome story beneath all the explosions and shit.
I'll definitely want to watch that one again. I've collected the XMen series, because I got so interested in the first one. Some of the others were so/so, although none were outright stinkers. I'll buy a copy of this one too.
Another Marvel movie I liked a lot was V for Vendetta. Unfortunately they supposedly killed off the hero, but I suppose he could be resurrected. However, it seemed like the entire story was pretty well covered with a full closure at the end. I think they could have done a lot more with that guy though.
Quote from: SGOS on November 06, 2016, 02:22:21 PM
I preferred ordinary bulk to definition. Definition was apparently starting to be a goal, but now it's extreme, and I don't like it. Also, Mr. Universe didn't just lose his definition during the off season. I would have guessed he lost a half or more of his bulk. He still looked good, healthy and fit, but not weird.
sometimes I think those contest judges are just hidden comic book fans who want to look at men in their undies with hulk type bodies.
(http://puppsfreestuff.com/files/HulkByGabrielColorized.gif)
Seriously hulk, drink some fucking water.
The Arrival 9/10
Slow, but really interesting. Reminds me of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but not as lame. In fact, much more thought provoking than that. How do you communicate with Aliens? Apparently not with an electronic universal translating gizmo as in Star Trek, or as in Close Encounters, a thing that makes pipe organ sounds doesn't work either.
Dr. Strange.
Go find some acid first.
ten out of pi.
I really want to see dr strange, since I've always enjoyed him in the comics. I just have a hard time separating the character from the actor, kind of like Tom Cruise.
Quote from: Munch on November 12, 2016, 03:14:44 PM
I really want to see dr strange, since I've always enjoyed him in the comics. I just have a hard time separating the character from the actor, kind of like Tom Cruise.
Could someone have done better than Cumberpatch? I don't know. I wondered the same thing, but I wasn't that familiar with him to begin with. I thought he was convincing. By the way, I went to the movie twice. I don't think I've ever done that before.
Quote from: SGOS on October 15, 2016, 06:25:57 AM
I didn't think I would like it because there have been droves of "cop buddy" movies that went from bad to really bad. Nice Guys was the first one I really liked. I don't know if it's widely recognized, but I've heard the term, cop buddy, to describe the genre by at least one reviewer. I saw it at the theater, and then rented it when it came out.
Yeah, I didn't expect to like it either. I didn't know that term. But it was exactly what I thought. I first peeked at it then got hooked.
Quote from: SGOS on November 12, 2016, 04:12:43 PM
Could someone have done better than Cumberpatch? I don't know. I wondered the same thing, but I wasn't that familiar with him to begin with. I thought he was convincing. By the way, I went to the movie twice. I don't think I've ever done that before.
I've seen him in the tv series sherlock, which I loved, and The Imitation Game. He also voiced Smaug in the hobbit.
Benedril Cuminsnatch is a top 3 actor in holywood atm imo.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 12, 2016, 06:38:00 PM
Benedril Cuminsnatch is a top 3 actor in holywood atm imo.
He may well be, and is a good actor, and starred in some great film roles.
I'm just finding it hard now to get back into watching him, where, and sorry to bring it up again, he's been making remarks against the british public how they should all be bringing in migrants into their homes for nothing to give them room and board.. when he owns several homes himself, including his mansion.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/13/25A03C1F00000578-0-image-a-1_1423819439788.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/22/2437CC6B00000578-2883459-image-a-49_1419246557720.jpg)
(You know Benny, if you sold that piano, you might buy some refugees some water they need, how about it?)Which could house, what, around 50 migrant families? Also, for his theatre production of hamlet, where some people paid around 1k a ticket to see him act, he then had his cronies heckle the audience to give their money to help migrants in need, and accused those leaving without donating as 'tory scum'.
A modern day Bob Geldoff, loves to scream at people for money for a charity, only to return to his bed worth several thousand pound, a canary in a gilded cage.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3270170/To-preach-not-preach-question-Benedict-Cumberbatch-delivers-speech-refugees-encore-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-says-stick-day-job.html
This is why I find it hard to remove the man from the actor, especially when the actor thrusts this in peoples faces during his overpriced performance. If he gave up some of his wealth for the crisis,
The Orphanage.
How is this a horror or even a ghost movie?! Talk about false advertising. It was so sad. :sad2: That can happen in real life. And a mother can easily see those things afterwards. I dunno. *Sniff.
I was that to, it was less jump scare and more character focused then anything. Good movie, much like Pans Labyrinth.
Babadook
I don't know what to think about this movie. Not too bad. But designed to scare one demographic in one specific situation I guess.
Conjuring ...classic story of deomonic possession. 'Based on a true story'. :lol:
I didn't know about Ed and Lorrain Warren. Apparently they were/are famous in the USA.
Also I have seen The Hounted House on the Hill in the morning as the beginning of my random horror movies marathon and that was really bad.
Horror movies used to be fun. :sad2:
Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 14, 2016, 10:23:33 AM
Babadook
I don't know what to think about this movie. Not too bad. But designed to scare one demographic in one specific situation I guess.
I loved the movie a hell of a lot. Okay, the kid in it was awful, but having known kids, how they can stretch any sane person to their limits, the role the kid presented was how I would often think kids as doing, and really, Essie Davis' role in the movie was one of the most chilling roles I've seen in horror in a long time, as the mother who slowly losing her mind.
(spoilers)
And I think that is what I loved about the movie, you are never sure what it real, her slowly losing her sanity, matched against the kids imagination, him believing whats happening, against her struggle, made me rewatch the film, is mr babadook real, or just the imagination of a child seeing a monster when his own mother is slowly losing her sanity and lashing out at the thing she hates, what she blames for the death of her husband, her own son.
This movie made me love Essie Davis as an actress, and whatever else, should go down as her most emotional and passionate roles.
Quote from: SGOS on November 12, 2016, 04:12:43 PM
Could someone have done better than Cumberpatch? I don't know. I wondered the same thing, but I wasn't that familiar with him to begin with. I thought he was convincing. By the way, I went to the movie twice. I don't think I've ever done that before.
That is called Deja Cumberbatch ;-)
On another subject, having been watching harry potter films again, and seeing Chris Stuckmann's review of them, it made me think of something I thought of a while ago from the movies, and still find it funny to think of today.
One of the themes in the harry potter universe, in the wizarding world he lives in, is how good or bad, the wizards and magic users in the wizarding world regard 'muggles', or humans, how the most elite look down on half blood wizards for having 'muggle blood', or mud bloods, and how even the nicer wizards regard humans as being lesser then they are.
This I've always found funny about the harry potter universe, because you can really look at the world they live in, and regard what humans can do.
So they can conjure flames and light candles from it and balls of light, yeah, well humans have invented powerful torches that shine up a room far better then any candle light can. Wizards have dragons and flying cars, well humans have stealth bombers and missiles. Wizards have spells that can one shot kill you, well humans have guns that can kill you in one shot. Wizards have magical healing potions and spells, well humans have things like Chemotherapy. they have owls.. we have the bloody internet.
Its just funny with how the wizards regard humans with lower class vitriol, even showing most humans in the movies/books as dumb creatures like the dursleys or the old graveyard keeper, and yet if humans dropped a nuclear bomb on hogwarts, I doubt any magical barrier could protect against it.
Quote from: Munch on November 14, 2016, 01:11:43 PM
On another subject, having been watching harry potter films again, and seeing Chris Stuckmann's review of them, it made me think of something I thought of a while ago from the movies, and still find it funny to think of today.
One of the themes in the harry potter universe, in the wizarding world he lives in, is how good or bad, the wizards and magic users in the wizarding world regard 'muggles', or humans, how the most elite look down on half blood wizards for having 'muggle blood', or mud bloods, and how even the nicer wizards regard humans as being lesser then they are.
This I've always found funny about the harry potter universe, because you can really look at the world they live in, and regard what humans can do.
So they can conjure flames and light candles from it and balls of light, yeah, well humans have invented powerful torches that shine up a room far better then any candle light can. Wizards have dragons and flying cars, well humans have stealth bombers and missiles. Wizards have spells that can one shot kill you, well humans have guns that can kill you in one shot. Wizards have magical healing potions and spells, well humans have things like Chemotherapy. they have owls.. we have the bloody internet.
Its just funny with how the wizards regard humans with lower class vitriol, even showing most humans in the movies/books as dumb creatures like the dursleys or the old graveyard keeper, and yet if humans dropped a nuclear bomb on hogwarts, I doubt any magical barrier could protect against it.
I feel Like such a fucking nerd for saying this, but it is said in the books, I don't know if it's the main books or the extended lore, that muggle devices and machines don't work on the grounds of hogwarts. Atomb-bombs would fall under that category.
Nerd-mode off now.
Yeah, I think muggles and wizards have more potential together than apart.
They could cure the sick, feed The starving, ...
And we could teach them a few sports that make sense, a monitary system that makes sense, we would stop poluting their world, ...
Oh wow, sorry. I was sure I'd shut off that nerd-mode.
Quote from: Munch on November 12, 2016, 08:28:08 PM
He may well be, and is a good actor, and starred in some great film roles.
I'm just finding it hard now to get back into watching him, where, and sorry to bring it up again, he's been making remarks against the british public how they should all be bringing in migrants into their homes for nothing to give them room and board.. when he owns several homes himself, including his mansion.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/13/25A03C1F00000578-0-image-a-1_1423819439788.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/22/2437CC6B00000578-2883459-image-a-49_1419246557720.jpg)
(You know Benny, if you sold that piano, you might buy some refugees some water they need, how about it?)
Which could house, what, around 50 migrant families? Also, for his theatre production of hamlet, where some people paid around 1k a ticket to see him act, he then had his cronies heckle the audience to give their money to help migrants in need, and accused those leaving without donating as 'tory scum'.
A modern day Bob Geldoff, loves to scream at people for money for a charity, only to return to his bed worth several thousand pound, a canary in a gilded cage.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3270170/To-preach-not-preach-question-Benedict-Cumberbatch-delivers-speech-refugees-encore-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-says-stick-day-job.html
This is why I find it hard to remove the man from the actor, especially when the actor thrusts this in peoples faces during his overpriced performance. If he gave up some of his wealth for the crisis,
That is exactly what happened to the the Zhivago family in Dr Zhivago ... Comrade Munch ;-)
Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 14, 2016, 07:02:27 AM
The Orphanage.
How is this a horror or even a ghost movie?! Talk about false advertising. It was so sad. :sad2: That can happen in real life. And a mother can easily see those things afterwards. I dunno. *Sniff.
The best ghost story I ever saw ... was a short story about a dead girl, trying to reconcile with her mother, who had neglected her and the girl had accidentally died. I think the mother's unresolved remorse was driving the haunting. A young man comes for a visit, and it enmeshed into the haunting, until the reconciliation occurs. You don't know what is happening until the very end, while the climax builds from the start all the way to the conclusion.
Quote from: Munch on November 14, 2016, 01:11:43 PMSo they can conjure flames and light candles from it and balls of light, yeah, well humans have invented powerful torches that shine up a room far better then any candle light can. Wizards have dragons and flying cars, well humans have stealth bombers and missiles. Wizards have spells that can one shot kill you, well humans have guns that can kill you in one shot. Wizards have magical healing potions and spells, well humans have things like Chemotherapy. they have owls.. we have the bloody internet.
Agreed. Technology is the real magic, though wizards have the advantage of being able to work their magic with ease and with little/no cost - their broomsticks don't need fuel, they can effect repairs without specialized tools, chores can be accomplished with the twirl of a wand, etc.
And despite the obsolesce of much of wizard spells/artifacts, they still possess some abilities that normal humans don't - polymorph, luck, immortality, and time travel. The famous time-turner by itself would be an endgame-level technology since its master could alter the course of history to his/her benefit. Even with its limitation of 5 hours, it could be used to undo world-changing events...or set them in motion.
Quote from: Munch on November 14, 2016, 01:00:07 PM
I loved the movie a hell of a lot. Okay, the kid in it was awful, but having known kids, how they can stretch any sane person to their limits, the role the kid presented was how I would often think kids as doing, and really, Essie Davis' role in the movie was one of the most chilling roles I've seen in horror in a long time, as the mother who slowly losing her mind.
(spoilers)
And I think that is what I loved about the movie, you are never sure what it real, her slowly losing her sanity, matched against the kids imagination, him believing whats happening, against her struggle, made me rewatch the film, is mr babadook real, or just the imagination of a child seeing a monster when his own mother is slowly losing her sanity and lashing out at the thing she hates, what she blames for the death of her husband, her own son.
This movie made me love Essie Davis as an actress, and whatever else, should go down as her most emotional and passionate roles.
[spoiler]She was good. I think I was so sure what was to come it wasn't a surprise for me. Kid acting too super, recovering from the dog's death like in minutes was a bit not realistic in the movie. I think it would be better, if it ended bad. If it had been real, it would have ended bad.
Basically they combined a very traditonal horror idea with with a daily make up and a real pain of life. That is the good idea.
But if you look at it from a basic point Conjuring has the same idea, but it is religious. Mom getting possessed to kill her own children. And in both scenarios it is about a dead person/people. [/spoiler]
Quote from: Munch on November 14, 2016, 01:11:43 PM
On another subject, having been watching harry potter films again, and seeing Chris Stuckmann's review of them, it made me think of something I thought of a while ago from the movies, and still find it funny to think of today.
One of the themes in the harry potter universe, in the wizarding world he lives in, is how good or bad, the wizards and magic users in the wizarding world regard 'muggles', or humans, how the most elite look down on half blood wizards for having 'muggle blood', or mud bloods, and how even the nicer wizards regard humans as being lesser then they are.
This I've always found funny about the harry potter universe, because you can really look at the world they live in, and regard what humans can do.
So they can conjure flames and light candles from it and balls of light, yeah, well humans have invented powerful torches that shine up a room far better then any candle light can. Wizards have dragons and flying cars, well humans have stealth bombers and missiles. Wizards have spells that can one shot kill you, well humans have guns that can kill you in one shot. Wizards have magical healing potions and spells, well humans have things like Chemotherapy. they have owls.. we have the bloody internet.
Its just funny with how the wizards regard humans with lower class vitriol, even showing most humans in the movies/books as dumb creatures like the dursleys or the old graveyard keeper, and yet if humans dropped a nuclear bomb on hogwarts, I doubt any magical barrier could protect against it.
Hmm. I think we need to look for what Rowling gives us between lines and use our imagination here. Movies cannot do that, with books you can live in a fantasy world, not just watch it.
Rowling's main premise in Harry Potter is about xenophobia, racism and discrimination. How one culture is repulsed by the other. She found a perfect way; a new way to tell the oldest story to children AND to adults. I wish more adults would read it honestly.
From magic people's point, muggles have invented a crowded, big and dirty world because they cannot do magic. So for the most of magic people, Muggle technology is not a result of some sort of a talent or intelligence, but results from the very fact that they cannot do magic and lack the inherent power to begin with. It's the compensation for not being magical.
Think about muggle weapons. A hand gun is a dangerous and a deadly thing by itself even without someone having the intention to kill a person. A muggle gun doesn't work because you concentrate enough to channel magical power through it to kill a specific person you aim it to. You just pull the tirgger and it would work for anything and anyone. Also a person can survive shots even when you had the full intention to kill them when you use a muggle weapon.
But in magic world, to kill someone you need to use a specific killing curse which is an unforgivable spell because you NEED to have the full intention and desire to kill someone to cast that curse successfully. AND nobody can survive it. (Except Harry and just once.) While there are many deaths and fatal accidents in that world, you can be sure someone wanted to kill a specific person if they are dead. And even if they are under the influence of imperius curse -whish is another unforgivable spell- the logic doesn't change. And they can also detect which wand cast what spell or curse if they want to.
It's almost like it is 'evil' just to learn to cast unforgivable spells. And it is a hell of a job to learn them. Only adults or people reached a certain maturity could cast those spells and they need to learn it especially, by trying which is the biggest crime in that world and a certain way to end up one of the worst prisons ever imagined in literature. A child or even an adult cannot accidentally cast Avada Kedavra and kill a family member at home. They are not taught; the are strictly dark magic. Magic people learn to block the unfriendly, harmful and even deadly spells to protect themselves which are purely defensive, while muggles use their weappons offensively all the time even in defence killing needlessly.
[Harry has a difficult time learning to cast Avada Kedavra, because he is basically a decent human being. (In one ocassion he tries out of momentray despair and rage, but can't do it of course.) And goes for a long time just throwing expelliarmus -which is a disarming spell- and death eaters come to recognise him by that reflex even when he is disgusied. Eventually when things get deadly at some point he is warned that he should use to learn to cast Avada Kedavra because trying disarm a dozen death eaters attacking you with it is a stupid idea. And in war time; in Nazi Germany obviously people shoudl learn it, even youngsters, to survive.]
As magic comes from nature and works within the balance of nature; as a product of it, muggle culture comes as an intervention, abuse and the outcome is an abomination for magic people. Like abusing natural laws.
But of course there are wizards and witches who perfectly understand that muggles just simply produced a culture to cope with nature within their circumstances, some even agree that they have brilliant and very clever solutions. And they respect muggles and their culture. There are also wizards and witches who collect muggle artifacts and constantly trying to learn about muggle culture.
Avada Kedavra is one example. We can produce others and some may not perfectly fit, but that is the general idea. When you can Disapparate and Apparate why would you invent big metal machines going on roads and in air to travel that would cause extra death and damage by the pure mistake of another; like a drunk driver or some speeding maniac, a terrorist. Sure you can 'splinter' yourself in process of an Apparition spell, but the harm would be your own mistake, not some jerk with zero responsibility or an accident caused by another. Also it is not something you have to learn, while in muggle culture in some cases and places you HAVE to learn to drive or you have to use a plane t travel. But in magic world not all wizards and witches learn to use Apparition spells it, you don't have to. There are port keys and other safe means to teleport.
Health and medicine is the same. They can mend bones, tissue, hemorrage. While it is not perfect, inits own logic it is consistent. They do not need the medical technology muggles do. They just need witches and wizards who got to be experts on healing spells.
And also as a small community only living on their own, they lack the economy built on the technology and various industries muggles do; so the classes muggles have. Their sociology is completely different YET the same. What Rowling is telling all about racism and xenophobia and it is brilliant.
So why would they respect a species who are purely dependent on each other and some mindless cold machines, accidents, on someone else's will and talents? While removing those basics she provided a good space for other fantasy elements to work for the fairy tale she is telling.
In short, Rowling's magic world is thought out very good. It is full of genius premises built-related on the main one. And very fitting into the human narrative in reality, despite of all its fantasy; ugliness and irrationality of racism AND how it is a learned behaviour too. Not just that many other things. And as she created a consistent world with certain rules, even the little things you'd think just put there as simply as with ornamental appearance actually has a function.
Movies cannot convey any of this. It's understandable. I am not blaming anyone. There will never be a better 'technology' than our own brains; imagination, because first its our own, it is unique to every one of us and just because of that it has no limits or very limited depends on how you look at it. While a movie is a projection of someone else's imagination, a book, doesn't matter if good or bad, or sometimes perfect will never be beaten by that in terms of entertainment and inspiration.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 15, 2016, 01:17:34 AM
[spoiler]She was good. I think I was so sure what was to come it wasn't a surprise for me. Kid acting too super, recovering from the dog's death like in minutes was a bit not realistic in the movie. I think it would be better, if it ended bad. If it had been real, it would have ended bad.
Basically they combined a very traditonal horror idea with with a daily make up and a real pain of life. That is the good idea.
But if you look at it from a basic point Conjuring has the same idea, but it is religious. Mom getting possessed to kill her own children. And in both scenarios it is about a dead person/people. [/spoiler]
its true yeah that it had a similar aspect from the conjuring. though while the conjuring was in its story about a possession, an evil spirit, with the babadook, its one of those thinhs where you could easily look at it from both real or fictional, was she possessed by mr babadook, or was she just driven insane by the grief she suffered. One of the unrevealed parts of the movie which is in notes, was that she created the book at the start of the movie, the one she read to her son, as she was a writer of childrens books, so she created mr babadook herself and used it to scare her son into submission. The result of this may have made the kids imagination run wild, and when she lost her mind, what we see is a combination of a fractures mental state from her, coupled with a childs hyper imagination from him.
I put it down that mr babdook was only real in the sense that both the son believed him to be, and she saw him as being a part of her she had to keep in check.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 15, 2016, 12:41:14 AM
Agreed. Technology is the real magic, though wizards have the advantage of being able to work their magic with ease and with little/no cost - their broomsticks don't need fuel, they can effect repairs without specialized tools, chores can be accomplished with the twirl of a wand, etc.
And despite the obsolesce of much of wizard spells/artifacts, they still possess some abilities that normal humans don't - polymorph, luck, immortality, and time travel. The famous time-turner by itself would be an endgame-level technology since its master could alter the course of history to his/her benefit. Even with its limitation of 5 hours, it could be used to undo world-changing events...or set them in motion.
That bloody time turner is the potterverses own deus ex machina, like eagles in lotr, but one never used properly. The most powerful magical object, that could reverse time and save the lives of people killed, or even stop tom riddle before he because the dark lord, and yet all they do it let boffin hermione use it for school work.
Quote from: Munch on November 15, 2016, 06:13:42 AM
That bloody time turner is the potterverses own deus ex machina, like eagles in lotr, but one never used properly. The most powerful magical object, that could reverse time and save the lives of people killed, or even stop tom riddle before he because the dark lord, and yet all they do it let boffin hermione use it for school work.
Oh come on. It's strictly prohibited to use a timeturner in the real life. It's a serious crime, because in the past they actually tried what you suggest and consequences were catastrophic. Dumbledore lets them exploit it because, contrary to the serious, reliable Dumbledore portrayed in the movies, besides being a genius he is actually a madman who makes dangeous decisions in expesne of human life. And he then thinks it will make a difference to save Sirius. Yeah may be if he lived. But he makes a bad mistake about Sirius and his death is Dumbledore's fault. And he died knowing that.
Do you really think if we had a time machine in real life, they would use it to save human life?! PFFFT.
Munch, usually you say to people that they should use their imagination when you like a universe for the simplest things. Don't be such a Sarkeesian, use your imagination please. :lol:
Quote from: Munch on November 15, 2016, 06:10:56 AM
its true yeah that it had a similar aspect from the conjuring. though while the conjuring was in its story about a possession, an evil spirit, with the babadook, its one of those thinhs where you could easily look at it from both real or fictional, was she possessed by mr babadook, or was she just driven insane by the grief she suffered. One of the unrevealed parts of the movie which is in notes, was that she created the book at the start of the movie, the one she read to her son, as she was a writer of childrens books, so she created mr babadook herself and used it to scare her son into submission. The result of this may have made the kids imagination run wild, and when she lost her mind, what we see is a combination of a fractures mental state from her, coupled with a childs hyper imagination from him.
I put it down that mr babdook was only real in the sense that both the son believed him to be, and she saw him as being a part of her she had to keep in check.
Yes I see that. I don't put the movie in the same place with others. It requires imagination to enjoy it and I did. :) E: it could have been executed better, imo.
You can light candles with a propane torch, or with any of several technological breakthroughs, but doing it through a wave of the hand and a brief flutter of the air has great appeal. Even more so to the mind of a 10 year old. Imagine you are in charge of a birthday party for 10 year olds, and with great theatrical flair, you take out a propane torch and light it with a metallic striker, and proceed to light the candles on some kid's cake. I doubt you'll get more than a look of puzzlement. But light it in wizard fashion, and the room will be filled with oos and aahs. You will be appreciated as an adult who understands what's really important.
Quote from: SGOS on November 15, 2016, 06:55:49 AM
You can light candles with a propane torch, or with any of several technological breakthroughs, but doing it through a wave of the hand and a brief flutter of the air has great appeal. Even more so to the mind of a 10 year old. Imagine you are in charge of a birthday party for 10 year olds, and with great theatrical flair, you take out a propane torch and light it with a metallic striker, and proceed to light the candles on some kid's cake. I doubt you'll get more than a look of puzzlement. But light it in wizard fashion, and the room will be filled with oos and aahs. You will be appreciated as an adult who understands what's really important.
Yeah...but his is just about throwing backlash at a story he hasn't even read, through Holywood movies as usual. But he gets pissed off to people who doesn't like the universes he loves, because they lack imagination so can not enjoy them. :lol: (I remember him saying smt like that concerning the game Witcher with anger some time ago.)
I don't get the never ending fascination with blood and gore movies. As long as the graphics make it appear that enough people are being slaughtered people seem to think it's great story telling. It's not. As long as you can be somewhat convinced that there's some badass dude who can kick every single person's ass non-stop forever it must be great story telling.. IT'S SHIT! FFS, if you really want blood and gore watch a documentary about cattle slaughter houses. The fucks who work in slaughter houses are often so doped up they forget their own humanity.
I'm sticking with actual story telling where there's an actual plot that isn't given away in a half paragraph preview on Netflix.. I have no use for slow motion blood scenes.. It's fucking fake, so fake in fact that if it were even close to the truth it would require 3/4s of the human population to be killed every week..
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 15, 2016, 08:19:23 AM
I don't get the never ending fascination with blood and gore movies. As long as the graphics make it appear that enough people are being slaughtered people seem to think it's great story telling. It's not. As long as you can be somewhat convinced that there's some badass dude who can kick every single person's ass non-stop forever it must be great story telling.. IT'S SHIT! FFS, if you really want blood and gore watch a documentary about cattle slaughter houses. The fucks who work in slaughter houses are often so doped up they forget their own humanity.
I'm sticking with actual story telling where there's an actual plot that isn't given away in a half paragraph preview on Netflix.. I have no use for slow motion blood scenes.. It's fucking fake, so fake in fact that if it were even close to the truth it would require 3/4s of the human population to be killed every week..
I agree with you. But the the horror movies I posted above are not gore at all. Actually there isn't even blood in them. The Orpahange and Babadook are OK dramas the most.
Conjuring is more like a comedy. It's not gore at all. I'll watch the second one, I hear that one is funny too.
While people were killed in traditional horror movies, there wasn't a lot of time devoted to a graphic depiction of the means of death until 30 or 40 years ago when the slasher genre came into its own. In my mind, I've always separated the two types of films as distinct categories, although somewhat distantly related. Traditional horror relied on fantasy, the occult, and the unseen. The monsters didn't often show up until the last 30 minutes of the movie. Slasher movies replace fantasy and the unseen with a graphic dose of reality. Fear takes a back seat to revulsion as a means of pulling on the viewers emotional chain.
I don't really watch much horror..I find just waking up in the morning frightening enough most days.. I tend to gravitate towards movies that are actually plausible. If you want a really scary movie wait for the one about the night of November 8, 2016.
Lately I've gone back to watching old spy movies of the 40s and 50s.. There's plenty of them on YouTube.
QuoteFear takes a back seat to revulsion as a means of pulling on the viewers emotional chain
Hence the night of November 8, 2016. Revultion beat out fear. Perhaps people thought electing a president equals watching a slasher flick..
I've been debating about going to Hacksaw Ridge, but I'm a bit hesitant. Mel Gibson has a tendency to glorify death in unrealistic ways, much like we did as kids playing soldier. Here's a user review I found at IMDb. I would agree that Vince Vaughn doesn't seem like he should be in a war movie, but the part about the Bible is real barf bag material, again typical of Gibson.
QuoteActing was corny, Vince Vaughn is terrible at being a drill sergeant,... the whole "I need my bible" part with the soldier just being like "alright son...I'll go get it for you even though there are tons of bullets whizzing past my head" - cmon. The action was really the only thing I enjoyed about it and that's not really saying much.
"I kneeeed my Bible...," brings to mind another Gibson war movie, where a gut shot soldier, with entrails dragging on the ground, grasps his buddy's arm and says, "I'm so happy I could die for my country."
Yuck! Gimmie that barf bag for a minute.
I take umbridge (ho ho ho) being referred to as a Sarkeesian, being that I love men.. I Looove men... LOOOOOOOOOOVE em!!
I've also never been a fan of blood and Gore, the evil dead movies are just silly to me, and cheap jump scare films are off my list to. I browse a lot of horror movies looking for something with subtly, where the jump scares are earned.
Quote from: SGOS on November 15, 2016, 09:09:06 AMWhile people were killed in traditional horror movies, there wasn't a lot of time devoted to a graphic depiction of the means of death until 30 or 40 years ago when the slasher genre came into its own. In my mind, I've always separated the two types of films as distinct categories, although somewhat distantly related. Traditional horror relied on fantasy, the occult, and the unseen. The monsters didn't often show up until the last 30 minutes of the movie. Slasher movies replace fantasy and the unseen with a graphic dose of reality. Fear takes a back seat to revulsion as a means of pulling on the viewers emotional chain.
I was watching some old TV programs, and yeah, I've noticed that the violence is incredibly tame.
A guy'll get run through with a greatsword - spilling surprisingly little blood - and he'll linger for a few seconds with this expression of mild discomfort and his last words will be something like "Here, take the Amulet of Tzen'tulu to the Tanagran Pass over the Plains of Aeuris. The fate of the Realm of Bob depends on it" And he just closes his eyes, dying incredibly suddenly and remarkably peacefully.
And I'm sitting there watching with incredible disbelief.
That's more of a fantasy example. Some of the horror stuff is almost as bad. Someone will lose their whole family and be mildly distraught. Or get cornered and scream while standing helpless, giving no resistance whatsoever to the killer.
A lot of the older tropes seem incredibly strange now.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 15, 2016, 09:51:17 AM
I was watching some old TV programs, and yeah, I've noticed that the violence is incredibly tame.
A guy'll get run through with a greatsword - spilling surprisingly little blood - and he'll linger for a few seconds with this expression of mild discomfort
Yeah, and then they just tip over.
Quote from: Munch on November 15, 2016, 09:49:17 AM
I take umbridge (ho ho ho) being referred to as a Sarkeesian, being that I love men.. I Looove men... LOOOOOOOOOOVE em!!
I've also never been a fan of blood and Gore, the evil dead movies are just silly to me, and cheap jump scare films are off my list to. I browse a lot of horror movies looking for something with subtly, where the jump scares are earned.
Umbridge? Umbridge is the original Nazi sample, Munch and she loves men. What does this even have to do with your sexual orientation? She would be the first to tortute and then hang you for it in real life, simply just because you are 'different' than the what mainstream offers. You cannot breath anywhere near that evil, psycopathic cunt, let alone take her being compared to Sarkeesian. Don't let the tamed version Imelda Staunton pictured in the movie fool you. She had no choice with what was given to her and did a vrey good job in little space. Comparing Sarkeesian to Umbridge...pffft what bollocks.
I simply demand you get informed with the basic information regarding the material at hand, sweety. You are criticising a movie and calling it Potterverse. Please make it worthwhile, next time.
:wineglass:
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 15, 2016, 09:20:13 AM
I don't really watch much horror..I find just waking up in the morning frightening enough most days.. I tend to gravitate towards movies that are actually plausible. If you want a really scary movie wait for the one about the night of November 8, 2016.
Lately I've gone back to watching old spy movies of the 40s and 50s.. There's plenty of them on YouTube.
The very first Casino Royale, was a James Bond who wasn't Sean Connery, and the character was an American (CIA). This was in the 1950s, and I saw it on Youtube. Fascinating comparison.
Quote from: SGOS on November 15, 2016, 09:41:58 AM
I've been debating about going to Hacksaw Ridge, but I'm a bit hesitant. Mel Gibson has a tendency to glorify death in unrealistic ways, much like we did as kids playing soldier. Here's a user review I found at IMDb. I would agree that Vince Vaughn doesn't seem like he should be in a war movie, but the part about the Bible is real barf bag material, again typical of Gibson.
"I kneeeed my Bible...," brings to mind another Gibson war movie, where a gut shot soldier, with entrails dragging on the ground, grasps his buddy's arm and says, "I'm so happy I could die for my country."
Yuck! Gimmie that barf bag for a minute.
Most guys dying in war, are young and unmarried. They call out for their mom or their sweetheart ;-( The chaplain is there for morale before the killing starts ... and to give final rights to Catholic soldiers. The "happy to die for my country" is a trope going back to Rome.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 15, 2016, 10:39:52 AM
Umbridge? Umbridge is the original Nazi sample, Munch and she loves men. What does this even have to do with your sexual orientation? She would be the first to tortute and then hang you for it in real life, simply just because you are 'different' than the what mainstream offers. You cannot breath anywhere near that evil, psycopathic cunt, let alone take her being compared to Sarkeesian. Don't let the tamed version Imelda Staunton pictured in the movie fool you. She had no choice with what was given to her and did a vrey good job in little space. Comparing Sarkeesian to Umbridge...pffft what bollocks.
I simply demand you get informed with the basic information regarding the material at hand, sweety. You are criticising a movie and calling it Potterverse. Please make it worthwhile, next time.
:wineglass:
Calm down dear calm down, little bit of dry humour is no reason to such decorum. Umbridge was the real evil in Harry potter, worse then voldiworts, because I wanted to beat her in with a cinder block. Sarkeesian is just an annoyance in comparison
Independence Day 6/10
It held my attention, because it was a blaze of action, except for one time when I nodded off for like 5 minutes during some explosions. It was pretty lame, really, but at least it wasn't very intellectual. It didn't require any concentration, so I gave it some points for that. A high school student may have written the script, but not the one that was the valedictorian.
Quote from: Munch on November 15, 2016, 03:51:38 PM
Calm down dear calm down, little bit of dry humour is no reason to such decorum. Umbridge was the real evil in Harry potter, worse then voldiworts, because I wanted to beat her in with a cinder block. Sarkeesian is just an annoyance in comparison
:lol: I take my fairy tales very seriously...mister.
Just re-watched Godzilla: Tokyo S.O.S. Though it's part 2 in a duology of movies, Tokyo S.O.S. is watchable on its own, and it's among my favorite Godzilla films.
When a second Godzilla attacks Japan in the 90's, the bones of the first creature are exhumed from Tokyo Bay. DNA is extracted from the spines, and a cyborg is constructed around the skeleton of the first Godzilla: a Mecha Godzilla known as Kiryu. Kiryu's soul is still hanging around, though, and can't quite decide if it wants to protect Japan from its brother, or pick up where it left off in 1954.
Now in part 2, Mothra has joined the fray, threatening war upon humanity if Kiryu isn't shut down and returned to the ocean. However, it soon becomes clear that Mothra isn't strong enough to protect Japan from Godzilla herself, and Kiryu is scrambled once again. After a long fight, Kiryu's spirit grows tired, and rather than killing Godzilla decides to take the beast out to sea and sink itself; allowing Kiryu to rest in peace, and causing Godzilla to stop looking for its dead brother.
As far as monster action goes, this movie doesn't beat around the bush: the last two thirds can pretty much be summed up as, "Fight fight fight, fight fight fight, fight fight, fight fight." It's awesome. The story is also interesting, as the film is a follow-up to 1961's "Mothra" as well as 1954's "Godzilla." Japan and America are seen to be taking the kaiju threat seriously and attempting to develop countermeasures; there's even a neat little scene where soldiers are being shown a dead Kamoebas and getting the "this is what we're up against" speech.
That said, I do have a couple criticisms. For one thing, Godzilla's eyes look so fake it's distracting.
(http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o306/WmHohenzollern/Godzilla-Tokyo-SOS-1.jpg)
I am Derp, hear me roar!
Mothra's twin fairies are also preachy to the point of being nauseating. Alright girls, I get it, humans shouldn't practice necromancy on kaiju, I heard you the first thousand times, now please shut the fuck up!
Overall, it's a good movie that I would recommend to anyone who enjoys watching two men in rubber suits duke it out for and hour.
QuoteOverall, it's a good movie that I would recommend to anyone who enjoys watching two men in rubber suits duke it out for and hour.
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/oh_yes_creepy_loki.gif)
Quote from: Shiranu on November 16, 2016, 11:47:48 AM
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/oh_yes_creepy_loki.gif)
I accept superhero movies in "the willing suspension of disbelief". I temporarily enjoy the irrational premise AS IF they existed. That causes me no problems at all. I have 60' shelf space of sci books, LOL!
But I never mistake fiction as real.
Indignation I rented it at Redbox this week
9/10 (without the 5 minute ending)
7/10 (with the ending)
So I was deeply engrossed, uplifted, and sometimes curious for 85 minutes of the 90 minute film that will surely be of interest to atheists.
Depending on what you expect, it might be a good ending. The ending does qualify as thought provoking and drives home a worthwhile life message, and it clarifies the whole point of the movie. I would have written a different ending if I could think of a better one, but I guess I can't.
A young man who goes off to college in the 1940s seeking a path to a better life, where he excels at his studies. His friends are getting killed in the war, and it seems like the main reason his parents are so happy about him going off to college is that it defers him from the draft. Other than that, his father would probably prefer that his son spend the rest of his life working in the family butcher shop that specializes in kosher meats. His discussions with the 1940s style dean of students are especially excellent dialog. He falls for a nice coed, who introduces him to things that his sheltered life never imagines, and he quickly adjusts to the unfamiliarity of it all and becomes smitten. The movie is an example of good storytelling, told in linier fashion, and discloses everything clearly at the proper times.
It was a little while back, but I saw Shin Godzilla during its limited American debut. I greatly enjoyed it. Godzilla was very creepy in this movie, and seemed like a nearly unstoppable force. There are no other monsters in the movie. It's similar to the original Godzilla, which was a representation of the nuclear bombs that America dropped on Japan. It's just Godzilla causing massive destruction, and humanity desperately scrambling to find a way to stop him.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/d1/cc/5e/d1cc5ed85277c64083d61b944d7f85b0.jpg)
Besides the monster himself, the human characters were also entertaining. Usually in a Godzilla film, the human characters are just there for exposition and to distract from the action. This movie takes humorous jabs at the Japanese government, which has meeting after meeting to decide how to deal with the new kaiju threat. The movie does a good job at making the audience feel for the emotions of the heroes. The movie gets very tense at times.
My biggest complaint is that one of the supposedly American born and raised characters speaks with a heavy Japanese accent when speaking English, which makes it hard to take her character seriously. There are times when the special effects aren't quite up to par with American effects, but it was never too distracting for me.
Papa 8/10
Ernest Hemmingway in Cuba during the revolution.
Our Kind of Traitor 9/10
Nail biting spy movie.
Fantastic Beasts and.... 5/10
Plenty of action and wizardry, but not much of a story. I wasn't much on Harry Potter either.
Rewatched mad max fury road. Bought the DVD as a present to myself.
Kick-ass. I give it 9.9/10
Watched Malificent. Very impressed. And surprised. When the Prince kissed Sleeping Beauty and nothing happened, I wasn't really surprised. He himself was uncertain and knew he wasn't her True Love. But I thought it was going to be the Raven guy who had watched over her her whole life. Never suspected it was Malificent! So sweet. And rather Lesbo. LOL! But that was OK. I bet that would be a good off broadway interpretation. ;)
Quote from: Cavebear on December 02, 2016, 06:50:50 AM
Watched Malificent. Very impressed. And surprised. When the Prince kissed Sleeping Beauty and nothing happened, I wasn't really surprised. He himself was uncertain and knew he wasn't her True Love. But I thought it was going to be the Raven guy who had watched over her her whole life. Never suspected it was Malificent! So sweet. And rather Lesbo. LOL! But that was OK. I bet that would be a good off broadway interpretation. ;)
Lol. I watched malificent with my GF in the cinema. She told me in leaving that she thought it'd be the Raven guy too.
I did see the malificent thing coming though, told her it seemed kind of obvious. And that if it had been 'romantic', it would be pretty creepy for a guardian to fall in love with his ward he'd seen grow up. Didn't see it as a lesbian interest neither. Just 'true love'. Like in Frozen.
That being said, apart from the distracting CGI all the way in the beginning, I enjoyed the film too.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 02, 2016, 08:55:50 AM
Lol. I watched malificent with my GF in the cinema. She told me in leaving that she thought it'd be the Raven guy too.
I did see the malificent thing coming though, told her it seemed kind of obvious. And that if it had been 'romantic', it would be pretty creepy for a guardian to fall in love with his ward he'd seen grow up. Didn't see it as a lesbian interest neither. Just 'true love'. Like in Frozen.
That being said, apart from the distracting CGI all the way in the beginning, I enjoyed the film too.
Haven't seen 'Frozen'.
Well, yeah, it was obvious that Malificent had come to love Aurora. She tried to undo the spell, and when she failed you could see her horror at what she had wrought. And as to the "creepiness" part of the guardian, be relieved in mind that the kiss only awakened Aurora, nothing more. She still had eyes to the Prince at the end, right?
Have you seen 'The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz'? Similar in some ways.
Did you ever read or see "Ender's Game'? There was a moment when you realized the whole outcome, all at once. Malificent's kiss was like that. I understood the whole plotline then. Just didn't see it coming.
Never saw Ender's game. Been meaning to. Never get around to it.
Haven't seen the wonderful wizard of Oz neither. Only the '39 version. Or is that the one you meant?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 02, 2016, 09:32:03 AM
Never saw Ender's game. Been meaning to. Never get around to it.
Haven't seen the wonderful wizard of Oz neither. Only the '39 version. Or is that the one you meant?
Ack! I meant 'Oz, The Great and Powerful', 2013. Sorry about that. Very different story where the wizard is a good guy. Slightly like 'A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court'. The wizard is still a charleton at first, but manages to DO GOOD in the end.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 02, 2016, 09:44:37 AM
Ack! I meant 'Oz, The Great and Powerful', 2013. Sorry about that. Very different story where the wizard is a good guy. Slightly like 'A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court'. The wizard is still a charleton at first, but manages to DO GOOD in the end.
Will have to give that a watch sometime :) Sounds interesting.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 02, 2016, 09:45:49 AM
Will have to give that a watch sometime :) Sounds interesting.
What kind of watch would you give? Digitals are nice, but analogs are "timeless" (pun intended).
Speaking of watches, my parents gave my younger brother a self-winding watch. The kind that stays active through movement. It kept stopping...
Which, BTW, was when he got religion. There MUST be a connection in there somewhere.
And for what it is worth, I'm still wearing the same digital watch given to me 50 years ago this month. I've gone through about 50 batteries, but it just keeps accurate about a minute per year. SOME day, it will surpass the years the makers pre-programmed. I wonder if that says anything about my personal future?
Finally saw Shin Godzilla a few days ago.
Good film, but I don't like Godzilla. He has the vibrant personality of a statue, and in scenes where we're supposed to sympathize with the monster I just don't feel the connection. Probably the first Godzilla film I've seen where I honestly didn't care if Goji himself lived or died.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 02, 2016, 04:52:59 PM
Finally saw Shin Godzilla a few days ago.
Good film, but I don't like Godzilla. He has the vibrant personality of a statue, and in scenes where we're supposed to sympathize with the monster I just don't feel the connection. Probably the first Godzilla film I've seen where I honestly didn't care if Goji himself lived or died.
Were we supposed to sympathize with Godzilla? I was always under the impression that it was supposed to be feared. Killing it was the goal for the whole movie.
I watched one of those last year. I don't remember seeing any of them before that. I was surprised to find a kinder gentler Godzilla. Maybe he became a Christian, and had a change of heart.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 05, 2016, 10:57:25 AM
Were we supposed to sympathize with Godzilla? I was always under the impression that it was supposed to be feared. Killing it was the goal for the whole movie.
In the scene where he first fires his atomic breath, the song playing in the background ("Who Will Know") is sung from Godzilla's perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrXTS10h2WI
Godzilla is basically a lost child who doesn't understand why he's being attacked, and just wants to make it stop.
I see SGOS gave Independence Day:Resurgence a mediocre review. And it got generally poor to mediocre reviews. But I actually thought it was overall better than most people. Now, I'm not saying it was brilliant. I will point to lots of flaws in a moment. But, was I overall entertained despite the flaws? Yes.
So, when the first one came out, it was like the first, or among the first giant CGI movie spectacles. CGI was pretty new still then. Nowadays, people have seen so much CGI that people bitch about just more CGI. But the story as they wanted to tell it had to be done CGI. So, I don't complain about that. It is surprising that after 20 years, the CGI isn't much better. You can still tell it is in fact CGI. But, its okay.
When I saw the first one, I enjoyed the build up very much. But, I knew it was going to have to be some kind of Deux Ex Machina ending since the aliens were so powerful. But, I didn't expect it to that lame. So, I would have given the first one a 9.9/10 up until the computer virus solution was proposed, and then 3/10 after that.
Some people expected this one to have a retread plot. Well, it did have "bad ass aliens are going to kill us" which it had to to be an Independence Day movie. But, the resolution to the problem was totally different and most plot points were different outside of the "aliens going to kill us". And, the resolution to the problem was certainly better than the computer virus solution.
So, what were the problems? Well, a big one is the "Armageddon" syndrome. In the movie Armageddon, the world is going to end in minutes if the problem isn't solved, but, hey, gotta spend time gabbing with family. Characters not acting with the sense of urgency that the situation would demand.
Along those lines, I don't want to hear talk about volunteering for "suicide mission" when the whole fucking world is going to end in minutes. Breathing is a "suicide mission" if the world is about to fucking end.
I also would say that for the most part the "character" moments came across stilted. One character gets pissed off at another character and you learn their backstory and why we allegedly should care about those characters. They came across as obvious "okay, here is where we learn the character's backstory".
There is also moments where characters make a massive obvious blunder. Which may seem annoying. Then again, real people in real life make massive obvious blunders. (See election 2016, LOL...)
So, was it a great movie? No. Was I still entertained by learning what those wild 'n crazy aliens have been up to for the last 20 years? For the most part, yeah. 7/10.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, but, it ended with a setup for a third movie. And the setup would lead to what should be a very different third movie. Since the third movie if it happened would be very different, I would actually like to see it. But, since it didn't do too well, I don't expect the third one to happen.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 05, 2016, 11:43:47 AM
In the scene where he first fires his atomic breath, the song playing in the background ("Who Will Know") is sung from Godzilla's perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrXTS10h2WI
Godzilla is basically a lost child who doesn't understand why he's being attacked, and just wants to make it stop.
Interesting. But my sympathy immediately shifted to the targets of his atomic breath. It was pretty damn bad ass the way they showed it in the movie, though. First smoke, then fire, then a concentrated beam of light. That and the way its lower jaw split in two when its mouth opened.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 08, 2016, 10:05:10 AM
Interesting. But my sympathy immediately shifted to the targets of his atomic breath. It was pretty damn bad ass the way they showed it in the movie, though. First smoke, then fire, then a concentrated beam of light. That and the way its lower jaw split in two when its mouth opened.
Seems like The Hulk... In most versions of him anyway.
INDEPENDENCE DAY: The first one was the most undeserving shit-for-a-script, ever given the full blockbuster special-effects treatment. I won't give the second one a thought.
Mars Attacks, because it doesn't take itself seriously.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 10, 2016, 07:36:37 AM
INDEPENDENCE DAY: The first one was the most undeserving shit-for-a-script, ever given the full blockbuster special-effects treatment. I won't give the second one a thought.
You take that back! The first one was a great movie... [emoji22]
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: Baruch on December 10, 2016, 09:30:49 AM
Mars Attacks, because it doesn't take itself seriously.
Ack ack, ack ack ack ack. ACK!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 10, 2016, 11:17:31 AM
Ack ack, ack ack ack ack. ACK!
But Byron Williams played by Jim Brown was my hero!
re-watched the original Star Wars.....holy shit was that cheesy.
Quote from: aitm on December 10, 2016, 04:55:31 PM
re-watched the original Star Wars.....holy shit was that cheesy.
which one, the real original, or the mid life crisis george lucas version?
Quote from: Munch on December 10, 2016, 06:09:38 PM
which one, the real original, or the mid life crisis george lucas version?
got me there, I was never that much into it that I would know there was another "original".
The best Star Wars version was Thumb Wars ... that and the Simpsons version ... and the Space Balls!
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 02, 2016, 04:52:59 PM
Finally saw Shin Godzilla a few days ago.
Good film, but I don't like Godzilla. He has the vibrant personality of a statue, and in scenes where we're supposed to sympathize with the monster I just don't feel the connection. Probably the first Godzilla film I've seen where I honestly didn't care if Goji himself lived or died.
But but but it doesn't make sense. It's a huge monster coming after humans. Why do you even like it? It actually doesn't make any sense over all, how is it that it grow that huge anyway?!
:lol:
Quote from: Baruch on December 10, 2016, 04:49:20 PM
But Byron Williams played by Jim Brown was my hero!
He did look good in a skirt. (http://rationalia.com/z/drool.gif)
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 11, 2016, 06:04:51 AM
But but but it doesn't make sense. It's a huge monster coming after humans. Why do you even like it? It actually doesn't make any sense over all, how is it that it grow that huge anyway?!
:lol:
"Them", giant ants. "The Claw", giant turkey. "The Giant Mantis", some kind of bug. "Rodan", giant turkey.
If you don't like monster movies, read the title of the movie and ask yourself if you want to see it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 11, 2016, 07:54:22 AM
"Them", giant ants. "The Claw", giant turkey. "The Giant Mantis", some kind of bug. "Rodan", giant turkey.
If you don't like monster movies, read the title of the movie and ask yourself if you want to see it.
That's sarcasm against people who keeps writing it after ever Godzilla or King Kong or some giant monster or even Frankenstien movie, you silly. :lol: Can't you really tell? I love monster movies.
I'm in the monster team all the way. :waving:
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 11, 2016, 07:57:25 AM
That's sarcasm against people who keeps writing it after ever Godzilla or King Kong or some giant monster or even Frankenstien movie, you silly. :lol: Can't you really tell? I love monster movies.
I'm in the monster team all the way. :waving:
It was a general observation. However, deadpan posts get deadpan replies. We do have smilies here.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 11, 2016, 08:08:15 AM
It was a general observation. However, deadpan posts get deadpan replies. We do have smilies here.
Can't be a general observation. I wrote a few posts about how idiotic the general 'criticism' people come up with 'against' these movie tradition every time one comes out.
I also put a laughing icon up there too. Hmph. :snooty:
Someone has been essentially exerting their tremendous influence over me to get me to try watching a class of movies I never considered watching before: Animated Pixar stuff.
I love the ones I've seen. Some small part of me, the Nonsensei of the recent past, is in the back of my mind whipping me with disdain for liking them.
But that voice is only a whisper now.
Quote from: Nonsensei on December 11, 2016, 09:13:49 AM
Someone has been essentially exerting their tremendous influence over me to get me to try watching a class of movies I never considered watching before: Animated Pixar stuff.
They are pretty good, maybe even the best animation ever, but I still have a soft place in my heart for the Disney animation of the 50s. The old style animation has a flattened look to it, without looking like 3D characters filmed in 2D. I actually miss that look. I suppose it's not as good, but to me, it's the way cartoon characters should look; Kind of like a comic book that comes to life.
I watched the latest Jason Bourne movie....it was okay until the car chase...jesus why do they think a 10 minute car chase make the movie better?Car chases suck the bonnet.
Quote from: aitm on December 11, 2016, 06:29:07 PM
why do they think a 10 minute car chase make the movie better?
Because noone can do it better than Americans.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 12, 2016, 05:20:24 AM
Because noone can do it better than Americans.
Especially now that Top Gear had to move out of Britain, due to PC.
SPECTRAL. Military Sci-fi. 2016. It's great. Never heard of it. I've just found it. Random.
Soon... Rogue One!
Quote from: Baruch on December 12, 2016, 07:14:12 AM
Especially now that Top Gear had to move out of Britain, due to PC.
The PC of assaulting coworkers can get you fired? Right then....
Quote from: Shiranu on December 12, 2016, 05:40:03 PM
The PC of assaulting coworkers can get you fired? Right then....
They also didn't like their un-PC language. It isn't wrong to even kill coworkers ... provided they are the right ones (extension of prior stated general principle). Go Gandhi on everyone ... but never understand him. Churchill would have given him a good bullet thru his head. Mind you, I don't support British colonization, only the American kind (see Ugly American) /sarc
Rogue One. 8/10. A solid addition to the Star Wars universe.
Could have done without Jar Jar's hip-hop/disco cabaret dance scene, but nothing's perfect.
DON'T BREATHE. Much better than I expected. It's classified as horror, but I didn't get why. It's thriller I guess.
Moral of the story: Don't break into people's houses.
Quote from: aitm on December 10, 2016, 07:53:33 PM
got me there, I was never that much into it that I would know there was another "original".
In 1997, 20 years after the original release, there was a "Special Edition" released. Many fans did not like the changes in he Special Edition. They were mainly CGI additions when the movie was originally done without CGI since CGI didn't exist in 1977. Special editions of all of the original trilogy was released in theaters. If I recall, I could be wrong, but I think the pre special editions were never released on DVD.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 14, 2016, 01:14:39 PMIn 1997, 20 years after the original release, there was a "Special Edition" released. Many fans did not like the changes in he Special Edition. They were mainly CGI additions when the movie was originally done without CGI since CGI didn't exist in 1977.
Actually, the original Star Wars does have CGI: the Death Star schematics. It was a pioneering technology back then.
Watched Finding Dory with the kiddies, I fell asleep half way through so I can only rate the first bit...4 out of 10.
Quote from: PorkPie on December 14, 2016, 05:23:56 PM
Watched Finding Dory with the kiddies, I fell asleep half way through so I can only rate the first bit...4 out of 10.
i watch the "everything wrong" videos on YouTube, with movies I won't be likely to see otherwise ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LclPKwhfSIA
I used to work with a woman who was just like Dory ;-) My best friend ever! She didn't appreciate the comparison however.
I believe that good stories are "suspension of belief" ... so I never care about the objections that critics make. So I give it 10/10 ... given that I didn't see all of it.
Quote from: Atheon on December 14, 2016, 01:56:07 PM
Actually, the original Star Wars does have CGI: the Death Star schematics. It was a pioneering technology back then.
Okay, I stand corrected. The original release was done primarily with "practical" effects (models) rather than CGI. The Special Editions added a lot of CGI that many fans felt detracted rather than enhanced.
Quote from: Atheon on December 14, 2016, 11:33:28 AMRogue One. 8/10. A solid addition to the Star Wars universe.
Could have done without Jar Jar's hip-hop/disco cabaret dance scene, but nothing's perfect.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkfKTOhXEAQmwm8.jpg)
Don't even joke, man.
I'm freakin' pumped for Rogue One, but many Bothans will die if it's not excellent.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 14, 2016, 01:14:39 PMIn 1997, 20 years after the original release, there was a "Special Edition" released. Many fans did not like the changes in he Special Edition.
Han Solo shot first and he was the only one to shoot, dammit.
QuoteIf I recall, I could be wrong, but I think the pre special editions were never released on DVD.
Unaltered versions of the original trilogy were released in 2006 (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Original_unaltered_trilogy).
I just found out that the new Stargate reboot has been cancelled. Although it's impossible to know for sure, I think we dodged a bullet. It would allegedly undo all the previously established continuity (SG1/Atlantis/Universe), which I think would've been a big mistake. Also, Emmerich hasn't exactly been putting out stellar work lately. *coughIndependenceDaycough* The risk of a fanbase-destroying flop was just too great.
Instead, Roland Emmerich is working on Moonfall and then Dark Matter. Who knows, that might be a good alternative for him.
If some new edition of some storyverse comes out that is generally considered disappointing, I never think that it somehow damages the other works in that storyverse. If a new Stargate comes out and I don't like, it doesn't go edit my SG1 DVDs... At any rate, the TV series were so different than the original movie that I don't even hardly consider them the same storyverse. Some people thought the original storyverse was superior. But the TV version was more applicable to TV. In the very first TV episode, when they landed on the other world, they were very cold for a while, like in the movie. That never happened again.
Yeah, I mean it doesn't actually destroy the series, it doesn't come to your house and smash your DVDs or anything. It just makes several TV series non-canon. That's what happened to a lot of Star Wars stuff when Episode 7 came out. Not necessarily terrible if the movie is a hit, but if it's a miss, it's horrific. It'd be like a new Star Trek series that de-canonizes TNG/DS9/Voyager. Borg? Never happened. Federation-Dominion War? Never happened. Species 8472? Never happened. It's pretty understandable how would rub some fans the wrong way. Unless you can top what you're replacing, don't try it. Instead, it's way better to just build off the existing continuity. Fans tend to like that a lot more.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2016, 04:06:26 PM
I just found out that the new Stargate reboot has been cancelled. Although it's impossible to know for sure, I think we dodged a bullet. It would allegedly undo all the previously established continuity (SG1/Atlantis/Universe), which I think would've been a big mistake. Also, Emmerich hasn't exactly been putting out stellar work lately. *coughIndependenceDaycough* The risk of a fanbase-destroying flop was just too great.
Instead, Roland Emmerich is working on Moonfall and then Dark Matter. Who knows, that might be a good alternative for him.
The studios got gun shy after the flop of Independence day apparently.
http://collider.com/stargate-reboot-cancelled/#dean-devlin
While I'm a big fan of Stargate SG1, its success puzzles even me. There are some outrageous aspects about it that are so off the wall, like those primitive fire shooting stalf weapons used by an advanced race that also flew around in space ships that looked like pyramids. It probably should have been too hokey for the series to gain traction. Compared to Firefly, which didn't make it past the network hatchet committee for a second year, it mystifies me that the first two years of Stargate, marginal as they were, survived to go on for another 8 years.
After the second year, Stargate started to find it's pace, however. The stories got better, along with the special effects, and everything about it just kept getting better with every year. By the time it was cancelled, I was so committed, I could have stuck with it for I don't know how much longer. Who knows? I've just never got enough.
The third of the series just doesn't grab my attention, however. I plan to get around to watching the whole thing sometime, but from what I've seen, it will be more like an obligation, rather than a high priority.
As good as SG1 was, a reboot is not a guaranteed success. I think there might have been a certain tongue in cheek aspect about the original that has to be there. If I'm expected to take the whole thing too seriously, it could very well fail. I need the tongue in cheek to allow me to revel in the absurdity of god like beings pulling off a big scam on the entire universe, God like beings with glowing eyes that wear Egyptian armor that resembles a metal wolf outfit. I mean, really! That can only be done with a certain amount of tongue in cheek, and who ever does the reboot will have to have the right intuitive understanding of how that is achieved. Otherwise, the whole thing might just come off as a concoction of silly things, and there was more to SG1 than just that.
Rogue One. I highly recommend it.
It had a pretty jumbled beginning (and no title crawl, which was weird) and kind of a boring act 2, but man, act 3 blew me away. The action scenes were amazing. I'm talking reminiscent of the battle of Hoth. Damn good stuff! I left the theater wanting more!
One thing I really disliked about Episode 7 was that it was a retread of A New Hope. Rogue One does not have that flaw. We finally got a completely new Star Wars movie!
The previous movies felt like fantasy movies set in space. This movie was gritty, dark, and somewhat depressing. And personally, I love this focus on regular humans instead of Jedi/Sith. Honestly, I would love to see a Star Wars movie where no one is a Force-wielder, where it's just plain ol' everyday people and not space wizard-knights.
And while this movie didn't exactly have me rolling in the aisles, it had some funny quips.
I can't for the life of me remember most of the characters' names (I'd have to consult the wiki to tell you the main cast's names). The character development was fairly weak, but they had their moments. I really sympathized with what's-his-face and that guy with the gun, I just don't know much about either of them. Jinn (djinn?) was pretty good.
One thing that kinda irritated me - and I dunno, I could've just been the theater - many of the characters speak extremely softly. So softly that they're actually kinda hard to make out. They talked in lowered voices like normal people and not in that super emotive way that actors typically deliver dialogue. That's good, I guess? *shrugs* I dunno, it takes some getting used to.
All and all, it was great.
[spoiler]I dunno about you guys, but I'd much prefer a city-destroying superweapon than a planet-destroying Death Star. From an Imperial perspective, it makes sense to not blow up Imperial worlds. Dead worlds no longer pay taxes, export/import goods, produce war materials, recruit troops, etc. It's like blowing up your own house. Sure, you could do it, but why?
Historically, you build superweapons because you're fighting a war against a more or less evenly matched enemy and you can't take them out by conventional means. That is most definitely not the case in Star Wars. It's an extremely asymmetric matchup.
In that situation, success is decided more by developing better strategies than better weapons - work on beefing security, getting intel on the rebels, setting traps for rebel operatives, and launching assaults on rebel outposts. You don't need to work on outgunning an enemy you already tremendously outgun. You just need to bring the guns you already have to bear.
So instead of building superweapons, just take the fleet and bombard the holy hell out of any known rebel bases or storm them if you wish.[/spoiler]
LOL. I didn't really matter that much to me. If anything, it kinda highlights the fact that it's different from other Star Wars films.
Also, I really liked the ending.
Usually, I'm bagging on movies/shows for their terrible endings. This one actually did it right, imho.
I expect they decided not to do the title crawl because it was a spin off, rather than one of the numbered titles. I hope to see the movie sometime this week. I'm really looking forward to it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 17, 2016, 10:32:38 PM
Rogue One.
All and all, it was great.
I started typing my own review, but I misclicked and lost it all.
But I agree with about most of your review anyway.
Quote
[spoiler]I dunno about you guys, but I'd much prefer a city-destroying superweapon than a planet-destroying Death Star. From an Imperial perspective, it makes sense to not blow up Imperial worlds. Dead worlds no longer pay taxes, export/import goods, produce war materials, recruit troops, etc. It's like blowing up your own house. Sure, you could do it, but why?
Historically, you build superweapons because you're fighting a war against a more or less evenly matched enemy and you can't take them out by conventional means. That is most definitely not the case in Star Wars. It's an extremely asymmetric matchup.
In that situation, success is decided more by developing better strategies than better weapons - work on beefing security, getting intel on the rebels, setting traps for rebel operatives, and launching assaults on rebel outposts. You don't need to work on outgunning an enemy you already tremendously outgun. You just need to bring the guns you already have to bear.
So instead of building superweapons, just take the fleet and bombard the holy hell out of any known rebel bases or storm them if you wish.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I agree with you. And while I haven't dived into 'Legends' yet. (And probably never really will.) I've heard that Thrawn, a blue alien grand admiral in the Imperial fleet in the old Star Wars Canon, warned the Emperor about just that. He suggested, against the Emperor's wishes, that they'd spent all their time and resources in more star-destroyers etc. The galaxy is a bloody massive place and if you want to keep control, you need plenty of presence everywhere all the time. Betting it all on one superweapon, just because you think it's flawless, is taking a huge risk. Centralizing their power is what crippled the empire, because it allowed one strong strike from the rebels to be a catastropic blow, rather than an insignificant defeat.
Thrawn, and you, had the right of it.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 17, 2016, 10:32:38 PMThe previous movies felt like fantasy movies set in space. This movie was gritty, dark, and somewhat depressing. And personally, I love this focus on regular humans instead of Jedi/Sith. Honestly, I would love to see a Star Wars movie where no one is a Force-wielder, where it's just plain ol' everyday people and not space wizard-knights.
I liked the grittiness and the fact that the warfare wasn't sanitized like in so much of Star Wars. It's as dark as Empire Strikes back, if not darker. I liked that the Rebel Alliance and the Empire were more complex than just being Pure Good vs. Pure Evil. If Phantom Menace was Star Wars for kids, this is Star Wars for adults.
I also loved the space battle (not a spoiler - all Star Wars has space battles). And I loved how it segues seamlessly into A New Hope.
Wasn't too keen on the music (I understand its production was rushed), but it worked very well in one of the key ending scenes. I didn't like the pacing at the beginning, and there was a particular scene that was completely unnecessary. The lack of an opening crawl was jarring.
I've seen it twice now, and rate it an 8.5 now. It's one of the top three Star Wars movies for me.
[spoiler]I was OK with the CGI of Tarkin, but I wish they didn't show closeups, because it was obvious something was wrong. They could have handled it better. The CGI of Leia, however, was done very well. [/spoiler]
Personally, I just never felt engaged by Rogue One. It has lots of cool individual pieces. Tons of "Easter Eggs" for old Star Wars fans. Gave a good explanation for what until now could have been considered a flaw in the original Star Wars story. Had a more of a war movie feel with only a modest reliance upon the Force. It looks incredible. I personally was totally okay with some of the "controversial" CGI choices (which I won't elaborate to not spoil). But, when I walked out of the theater, did I say, "wow! that really grabbed me!". No, it did not.
It is clearly better than Episode 1 and II. But a kick it the balls would be better than I and II. I'd say I liked Episode III better than Rogue One.
But, I certainly see it had lots of good things going for it. And I understand why a lot of people liked it. It just kind of left me cold. It was "meh".
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 20, 2016, 07:53:26 PMI'd say I liked Episode III better than Rogue One.
I'd rank Rogue One up there with Force Awakens, though I'm not sure which is better (my brain divides by zero when I try to compare the two).
My rankings:
#1 Empire Strikes Back
#2 A New Hope
#3 Rogue One/Force Awakens
#4 Rogue One/Force Awakens
#5 Return of the Jedi
#6 A swift kick in the balls
#7 Attack of the Clones
#8 Suicide Squad
#9 Revenge of the Sith
#10 Auschwitz photos
#11 Phantom Menace
I'm one of those (apparently) few people who actually likes the prequels better than the original trilogy. I like all of the Star Wars movies, in spite of their flaws. But I like all six together as a unit. Both tell the stories of young Jedi, tempted with the Dark Side, with father and son taking different paths. One is about the death of the Republic, and the other is about the death of the Empire. I don't know what the new trilogy is about yet, since it is incomplete, but I hope it takes the strengths of both prior trilogies. So far, aside from the rehashed story beats from A New Hope, I have been very pleased with it. In some ways, such as the graphics and humor, I think that Episode VII is already superior to the other movies.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 20, 2016, 10:31:18 PMI'm one of those (apparently) few people who actually likes the prequels better than the original trilogy.
That's a surprisingly large dissenting opinion, particularly among the younger fans. I don't get it. In theory, the prequels should've been great. Great setting, good main cast, great start of darkness story. But god damn, the implementation was absolutely wretched. I don't get how anyone doesn't immediately pick up on that. From "are you an angel?" to dying in childbirth, it was one hell of a bad ride made all the worse by the myriad obvious ways it could have easily been improved.
The only scene I really enjoyed in the prequels (maybe I enjoyed it a little too much, because I was laughing pretty loudly in the theater) was Order 66.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 20, 2016, 10:52:47 PM
That's a surprisingly large dissenting opinion, particularly among the younger fans. I don't get it. In theory, the prequels should've been great. Great setting, good main cast, great start of darkness story. But god damn, the implementation was absolutely wretched. I don't get how anyone doesn't immediately pick up on that. From "are you an angel?" to dying in childbirth, it was one hell of a bad ride made all the worse by the myriad obvious ways it could have easily been improved.
The only scene I really enjoyed in the prequels (maybe I enjoyed it a little too much, because I was laughing pretty loudly in the theater) was Order 66.
Terrible scripts that lead to terrible acting (seriously, the best actors in the world couldn't salvage some of the campy lines). Great plots that got over written by shit no one cares about.
I think that's what makes it all the worse... the potential was there, but it was just fucked up. If they were just shitty movies with shitty plots and shitty actors that would be one thing.
I'm of the opinion that it wasn't so much the acting that sunk them, just poor scripts and poor directing (lazy shot/reverse shot, walk and talk with a shitton of distracting CGI going on in the background, etc). The actors could've given the best performances ever and it still would have been bad. I mean, there's only so much you can do with "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere."
Agreed with Hydra and Shiranu.
If you see the battle of Mustafar, the quiet moments in which Lord Vader stares down his mentor. That's amazing acting.
The reaction to Padmé's pregnancy? Totally believeable.
Crying after the slaughtering of the young ones? Well done.
It's not Hayden Christensen's acting that bothered me. It's that every line he said made me want to either fall asleep or punch the chosen one in his face.
Truth is, I think, if in a few decades they make a complete remake of the prequel trilogy with new actors but the same story; there's every chance I would go see them. Because the story and genius is there. It's just butchered by dialogue and poor decisions. All that's left now, is sprinkles of amazing good stuff in a packaging you don't want to suffer through. I might want to rewatch some of the fight-scenes or one of the few quips that worked. But I don't feel any need to sit through the entire films for that, i'll go to YouTube. The Original trilogy, however, I'll watch those entire films time and again gladly.
That being said. When they first came out, and I was a bit younger, I was most impressed with them.
I Always liked the Original trilogy better. But I liked them back then. A long time ago... In a galaxy far, far away...
With all the hoopla about Rogue One, I wanted to like this movie, at least a little, just a wee bit. And I should have. It's science fiction after all. Audiences are applauding it, and despite my disappointments with all previous Star Wars films (I admit I haven't seen them all), I was determined to try one more time to see if I could get a handle on what it is about this franchise that escapes me. I could not find it. Within 10 minutes, the boredom started to set in. I started waiting for something interesting. Apparently, it must be there, but it only got more boring. I began squirming in my seat. I closed my eyes and listened. Eventually, I wanted to fall asleep, but I couldn't. With 45 minutes of the film left, I walked out of the theater. After the previous Star Wars movie last year, I promised I would never go to another. I think I recall making that same promise after the one before that.
I never tried to analyze my disinterest in Star Wars Movies, so I don't know if there is a common element in all of them. I did think about this one. It's like the director made a list of every Hollywood cliché and then strung them together in a matrix of some cliché premise, the way 1950s musicals strung together songs. The result being carried from one cliché to another, but not in any methodical way. It's just a bunch of things that happen.
I felt nothing for the characters, which HAS BEEN my common experience with this franchise, and while I understand the Evil Empire is evil, I really only know that because Evil is part of it's name. I don't know why the rebels are better equipped to run the Galaxy, and I have no reason to feel supportive of them. I don't give a shit who runs the galaxy.
Oh well. I can't just like everything others like. I guess this is just one of those things, but I'm a little envious of those who do like Star Wars films. I don't want to be left out of the club. But I guess it's a fate that is beyond my control. I must accept it.
I know that the mere handful of critics didn't like the movie, and hold sentiments that closely resemble mine. Not all of the negative reviews are as harsh, but a handful are. Some of the negative reviews just say it was a nice try that didn't reach it's goal. None of them described wanting to sneak out of the theater. That I have to own by myself.
Quote from: SGOS on December 22, 2016, 07:47:18 AM
With all the hoopla about Rogue One, I wanted to like this movie, at least a little, just a wee bit. And I should have. It's science fiction after all.
Heresy! Science fiction enthusiasts, are
required to be Star Wars fans! It's right there in the
Nerd Bible! As your penance, you must recite, "May the Force be with you," 7 times.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 20, 2016, 10:52:47 PM
...I don't get it. In theory, the prequels should've been great. Great setting, good main cast, great start of darkness story. But god damn, the implementation was absolutely wretched. I don't get how anyone doesn't immediately pick up on that. From "are you an angel?" to dying in childbirth, it was one hell of a bad ride made all the worse by the myriad obvious ways it could have easily been improved.
I'm not quite THAT disappointed in the prequels, but they could have been a lot better. Especially when it comes to some of the poor dialog.
As far as plot, I hated the part in Episode 2, where Anakin finds his mom, just seconds before she dies. So fucking cliche. And Padme's death wasn't much better, in Episode 3.
But in my opinion, the most common target for criticism,
Jar Jar Binks, really needed only a more endearing
voice, to be a really entertaining character. He has a great look, for an amphibian life form, that also lends itself well to comedic relief, in an otherwise dry movie. I always took the view of Jar Jar, that the Force was using his "accidents," to significantly affect the outcome of events.
Quote from: Hydra009The only scene I really enjoyed in the prequels (maybe I enjoyed it a little too much, because I was laughing pretty loudly in the theater) was Order 66.
I really liked the scene, where Padme is in the Senate chamber, and Palpatine has just announced the formation of the First Galactic Empire. She says, "So this is how liberty dies:
with thunderous applause."
SGOS has me triggered right now more than anything else in my life has ever had me triggered.
Meh, my best friend doesn't Like the godfather films.
Some people are just weird Like that. Best to simply accept it.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 22, 2016, 12:13:41 PM
Meh, my best friend doesn't Like the godfather films.
Some people are just weird Like that. Best to simply accept it.
Dont.... dont like The Godfather?
(https://media.tenor.co/images/ffa3c59542df1e2ff370d75dec07cefa/raw)
I didn't like The Revenant, but I generally enjoy Leo's films
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 22, 2016, 10:46:09 AM
Heresy! Science fiction enthusiasts, are required to be Star Wars fans! It's right there in the Nerd Bible! As your penance, you must recite, "May the Force be with you," 7 times.
I'll even write it if I have to:
May the force b...
I got bored.
Quote from: SGOS on December 22, 2016, 07:47:18 AMWith 45 minutes of the film left, I walked out of the theater.
Well there's your problem. The best parts of the movie take place in the final 40 minutes or so. It really does start out slow-paced, and that's one of my main gripes about it.
Part of the appeal of Star Wars is beloved characters from the original trilogy like Luke, Leia, Han Solo, Darth Vader, and Yoda. The unique "look and feel" of the Star Wars universe is another feature; it really was pioneering for the time. (I first saw the original one in the theater back in 77, and even at that tender young age I knew I was watching something revolutionary.) The series really needs to be experienced in this order: Ep. IV, V and VI. Then watch Rogue One and Episode VII in either order.
Whether you want to watch the prequels is up to you; despite their poor execution there is some important backstory in there.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 22, 2016, 11:18:57 AMBut in my opinion, the most common target for criticism, Jar Jar Binks, really needed only a more endearing voice, to be a really entertaining character. He has a great look, for an amphibian life form, that also lends itself well to comedic relief, in an otherwise dry movie. I always took the view of Jar Jar, that the Force was using his "accidents," to significantly affect the outcome of events.
His voice was annoying, his "dialect" was just awful ("meesa, yousa" etc.) The fart and poop jokes, the excessive clumsiness, the extreme childishness (and in '83 I thought the Ewoks were too childish)... none of that belongs in a Star Wars movie. And he says "how rude" not once, not twice, but three times. Yes, we get it. You stole that line from C-3PO in Empire Strikes Back, Jar Jar, and you won't let it go.
Something happened to George Lucas over the years. He created a masterpiece (Episode IV), and it was epic and gritty too, with burning corpses, severed bloody arm and Han shooting first. Empire has a Wampa attack, torture scenes, and a severed hand. Bad-ass. Both movies devoid of hokiness. Lucas also gave us Raiders of the Lost Ark, a masterpiece. Then came Episode VI, and we got Ewoks, hokiness, an emasculated Han Solo, and tired dialogue. No more blood, no more bad-assery. Vader's hand gets lopped off, but it's mechanical. Then Lucas goes nuts and produces Temple of Doom and Howard the Duck, and the original grittiness and anti-hokiness disappears. Eventually he gives us the Prequels, filled with Jar Jars, and though there are a couple decapitations, you see no heads or blood. It's sanitized; it's child-oriented. It's stilted dialogue and too much reliance on CGI. So much could have been done of someone had the guts to say "No" to Lucas.
Something happened to Lucas between 1981 and 1983 to make him turn toward the Dark Side. (I bet it was adopting his first kid. Suddenly he wants everything kid-friendly.)
Rogue One brings back the grittiness and amplifies the violence to new heights. It's Star Wars for adults, once again!!
Quote from: Atheon on December 22, 2016, 01:52:05 PM
Well there's your problem. The best parts of the movie take place in the final 40 minutes or so. It really does start out slow-paced, and that's one of my main gripes about it.
Part of the appeal of Star Wars is beloved characters from the original trilogy like Luke, Leia, Han Solo, Darth Vader, and Yoda. The unique "look and feel" of the Star Wars universe is another feature; it really was pioneering for the time. (I first saw the original one in the theater back in 77, and even at that tender young age I knew I was watching something revolutionary.) The series really needs to be experienced in this order: Ep. IV, V and VI. Then watch Rogue One and Episode VII in either order.
Whether you want to watch the prequels is up to you; despite their poor execution there is some important backstory in there.
Someone at my work place who had never seen Star Wars before asked me which order she should see them in. That got me thinking. What is the best way for someone to experience Star Wars for the first time? Before the prequels, it was easy. People watched the original three, then saw the prequels when they came out. But now we have two interconnected stories, both of which kinda spoil things that happen in the other. Here's the order I came up with:
IV: This one introduces the world of Star Wars the best, and Obiwan explains his relationship with Anakin, Luke's father.
I: After seeing IV, people should understand what's happening in Episode I. Having just heard Obiwan speak of Anakin, they will then be shown who Anakin was and how he became a Jedi. And because Episode I had a pretty self-contained story (having been written with the uncertainty of whether or not there would be a sequel), the viewer shouldn't be distracted with thoughts of what happened with Luke and the others.
II: For someone who somehow avoided the "I am your father" reveal, or else forgot about it, I would put off showing them Episode V for now. Episode II further explores the character of Anakin, showing his accomplishments within the Jedi Order under the watching eye of Obiwan.
V: Going back to the original trilogy, Luke confronts his father's "killer," and learns the truth that Darth Vader is his father. This is the best timing for this reveal, I think. After the viewer goes back to the prequels, they will know that Anakin will become Darth Vader and will wonder how it will happen. Alternatively, one could watch III first and learn Darth Vader's true identity that way, but then the reveal of V would be spoiled. I also wouldn't want the viewers to forget about Luke and the others. At this point, the viewer would be at the midway point for both trilogies.
III: This episode shows the birth of Darth Vader and the empire. It ends on a dark tone and shows how things got to be how they were in the original trilogy.
VI: This is the best episode to end the viewing of both original trilogies. Not only does it end Luke's story, but it also serves as an ending to Anakin's story as well. And of course, it's the latest in the storyline and has a happy ending. My sister didn't know about Darth Vader's redemption when I watched the movies with her last year, and she found this episode to be a very satisfying ending because of it.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 22, 2016, 02:36:34 PM
Someone at my work place who had never seen Star Wars before asked me which order she should see them in. That got me thinking. What is the best way for someone to experience Star Wars for the first time? Before the prequels, it was easy. People watched the original three, then saw the prequels when they came out. But now we have two interconnected stories, both of which kinda spoil things that happen in the other. Here's the order I came up with:
IV: This one introduces the world of Star Wars the best, and Obiwan explains his relationship with Anakin, Luke's father.
I: After seeing IV, people should understand what's happening in Episode I. Having just heard Obiwan speak of Anakin, they will then be shown who Anakin was and how he became a Jedi. And because Episode I had a pretty self-contained story (having been written with the uncertainty of whether or not there would be a sequel), the viewer shouldn't be distracted with thoughts of what happened with Luke and the others.
II: For someone who somehow avoided the "I am your father" reveal, or else forgot about it, I would put off showing them Episode V for now. Episode II further explores the character of Anakin, showing his accomplishments within the Jedi Order under the watching eye of Obiwan.
V: Going back to the original trilogy, Luke confronts his father's "killer," and learns the truth that Darth Vader is his father. This is the best timing for this reveal, I think. After the viewer goes back to the prequels, they will know that Anakin will become Darth Vader and will wonder how it will happen. Alternatively, one could watch III first and learn Darth Vader's true identity that way, but then the reveal of V would be spoiled. I also wouldn't want the viewers to forget about Luke and the others. At this point, the viewer would be at the midway point for both trilogies.
III: This episode shows the birth of Darth Vader and the empire. It ends on a dark tone and shows how things got to be how they were in the original trilogy.
VI: This is the best episode to end the viewing of both original trilogies. Not only does it end Luke's story, but it also serves as an ending to Anakin's story as well. And of course, it's the latest in the storyline and has a happy ending. My sister didn't know about Darth Vader's redemption when I watched the movies with her last year, and she found this episode to be a very satisfying ending because of it.
I get what you're saying Blackleaf. And it makes sense. But here's my take on this. There is an actual proper order to watch the prequel and original series and all the rest in.
You start with episode IV, see. The original starting point. Then you make your way over to V and enjoy the best star wars move out there. Here's the tricky part though. After that, you go straight to episode VI. But hold up, after that, you take episode one to three and you bury them in your backyard. Afterward, you watch IV, V and VI again in that order before moving on to VII and finaly rogue one.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 22, 2016, 10:46:09 AM
Heresy! Science fiction enthusiasts, are required to be Star Wars fans! It's right there in the Nerd Bible! As your penance, you must recite, "May the Force be with you," 7 times.
This might seem like a weird thing to say for someone who just gushed about the movie, but I'm actually not super into Star Wars. I've watched and liked the movies and tv shows, but that's about it. I know a couple people who read the books, play the CCG and MMO, etc. They could tell you the name of the alien who got his arm sliced off by Obi Wan in the Mos Eisley cantina.
There are other scifi franchises that are much more dear to my heart. Star Wars is just so massively popular that it makes for good watercooler talk. Otherwise, I'm talking about Farscape or Stargate Atlantis or Babylon 5 and there's probably only 2 or 3 people here who have any idea what I'm talking about.
Star Wars is better conversation fodder.
In Episode IV, Anakin's name isn't mentioned. It's not mentioned until Episode VI (though the later retrofitted version of Ep. V mentions it).
Quote from: Atheon on December 22, 2016, 03:39:52 PM
In Episode IV, Anakin's name isn't mentioned. It's not mentioned until Episode VI (though the later retrofitted version of Ep. V mentions it).
Doesn't the emperor say "He's the son of anakin skywalker."
Or is that just the
mandela effect
Quote from: SGOS on December 22, 2016, 07:47:18 AMWith all the hoopla about Rogue One, I wanted to like this movie, at least a little, just a wee bit. And I should have. It's science fiction after all. Audiences are applauding it, and despite my disappointments with all previous Star Wars films (I admit I haven't seen them all), I was determined to try one more time to see if I could get a handle on what it is about this franchise that escapes me. I could not find it. Within 10 minutes, the boredom started to set in. I started waiting for something interesting. Apparently, it must be there, but it only got more boring. I began squirming in my seat. I closed my eyes and listened. Eventually, I wanted to fall asleep, but I couldn't. With 45 minutes of the film left, I walked out of the theater.
I'll be honest, Rogue One didn't really hold my interest very well initially, either. But I toughed it out and it got way better at about the halfway mark. Towards the end, I was on the edge of my seat.
QuoteI never tried to analyze my disinterest in Star Wars Movies, so I don't know if there is a common element in all of them. I did think about this one. It's like the director made a list of every Hollywood cliché and then strung them together in a matrix of some cliché premise, the way 1950s musicals strung together songs. The result being carried from one cliché to another, but not in any methodical way. It's just a bunch of things that happen.
They weren't cliches when the original trilogy aired, though (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Laconic/SeinfeldIsUnfunny). That stuff was groundbreaking in the 70s and 80s. It's only cliche now because Star Wars popularized stuff like laser swords, the quasi-mystical Force, weird-looking aliens, etc. (Though of course that stuff was borrowed heavily from pulp fiction and Dune)
QuoteI felt nothing for the characters, which HAS BEEN my common experience with this franchise, and while I understand the Evil Empire is evil, I really only know that because Evil is part of it's name. I don't know why the rebels are better equipped to run the Galaxy, and I have no reason to feel supportive of them. I don't give a shit who runs the galaxy.
I feel like I could make a solid pro-Imperial anti-sith case. :P
But yeah, the series generally isn't very good about explaining the stakes. Essentially, it boils down to either tyrannical rule by the Sith or revolution by the Jedi. Your classic good vs evil. The sith are fueled by base emotions like anger, fear, and hate and seek to conquer or destroy everyone else. The jedi are fueled by hope, discipline, and selflessness and seek to coexist with others - a mutualistic relationship with others contrasted with the sith's predatory relationship.
A jedi win means freedom and peace for the galaxy. A sith victory means tyranny and perpetual conflict.
QuoteI can't just like everything others like. I guess this is just one of those things, but I'm a little envious of those who do like Star Wars films. I don't want to be left out of the club. But I guess it's a fate that is beyond my control. I must accept it.
You can't change what you can't change. Good on you for giving it a shot at least.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 22, 2016, 03:40:55 PM
Doesn't the emperor say "He's the son of anakin skywalker."
Or is that just the mandela effect
Only in the re-tooled version of Ep. V. In the original, the Emperor calls Luke "the son of Skywalker". Originally, the Big Reveal of Anakin's name was in Return of the Jedi.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 22, 2016, 03:36:54 PM
This might seem like a weird thing to say for someone who just gushed about the movie, but I'm actually not super into Star Wars. I've watched and liked the movies and tv shows, but that's about it. I know a couple people who read the books, play the CCG and MMO, etc. They could tell you the name of the alien who got his arm sliced off by Obi Wan in the Mos Eisley cantina.
There are other scifi franchises that are much more dear to my heart. Star Wars is just so massively popular that it makes for good watercooler talk. Otherwise, I'm talking about Farscape or Stargate Atlantis or Babylon 5 and there's probably only 2 or 3 people here who have any idea what I'm talking about.
Star Wars is better conversation fodder.
Farscape and Babylon 5 were awesome ... both Canadian?
Quote from: wolf39us on December 22, 2016, 12:49:14 PM
I didn't like The Revenant, but I generally enjoy Leo's films
I thought it was vapid trash.
I couldn't tell you three correct titles of a star wars if I had too. However, I love Star Trek and could not do that either. I don't get that involved. BUT, interesting enough, while driving this morning the radio host said something that in a cross ways brought to mind the scene where child spock was "triggered" to fight by another kid telling him his mother was a whore, which prompted me to wonder, as we have very little information of Vulcan life, if whores existed in the Vulcan society as otherwise the term would be quite odd for a child to use, and then of course does Vulcan have street bums and degenerates? oh my.
Quote from: aitm on December 22, 2016, 07:17:45 PM
I couldn't tell you three correct titles of a star wars if I had too. However, I love Star Trek and could not do that either. I don't get that involved. BUT, interesting enough, while driving this morning the radio host said something that in a cross ways brought to mind the scene where child spock was "triggered" to fight by another kid telling him his mother was a whore, which prompted me to wonder, as we have very little information of Vulcan life, if whores existed in the Vulcan society as otherwise the term would be quite odd for a child to use, and then of course does Vulcan have street bums and degenerates? oh my.
Logical street bums and degenerates ... very interesting!
Revenant was alright, not a movie I'd watch again. The problem was the pacing of it, many moments that just seemed to drag out. It had some intense moments, and i'm someone who enjoys seeing certain characters get whats coming to them, which is why I watched it till the end, but after and looking back, yes, it had a loooooooot of pacing issues and moments that just dragged out. However Leos performance in it was good, he was the best part of it.
I had my nephew round for christmas, and my brother did the wonderful thing of giving me the movie he's been watching again and again... TMNT..
I was forced to sit though this and watch this, and from everything everyone said, even trying to watch it from a kids pov, yeah, I think I've developed a blood clot in my head from the amount of internal screaming I couldn't express due to having a 4 year old here. I heard several times characters swearing, because thats a good thing in a turtles movie. The violence I'm fine with, but seen as how I have to watch what I say around my nephew its ironic having characters swear their mouth off in this movie just gets glossed over.
The CGI was so stand outish a lot of the time and it felt like the characters had no weight to them. The characters themselves, its funny how it felt like they took the cartoon from the 80s, and just ramped all of them up in the most stereotypical form. Donnies not just a dork, he's an uber dork, Mickies not just a dude, he's an obnoxious sexually repressed stalker. Raphs not just a loner, he's an overly aggressive asshole. Leos' probably the only close to recognizable one, but he's more forgetable compared to the character assassinations the others got. When the 1980s cartoon is more subtle then this shit, you know someone needs to tranquilize the director.
Humor consisted of fart jokes, bad puns, characters trying to talk in 80s lingual that just came off forced, the fight scenes felt floaty and over the top when it didn't need to be, the bad guys sucked, with the exception of bebop and rocksteady, but even then, it felt like trying to make characters from the 1980s pushed into a 2010+ movie just didn't look right.
And the crowning achievement of movie diarrhea being April.. or, no sorry I mean Megan Fox insert character name. Fuck her, she sucks, she can't act, moving on.
I hate this movie, I need to pour bleach in my ear now in the hopes of removing it from my memory. I'm just sad this is how my nephew will remember TMNT, not from a fun cartoon series or some later pretty good remake cartoons of it, but this vomit bag of the 'movie'.
Quote from: Atheon on December 22, 2016, 03:39:52 PM
In Episode IV, Anakin's name isn't mentioned. It's not mentioned until Episode VI (though the later retrofitted version of Ep. V mentions it).
You sure? I could have sworn that Obiwan mentioned Anakin by name in IV.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 22, 2016, 03:29:30 PM
I get what you're saying Blackleaf. And it makes sense. But here's my take on this. There is an actual proper order to watch the prequel and original series and all the rest in.
You start with episode IV, see. The original starting point. Then you make your way over to V and enjoy the best star wars move out there. Here's the tricky part though. After that, you go straight to episode VI. But hold up, after that, you take episode one to three and you bury them in your backyard. Afterward, you watch IV, V and VI again in that order before moving on to VII and finaly rogue one.
New viewers are not nostalgic for the original trilogy and don't have reason to hate the prequels.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 22, 2016, 08:43:56 PM
New viewers are not nostalgic for the original trilogy and don't have reason to hate the prequels.
Besides the shit tier dialog, of course. And the abomination y that is Binks. And the focus on irrelevant shit when the story could be progressed.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 22, 2016, 08:43:56 PM
New viewers are not nostalgic for the original trilogy and don't have reason to hate the prequels.
They will once they they see them.
Blade Runner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDscTTE-P-k2049
Here's a trailer, which doesn't tell us much. Trailer's usually don't, but this one breaks new ground in not conveying anything meaningful. I think it's primarily an announcement that Blade Runner is being rebooted or sequeled. While I'm dying to see more, I don't believe the Director can top his first effort. I think he made that first movie in one of those rare flashes of genius that comes but once in a lifetime.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 22, 2016, 08:42:21 PM
You sure? I could have sworn that Obiwan mentioned Anakin by name in IV.
Nope. Just "father". Anakin isn't mentioned by name until Return of the Jedi.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 22, 2016, 09:05:29 PMBesides the shit tier dialog, of course. And the abomination y that is Binks. And the focus on irrelevant shit when the story could be progressed.
You weren't enraptured by the beginning of a Phantom Menace? The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute! Taxes are in dispute, I tells ya!
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 22, 2016, 08:42:21 PM
You sure? I could have sworn that Obiwan mentioned Anakin by name in IV.
It was always "your father". His name was one of the Big Reveals of Return of the Jedi (along with Jabba's appearance and Leia being Luke's sister). I remember it being a big thing back in '83.
I also remember walking out of the theater in '83 feeling somewhat disappointed... a new feeling for a Star Wars movie.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 14, 2016, 12:09:20 PM
DON'T BREATHE. Much better than I expected. It's classified as horror, but I didn't get why. It's thriller I guess.
Moral of the story: Don't break into people's houses.
Boy, I'll say. After I read your comments, I started looking at user ratings. Redbox users were praising it, and Redbox had it listed as one of their most popular. I figured that was true, because it was always out in places where it was supposed to be. For the last couple of weeks, they kept redirecting me to Redboxes that were in other states. It finally showed up locally (25 miles away), so I rented it and just finished watching it. Ordinarily, I simply disregard horror or thrillers out of hand.
While thrillers are my least favorite genre, a good one does come along now and then. I have low standards for this type of movie. All it has to do is scare the shit out of me (the average thriller usually bores me more than anything), but I'd recommend this one to anyone with a strong stomach and a perverse interest in the gruesome, ghastly, and grim. Don't Breathe holds your attention right from the start. I wasn't familiar with the cast, but they played their roles flawlessly, and were very convincing. I also wanted to see this because I've always liked the premise where the tables are turned to the point where you start to feel sorry for the assholes who intend to prey on an "innocent."
Thanks for the heads up.
saw Deepwater Horizon.. S'kay, wouldn't watch it again. I mean it was captivating enough and they did a good job of showing the distain between BP and the oil rig operators, one would normally not realize that it was contract work. Still once is enough, not enough interest to watch it again. I mean....it not Star Trek for gods sake.
Quote from: aitm on December 25, 2016, 11:36:50 AM
saw Deepwater Horizon.. S'kay, wouldn't watch it again. I mean it was captivating enough and they did a good job of showing the distain between BP and the oil rig operators, one would normally not realize that it was contract work. Still once is enough, not enough interest to watch it again. I mean....it not Star Trek for gods sake.
Yeah, I think they good have done more with that movie. For all the fire and explosions, it was kind of blah.
Quote from: SGOS on December 23, 2016, 08:19:19 AM
While I'm dying to see more, I don't believe the Director can top his first effort. I think he made that first movie in one of those rare flashes of genius that comes but once in a lifetime.
FYI, Ridley Scott didn't direct the sequel. He initially planned to, but decided that Alien was a higher priority to him and he didn't want Bladerunner to sit too much longer.
I loved Deepwater Horizon. I think it might be more fun for people who have worked in the industry though.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 22, 2016, 10:46:09 AM
Heresy! Science fiction enthusiasts, are required to be Star Wars fans!
You do know that there is at least some faction of science fiction enthusiasts who feel that Star Wars is not actually Sci Fi but "science fantasy" and thus unworthy? These people are often Star Trek fans and hate Star Wars.
Me, I'm okay with science fantasy and like both Trek and Wars. But, I'm more of a Trek person.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 25, 2016, 09:57:52 PM
I loved Deepwater Horizon. I think it might be more fun for people who have worked in the industry though.
Too close to home ... I interviewed once for a job like that ... back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth making oil. Glad I didn't get it.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 25, 2016, 10:10:25 PM
You do know that there is at least some faction of science fiction enthusiasts who feel that Star Wars is not actually Sci Fi but "science fantasy" and thus unworthy? These people are often Star Trek fans and hate Star Wars.
Me, I'm okay with science fantasy and like both Trek and Wars. But, I'm more of a Trek person.
I tend to think of science-fantasy as a subset of science-fiction, rather than a separate genre. By the strictest definition,
Star Trek is science fantasy as well.
2001: A Space Odyssey, GATTACA, and
The Martian, are all examples of "hard" science fiction.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 25, 2016, 10:10:25 PMYou do know that there is at least some faction of science fiction enthusiasts who feel that Star Wars is not actually Sci Fi but "science fantasy" and thus unworthy? These people are often Star Trek fans and hate Star Wars.
Meh, whatever one calls it doesn't matter much to me. Also, it seems dumb to look down on Star Wars because it's not like Star Trek.
And this is purely anecdotal, but I'd say that a higher proportion of Trekkies also like Star Wars than Star Wars fans who also like Star Trek.
Quote from: SGOS on December 22, 2016, 07:47:18 AM
With all the hoopla about Rogue One, I wanted to like this movie, at least a little, just a wee bit. And I should have. It's science fiction after all. Audiences are applauding it, and despite my disappointments with all previous Star Wars films (I admit I haven't seen them all), I was determined to try one more time to see if I could get a handle on what it is about this franchise that escapes me. I could not find it. Within 10 minutes, the boredom started to set in. I started waiting for something interesting. Apparently, it must be there, but it only got more boring. I began squirming in my seat. I closed my eyes and listened. Eventually, I wanted to fall asleep, but I couldn't. With 45 minutes of the film left, I walked out of the theater. After the previous Star Wars movie last year, I promised I would never go to another. I think I recall making that same promise after the one before that.
I never tried to analyze my disinterest in Star Wars Movies, so I don't know if there is a common element in all of them. I did think about this one. It's like the director made a list of every Hollywood cliché and then strung them together in a matrix of some cliché premise, the way 1950s musicals strung together songs. The result being carried from one cliché to another, but not in any methodical way. It's just a bunch of things that happen.
I felt nothing for the characters, which HAS BEEN my common experience with this franchise, and while I understand the Evil Empire is evil, I really only know that because Evil is part of it's name. I don't know why the rebels are better equipped to run the Galaxy, and I have no reason to feel supportive of them. I don't give a shit who runs the galaxy.
Oh well. I can't just like everything others like. I guess this is just one of those things, but I'm a little envious of those who do like Star Wars films. I don't want to be left out of the club. But I guess it's a fate that is beyond my control. I must accept it.
I know that the mere handful of critics didn't like the movie, and hold sentiments that closely resemble mine. Not all of the negative reviews are as harsh, but a handful are. Some of the negative reviews just say it was a nice try that didn't reach it's goal. None of them described wanting to sneak out of the theater. That I have to own by myself.
Did not see the movie. But like you, I am NOT a star wars fan. Saw the first and the one with Jar Jar. Not impressed. I am a long standing sci fi fan--life long; just don't like star wars.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 27, 2016, 08:54:57 PM
Did not see the movie. But like you, I am NOT a star wars fan. Saw the first and the one with Jar Jar. Not impressed. I am a long standing sci fi fan--life long; just don't like star wars.
Rogue One is pretty different from the other films. It has a darker and grittier tone than Star Wars normally has and the protagonist is not a jedi. You probably won't like it if you don't like Star Wars, but it might be different enough to be palatable.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 27, 2016, 10:18:18 PM
Rogue One is pretty different from the other films. It has a darker and grittier tone than Star Wars normally has and the protagonist is not a jedi. You probably won't like it if you don't like Star Wars, but it might be different enough to be palatable.
Yeah, at some point I'm sure I'll see it. Sounds like it can be treated as a stand alone.
ì•,,ì €ì"¨ (The Man from Nowhere) staring Won Bin (South Korea's premier actor) - 9.5/10.
Overall it is your cliché Asian crime/gang revenge film... man loses "family" and goes to get revenge on the people who did it (in this case a gang of heroine pushers and organ sellers exploiting the Thai and Chinese immigrants). It's execution is spot on as well as the acting and there are several times that even given how text-book it is you start to really feel for the main character. You also get that nice satisfaction of watching evil men suffer... though one of the evilest you will be slightly drawn to.
Would definately recommend if you like action and Asia-cinema. Do note that it is highly graphic at times. The South East Asian films I have watched are certainly not as shy about openly showing knifes piercing skin or bones being twisted the wrong direction as American directors are.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 28, 2016, 11:16:12 PM
Yeah, at some point I'm sure I'll see it. Sounds like it can be treated as a stand alone.
Sort of. There are a lot of references to A New Hope, but it's otherwise standalone.
Manchester by the Sea 2/10
Rated 97% by critics. Just and artsy character study of a fucked up family. I guess to be a professional critic you have to like this kind of shit, the more boring and mundane the better, and better still if includes a main character grappling with existential angst. Do you have to go to a special school where you learn how to revel in art films? Or is appreciation of this genre just a pretense designed to project an image of an intellectual?
Quote from: SGOS on December 29, 2016, 04:12:25 PM
Manchester by the Sea 2/10
Rated 97% by critics. Just and artsy character study of a fucked up family. I guess to be a professional critic you have to like this kind of shit, the more boring and mundane the better, and better still if includes a main character grappling with existential angst. Do you have to go to a special school where you learn how to revel in art films? Or is appreciation of this genre just a pretense designed to project an image of an intellectual?
Interesting idea. Was Rocky Horror Picture Show .... artistic? I do know the type. A brother-in-law of a friend of mine ... is working on his PhD in Film Art. Totally "artsy fartsy".
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2016, 10:10:42 PM
Interesting idea. Was Rocky Horror Picture Show .... artistic? I do know the type. A brother-in-law of a friend of mine ... is working on his PhD in Film Art. Totally "artsy fartsy".
I'd bet that nobody, not even the director, imagined that this would be one of the greatest cult films ever. My guess is it was just supposed to be a wacky musical that would push weird people doing weird things in front of the camera in order to keep people from leaving the theater.
The only reason it became a classic was because some enterprising college kids decided to make it into a "happening." Basically, they started going to it just to act weird and make fun of the movie. The movie itself is just a catalyst for something else that for reasons that defy logic, needs that movie to make the real event work.
Quote from: SGOS on December 30, 2016, 05:39:16 AM
I'd bet that nobody, not even the director, imagined that this would be one of the greatest cult films ever. My guess is it was just supposed to be a wacky musical that would push weird people doing weird things in front of the camera in order to keep people from leaving the theater.
The only reason it became a classic was because some enterprising college kids decided to make it into a "happening." Basically, they started going to it just to act weird and make fun of the movie. The movie itself is just a catalyst for something else that for reasons that defy logic, needs that movie to make the real event work.
You just pinpointed what fingerprints "real art" ;-)
10/10. In terms of war movies... I put it above the clichés like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Black Hawk Down".
Korean war film from start of war to end following two brothers as they get drafted. Older brother does what he can to protect his younger (who he and his mother sacrificed their professional lives for so he could go to go to college [which resonates with me as that was my Dad's situation in WW2]). Like "The Man from Nowhere" it does not skimp on it's depiction of violence. Refreshingly, neither side is shown to be the "good guy & bad guy"; rather both sides have their own fucked up atrocities and characters.
Unlike most warfilms it also does a great job of establishing "why should I care about the character?", due in part to the fact this movie does run about an hour longer than you average flick. I think this is a completely justified move however... there is no way you could have fit the character building in without this longer run time.
All in all a great film if you enjoy action/war films. I have to watch them in breaks now because they are too stressful, but this movie also has great transitions that make solid points to get up and walk around or go do something else.
Again... 10/10 imo.
Morgan
Produced by Ridley Scott, director of Blade Runner if I remember. Directed by Luke Scott, who might be his son? I don't know. But it's the same premise as Blade Runner, and I kept remembering Deus ex Machina while watching. Critics at Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 39%. The consensus was that it was a good premise that could have been developed better, but the movie opted for action instead. How low class! And I would agree with the consensus on both counts, except that I give it a 9/10. But I'm very partial to Sci Fi Android stuff. It's a standard 90 minute film, but it seemed more like 45 minutes. Needless to say, I never felt a moment of boredom. I anticipated the ending halfway through the film, because the plot is anything but complex. I'd recommend it, except with such a low critic rating, I might be in a small minority.
Added: Yes I'm the minority. Audiences gave it a 30%. What can I say? I'm the guy that doesn't enjoy Star Wars. So what do I know? But I liked this one a lot.
LaLaLand 8/10
I usually say I hate musicals. The singing and dancing was done by Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling themselves (I was told Gosling actually learned to play the piano for the movie, although I'm pretty sure he must have had some help from a ghost player off screen at times), and while it was a million times better than what I could do, the singing and dancing still lacked a solid professional edge, but it was fun watching them do their best. The singing and plot were like a million times better than those musicals from the 1950s, where I quickly realized at the age of Ten that musicals sucked and were made for crazy people.
This was kind of like the 1950s format, but without the sucking. The songs and dancing and story line actually worked together so instead of falling asleep during a utterly pointless story and then being rudley awakened by someone shouting a song at the top of their lungs for hardly no reason relating to the half assed plot, you could just sort of see it coming and could enjoy a gentle transition. It's a love story with a few poignant moments that feel kind of good.
Yep, I've got to say, it was OK.
Come and Find Me 8/10
This may not be for everyone, but I was interested throughout. I was also interested in seeing how Aron Paul would be in something other than Breaking Bad. He did a good job. There are lots of flashbacks that annoyed me at first because I don't really want to see the flow of the movie disturbed, but near the very end, the flashbacks start to prepare you for the ending as they change from flashbacks to flashes of imagination that really get you wondering how this whole thing comes to a climax, but while it's got you on the edge of your seat with anticipation, the movie just ends. It's like they just ran out of film, and it's not like something you want to talk about with someone you are with: "What do you think happens?" You aren't even given any clues. It just fucking ends, leaving you with absolutely no closure. Having said that, it's a Hell of a ride getting to that point.
Quote from: SGOS on January 18, 2017, 08:19:07 PM
LaLaLand 8/10
I usually say I hate musicals. The singing and dancing was done by Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling themselves (I was told Gosling actually learned to play the piano for the movie, although I'm pretty sure he must have had some help from a ghost player off screen at times), and while it was a million times better than what I could do, the singing and dancing still lacked a solid professional edge, but it was fun watching them do their best. The singing and plot were like a million times better than those musicals from the 1950s, where I quickly realized at the age of Ten that musicals sucked and were made for crazy people.
This was kind of like the 1950s format, but without the sucking. The songs and dancing and story line actually worked together so instead of falling asleep during a utterly pointless story and then being rudley awakened by someone shouting a song at the top of their lungs for hardly no reason relating to the half assed plot, you could just sort of see it coming and could enjoy a gentle transition. It's a love story with a few poignant moments that feel kind of good.
Yep, I've got to say, it was OK.
That made my night. I do love musicals myself, good ones anyway, I grew up going to theater plays and musicals and so have a fondness for them, from les mis to the stage version of the lion king and sound of music sing alongs. However, I will always have a burning hatred for the jolson story, seen as how my dad watched that same movie, on vhs, over and over and over, for 20 years, until it broke. He never watched anything else, and I think it was because of dads natural racism and he got to laugh at black face singers.
(https://www.musicals101.com/images/jolson.jpg)
Hidden Figures 10/10. My daughter liked it too. I remember those good old days, though I came into it at the end of the mainframe era, not the beginning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUF6PMKwol4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8xHq6dfAo
And yes, Fortran is G-d's own language!
Rodger Corman's Deathrace 2050 0/10
I'm not sure why they made this film. Contender for Worst Film Ever. Sophomoric beyond belief.
(http://i1.wp.com/www.wearemoviegeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/death-race-2000.jpg?resize=560%2C348)
(https://s29.postimg.org/5x0mqpz5j/DRTH_10.jpg)
(http://media.comicbook.com/2017/01/death-race-2050-red-band-trailer-223421-1280x0.jpg)
(http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2017/01/17/660/screen-shot-2017-01-10-at-45412-pmpng.png)
Quote from: SGOS on January 21, 2017, 06:26:54 PM
Rodger Corman's Deathrace 2050 0/10
I'm not sure why they made this film. Contender for Worst Film Ever.
The premise is so absurd and laughable that it could make for some dark satire if done well. One scene that I remember about the Deathrace 2000 movie was when nurses wheeled out wheelchair-bound patients onto the road for the racers to run over for points. So messed up, but honestly, sorta funny in a twisted way.
A skilled director could really play up how this is a diseased society severely lacking empathy and basic human decency and how this bloodsport acts as a distraction from their horrible society. If they made it ridiculously over the top, it could be enjoyable, even funny (in a black comedy sort of way)
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 21, 2017, 07:54:57 PM
The premise is so absurd and laughable that it could make for some dark satire if done well.
I think it did attempt to take it in that direction. I suspected it was trying to satirize something, but it was very poor satire. Not clever, just childish. It seemed like it was written by an elementary school kid. The actors appeared to be trying to mimic really bad actors. So it might have been a satire of bad movies, in addition to one particular movie. However, the movie itself was bad. I did laugh once, but when 1000 absurd things are thrown at you in rapid succession, something is bound to strike you as kind of funny. The rest of the time it was obvious they were trying to be funny, but my reaction was almost always, "That's not funny." Sometimes I might think, "Well, that's better, but it's still not funny."
Yeah, I guess you're right. 27% rotten tomatoes audience rating doesn't speak well of it. Workable (if insane) premise that could only work if implemented in exactly the right way.
And now for something completely different:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9yEFHcRHAM
I feel like this would have made the prequels 420% better.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 22, 2017, 12:40:24 AM
And now for something completely different:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9yEFHcRHAM
Now there's a dedicated fan.
The Accountant. The movie plot is nothing new. The correlation into multiple mental "deficiencies" such as autism's or in this case, how having it can increase the brains functionality in ways we were not prepared to understand, was interesting. 6. But like most movies for me, no interest to see it again.
Shin Godzilla.
I didn't like it at first. I thought this version of Godzilla was just too "out there" and weird looking. I've watched it a few more times and warmed up to it since then. Good movie, but definitely one for veterans of the franchise.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on January 29, 2017, 10:36:07 AM
Shin Godzilla.
I didn't like it at first. I thought this version of Godzilla was just too "out there" and weird looking. I've watched it a few more times and warmed up to it since then. Good movie, but definitely one for veterans of the franchise.
I rewatch movies a lot. Not all of them, but some call for watching again 3 or 4 times. Having the feel of a movie that contains surprises, makes rewatching interesting, as you look for little hints or aspects of a character's personality that help create the surprise. And sometimes movies are just plain fun to watch again. Like your Godzilla experience, some movies fail the first time around, but for reasons I don't fully understand, I rewatch them and they seem to get better. Guardians of the Galaxy didn't do much for me the first time I saw it, but after watching maybe 4 times, I now think, "Damn! That's a good movie."
Quote from: SGOS on January 29, 2017, 11:08:26 AMGuardians of the Galaxy didn't do much for me the first time I saw it
(https://media.tenor.co/images/2c6f1a399e5d69b78984634383692444/raw)
Imho, it's the most entertaining Marvel movie so far. Plus, they really nailed Starlord, Rocket, and Groot. My only major gripe is that Gamora and Ronan don't more closely resemble their comics personalities.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 29, 2017, 11:36:08 AM
(https://media.tenor.co/images/2c6f1a399e5d69b78984634383692444/raw)
Imho, it's the most entertaining Marvel movie so far. Plus, they really nailed Starlord, Rocket, and Groot. My only major gripe is that Gamora and Ronan don't more closely resemble their comics personalities.
I never read the comics, so I might have been unprepared for the movie. Usually Marvel heroes are little more realistic, so I tend to expect that all the time. But a hero raccoon and a talking tree? WTF? I knew that was coming when I saw it at the theater, but my reaction was already biased toward the idea that the whole thing was going to be just nuts.
I happened to watch it the 4th time a couple of nights ago. Rocket the raccoon is an absolute riot of sarcasm and humor and his delivery of the lines has an exponential effect: He gives in to the group, and says with a tone of self loathing, "OK, I'm in. So here we are, all standing in a circle of solidarity, like a bunch of jerks." Not that funny without the context or Rocket's delivery, but when Rocket says those lines, I laugh almost to the point where I lose consciousness. It's like a Marvel movie bent on pointing out how ridiculous all of the other Marvel movies are.
And the big dumb half naked muscle guy, Drax, never gets the metaphors, and always responds totally inappropriately: "Nothing goes over my head. I'd just reach up and grab it." But as big and dumb as he is, he always exudes a tender likeable quality, as do all the others.
The Blue Gamora wards off an unwanted seduction: "Get away from me. I want nothing to do with your pelvic sorcery."
And Groot, he's just a loveable tree. How can you feel that way about a tree? I seldom develop such positive feelings for characters in a movie.
And Chris Pratt is destined for a great future. As an actor, he can't do anything wrong. I'll watch anything he does.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 29, 2017, 11:36:08 AM
(https://media.tenor.co/images/2c6f1a399e5d69b78984634383692444/raw)
Imho, it's the most entertaining Marvel movie so far. Plus, they really nailed Starlord, Rocket, and Groot. My only major gripe is that Gamora and Ronan don't more closely resemble their comics personalities.
Before the movie, I didn't even know the Guardians of the Galaxy existed. lol
Yall need comics. Guardians of the Galaxy. 2008 series. Dan Abnett. Issues 1-25. I practically guarantee that you'll like it. After that, whatever magic that made it successful starts wearing out. It's okay after that, it's just not phenomenal.
One gripe I forgot about the movies, the Nova Corps was bad and Nova didn't make an appearance. That was disappointing.
But yeah, all the characters in the movie are great. If you like Starlord, Groot, Rocket, Gamora, and Drax, just wait till you get a load of the comic versions!
Gamora (http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/gamora.png) isn't just an action girl, she's the deadliest woman in the galaxy. She was raised from birth by Thanos to be the perfect assassin. And man is she good at killing! After leaving Thanos' service, she's desperately searching for a purpose and finds it with the Guardians. She's snarky and cynical about Starlord's plans. You'd never know it from first glance, but she also has a heroic, selfless streak.
Drax isn't just a big dumb brute - he often serves as a protector (guardian, heh) and father figure to another character. Like Gamora, he's an exceedingly good close combat specialist. He's not very talkative, but he is intensely observant. He's here to do two things: 1) kill Thanos 2) protect the people he cares about.
Mantis is an amiable mentor and martial artist. She can briefly see into the future, serving as a telepathic early warning system. She's adorable.
Warlock. Magician extraordinaire. Like beer, he's the cause of (and solution to) a staggeringly large amount of problems.
Cosmo. Russian dog cosmologist. Telepathic communication/telekinesis. "Speaks" broken english. Guards the home base and keeps the peace there. Somehow, he's the most endearing character of them all.
And more!
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 03, 2017, 12:39:40 PM
Before the movie, I didn't even know the Guardians of the Galaxy existed. lol
Nor did I.
I feel that in the times we live in, post Deadpool, a movie about someone like Midnighter would have appeal. A gay superhero who doesn't piss around, preferring to slam his fist through someone's head then arrest them.
(Censored cause of lovely, chunky blood n guts)
[spoiler]
(http://warriorsofwonder.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2857788-midnighter.jpg)
(https://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/03/2071964-midnighter.jpg)
(https://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/03/oqpd8xnyjdydnquedit5.jpg)[/spoiler]
It's such a shame the authority series got cancelled, and written out as dc brought the company and pulled it into dcs revamp, the original authority had some awesome moments, like when Jenny Sparks killed God himself.
(http://static3.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/0/4/51105-9116-66947-1-jenny-sparks-the-se.jpg)
Hidden Figures. I don't go to the movies much any more--not sure why. But I'm glad I went to this one. Excellent acting--good history--took me back to my childhood in Alabama. It seems we are returning to those times again, when nonwhite did not count. I would not be surprised to see the 'colored' signs go back up in many parts of the country.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 03, 2017, 07:04:09 PM
Hidden Figures. I don't go to the movies much any more--not sure why. But I'm glad I went to this one. Excellent acting--good history--took me back to my childhood in Alabama. It seems we are returning to those times again, when nonwhite did not count. I would not be surprised to see the 'colored' signs go back up in many parts of the country.
Remember that race was part of the religion consideration, given that colored folk went to a different church than white folk. Definitely looking forward to the Church of Satan challenging this ;-)
The new Jack Reacher....time better spent laying on the floor and cleaning the underside of tables.
Lego Batman: I hadn't gotten around to seeing Lego Movie, but I know it got good reviews. And I know this movie has good reviews. So, I had high expectations. But it was pretty "meh" to me.
I did know it was family friendly. But, I wasn't expecting it to be so "kiddie". But the kiddies won't get all the jokes. And, frankly, while I have seen all the main Batman movies, I don't have them memorized and I'm quite certain that many jokes flew past me since I don't remember the reference. I did get a few chuckles. But, wasn't worth the time. At least to me.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on February 12, 2017, 10:23:47 PM
Lego Batman: I hadn't gotten around to seeing Lego Movie, but I know it got good reviews. And I know this movie has good reviews. So, I had high expectations. But it was pretty "meh" to me.
I did know it was family friendly. But, I wasn't expecting it to be so "kiddie". But the kiddies won't get all the jokes. And, frankly, while I have seen all the main Batman movies, I don't have them memorized and I'm quite certain that many jokes flew past me since I don't remember the reference. I did get a few chuckles. But, wasn't worth the time. At least to me.
Both Lego movies. Cracked me up. Best adult sarcasm since Robot Chicken... After that, The Incredibles.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on February 12, 2017, 10:23:47 PM
Lego Batman: I hadn't gotten around to seeing Lego Movie, but I know it got good reviews. And I know this movie has good reviews. So, I had high expectations. But it was pretty "meh" to me.
The first Lego Movie was like that for me. I won't see the sequel.
Quote from: SGOS on February 13, 2017, 05:28:43 AM
The first Lego Movie was like that for me. I won't see the sequel.
View the Lego movie as adult humor, admire the outstanding lego constructions, and you might like it better. And there WAS a moral to the story.
Anyway, I've sure seen worse.
Frank and Lola 6/10
Interesting story, if you're looking for a dysfunctional romance movie. I might watch it again to see if I can make more sense out of the psychological dynamics. There may be something that I missed that better explains the characters' behavior, and I'll bump it a couple points. If this is not there, it's still OK, but some subtle explanations that I may have missed would provide some much needed closure. I sense these might be there. If not, it's more about just watching people that want to self destruct.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 05:36:02 AM
View the Lego movie as adult humor, admire the outstanding lego constructions, and you might like it better.
I don't think I can do that. Ever since Legos were first introduced as toys, I have had what might be described as ideological difference of opinion with them. The closest parallel to that behavior in everyday life, might be Christians condemning homosexual behavior as wrong. They have nothing rational for this notion. Doesn't matter. It's just wrong!
That's how I am with Legos. They are wrong, even though I have no rational explanation for how I know this. And then they make a movie out of them. It's like making Coffee Filter Movies would be wrong. And nothing you can say that makes sense will change my Legophobia.
Quote from: SGOS on February 13, 2017, 06:27:23 AM
I don't think I can do that. Ever since Legos were first introduced as toys, I have had what might be described as ideological difference of opinion with them. The closest parallel to that behavior in everyday life, might be Christians condemning homosexual behavior as wrong. They have nothing rational for this notion. Doesn't matter. It's just wrong!
That's how I am with Legos. They are wrong, even though I have no rational explanation for how I know this. And then they make a movie out of them. It's like making Coffee Filter Movies would be wrong. And nothing you can say that makes sense will change my Legophobia.
Well, there are always Tinkertoys.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 06:35:04 AM
Well, there are always Tinkertoys.
Don't forget Lincoln Logs ... old man ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 07:22:49 AM
Don't forget Lincoln Logs ... old man ;-)
I learned to read by the light of lincoln logs!
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 06:35:04 AM
Well, there are always Tinkertoys.
I did love my Tinkertoys. Tinkertoys and little plastic army men--what's not to like??!!!
Tinker Toys, Lincoln Logs; been there too. But my favorite was actually a forerunner of Legos. Interlocking brick faced blocks a bit smaller than dominoes. You could build architectural structures; Two story farmhouses, rambling ranches, or split level homes, but unlike Legos, it simulated actual construction. With Legos, you can make airplanes, tanks, and God knows, what else? But this doesn't simulate the ways those things are actually made. I can't suspend my sense of reality enough to get off on that. What are kids thinking these days? I don't understand them half the time. :headscratch:
And then of course, there was the blockbuster of them all: <Ta da>... The Erector Set with an electric motor, the young boy's introduction into the world of civil engineering.
Quote from: SGOS on February 13, 2017, 12:50:58 PM
And then of course, there was the blockbuster of them all: <Ta da>... The Erector Set with an electric motor, the young boy's introduction into the world of civil engineering.
An older neighbor boy had that. One thing I saw, but didn't know anyone who had ... was a toy of plastic girders and wall/roof panels to build futuristic cities like the Tomorrow House at Disneyland.
I must say, the new human centipede looks promising.
[spoiler](https://68.media.tumblr.com/9f8387981b2c1e411d8e52f51bee8a98/tumblr_okl2vvnrun1vfahteo2_r1_1280.jpg)[/spoiler]
The Girl on the Train 8/10
It got a green splat on rotten tomatoes, so I didn't see it at the theater, but I thought it was much better than that. A bit hard to follow as the story shifts from character to character before it starts tying everything together. But I watched it again the second night, and it makes total sense on the re-watch. Actually, I thought it was a fairly well crafted who-done-it type story.
I watched, Arrival.....I thunk it was pretty darn cool as far as plot line. The movie itself...cinematically kinda sucked with the lighting and all. And the sounds was a bit mushy. But it was kinda cool for a flick. I go as high as a 7.
Quote from: aitm on February 18, 2017, 10:13:15 PM
I watched, Arrival.....I thunk it was pretty darn cool as far as plot line. The movie itself...cinematically kinda sucked with the lighting and all. And the sounds was a bit mushy. But it was kinda cool for a flick. I go as high as a 7.
Your observations about the light and sound are spot on. I would have preferred more clarity in both, and of course Hollywood knows how to do that, so I'm thinking it was intentional, perhaps to enhance a dreamlike quality, but carried too far for my tastes. The story was thought provoking, and overall, the movie is a superior sci fi film.
I hate to keep a tangent alive, but I agree with this sentiment:
Quote from: SGOS on February 13, 2017, 06:27:23 AM
I don't think I can do that. Ever since Legos were first introduced as toys, I have had what might be described as ideological difference of opinion with them. The closest parallel to that behavior in everyday life, might be Christians condemning homosexual behavior as wrong. They have nothing rational for this notion. Doesn't matter. It's just wrong!
That's how I am with Legos. They are wrong, even though I have no rational explanation for how I know this. And then they make a movie out of them. It's like making Coffee Filter Movies would be wrong. And nothing you can say that makes sense will change my Legophobia.
I've always hated Legos. Even when I was a little kid. Too limited.
To give them credit, they have come a long way since I was little. A huge variety of shapes to choose from, now.
I built a bunch of them with my great-nephew, some years back. They are still too blocky, to be a good model, and too fragile to be a good toy. At the time, I thought it might help him learn to follow visual instructions, and translate them into manual assembly. Improve his eye/hand coordination.
When I was a kid, age 3 or so, there were wonderful boxes on the toy shelves, of some fantastic subjects. But if you bought them, you would find, inside the box, only monochromatic parts on a sprue, that had to be built, with glue, and painted to your own satisfaction. They were called "models." They required a sufficient drive on the part of the kid, to possess that little icon, to get them to follow the steps, and have that 3d car, tank, boat airplane, spaceship, dinosaur, or monster, that was pictured on the box. You could do even a shitty job, and have something that better represents the thing you are playing with, than a Lego-construct.
But model-building requires using sharp tools. Dumb-ass, litigious parents today, would probably sue the manufacturer, for their kid cutting his finger on an Exacto-blade.
I have a similar derision for Minecraft.
I've just always looked at Lego and duplo as a means for kids to be creative. I use to own a large box of legos, it didn't have any special parts to them, just loads of multi coloured bricks that I'd spend ages making things up with. I see my nephews doing the same thing now. It's all about creativity, there's not much else to 'get'.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 19, 2017, 05:07:40 AM
I hate to keep a tangent alive, but I agree with this sentiment:
I've always hated Legos. Even when I was a little kid. Too limited.
To give them credit, they have come a long way since I was little. A huge variety of shapes to choose from, now.
I built a bunch of them with my great-nephew, some years back. They are still too blocky, to be a good model, and too fragile to be a good toy.
Yeah, that sort of nails my problem with Legos. They attempt to provide unlimited capabilities to build anything, but they are not specialized enough to do anything well. You get cars that kind of have the shape of cars, and boats that kind of look like boats, but not really good cars and boats. If you don't mind the abstraction, it might be good enough, but if you want miniature realism, you just can't get there with Legos.
Toothpicks and glue ...
http://www.wfmz.com/news/berks/man-uses-toothpicks-glue-to-build-models-of-famous-buildings/17009442
While there not the latest movies I've seen, i've had them for a while on blueray, I decided to have a kind of marathon of james wan movies, including insidious, and the conjuring 1 and 2. I can to an interesting thought after watching both conjuring movies, before I stopped believing in things, as a teenager I was someone who believed in things like ghosts and haunted houses, I remember watching a documentary on the amityville horror, and back then it scared the dickens out of me.
Obviously over the years along with no longer believing in the idea of there being a god, I stopped believing in hauntings too, however that was like the last thing I stopped believing in, and even today, ghost stories hold a special place for me, maybe because it takes me back to that kind of childlike imagination of something invisible watching you.
This is why I love James Wan's movies (not really saw, that kind of gross body horror movies never appealed to me) but things like that, and seeing the woman in black in the theater and the movie, things like that always hold a place in my imagination, and James Wan does a terrific job of capturing that, his haunting movies are fun roller coasters into ghosts and supernatural.
However, something I looked into with the two conjuring movies, was just how far removed from the 'based on a true story' it was. That claim in the two films holds to it being based on the story of the Perron family haunting, and the sequal on the The Enfield Poltergeist story. In these movies, Wan does a great job of creating a world where these kind of entities exist, where demons are real and everything that happens in the movie is terrifying for the family in it.
However, as it says, 'based on a true story', because while Wan makes the events in the movie based on the story of it seem gripping, dark, thought provoking and 'insidious' (pun intended), the reality that he's taken it all from is so much of a disappointment, but of course as you would expect it to.
In the movie, Ed Warren is portrayed as this bright, happy, humanitarian and rock of a character whos perfect in every way and is always there to help people, almost on superman levels of courageous. The real Ed warren was a charlatan, swindler, a liar and made up so much crap to sell books and get noticed. Lorraine Warren, while not as awful as his husband, was in on the game of it.
Someone wrote a review of the Warrens, after the release of the conjuring, and did an interesting comparison, in the first movie, it presented on of the warrens more 'creepy' cases, of Annabelle the doll, a doll possessed by demon posing as a little girl. In the movie, the doll looked like this.
(http://cdn.movieweb.com/img.news.tops/NEAQWDdfB177DF_2_b.jpg)
Yeah, I wouldn't want to be in a room with that thing either. However, in real doll, based on the Warrens account, the one lorraine warren keeps in her occult museum, looks like this.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/54/d7/d3/54d7d389d509b016d3ff246c684806a3.jpg)
Kinda breaks the tension a bit, you can see why Wan didn't have it look like the actual 'possessed' doll, it would lose any sense of tension the movie was going for. And as someone in a review said, the real life Ed Warren, just like the real life Annabelle doll, are both pretty disappointing.
I'll still watch it if they make a third conjuring movie, because I just imagine it being like a parallel world where ghosts actually exist, and its escapist storytelling, just like having a man in blue spandex flying around is.
The Avengers 3: Civil War.
I liked it. Wasn't blown away. Will still watch sequels though.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 19, 2017, 05:10:12 PM
The Avengers 3: Civil War.
I liked it. Wasn't blown away. Will still watch sequels though.
Avengers 3?? *heart skips a beat*
Oh, you mean Captain America: Civil War. Most of the same characters, so I guess you could see it as a continuation of Avengers 2.
But to me, Avengers: Infinity War = Avengers 3.
After watching Mamoru Hosoda's The boy and the Beast, I began to think of a growing problem in the west, when it comes to animation. Growing up watching works by Hayao miyazaki, it felt refreshing to see a new animation studio produce something on his level of quality, because of late, with the rise of cgi animated movies in the west, I've missed traditional hand drawn animation lately. There's just something missing in cgi animated films you can only get from traditional hand drawn animation.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 19, 2017, 09:27:49 PM
Avengers 3?? *heart skips a beat*
Oh, you mean Captain America: Civil War. Most of the same characters, so I guess you could see it as a continuation of Avengers 2.
But to me, Avengers: Infinity War = Avengers 3.
Oh wait. Yeah you are right. Thought it was an Avengers flick but it ain't.
To be fair though, how is it not?
The title, mostly. Plus, according to wiki, Civil War is Captain America 3 and Infinity War is Avengers 3.
Touché
Live By Night ... a piece of crap! The photography was beautiful; otherwise, the movie was a piece of garbage. 2 hours to tell a story that was worth about 30 minutes.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 19, 2017, 05:10:12 PM
The Avengers 3: Civil War.
I liked it. Wasn't blown away. Will still watch sequels though.
Notice how the studios come out with similar movies at the same time? Rather than provide a wide selection of interest and creativity, they all want to do the same thing.
Capt America: Civil War
Superman vs Batman
X Men Apocalypse,
but it's not just the new Superheroes. For a while they had earthquake flicks, then volcano flicks, then meteors headed toward Earth flicks, runaway bride flicks. I guess it's some kind of business strategy.
Quote from: SGOS on February 20, 2017, 06:09:40 AM
Notice how the studios come out with similar movies at the same time? Rather than provide a wide selection of interest and creativity, they all want to do the same thing.
Capt America: Civil War
Superman vs Batman
X Men Apocalypse,
but it's not just the new Superheroes. For a while they had earthquake flicks, then volcano flicks, then meteors headed toward Earth flicks, runaway bride flicks. I guess it's some kind of business strategy.
Overflood of 'darker fairy tales', 'the zombie hype', 'nostalgic classics cranking out a far too late sequel'... Aye, creativity be far gone these days.
QuoteCreativity takes courage.
- Henri Matisse
This is true. And in a big-business world, one will prefer a sure-fire hit that you know sticks with the audiences and will get you the minimum of cash you want, rather than taking a leap into the unknown and quite possibly crashing down hard.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 20, 2017, 06:39:42 AM
This is true. And in a big-business world, one will prefer a sure-fire hit that you know sticks with the audiences and will get you the minimum of cash you want, rather than taking a leap into the unknown and quite possibly crashing down hard.
But in the case of mirror movies competing (as a business strategy), it overwhelms audiences with exploding volcano movies that come all at once. One is all I need to see, and then I'm could for a few years, before I need another one. I keep thinking the studios would be better off releasing one volcano movie, and one courtroom drama, rather than two courtroom dramas or two volcano movies.
Maybe the demographic research says, "Audiences are wanting a comet collision movie at this time, but do not want to see an alien invasion movie for another two years." Taken to the extreme it would be like all TV networks deciding to show 24 hour reruns of I Love Lucy, because it was most in demand. They would end up splitting the profits 6 different ways, and everyone would have to watch I Love Lucy all day long. :headscratch:
Quote from: SGOS on February 21, 2017, 07:05:32 AM
But in the case of mirror movies competing (as a business strategy), it overwhelms audiences with exploding volcano movies that come all at once. One is all I need to see, and then I'm could for a few years, before I need another one. I keep thinking the studios would be better off releasing one volcano movie, and one courtroom drama, rather than two courtroom dramas or two volcano movies.
Maybe the demographic research says, "Audiences are wanting a comet collision movie at this time, but do not want to see an alien invasion movie for another two years." Taken to the extreme it would be like all TV networks deciding to show 24 hour reruns of I Love Lucy, because it was most in demand. They would end up splitting the profits 6 different ways, and everyone would have to watch I Love Lucy all day long. :headscratch:
Well, I guess they've got some 'splaining to do.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 21, 2017, 07:14:31 AM
Well, I guess they've got some 'splaining to do.
Damn betcha!
Quote from: SGOS on February 20, 2017, 06:09:40 AMNotice how the studios come out with similar movies at the same time? Rather than provide a wide selection of interest and creativity, they all want to do the same thing.
Capt America: Civil War
Superman vs Batman
X Men Apocalypse,
I dunno, the similarities in the first two could've just been coincidence. Lots of superhero stories involve internal strife. (also, both studios needed a conflict between heroes as a springboard for a later ensemble movie) And Apocalypse is the classic sealed evil in a can -> unleashed -> almost takes over. It's similar to a tremendous amount of films.
There's no longer a new and creative way to cook a fish, we've already exhausted all the options. The best that can be hoped for is a very well presented fish. Marvel accomplishes that most of the time.
Quote from: Munch on February 19, 2017, 09:58:29 PM
After watching Mamoru Hosoda's The boy and the Beast, I began to think of a growing problem in the west, when it comes to animation. Growing up watching works by Hayao miyazaki, it felt refreshing to see a new animation studio produce something on his level of quality, because of late, with the rise of cgi animated movies in the west, I've missed traditional hand drawn animation lately. There's just something missing in cgi animated films you can only get from traditional hand drawn animation.
I think it was a review of Beauty and the Beast where the critic, in commenting on the CG sections, stated (and I paraphrase here) that 'computer graphics have reached the stage where they look almost as good as when they were drawn by hand'. It was
not meant as a compliment for the state of the art...
That said, there's some CGI movies I love --
The Incredibles and the
Despicable Me series come to mind first and foremost -- but a CG
Fantasia or
Wallace and Gromit would just not be the same. Part of the charm (for me, at least) in
Fantasia is knowing that was all done the hard way, the amazing long zoom in the
Ave Maria sequence, the airbrushing in the
Nutcracker sequence. It was a work of art, not of calculation.
There was a limited use of CG in
Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit, but it was strictly limited to the things that absolutely could not be done with Plasticine. How did they know what could and could not be done? They tried the Plasticine route first, before taking the 'easy' way out with CG.
It's a similar development to the replacement of film cameras by digital cameras. Certainly the digital camera is easier, and certainly some remarkable digital photography has been done, and
definitely digital makes weather and concert and sports photography so much easier because those are difficult under most circumstances...
...but there's something about film, about having to think about what you're doing before firing the shutter, about knowing you can't just take a couple hundred shots and cherry-pick the one or two good ones and delete the rest. Film
makes you think about what you're doing. You
can be mindful of your art with a DSLR. You
have to be mindful of it shooting real film.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 21, 2017, 12:13:18 PM
It's similar to a tremendous amount of films.
I was just wondering about the phenomena. A competitive thing, with one studio not wanting to be outdone by another? Or is there some kind of Hollywood collaboration going on?
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 21, 2017, 12:13:18 PM
The best that can be hoped for is a very well presented fish. Marvel accomplishes that most of the time.
Marvel has created something of great interest among theater goers. It's not really new; Superheroes have been around for a long time, but Marvel stands alone in a way that almost feels like a new genre. To me, anyway. I wait impatiently for the next Marvel movie and I'm getting anxious for the next one right now. Dr. Strange will be out on DVD in a couple of weeks, and I'm wanting to see it for the 4th time. I'm on Amazon's alert for when it comes in.
I dunno of any collaboration, but they both seem to be in a race to hit the market with the bigger and better films lately, so that could be it.
And speaking of Dr. Strange, I recently saw that one myself. I guess I should probably review it.
Admittedly, I'm biased against magic-based superheroes and favor technology-based superheroes. I feel like magic makes the setting too disconnected from reality on Earth (I can conceptualize Doom attacking NYC or Sentinels rounding up mutants, but for some reason, a summoning circle calling Dormammu to downtown Tallahassee doesn't grok with me) and magic can easily lead to ridiculously overpowered abilities (I can handle above-human capabilities, but someone who can snap their fingers and win every time is too OP for me). So bear my bias in mind.
I really liked the special effects - especially that mirror-shard effect and walking upside down and whatever this is (https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7327989/docstrangeimagery.jpg). The plot was nothing new but it worked. It had some pretty epic moments. I kind of have mixed feelings about Mr Strange, though. I empathized with him towards the end, but I wasn't feeling the first half of his arc. He was kind of a douche before and after his magical training. Tony Stark was/is like that too, but you get to see that he has a good heart underneath all the douchebaggery. Plus, Tony's douchebaggery was entertaining and could be seen as a cover for his otherwise painful life. I didn't really get that with Dr Strange. Even after getting magical ability, he still acted like an asshole. Also, even Tony was less reckless. You'd think that a doctor of all people would know better than gunning it down the highway.
I don't think Benedict Cumberbatch was the best fit for the role. He was okay, but something just seemed off about him in that role. I can't quite put my finger on it.
Don't get me wrong, it was a good movie, but it didn't really excite me like a lot of other Marvel films have excited me.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 21, 2017, 02:12:04 PM
summoning circle calling Dormammu to downtown Tallahassee doesn't grok with me
LOL That's what I got when I first saw the coming attractions, and I thought it was going to be like that for me, but for some reason I really connected with it. It was my favorite film from last year.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 21, 2017, 02:12:04 PM
The plot was nothing new but it worked. It had some pretty epic moments.
And small moments too, like when he goes back to the emergency room for help the second time. His girlfriend now knows he's got magic, and is OK with it, but when she comes around the corner and his magic cloak is just hanging in mid air, she just rolls her eyes like the magic is starting to annoy her. I wait for that scene.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 21, 2017, 02:12:04 PM
He was kind of a douche before and after his magical training.
Cumberbatch works fine for me. He is arrogant for sure, but the arrogance works well in the epilog that sets up the sequel during the credits, when Thor is a bit flummoxed by the new guy in Marveltown, when Strange promises to fix Thor's problems in Asgard, and magically refills beer mugs, which seems to earn a quiet surprise and special appreciation from Thor.
Quote from: SGOS on February 21, 2017, 03:39:21 PMmagically refills beer mugs
Free refills! I take back 50% of my aversion to magic.
Does anyone think a neurosurgeon would be warm and cuddly? Pullease!
Lion. 10/10. Good writing, acting, story, filming--all top notch. And it is different--in a good way. And it is a hardy reminded of what living a 'hardscrabble' life really means.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 21, 2017, 08:43:03 PM
Lion. 10/10. Good writing, acting, story, filming--all top notch. And it is different--in a good way. And it is a hardy reminded of what living a 'hardscrabble' life really means.
Not the same as "Son of a Lion" ... a film about a Pashtun boy growing up in Afghanistan?
Quote from: Baruch on February 22, 2017, 07:17:43 AM
Not the same as "Son of a Lion" ... a film about a Pashtun boy growing up in Afghanistan?
Nope--never heard of the movie you mentioned. I was wondering why it was named 'Lion' for the entire movie--well, up until the very end. Then it is explained. I am not a very avid movie goer, but this movie is very well worth the couple of hours it takes to see it. Don't really even need popcorn for this one. ;)
The Arrival.
I rate it 0/10.
Right up until the end it was an okay portrayal.
I just came from seeing hacksaw ridge.
Okay, first, need to get this out of the way.
[spoiler](https://auscaps.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/hacksaw-ridge-pegler-17.jpg)
(https://auscaps.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/hacksaw-ridge-pegler-9.jpg)
(https://auscaps.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/hacksaw-ridge-pegler-10.jpg)
(https://auscaps.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/hacksaw-ridge-pegler-3.jpg)
(https://auscaps.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/hacksaw-ridge-pegler-6.jpg)
(https://auscaps.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/hacksaw-ridge-pegler-37.jpg)
(https://auscaps.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/hacksaw-ridge-pegler-84.jpg)
Luke Pegler has an ass that could melt steel, that was a delight ^^[/spoiler]
Now that's over with.. ooh man, I never thought a movie Mel Gibson in its cast list would bring me to tears, but this movie..
As a portrayal movie, of the actions of Desmond Doss, I wasn't prepared for how this movie would hit me right in the chest, I legit teared up at moments, and gasped other times, along with other cinema goers.
The acting was so good, everyone gave it their all, the cinematography was amazing, the gore and graphic imagery was, as say, boring, but for a movie set in this situation, it's exactly what you would expect, and gives real meaning to why soldiers developed shell shocked.
Andrew Garfield was such a great role here, it didn't matter that everything he did was because of his faith in God, you were routing for him. Just one more.
I don't think there's been a wartime story as good as this since saving private Ryan, and this BETTER get awarded best picture.
10/10.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 20, 2017, 01:05:48 AM
Oh wait. Yeah you are right. Thought it was an Avengers flick but it ain't.
To be fair though, how is it not?
Well, the final product does seem very much like an Avengers movie since it had most of the Avengers, minus Thor and Hulk. To my understanding, it started out very different, with only small roles for anybody but Captain America, to be a Captain America movie. Robert Downey Jr. lobbied to have Iron Man take a larger role and it grew from there. But, without Thor and Hulk, its not an Avengers movie...
Hacksaw Ridge 8/10
It just came out on DVD. I avoided it at the theaters because I'm not a fan of Mel Gibson, but this movie had some reviews that suggested there may be more to it than the usual Gibson glorification of Patriotism and artistic license. While glorified patriotism and license is most definitely part of the movie, the story, even with it's focus on Religion, is not that bad. I would say it's inspirational, probably much more so for the religious, but there was also something about the principles of duty and commitment of the hero that extend beyond religion. One could be a secular conscientious objector, I suppose, although that would be a hard sell to the government, I think.
The death, blood, and slaughter so typical of Mel Gibson, was probably overdone, not to say the invasion of the Pacific was an easy jaunt by any means. Bodies were literally flying through the air, and Gibson's ability to create visually surreal gore, like a severed face lying in the dirt (not a head mind you, but just a face that had somehow been blown off of a head), speaks to Gibson's creativity when it comes to bringing violence to the theater. Just about any part of the human body that can be severed, mangled, or smashed became part of the cinematography. Imagination becomes unnecessary.
Not that it was hard to watch. It was well done, and you needed to concentrate during the battle scenes less you miss momentary touches like a severed foot dangling from a tree, or a arm flying by. Early in the action, Gibson presents a score of gore as soldiers walk along horrified by what happened to the battalion before them. Here's an arm lying on the ground. Ten yards later, here's a guys head. Ten more yards, here's a neat gut pile (That one seemed odd. How do you get a perfect gut pile with nothing else, unless someone field dressed a moose carcass?). But that was just a preliminary potpourri of the visual feast that lies ahead.
But having said that, the battle scenes were quite good, probably exaggerated, but then I wasn't in the actual battle, so I'm only guessing. A pretty good movie, and much more down to earth than the Road Warrior Movies, which were more comical than real.
The the beginning of Fury, they new guy is cleaning out the gore from his predecessors demise ... including part of the guy's face. People can be skinned like a leopard seal hitting a penguin at high speed.
My grandmother' second husband ... the marriage didn't last long, but then he was grieving. He had just lost his son on Iwo Jima. Armchair general much?
Dr. Strange 8/10
Quite strange.
The gf wanted to go see Lala Land.
I was pleasantly surprised. I wouldn't want to watch it again, but it was good enough for a single viewing.
Visually beautiful and an easy to relate to story. The songs weren't that memorable, though I liked the repeating piano tune.
I also liked that the story went just a little bit deeper than your average hollywood musical.
If this were the standard of films she'd drag me to, I would have much less of a problem with being dragged to new things.
8/10
Logan - 10/10, was fucking great.
Just watched a street cat named Bob.
I read the book, and loved his story, heartbreaking at times, but one that leads to something better. Really inspiring story. The movie adaptation was good, the actor who played James Bowen was so into his role. And it was a delight to see the actual bob on screen playing the roll of himself.
I liked the fact this movie didn't hype up or downplay anything, it was just a straight up story, no bullshit, told just from James' on words, and they respected that when they made this film. Guess it held some real personal value to me since I know a lot of the places this movie took place in.
Overall, if you want a down to earth movie with a heartwarming story, this one was worth a watch. 8/10
Quote from: Shiranu on March 05, 2017, 02:15:54 AM
Logan - 10/10, was fucking great.
Going to see it tomorrow. How many X-Men movies are there now? I'm losing track. Spiderman can't last more than three, and then it needs a reboot, which fizzles after two. Every Superman movie these days is a reboot. Batman makes it three times, but the X-Men endure. Oddly, my favorite superhero, who doesn't even have a name beyond "V" only lasted for one movie in V for Vendetta. I suppose it didn't help that they killed him off in the first movie. But Hollywood could resurrect him if they really wanted.
Quote from: SGOS on March 06, 2017, 08:39:40 AMGoing to see it tomorrow. How many X-Men movies are there now? I'm losing track.
Ten if you count Deadpool (Colossus and Negasonic are X-Men, so technically Deadpool could count as an X-Men movie)
My current favorite is First Class, though Logan might bump it to #2 if I like it half as much as other people liked it.
Logan 8/10
It didn't seem like an X Men movie, not that this is totally accurate. Nor does it detract. It just felt different for some reason I can't put my finger on. It's a good movie though.
King Kong is next. I used to love that old black and white thing when I was a kid. The movie was from before my time, and the stop frame photography dated it even back then. But the rerun played frequently on our black and white TV. I don't know how many times I watched it. Now I'm not sure the story was as good as I thought it was. I won't miss it, however. I toured Universal Studios a few years back, they still had the miniature ship and the miniature dangerous rocks in their miniature man made lake that was used to film the opening scenes of the last remake. Something to look forward to on Friday, anyway.
Allied. I liked it. What caught me by surprise was that it was over before I expected it. Not that I expected anything particular, but that it moved so well that the end came within the normal time frame so it kept you engaged enough to not notice the time. No it is not a great movie, but it didn't bog down in trying to make more out of the story that would simply detract from the action. And not a LOT of action, but a well scripted, mid-action..well timed. So a nice movie. Would not watch it again and don't pay any more than a few bucks for it, but it is a very nice waste of an hour and a half.
Probably buying Moana later... anYone See It?
Saw Logan today.
Woo, that was something. Like, probably the most intense marvel movie they've released to date.
Just first to cover the work that went into this, the acting was amazing, you really felt for the characters and even the side characters in this. The score and sound were both incredible, especially the sound effects, there were moments in this movie I was gritted teeth it was so intense. The writing, honestly, one of the best x-men movies there is, and maybe thats because, it didn't feel like an x-men movie. This movie was very much like an old western, coupled with the feel of a Christopher Nolen film.
anyone whos seen previous x-men movies going into this expecting the same, you won't get it, while it has a little of that, this is an entirely different beast.
Now, going into spoilers just to really open up.
[spoiler]From what I gathered from this, while some might argue it, I feel this is set in an alternative future, given how all mutants are killed off. I was a little stuck on the premise how, either it was xavier who killed mutants off when he developed a tumor on his brain, resulting in a shockwave that killed mutant kind across the planet, or if it was the scientist at the end who gave some shill about how he was the cause of it, but that seemed tacked on at the end. The only mutants left unaffected were logan, Caliban, and xavier himself.
X-23, or Laura, along with a bunch of other kids, were genetically engineered kids grown in a lab using the DNA of mutants to create soldiers for the government, but of course that didn't work out and they escaped. I felt like when you see the kids using their powers, they you could tell whos genetic dna they were grown from, hints at ones like iceman and magneto in there.
This is all set in 2028, so this really gives me the impression of it being an alternative future movie, something they've done in comics before, so well the character deaths presented early on and by the end of the movie made it seem open to whatever will happen in the x-men franchise will happen, this is just a timeline where everything goes to shit, and everyone is wiped out.
Hugh in his final performance was marvelous, you really felt his age in this, how deathly sick he is. In something like deadpool, its always played up for laughs how DPs cancer is killing his cells at the same rate his healing factor is curing it, so its a none issue and works in balance. Here, this movie has no comedy, there is no laughs to be had, only softer moments. Wolverine is dying though this movie, and he does die in the end, as most expected he would do, but also so did xavier, so like I said, this felt like an alternative timeline outcome, since I don't see the x-men franchise dying out like this, which honestly this movie if it was 100% canon, it would be the end of the x-men franchise, given how it ends.
That said, because of that premise, it seemed to give the director more freedom to do what he wanted with it, which made this a very powerful movie. I was literalyl on the edge of my seat clenched fists in the hotel scene, where xavier used his power to stop everyone in the area from moving, rigid, pulses of psychic energy vibrating as logan killed the soldiers ready to shoot xavier in the head, that was an badass scene.
And I just love that this movie was unapologetic in its graphic violence. There was so much blood and limbs being cut off and heads decapitated, but to the level I would expect from wolverine. I use to read the wolverine comics, especially in the early 2000s, and for me it always felt like logan was his own beast, separate from the rest of the x-men, the loner, the cowboy, the samuri, all these things, and his comics were always gritty, darker, he wasn't ever your typical hero, he cut people up, he got bloody, and his struggle was maintaining his humanity. This movie captured what those comic books gave me, and for me this is THE wolverine movie.
Just a shame it took this long, and it being the final chance for Hugh to be Logan, to get it, but at least he went on with a bang.
I don't see this as the death of wolverine, it was mroe symbolic of being Hugh's final act as being him, the movie version of him, and he delivered a performance better then any other super hero roll, only compared to deadpool.
One last thing, on X-23, being his daughter, the actress who played her was bloody amazing, quiet for half the movie, but showing such emotion and rage only matched by logan himself. I am not a fan of 'passing the torch' characters, in any genre, because no matter how hard someone will try to, you will never make the child of a famous character or prodigy, to be as awesome as the original. That said, the role she played in this movie, as I said, as an alternative future, it didn't bother me, the x-men and mutants are dead in this story, the only ones left are the genetically engineered mutant kids, and honestly I don't even really think theres anything they can do beyond this story with that.
All in all, this was dark, gritty, a true send off for one of the best comic book roles in movie history, unlike any other hero like batman, superman, fantastic 4, wonder woman, Hugh Jackman has played the role for 17 years, and he's gonna be thought of as THE wolverine for years to come even after this, whoever they get to take over the role.
9.5/10[/spoiler]
btw, just to say to anyone seeing this now at the cinema. I've come to expect there to be a scene at the end of every marvel movie now. I was the last guy in the cinema at the end, I waited till the end credits were over. And.. nothing. There is no final snippet at the end like most marvel movies. That really dug in, how final this felt for me.
Jason Bourne: You Know His Name I give it 3 out of 5. It was decent but the plot was essentially a repeat of the Bourne Trilogy.
Quote from: etienne on March 10, 2017, 08:40:52 PM
Jason Bourne: You Know His Name I give it 3 out of 5. It was decent but the plot was essentially a repeat of the Bourne Trilogy.
I bought a pizza from Marco's, a couple of nights ago. It came with a free movie. I almost rented the new Bourne, but then I remembered that I still hadn't seen
John Carter. It turned out to be a very enjoyable Disney epic.
The Edgar Rice Burroughs Story that it's based on, was written 100 years ago, this year. I believe it was the very first adventure on another planet.
I normally judge a movie as such; does it have child actors? Cool, fuck it, it is shit and I don't want to watch it.
To say Laura impressed me is a huge understatement. Absolutely amazing work, and I hope they make movies based on her and the others because... well, shit I liked them.
Also, forgot about the hotel scene. A+.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 10, 2017, 08:59:43 PM
I bought a pizza from Marco's, a couple of nights ago. It came with a free movie. I almost rented the new Bourne, but then I remembered that I still hadn't seen John Carter. It turned out to be a very enjoyable Disney epic.
The Edgar Rice Burroughs Story that it's based on, was written 100 years ago, this year. I believe it was the very first adventure on another planet.
Bourne 5 is worth watching for sure, but it is more or less a carbon copy of the Trilogy with new faces--namely, Alicia Vikander, OUCH!
"Balls of Fury"(!!!), if you haven't seen it, is HILARIOUS and superbly written and casted. Christopher Walkens, OMG, too funny. 5* all the way.
Saw this
"Gods of Egypt" which was actually an excellent and pretty accurate movie of that religion/time period. 4/5.
Mad Max, Fury Road, 5/5 for artistic design alone.
Lavender, one of the better psychological thrillers I have seen in a while.
5/5
Oh yeah, finally saw, "The Revenant", thought it was superb. 5/5
"A Serious Man", superb, about a middle class Jewish father and his fallout from his religion. 5/5
"Keanu", hilarious, superb, Key and Peele, and cat. 5/5
Quote from: aitm on March 09, 2017, 05:52:45 PM
Allied. I liked it. What caught me by surprise was that it was over before I expected it. Not that I expected anything particular, but that it moved so well that the end came within the normal time frame so it kept you engaged enough to not notice the time. No it is not a great movie, but it didn't bog down in trying to make more out of the story that would simply detract from the action. And not a LOT of action, but a well scripted, mid-action..well timed. So a nice movie. Would not watch it again and don't pay any more than a few bucks for it, but it is a very nice waste of an hour and a half.
That one looks good, intriguing, another Nazi flick, eh? Marion Cotillard is SO HOT!
Quote from: etienne on March 10, 2017, 09:41:11 PM
Oh yeah, finally saw, "The Revenant", thought it was superb. 5/5
"A Serious Man", superb, about a middle class Jewish father and his fallout from his religion. 5/5
"Keanu", hilarious, superb, Key and Peele, and cat. 5/5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vDmWFTvzto ... thanks, I enjoyed the movie analyst's take on something I hadn't seen. My life in some respects is like the character in "A Serious Man" ... and I would agree with the movie analyst, but take it one step more meta ... if you want meaning in your life, you have to write your own character, not let others write it for you.
The counter is celebrating Sukkoth ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I98QNhD8TQo
The future is a disease, the past is the cure. The past is a disease, the future is the cure. Upaya of Buddha.
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2017, 09:10:25 AM
... thanks, I enjoyed the movie analyst's take on something I hadn't seen. My life in some respects is like the character in "A Serious Man" ... and I would agree with the movie analyst, but take it one step more meta ... if you want meaning in your life, you have to write your own character, not let others write it for you.
The counter is celebrating Sukkoth ...
The future is a disease, the past is the cure. The past is a disease, the future is the cure. Upaya of Buddha.
It can be real tough when you find out Faith and prayer are bogus. But I could use me some of that "prayer $" about now...
Quote from: etienne on March 11, 2017, 09:23:26 AM
It can be real tough when you find out Faith and prayer are bogus. But I could use me some of that "prayer $" about now...
Buddha says ... save yourselves ... and don't send me any money. Japanese Buddhist say ... if you meet the Buddha along the way, kill him! We are what we are, as the sum of the good and bad experiences we have had. Of course everyone starts out, lives, and dies as a unique being. Actually faith and prayer do work, even the bogus kind. You simply don't know how to appreciate the bogus ... yet.
Yes, growing up, if you started out Catholic, and end up non-Catholic ... is hard (so I have observed in others). I expect the same with people who have moved on from Islam. First you escape the Middle Ages into Tomorrowland ... but once there for awhile, you find out the future isn't what you hoped it would be. There is no rest for the wicked, and we are all wicked.
A superb movie re musicians:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/August_rush_poster.jpg)
5/5
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2017, 09:41:45 AM
Buddha says ... save yourselves ... and don't send me any money. Japanese Buddhist say ... if you meet the Buddha along the way, kill him! We are what we are, as the sum of the good and bad experiences we have had. Of course everyone starts out, lives, and dies as a unique being. Actually faith and prayer do work, even the bogus kind. You simply don't know how to appreciate the bogus ... yet.
Yes, growing up, if you started out Catholic, and end up non-Catholic ... is hard (so I have observed in others). I expect the same with people who have moved on from Islam. First you escape the Middle Ages into Tomorrowland ... but once there for awhile, you find out the future isn't what you hoped it would be. There is no rest for the wicked, and we are all wicked.
Faith is nothing and prayer is nothing. There is no gawd, remember? "I am sending you my prayers". Translation: "I am DOING nothing for you".
Quote from: etienne on March 11, 2017, 10:26:53 AM
A superb movie re musicians:
August Rush 5/5
It's surprising more people don't talk about that one. It's been around for a long time, and it's very good. 9/10
Another seldom mentioned oldie is Searching for Bobby Fischer. 9/10
Quote from: SGOS on March 11, 2017, 11:13:42 AM
It's surprising more people don't talk about that one. It's been around for a long time, and it's very good. 9/10
Another seldom mentioned oldie is Searching for Bobby Fischer. 9/10
I saw that one years ago, it was excellent.
Yes, too much chess does bad things to your brain ;-( But unlike video games (and vidiots) you actually have to use your imagination more.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 11, 2016, 08:39:57 AM
Can't be a general observation. I wrote a few posts about how idiotic the general 'criticism' people come up with 'against' these movie tradition every time one comes out.
I also put a laughing icon up there too. Hmph. :snooty:
My post was a general observation.
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2017, 09:02:44 AM
Yes, too much chess does bad things to your brain ;-( But unlike video games (and vidiots) you actually have to use your imagination more.
Chess is beyond my imagination. I look at guys playing chess and think about their moves, and in the end, I don't have a clue what they are doing. I don't see strategy, or why one move is better than another. About the only thing that registers is when one guy takes a chess piece from his opponent. This seems like a good thing. I know it's not the object of the game, but I just can't think of anything better to do.
Then there's always that moment in every chess movie where one guy dramatically knocks over his king 14 moves before the end of the game because he knows he has been beaten. Hell, I'd knock my king over before I even move my first pawn, just to save myself an hour of agony. Why do they knock over their king? How do they know that their brilliant opponent will not make an accidental bone headed move that will turn the board in their favor? See? I don't even understand that.
Strategy games require serious thought.
I like chess--always have. Don't play often and am not all that good. But fun anyway. And I love video games of the rpg (nonlinear) and strategy games. And I like them for much the same reasons I like chess. There are a multitude on ways to win--or lose. Call me a vidiot, don't care. I simply like playing them and so I will. So there! ;)
Mike-sahib, how will you ever become a raja if you don't conquer your neighbors? How will you win a battle without forts and elephants (rooks and knights)? You will never be able to accumulate a nice harem (babes) and have a fun time at this rate! Chess comes from India ... stick that in your hooka and smoke it ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2017, 12:19:02 PM
Mike-sahib, how will you ever become a raja if you don't conquer your neighbors? How will you win a battle without forts and elephants (rooks and knights)? You will never be able to accumulate a nice harem (babes) and have a fun time at this rate! Chess comes from India ... stick that in your hooka and smoke it ;-)
Yeah, I realize chess came from India. But that's okay, for I've conquered India quite a few times in Civ V and VI; so now I control the source of chess. :))
Speaking of Chinese, I used to have a thing for Chinese checkers, until that day I lost all my marbles and realized it had been a Jewish Globalist Banker conspiracy all along:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lLai-nARtvw/hqdefault.jpg)
I see that Yellow, Black and Green haven't been allowed to make any moves ... are the Proletariat?
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2017, 04:14:40 PM
I see that Yellow, Black and Green haven't been allowed to make any moves ... are the Proletariat?
I blame it on the Jewish Globalist Communist Bankers. And I hate to see a perfectly good cutting board go to waste.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 12, 2017, 01:14:07 PM
Yeah, I realize chess came from India. But that's okay, for I've conquered India quite a few times in Civ V and VI; so now I control the source of chess. :))
I don't think they are conquered yet. This guy started up a Hindu sandwich shop just down the street here in 'Murica. Calls it, "
New Deli"...
Quote from: etienne on March 12, 2017, 02:15:33 PM
Speaking of Chinese, I used to have a thing for Chinese checkers, until that day I lost all my marbles and realized it had been a Jewish Globalist Banker conspiracy all along:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lLai-nARtvw/hqdefault.jpg)
I used to play that with my grandmother. I don't think she played any other games. I can't remember how to play it, though. It couldn't have been that hard. I was only four.
Quote from: SGOS on March 12, 2017, 04:54:29 PM
I used to play that with my grandmother. I don't think she played any other games. I can't remember how to play it, though. It couldn't have been that hard. I was only four.
You move and jump, just like gringo checkers. The goal is to get your "guys" into the other guy's crib, 1st. Multiple players makes it more interesting.
Quote from: SGOS on March 12, 2017, 09:54:01 AM
Chess is beyond my imagination. I look at guys playing chess and think about their moves, and in the end, I don't have a clue what they are doing. I don't see strategy, or why one move is better than another. About the only thing that registers is when one guy takes a chess piece from his opponent. This seems like a good thing. I know it's not the object of the game, but I just can't think of anything better to do.
Then there's always that moment in every chess movie where one guy dramatically knocks over his king 14 moves before the end of the game because he knows he has been beaten. Hell, I'd knock my king over before I even move my first pawn, just to save myself an hour of agony. Why do they knock over their king? How do they know that their brilliant opponent will not make an accidental bone headed move that will turn the board in their favor? See? I don't even understand that.
Chess is a feudalistic battle between Monarchs, where it's a good idea to protect the Queen and the lives of the peasants are completely expendable. And you have paid mercenaries called, "Knights" who ride on horses. Somehow, they magically get part of the castle to move and fight, which causes reconstruction issues.
I heard a story once about the origin of chess. I don't know if it's true. Supposedly, a king had his architects redo his courtyard. Apparently, they created a checkerboard pattern out of different colored stones. Chess had not yet been invented, but the checkerboard they created was the same pattern as today's chess board. The king was pleased, and he called upon a wise man to invent a game with the board, and the wise man invented chess. The pieces to be moved were servants of the king, dressed in various costumes. From the balcony around the chessboard, the king and his opponent would direct the servants to move about the squares as one would move chess pieces.
Again, the king was pleased, and told the wise man he could ask for anything he wanted. The wise man asked for one grain of wheat to be placed on the first square of the checkerboard, and twice that amount on the second square, doubling the amount on each subsequent square until all 64 squares had been filled. As you know, the doubling has phenomenal effect over a mere 30 squares, and after somewhere around 30, you start dealing with bushels rather than grains, until the progress becomes untenable, both in the counting and the volume of wheat involved.
As the story goes, the king had the wise man beheaded. I've wondered about this, however. I assume the wise man was just attempting to make an interesting point about doubling, and never had an intention that the king should actually pay him that much wheat. But that's how I heard the story.
Quote from: etienne on March 12, 2017, 04:24:25 PM
I don't think they are conquered yet. This guy started up a Hindu sandwich shop just down the street here in 'Murica. Calls it, "New Deli"...
Of course they are conquered. It cost a bunch to defeat them, especially in Civ VI, so I've ordered them to give me my money back--those will be sweeping the US soon!
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 12, 2017, 06:03:02 PM
Of course they are conquered. It cost a bunch to defeat them, especially in Civ VI, so I've ordered them to give me my money back--those will be sweeping the US soon!
That was supposed to be a joke.
Quote from: SGOS on March 12, 2017, 05:59:21 PM
I heard a story once about the origin of chess. I don't know if it's true. Supposedly, a king had his architects redo his courtyard. Apparently, they created a checkerboard pattern out of different colored stones. Chess had not yet been invented, but the checkerboard they created was the same pattern as today's chess board. The king was pleased, and he called upon a wise man to invent a game with the board, and the wise man invented chess. The pieces to be moved were servants of the king, dressed in various costumes. From the balcony around the chessboard, the king and his opponent would direct the servants to move about the squares as one would move chess pieces.
Again, the king was pleased, and told the wise man he could ask for anything he wanted. The wise man asked for one grain of wheat to be placed on the first square of the checkerboard, and twice that amount on the second square, doubling the amount on each subsequent square until all 64 squares had been filled. As you know, the doubling has phenomenal effect over a mere 30 squares, and after somewhere around 30, you start dealing with bushels rather than grains, until the progress becomes untenable, both in the counting and the volume of wheat involved.
As the story goes, the king had the wise man beheaded. I've wondered about this, however. I assume the wise man was just attempting to make an interesting point about doubling, and never had an intention that the king should actually pay him that much wheat. But that's how I heard the story.
Kings gotta keep the slaves hungry, that's why they are Kings. The Freemasons love themselves some chess:
(http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/38/ed54d3f0b850b3f0f50586675f640bbed07aa7ba.png)
Oh wait, the cops too, wassup w dat?!
(https://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/Chicago-police-.jpg)
Quote from: etienne on March 12, 2017, 06:35:58 PM
The Freemasons love themselves some chess:
Oh wait, the cops too, wassup w dat?!
What only two photos? I can help.
(https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1024723/201314228/stock-photo-new-york-june-checker-taxi-cab-produced-by-the-checker-motors-corporation-in-new-york-on-june-201314228.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjSbjRry7ADlWqmR9n-5wFrQq3pc8GwM1lax8R_mSfZSEzBsSfKg)
(http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/checkers-burgers-logo.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QwKcymGoM
You are a bunch of Muggles!
Quote from: SGOS on March 12, 2017, 07:29:43 PM
What only two photos? I can help.
(https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1024723/201314228/stock-photo-new-york-june-checker-taxi-cab-produced-by-the-checker-motors-corporation-in-new-york-on-june-201314228.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjSbjRry7ADlWqmR9n-5wFrQq3pc8GwM1lax8R_mSfZSEzBsSfKg)
(http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/checkers-burgers-logo.jpg)
I doubt those 3 businesses are tied specifically to the Masonic Order. Maybe, who knows?
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2017, 07:44:08 PM
You are a bunch of Muggles!
Doesn't get much more blatant than that. Oh wait:
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1hfg7gtz51qzutbp.png)(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1hetadFx41qzutbp.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2017, 12:19:02 PM
Mike-sahib, how will you ever become a raja if you don't conquer your neighbors? How will you win a battle without forts and elephants (rooks and knights)? You will never be able to accumulate a nice harem (babes) and have a fun time at this rate! Chess comes from India ... stick that in your hooka and smoke it ;-)
Plus, as everybody knows (or should) that chess was invented on Mars. John Carter told us that--being a Southern Gentlemen, he does not lie! But they did have an extra piece and an additional border of squares on the board.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 12, 2017, 08:26:17 PM
Plus, as everybody knows (or should) that chess was invented on Mars. John Carter told us that--being a Southern Gentlemen, he does not lie! But they did have an extra piece and an additional border of squares on the board.
They always said that President Obama was playing 11 dimensional chess ... which planet is he from? Planet Jive?
Moana - 8/10. Just not my type of film, but still really enjoyable.
Quote from: etienne on March 12, 2017, 05:05:16 PM
Chess is a feudalistic battle between Monarchs, where it's a good idea to protect the Queen and the lives of the peasants are completely expendable.
We should play a game. You can expend all those "peasants," protecting your queen, and that should clear the board a little, for one or two of my "peasants" to cross to the other side, and become additional queens. After that, I should be able to make short work of checkmating your king, which is the one you should have been protecting.
Mr Obvious and I have played a few games, on Lichess.org. I think I'm up one game on him.
Quote from: Baruch
They always said that President Obama was playing 11 dimensional chess ... which planet is he from? Planet Jive?
Spock and Kirk used to play tri-dimensional chess. A Trekkie friend of mine bought a set from Franklin Mint. It came with some rudimentary rules, and we played a few games. It's actually too easy. You can make huge moves, and cross the entire board too easily. "Queen to queen's level 2," is an actual move.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 13, 2017, 12:59:09 AM
We should play a game. You can expend all those "peasants," protecting your queen, and that should clear the board a little, for one or two of my "peasants" to cross to the other side, and become additional queens. After that, I should be able to make short work of checkmating your king, which is the one you should have been protecting.
Mr Obvious and I have played a few games, on Lichess.org. I think I'm up one game on him.
Spock and Kirk used to play tri-dimensional chess. A Trekkie friend of mine bought a set from Franklin Mint. It came with some rudimentary rules, and we played a few games. It's actually too easy. You can make huge moves, and cross the entire board too easily. "Queen to queen's level 2," is an actual move.
I think in nearly 6 decades above ground, I have played maybe 1 full game of chess and lost brutally. The game was rigged, I'm sure ot it. I forgot that the "Wise Man on Mars", who invented chess, had also foreseen the genetic cloning of Queens. Way ahead of time, that guy. Besides, I had dedicated my life to Chinese checkers, til I lost all my marbles. I have, however, been tempted to buy one of those idle elitist chess boards to set my coffee cup on and maybe sell off whilst I flee from the Nazis:
(http://www.checkmatechesssets.co.uk/i/Archers%20S10/059.JPG)
rigged
I loved Logan and Get Out. So good! Kong: Skull Island was also a blast!
Split
5/5
Truly, another amazing masterpiece from M. Night Shyamalan.
Quote from: Sorginak on March 15, 2017, 09:58:13 PM
Split
5/5
Truly, another amazing masterpiece from M. Night Shyamalan.
I'm hot and cold, when it comes to M. Night Shyamalan.
The 6th Sense, and
Unbreakable were great, but
Signs was unwatchable.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 15, 2017, 10:16:40 PM
I'm hot and cold, when it comes to M. Night Shyamalan. The 6th Sense, and Unbreakable were great, but Signs was unwatchable.
THE village was quite enjoyable, definitely watching it THE first time.
Avatar THE last airbender was unforgiveable.
Warcraft - 2/10
Not even all the special effects can redeem this piece of shit of a movie.
Kong 4.5/5 "Frustrated military man on a death ride" has been done to death. Otherwise, much fun.
Still can't figure out how that handprint matched the contours of the cliff, however.
Logan 3/5 Too long.
King Kong 8/10
Three things that bothered me, although nit picky, they were jarring. 1. The story wasn't much. Basically, get from point A to point B without dying while some members of the party make boneheaded decisions. Some don't make it, although those who die just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 2. King Kong was scripted as a meat eater, and 3. Arora Borealis lighted up the night sky with a brilliant display (in the South Pacific Ocean).
But while redoing a plot I've seen several times, it did have some good moments, and one humorous exchange made me laugh for a long time. However, the special effects and the scenery were something else entirely. Inspite of the simplistic plot, probably, the best King Kong yet. But then, King Kong has never been acclaimed as one Hollywood's greatest cinematic achievements. Maybe the old black and white, because it was the cutting edge of special effects at it's time.
I saw it in 3D, and the cinematography lent itself well to that. Definitely worth seeing for adventure fans.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 16, 2017, 07:36:55 AMLogan 3/5 Too long.
"Your mom thought I was long enough, bub." - Logan, probably
Haven't watched Kong, but out of curiosity I would ask you if the size of the island and the size of Kong would suggest that after 5-10 years of roaming the area would leave quite a wide swath of path destruction....was that part of the film or was it like a completely whole jungle where they "dropped" a massive gorilla into the middle of it?
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 16, 2017, 07:53:58 PM
"Your mom thought I was long enough, bub." - Logan, probably
I guess some traits aren't inheritable. :(
So not interested in watching Kong, but I did see Logan.
I did not think the movie was too long, but the ending left me wanting more, especially considering the fact that Hugh Jackman stated that was his last performance as Wolverine.
They were going to add other elements to the movie, but left it out to create the feeling of bleakness and loneliness logan would be feeling. Also this is the old man logan story which is an alternative reality story, with the difference being he dies in the end instead of time traveling back
Though, upon more reflection, I do suppose they were attempting to make the point that Logan will continue to live on in his daughter.
It's in the first post, you guys:
Quote from: GalacticBusDriver on February 16, 2013, 12:37:09 AM
Please, please, please use spoiler tags around any spoilers.
Quote from: Munch on March 16, 2017, 08:58:18 PM
...he dies in the end instead of time traveling back
Quote from: Sorginak on March 16, 2017, 08:59:58 PM
...Logan will continue to live on in his daughter.
Thanks a lot.
I sincerely apologize. :C
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 16, 2017, 09:24:44 PM
Thanks a lot.
You should have as well, in case someone hadn't seen the other posts. I had missed Munch's post until you quoted it. But, I guessed as much from Sorginak's post.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on March 17, 2017, 03:17:49 PM
You should have as well, in case someone hadn't seen the other posts. I had missed Munch's post until you quoted it. But, I guessed as much from Sorginak's post.
Oooh, I didn't think about that. Very sorry.
Logan too long? I watched it high (time felt 3 times longer than it really was) and I wish it was a bit longer, flesh out some of the fight scenes a bit more.
Quote from: aitm on March 16, 2017, 08:00:26 PM
Haven't watched Kong, but out of curiosity I would ask you if the size of the island and the size of Kong would suggest that after 5-10 years of roaming the area would leave quite a wide swath of path destruction....was that part of the film or was it like a completely whole jungle where they "dropped" a massive gorilla into the middle of it?
Interesting and worthwhile question. Especially without seeing the film. The same question niggled at the back of my brain too.
I just watched a great documentary entitled, "The Life, Times, and Genius of Karl Marx", on the History Channel..........
Haha, fooled ya, they would never produce a movie on Marx--that was accurate, anyway-- it would be Un'Murican to do so. They just focus repeatedly on Hitler and WWII, because Murica is more like Hitler and they like it that way.
Quote from: etienne on March 17, 2017, 10:05:07 PM
I just watched a great documentary entitled, "The Life, Times, and Genius of Karl Marx", on the History Channel..........
Haha, fooled ya, they would never produce a movie on Marx--that was accurate, anyway-- it would be Un'Murican to do so. They just focus repeatedly on Hitler and WWII, because Murica is more like Hitler and they like it that way.
Correct, you make my point about the Matrix once again. It is hard to tease out what happened, even in my own lifetime, let alone what happened before that. Good bios are interesting books/programs though. Any summary, even of an individual, is necessarily cursory, even if not biased.
The girl who leapt through time.
Sure its like 10 years old but first time I seen it, and I gave it a go after seeing the boy and the beast, same guys who made that.
It was.. alright, it had several of the young love teen anx tropes you find in most anime love stories, plot was kind of forgettable for the most part, and left a bittersweet take on things at the end. The animation was gorgeous, especially the backgrounds. Nothing bad, just nothing amazing either. In a funny way, the boy and the beast at the same bittersweet ending, so I wonder if this studio is in the habit of making stories like that with every film.
7/10
Watched Wolf Children.
this is probably one of the best anime's I've seen in years, the only other is the boy and the beast, but while that movie was fun, adventurous and high action, this movie had me weeping.
Like the last one I said, this animation in this is beautiful, the backdrops are stunning, colorful, and miyazaki levels of detailed. Actually, this whole movie had that feel of miyazaki to it, emotional depth of characters, scenes that just build on them in everyday settings, something wonderous but played as second to the characters own every day lives.
The only problem I feel it had, which is a personal peeve of mine but doesn't detract for those who would enjoy it, is the theme of overly deep teenagers who act like they carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. it was just in the beginning of the movie, but it passed and the characters grew, the main character especially. And hoo fuck, this one had some heart breaking moments in it, not gonna say what though.
If you were a fan of movies like howls moving castle, spirited away, grave of fireflys and laputa castle in the sky, give this one a watch.
9.5/10
Priceless 2/10
Mexican women sold into slavery to pay a father's debt. Supposedly based on real events. I stopped the movie halfway through because I was starting to get the idea it was going to be Christian propaganda. It had all the earmarks of an angry loser accidently on his way to finding the Lord. Yeah, it was more about the guy than the women sold into prostitution (The women were deeply religious and found the Lord long ago and were praying for the guy that smuggled them into the country (he didn't know what was in the truck)). I looked it up on Rotten Tomatoes, and sure enough. It was a faith based movie for the righteous, but with the premise cleverly hidden in the rental description. That was most offensive to me. I felt manipulated into having a pitch for the Lord slid at me sideways. Movies will eventually start needing a "F" rating for "For the Faithful" or something. Really, they should warn people about this shit.
There were only 4 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes with 1 tomato and 3 splats. Should have looked it up first. I didn't finish the film. Besides offending me, it was the typical marginal acting and cheesy writing typical of faith based films. They really should come with a warning.
Don't watch The Arrival, then. The major twist at the end is very faith based. It pissed me off that I wasted my time watching what was a good movie only to discover what I did at the end.
Quote from: aitm on March 16, 2017, 08:00:26 PM
Haven't watched Kong, but out of curiosity I would ask you if the size of the island and the size of Kong would suggest that after 5-10 years of roaming the area would leave quite a wide swath of path destruction....was that part of the film or was it like a completely whole jungle where they "dropped" a massive gorilla into the middle of it?
I haven't seen it, but me thinks you need a large dose of "suspension of disbelief" when viewing this kind of genre... By physics we know that size of animal is impossible. And, there are tons more plot holes. Like he would need a massive amount of food. And imagine how much Kong shit there would be. Do they ever show Kong even just taking a leak?
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on March 23, 2017, 05:44:49 PM
I haven't seen it, but me thinks you need a large dose of "suspension of disbelief" when viewing this kind of genre... By physics we know that size of animal is impossible. And, there are tons more plot holes. Like he would need a massive amount of food. And imagine how much Kong shit there would be. Do they ever show Kong even just taking a leak?
And remember, he is an ape.
I'd imagine he'd fling around those humongous droppings too.
They could probably take down helicopters.
I imagine the pilot shouting out: "Brace for impact! Shit!"
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on March 23, 2017, 05:44:49 PM
I haven't seen it, but me thinks you need a large dose of "suspension of disbelief" when viewing this kind of genre... By physics we know that size of animal is impossible. And, there are tons more plot holes. Like he would need a massive amount of food. And imagine how much Kong shit there would be. Do they ever show Kong even just taking a leak?
All sci fi requires suspension of disbelief, although really good sci fi requires less. I don't have a problem suspending skepticism in sci fi and fantasy, or anything Hollywood does for that matter. It's an escape that I enjoy. Just remember to go back to normal when the show is over.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on March 23, 2017, 05:44:49 PM
I haven't seen it, but me thinks you need a large dose of "suspension of disbelief" when viewing this kind of genre... By physics we know that size of animal is impossible. And, there are tons more plot holes. Like he would need a massive amount of food. And imagine how much Kong shit there would be. Do they ever show Kong even just taking a leak?
I think it would far more "scary" to be walking through the jungle and stumble out into a large torn up path with turds the size of small cars......I think every body in the "party" would pretty much turn around and "boot-scoot" the fuck outa there.
Quote from: aitm on March 23, 2017, 09:06:40 PM
I think it would far more "scary" to be walking through the jungle and stumble out into a large torn up path with turds the size of small cars......I think every body in the "party" would pretty much turn around and "boot-scoot" the fuck outa there.
Big ass thundering monsters like Kong, Godzilla, and T Rex, are fun because of their overwhelming size, mad beasts gone wild and stomping on humans. But the ones that creep me out have always been the small ones that easily hide in the shadows or behind things. I remember seeing a movie one time with monsters the size of garden gnomes. They would scurry about in the dark. They slipped a drug into a woman's drink, and had to work together just to drag her semi conscious body down the stairs into their hiding place in the basement, where they could mutilate her while she was still alive. That was a real creeper.
Like the old adage, "Size is not what counts." Sometimes it's true.
I finally got around to watching A Monster Calls.
I enjoyed it. 5/5
It is a stronger version of Graham Joyce's The Tooth Fairy in which a young boy is dealing with life's issues while he goes through puberty.
A Cure For Wellness
I was not clear on the vitamin part, even at the end, but overall it was an engaging movie.
5/5
Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 04:01:26 PM
A Cure For Wellness
I was not clear on the vitamin part, even at the end, but overall it was an engaging movie.
5/5
I saw the trailer for that movie. It looks compelling, but too intense for me.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on April 01, 2017, 05:15:23 PM
I saw the trailer for that movie. It looks compelling, but too intense for me.
It does deal with an intense moral and ethical issue, but that is what makes it such a great film.
One recently new movie I will not watch is The Shack.
Here is a little backstory regarding my knowledge of this movie:
I was in the library, stalking the shelves for an interesting book to read, and I am the type of individual to check every single shelf and read the titles to discern if I want to read it based upon title alone. If the title interests me, I look at the book and read the description regarding the book. I have spent hours a day in the library searching for a good book.
I digress, however.
One day I happened upon The Shack. I picked it off the shelf and read the description. It was very vague. It certainly seemed interesting. I even went back to that book days later to look at it again to see if I was still certain I did not want to read it. Something told me to not read it.
I never did read it. I left it on the shelf where it belonged.
Recently the movie was made in relation to this book. Certainly, the movie trailer seemed interesting.
I decided to do a google search regarding the book, and I discovered that it was written by a Christian Canadian and then it all made sense.
It made sense why I did not want to read the book and it makes sense why I will not watch the movie.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 07:14:46 PM
One recently new movie I will not watch is The Shack.
Here is a little backstory regarding my knowledge of this movie:
I was in the library, stalking the shelves for an interesting book to read, and I am the type of individual to check every single shelf and read the titles to discern if I want to read it based upon title alone. If the title interests me, I look at the book and read the description regarding the book. I have spent hours a day in the library searching for a good book.
I digress, however.
One day I happened upon The Shack. I picked it off the shelf and read the description. It was very vague. It certainly seemed interesting. I even went back to that book days later to look at it again to see if I was still certain I did not want to read it. Something told me to not read it.
I never did read it. I left it on the shelf where it belonged.
Recently the movie was made in relation to this book. Certainly, the movie trailer seemed interesting.
I decided to do a google search regarding the book, and I discovered that it was written by a Christian Canadian and then it all made sense.
It made sense why I did not want to read the book and it makes sense why I will not watch the movie.
Excellent self awareness. I think you are ready for one-on-one with Drew. Try not to make him cry too much ;-)
Saw 1 minute of the trailer for The Shack. Definitely won't watch. I am a father myself.
Fantastic Beasts and where to find them, I liked it. A nice little fantasy with enough drama to keep it interesting and enough wizardry to keep you smiling. Fun little film. 8
Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 07:14:46 PM
One recently new movie I will not watch is The Shack.
Here is a little backstory regarding my knowledge of this movie:
I was in the library, stalking the shelves for an interesting book to read, and I am the type of individual to check every single shelf and read the titles to discern if I want to read it based upon title alone. If the title interests me, I look at the book and read the description regarding the book. I have spent hours a day in the library searching for a good book.
I digress, however.
One day I happened upon The Shack. I picked it off the shelf and read the description. It was very vague. It certainly seemed interesting. I even went back to that book days later to look at it again to see if I was still certain I did not want to read it. Something told me to not read it.
I never did read it. I left it on the shelf where it belonged.
Recently the movie was made in relation to this book. Certainly, the movie trailer seemed interesting.
I decided to do a google search regarding the book, and I discovered that it was written by a Christian Canadian and then it all made sense.
It made sense why I did not want to read the book and it makes sense why I will not watch the movie.
The classic original Exorcist movie I understand was written by a priest or ex-priest or something like that. So the authorship isn't necessarily a big deal. I know nothing about The Shack, but I'll research it before for I decide to see it or not. If it's just another Christian pap smear, I'll avoid it because those bore me to death.
Newest trailer for Thor Ragnarok out. Honestly, it felt weird, like they are going for the same spin guardians of the galaxy did.. but this is thor, so seems they are just picking up on GotG popularity maybe?
Thor without his long hair is kind of off putting, but the trailer gave me one thing that made me giddy with delight.
(https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/c/cb/Hela0002509873283273432343.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170308231557)
Cath Blanchett as Hela is such an awesome cast choice!
(https://i.redd.it/zwt0id77crfy.png)
Quote from: Munch on April 11, 2017, 05:29:47 PM
Newest trailer for Thor Ragnarok out.
Thor just bores me now. It happens when they make too many sequels.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 11, 2017, 05:39:30 PM
Thor just bores me now. It happens when they make too many sequels.
There are 54 years of stories to draw on for Marvel's
Thor. Expect the "sequels" to continue.
5th Wave - 3/10
More plot holes and wishy-washy acting and performance and subpar CGI than you can shake a stick at.
Finally watched Star Wars: Rogue One. I thought it was outstanding. I'd say it's the best Star Wars movie since Empire Strikes Back. Exactly what a prequel should be. 5/5
Hidden Figures. Good show, but it could easily have been a three part if they would have followed up on the accomplishments these women did. When one reads the (can't think of the word for the paragraphs of follow up info following the end) "credits" of the women, it is then you finally understand what they went on to accomplish. Good story.
Quote from: aitm on April 16, 2017, 10:24:06 AM
Hidden Figures. Good show, but it could easily have been a three part if they would have followed up on the accomplishments these women did. When one reads the (can't think of the word for the paragraphs of follow up info following the end) "credits" of the women, it is then you finally understand what they went on to accomplish. Good story.
Good counterpart to the oldie-but-goodie ... The Right Stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElzIPn1pXWE
I have touched an Atlas missile, and met a couple of astronauts. But the cosmonauts were first. This used to be a great but flawed country. We need to realize we still are.
The engineers wanted the test pilots to approach but not cross the sound barrier. This was a bad aerodynamic idea ... being at, but not across the sound barrier, causes massive airframe vibration. The test pilots died. It took Chuck Yeager to say ... "F the engineers" and just go ahead and cross it. A matter of trusting one's ability to pilot, and abundant courage (not lack of fear). And when he did it, he had broken his ribs the day before, in horse riding accident ... but climbed in the X1 and rode it anyway. If the flight surgeon had known, he wouldn't have let him fly that day. He had to use a sawed off broom handle, to close the hatch, before he dropped from the carry plane, because he hurt to much otherwise. When people heard a sonic boom for the first time, they assumed he had died. The X1 developed into the X15, which went to the edge of space and one of the last people to fly one, was Neil Armstrong. We lost some X15 pilots too ... the thing had 1 million pounds of rocket thrust. The sound barrier is Mach 1. To achieve orbit, you have to go at least Mach 10.
The new Thor trailer dissapoints me... looks too much "Guardians of the Galaxy"-y. That was okay for GotG, but it just seems kinda obnoxious if that becomes every movies thing.
I watched " The Secret Life of Walter Middy". It was for free so it was okay when all you have on is re-runs or reality TV or dozens of Easter specials purporting to know the exacts whereabouts of Jesus who is alive after all living in Brooklyn somewhere....
But....a nice movie. 6
Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 07:14:46 PM
One recently new movie I will not watch is The Shack.
Yep, just another propaganda movie for the born again Christians.
QuoteRotten Tomatoes 19%
Critics Consensus: The Shack's undeniably worthy message is ill-served by a script that confuses spiritual uplift with melodramatic clichés and heavy-handed sermonizing.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 16, 2017, 12:45:46 PM
The new Thor trailer dissapoints me... looks too much "Guardians of the Galaxy"-y. That was okay for GotG, but it just seems kinda obnoxious if that becomes every movies thing.
seems to be the direction marvel movies are going in, GotG and Deadpool were super popular because of the humor, things like thor and thor dark world not as much, so they ignore tradition and do this to the determent of the fans.
Quote from: Munch on April 18, 2017, 05:19:31 AM
seems to be the direction marvel movies are going in, GotG and Deadpool were super popular because of the humor, things like thor and thor dark world not as much, so they ignore tradition and do this to the determent of the fans.
This seems to be a Hollywood thing. Something that has a unique popularity get's bludgeoned with repetition into mediocrity. Creativity is put on hold until no more blood can be squeezed from the turnip.
So here's your couple-years-too-late review.
I'm not a big movie goer, so I usually end up catching things on DVD long after they've been out. I also avoid Marvel Universe movies like an AIDS-raddled ebola-carrying plague rat because I loathe what's become of Marvel over the last 25 years.
So I was surprised to find myself basically enjoying 'Guardians of the Galaxy'. It's predictable, annoying scenes meant to be seen in 3D that are pointless padding in 2D are annoying, and seeing it on the big screen would have left me with motion sickness and/or a headache (Speed Racer was the worst offender -- I barely managed it on the small screen and had to leave the room during the final race sequence), but it's a fun roller coaster ride with good snappy dialogue.
It ain't high art, but it doesn't pretend to be -- there are few things worse than FX porn that wants to be taken seriously, and GotG not only avoids that trap, it avoids being in the same continent as that trap.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 16, 2017, 12:45:46 PM
The new Thor trailer dissapoints me... looks too much "Guardians of the Galaxy"-y. That was okay for GotG, but it just seems kinda obnoxious if that becomes every movies thing.
Yeah, Thor is looking a bit more colorful lately:
(https://www.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ragnarok-banner.jpg)
(http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Guardians-of-the-Galaxy-Chinese-poster-excerpt.jpg)
Good for Thor. The other Thor movies were okay, but neither one really clicked with me. Maybe Ragnarok will be one.
Speaking of color, I'm glad we could get beyond the stupid black leather era and present these characters in actual color, like how they were presented in the comics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BXP5XAkPt4
Quote from: aitm on April 16, 2017, 10:24:06 AM
Hidden Figures. Good show, but it could easily have been a three part if they would have followed up on the accomplishments these women did. When one reads the (can't think of the word for the paragraphs of follow up info following the end) "credits" of the women, it is then you finally understand what they went on to accomplish. Good story.
I agree--it was an excellent movie.
Quote from: aitm on April 16, 2017, 10:24:06 AM
Hidden Figures. Good show, but it could easily have been a three part if they would have followed up on the accomplishments these women did. When one reads the (can't think of the word for the paragraphs of follow up info following the end) "credits" of the women, it is then you finally understand what they went on to accomplish. Good story.
I just started the book. Excellent stuff.
Quote from: trdsf on April 19, 2017, 12:37:07 AM
I just started the book. Excellent stuff.
Good because it shows what people can do, even against opposition? Or another chapter in American self hate?
"Under the Skin" (2013)
What
the
actual
fuck?
[spoiler]Plenty of nude Scarlett Johanssen.[/spoiler]
Assassins Creed 3/10
I haven't played that game, but the movie looks like the format of a first person shooter, with usually one player taking on one battle after another with multiple opponents. Some opponents are what games often refer to as "bosses", and are much harder to kill than others. The fighting often takes place in stone tunnels or visually interesting rooms of laboratories and castles with delightful architectures. The plot line has the simplicity of a game, and exists only as matrix for the battles. There are some excellent actors, who are not given many circumstances to utilize or demonstrate their talent. I stopped watching 3/4 of the way through.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 19, 2017, 08:40:24 AM
"Under the Skin" (2013)
What
the
actual
fuck?
[spoiler]Plenty of nude Scarlett Johanssen.[/spoiler]
How nude?
(http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Guardians-of-the-Galaxy-Chinese-poster-excerpt.jpg)
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 18, 2017, 10:54:07 AM
Good for Thor. The other Thor movies were okay, but neither one really clicked with me. Maybe Ragnarok will be one.
As a side note, I seem to remember Chris Pratt may have got his start playing a very dull and mostly unimportant role as the boyfriend of Pam in The Office. I haven't looked it up, but I think that was him. His only function was to be the guy that Pam gets stolen from by Jim (??) It was really a nothing role, and at the time, I thought of Pratt as a nothing actor destined for a short career in film. It must have been hard for him to contain himself by just sitting on his talent. I'm happy he was able break out of that character and make it big. Today, I would watch any movie he is in without even bothering to read a review.
Quote from: SGOS on April 19, 2017, 09:36:32 AMAs a side note, I seem to remember Chris Pratt may have got his start playing a very dull and mostly unimportant role as the boyfriend of Pam in The Office. I haven't looked it up, but I think that was him.
Parks and Rec and April's Boyfriend, but otherwise correct. I haven't watched the Parks and Rec, but I've heard that he plays a goofy character quite popular with fans of the show.
QuoteIt was really a nothing role, and at the time, I thought of Pratt as a nothing actor destined for a short career in film. It must have been hard for him to contain himself by just sitting on his talent. I'm happy he was able break out of that character and make it big. Today, I would watch any movie he is in without even bothering to read a review.
Same.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 19, 2017, 10:32:29 AM
Parks and Rec and April's Boyfriend, but otherwise correct. I haven't watched the Parks and Rec, but I've heard that he plays a goofy character quite popular with fans of the show.
I was thinking The Office, but it was this guy:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNDYxMjg1ODU5MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzM2NTYwNzE@._V1_UX214_CR0,0,214,317_AL_.jpg)
David Denman
Not this guy:
(http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/content/sites/nbcutsjf/files/styles/bit_stacked_resized/public/images/2014/09/24/prattcolor.jpeg?itok=-mGo9nQX)
Chris Pratt
The Bridge of spies
9/10
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 19, 2017, 10:32:29 AM
Parks and Rec and April's Boyfriend, but otherwise correct. I haven't watched the Parks and Rec, but I've heard that he plays a goofy character quite popular with fans of the show.
Parks and Rec is like a funny The Office, and April Ludgate and Andy Dwyer are goals.
sneek pics of Jason Momoa off set of Aquaman
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/2dd0ecbb8090b05e09a69b3eb5bbbe1a?width=650)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8a/32/a4/8a32a47723357a0c88547e746f8fb9fa.gif)
Doesn't matter if DC films have been doing bad lately, I'm gonna this movie just for them abs
Quote from: SGOS on April 19, 2017, 09:25:02 AM
How nude?
Completely, standing nude in front of a mirror, inspecting the "skin" mentioned in the title. She seems bemused...
Actually, she's hot, but not insanely hot.
Quote from: Munch on April 20, 2017, 08:13:38 PM
sneek pics of Jason Momoa off set of Aquaman
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/2dd0ecbb8090b05e09a69b3eb5bbbe1a?width=650)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8a/32/a4/8a32a47723357a0c88547e746f8fb9fa.gif)
Doesn't matter if DC films have been doing bad lately, I'm gonna this movie just for them abs
That is a very odd-looking swimsuit. A triangular tessellation pattern that just happens to match his tattoo, which just happens to match his aquaman promo shoots. Interesting...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C61Vc3xWYAItc11.jpg)
No particular movie, but I do like older movies made from between the 1930s and the 50s.. There's one youtuber currently uploading a lot of older British films, eh44returns. Most are along the genres of noir and mysteries, a few spy thrillers, but generally high quality films worth watching. If you have streaming capabilities such as Roku, etc., and can watch YouTube on your television so much the better.
Rogue One - 8/10
Pretty good overall Star Wars story.
Although this isn't one I've only seen recently, I thought it was interesting to bring up. An article on tumblr popped up talking about one of the latter scenes in Mulan, and how looking back on it now had some interesting outlook on the characters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYAVVkEg4xo
What they found thought provoking, was how thoughout the movie, Mulan, as a woman in china, lived with the constant reminder that she's a woman, she's weaker then all male counterparts, she wasn't allowed to join the army in her aging fathers place, so posed as a boy in order to get accepted into the army. When she was found out she was a girl, her own soldier friends abandoned her, and it took some heroism at the end to shift peoples minds about how a woman can be a strong as a man.
But in the scene above, when mulan faced against the main antagonist, Shan Yu, when he realized who she was, it just didn't seem to matter to him that she was a woman, she simply was the soldier who caused the death of hundreds of his soldiers, and he just didn't seem to care one way or the other of her gender.
The huns apparently faught alongside women in the wilds of the homeland to survive, and even Genghis Khan appointed his own daughters to generals in his army, the women of mongolia were in a much more powerful status (while not perfect, the past never has been), then the women of china were.
So in a strange way, the way Shan Yu regarded Mulan as just another soldier regardless of her gender makes him more of an interesting character then first thought, and I kind of wished the movie delved more into this, the contrasts between the huns and china in how it treated its own.
Chinese women, with bound feet, can't march very well ;-(
http://ancientstandard.com/2011/06/17/the-real-story-of-mulan/
Mongolian women are no joke ... falcon hunting is for sissies, real Mongols use golden eagles ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfi5JS6HTH0
Quote from: Munch on April 21, 2017, 04:39:05 PMBut in the scene above, when mulan faced against the main antagonist, Shan Yu, when he realized who she was, it just didn't seem to matter to him that she was a woman, she simply was the soldier who caused the death of hundreds of his soldiers, and he just didn't seem to care one way or the other of her gender.
Villains are typically more progressive than the heroes. Captain Goody-Two-Shoes might never hit a woman, but villains typically have no such compunction. Villains are more likely to want to change the status quo compared to the heroes (though this is reversed when the villain is in charge and the heroes are rebels). Villains also slightly more commonly build coalitions - alliances across otherwise uncooperative racial/national lines.
Villains are just heroes ahead of their time. The mad scientist of the 19th century is the innovator of the 21st century.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 20, 2017, 09:39:44 PM
Completely, standing nude in front of a mirror, inspecting the "skin" mentioned in the title. She seems bemused...
Actually, she's hot, but not insanely hot.
That might be the only Scarlett Johansson movie I've missed. And it's sci-fi with high score from Tomatoes. I can't imagine how that one got by me.
Founder 8/10
Biographical account of the founding of the McDonald's Empire. Just a very interesting movie.
Miss Sloane 10/10
Political drama that has a somewhat familiar feel. But I had an intense visceral response to the story, which is why I gave it a 10.
Quote from: SGOS on April 23, 2017, 07:14:35 AM
That might be the only Scarlett Johansson movie I've missed. And it's sci-fi with high score from Tomatoes. I can't imagine how that one got by me.
Let me know after you watch it. "What the actual fuck" was my end reaction.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 23, 2017, 08:24:09 AM
Let me know after you watch it. "What the actual fuck" was my end reaction.
And that too? Can't believe I missed it. I sometimes enjoy those WTF? movies. Only if it gives me a feeling that I'd understand it if I could give it enough thought. If it's too far beyond my grasp, well then it just ends up in the flop category.
newest power ranger movie looks interesting.
[spoiler](https://68.media.tumblr.com/99d14c77441344980e7a68868c01f99e/tumblr_onbt1hFHGt1rkc7zwo1_1280.jpg)[/spoiler]
The Girl With All the Gifts 8/10 84 on Rotten Tomatoes
This is a horror film, not my favorite genre as I've said before, but this one is an interesting British movie. It didn't play in local theaters, but it just came out on DVD. I think it's best watched without reading a review or watching a preview. I saw it cold, and my first reaction 10 minutes into the film was wondering if I could handle that much creepy suspense, or if I should just stop watching it. There is no understanding of what's happening at first, but it all becomes clear in short order, and that adds a great deal of interest. It has an ending I would have never anticipated. Gemma Arterton, if you can get past her high level of "babe appeal," happens to also be a good actress.
A couple of times, I thought a couple of things were over the top, which was kind of odd considering the nature of such films are pure fantasy to begin with, and pretty much everything is clearly over the top, anyway. Halfway through, the creep factor dies down to a manageable level, or maybe you get sensitized to it, but the suspense remains as the story progresses. I give it high marks for taking an old concept and working out a new twist with an interesting overall plot.
I can't really say much more without wrecking it, because the suspense is an important part of the story. I would recommend not eating while watching, or at least have an empty bucket handy. Well, OK it's not that bad by today's standards. Just trying to give a heads up without saying too much.
Quote from: Munch on April 24, 2017, 11:40:02 AMnewest power ranger movie looks interesting.
From the reviews I've seen, it doesn't look very good, sorry to say. There's a shitload of product placement and there's only a small amount of martial arts or mecha combat, and that's at the very end. Pretty disappointing, especially for fans of the original show.
It's a shame, because I saw that gritty reboot trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw5vcUPyL90) and I would totally be down for something like that. Maybe not *that* gritty, though. Maybe a bit less rated R and a little more PG-13. But I'd still keep it action-oriented.
One thing that was weird about the movie is that the Rangers have powers in their human forms. My memory is pretty fuzzy, but I don't remember it being like that for the TV show. They're just normal kids who happen to be expert martial artists, always dress in their personal color, and have an exceptionally diverse circle of friends. Pretty typical 90s stuff. But they only get powers when they transform or "morph" into those skintight suits because otherwise they'd would need to transform to fight putties and other lowlevel mooks.
Tbh, what can they really do with a concept like power rangers. What made the original show appealing was how campy it was doubled with the awful acting. Rita was the best thing on the show because she was loud and flamboyant. Bulk and skull also had their moments. Take away that campy and hookey aspect, and it loses any of the charm.
It's like when they tried to reboot he-man in the 90s, what made he-man so popular was the campy humour and goofy animation cycles, remove that and it just doesn't have the appeal.
My sister liked watching the Power Rangers when we were younger, but I never got into it. I thought it was dumb.
Quote from: Munch on April 26, 2017, 08:42:07 PMTbh, what can they really do with a concept like power rangers. What made the original show appealing was how campy it was doubled with the awful acting. Rita was the best thing on the show because she was loud and flamboyant. Bulk and skull also had their moments. Take away that campy and hookey aspect, and it loses any of the charm.
It's like when they tried to reboot he-man in the 90s, what made he-man so popular was the campy humour and goofy animation cycles, remove that and it just doesn't have the appeal.
I was definitely in it for the sentai battles. I could take or leave most of the campiness. But the teenager slice of life stuff was grating to me even when I was a teenager. Bulk and Skull were pure cancer, imo. I would've cut all their scenes, burned the negatives, and pissed on the ashes if I were in charge. No offense.
It'd wager that a less hokey, more serious, more action-oriented version with a bigger budget could be a big hit. There have been shows that made that transition successfully: the 1990 TMNT movie, G.I...no, not that...Transf...*vomits*. Okay, so there's kind of a mixed bag. But there's a chance it could work.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 26, 2017, 09:27:13 PM
My sister liked watching the Power Rangers when we were younger, but I never got into it. I thought it was dumb.
It was. But it was a really entertaining kind of dumb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwtSqopGJag
The Power Rangers Movie made for some great bot-fodder when we were doing our own fan MSTings.
Also, if you can find the parody "Dynaman" anywhere, well, enjoy the rampant silliness. :D
I was running a masonry crew building Wal-Marts in texas back in the late 90's. One of the laborers, who was also one of the owners only son would walk around with a stick in his belt pretending to be a power ranger while he was working. A lazy useless fuck-off he was 20 and still playing power ranger? His goal? To be a cop....I told him to please let me be his reference any time he needed, just have them call me and I will put in a good word for him. He was really excited....luckily he never made it past the initial psych test to reach the level of needing a reference...good lord that kid would killed the first person he walked up to...bona-fide nut job.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 23, 2017, 08:24:09 AM
Let me know after you watch it. "What the actual fuck" was my end reaction.
Just watched it (Under the Skin). Yeah, that was about as indecipherable as the average David Lynch Film. It was a karma flick without a point, I guess. It did hold my interest, however.
Movies I want to watch, but cannot find the time to watch:
Rogue One
Hidden Figures
Ghost in the Shell
A Dog's Purpose
Get Out
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Anyone watched the new Samurai Jack series? It was originally good but now improved.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 30, 2017, 06:50:11 AM
Anyone watched the new Samurai Jack series? It was originally good but now improved.
Thanks for reminding me. The Scotsman is my favorite character other than Jack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOQ_OsXyfaw
Now that is the way to avoid nursing home ;-) Not that I want to actually use the 5 foot broadsword I stash behind the front door ... and I only have one daughter to defend!
Bonus ... Samurai Jack does O-Cha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkreTryt6YU
Got inner harmony?
Definitely how the scotsman would have wanted to go out, roasting someone. That said his spirits meant to still be around, and will be in the final episode.
Recent one of jack getting his sword back and defeating his demons, I was kind of sad to see his long hair and beard go, him going right back to his same old attire just felt kind of lackluster after all the shit he's been through, it should have some kind of change to show that time passing.
Quote from: Munch on April 30, 2017, 08:59:58 AM
Definitely how the scotsman would have wanted to go out, roasting someone. That said his spirits meant to still be around, and will be in the final episode.
Recent one of jack getting his sword back and defeating his demons, I was kind of sad to see his long hair and beard go, him going right back to his same old attire just felt kind of lackluster after all the shit he's been through, it should have some kind of change to show that time passing.
We need the regular, who is not here much, but a Scotsman ... to explain the swearing ;-)
I did like him in the first new episode, dressed as a Sassanid Persian knight. Beard is appropriate on that.
Quote from: Munch on April 30, 2017, 08:59:58 AM
Definitely how the scotsman would have wanted to go out, roasting someone. That said his spirits meant to still be around, and will be in the final episode.
Recent one of jack getting his sword back and defeating his demons, I was kind of sad to see his long hair and beard go, him going right back to his same old attire just felt kind of lackluster after all the shit he's been through, it should have some kind of change to show that time passing.
Samurai Jack changes in interesting ways. This season, for example, he has shed his robe. I think it means he is going to his basics and when he finally confronts Aku in the past with all his experience, he will either be nearly naked or in his full original regalia.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 02, 2017, 06:06:53 AM
Samurai Jack changes in interesting ways. This season, for example, he has shed his robe. I think it means he is going to his basics and when he finally confronts Aku in the past with all his experience, he will either be nearly naked or in his full original regalia.
Well I suppose it does just represent him being on a dark path and now finding himself again. I more meant like having scars from his experience. The fact in this season he's killed people, not robots but people, spilled blood, should be deeply damaging to him, and it has shown. If they made his face more worn, like the rigors of fighting and age wearing him down, and yet he's still prepare to stand and fight Aku to the bitter the.
Guardians of the Galaxy II 10/10
Excellent movie, and a Wow, considering it's a sequel. Superhero movie sequels usually just introduce a new villain and come up with a new storyline. While Guardians does this, it has a different feel. The story itself could be summarized in two minutes, but it wouldn't just be a summary. You could explain all the details in that limited time. It's simple, but still very clever. You don't actually become introduced to the story until an hour into the film, except for a brief foreshadow at the very beginning. I'd have to see it again to watch for other foreshadows that may not be as obvious. Mostly, the first hour is just an accumulation of things that the Guardians do, kind of like just drifting about in space trying not to be killed by hostile life forms, until the main problem is presented. But that first hour, as irrelevant as it may seem is filled with dazzling special effects that are interesting in themselves. There is also a lot of Camaraderie and poignant moments of relationship building in the first hour. Like Dr. Strange, the special effects are not limited to explosions, but things that lend themselves well to 3D IMAX theater, and like Dr. Strange, I think the movie would lose something in a flat environment.
But even with the simple story and sometimes irrelevant details, the film passes muster on my most critical test; "Did I enjoy the film?" The very end is a visual feast, and I had to remove my glasses and wipe my eyes once, because I had tears that interfered with my vision. Yeah. It got kind of emotional for me at the end, sappy and unmanly for a superhero movie as that might be.
I'll be curious what others think. I have the feeling that others might not score it the way I did. Both the first Guardians and the second surprised me and were not what I was expecting.
Quote from: SGOS on May 05, 2017, 02:56:00 PMMostly, the first hour is just an accumulation of things that the Guardians do, kind of like just drifting about in space trying not to be killed by hostile life forms, until the main problem is presented. But that first hour, as irrelevant as it may seem is filled with dazzling special effects that are interesting in themselves. There is also a lot of Camaraderie and poignant moments of relationship building in the first hour.
Good. Guardians of the Galaxy works because of the different personalities bouncing off each other. If them shooting the breeze isn't interesting, then it won't be interesting when they have to save the day.
QuoteI'll be curious what others think.
I'll let you know in a week or two. I have some pressing IRL stuff to wrap up first. After that I'll be able to kick back and enjoy myself.
Just saw guardians too myself. Gonna drop all this in a spoiler tag to talk freely about it all.
[spoiler]This was a fun romp, and I was smiling though so much of it. It did have some surprises I wasn't expecting. The first being that in the MCU, Ego is Peters father, the living planet. since in the comics peters father is J'son or Jason of Spartax, and according to the movies writers j'son doesn't exist in the MCU, so its just an accepted fact that Ego is Peters father. I'm okay with that, since the movieverse does change some things around sometimes, and it was a reason to bring Ego into the story in an interesting way.
The Sovereign were kind of lackluster in their execution, but while some reviewers complained about them being so, they weren't the main antagonist of the story, Ayesha was on the sides of the main plot like how the ravagers were, and just another element to add extra conflict in. some might find that a clusterfuck for the story, but this is marvel comics, stuff like this happens all the time in comics, so it didn't detract from the plot for me as much as I thought it would, plus the idea of the Sovereign as this almost third reich perfectionists means they could be used again down the line.
The movie was primarily focused on Starlord finding ground with his father, who ends up being the main antagonist of the movie. I've never really read much about Ego in the comics, so didn't know what direction they would take him in, but there was a creeping sense of something not being right about him. I actually found it kind of chilling for a marvel movie, showing that Ego drew all his children in, who were born after his humanoid replicas were sent off across the universe to 'spread his seed' with women there, to actually draw all his children back, and kill them, and dumping their bodies in a hole on his own body to be pretty freaky for a marvel movie at this age rating. But it did make for a really fun final battle.
Starlord was great, gamora was great, her developing some ground with her sister Nebula was a good bit of development, especially now that Nebula is woken up to the fact what Thanos is and what she wants to do to him. Rocket was great, and i loved the development between him and Yondu. And really, Yondu was awesome, I loved the dynamic built here, in how Peter wanted to find his real dad, wondering since he was a kid who his real father was, and yet when he found out his father was a genocidal planet bent on universal domination, the fact Yondu was there beside him and proved to be more a father to him then his real one was a great plot point, making the final scenes of him sacrificing himself to save peter all the more heartbreaking.
For me the weakest elements were Groot and Drax, not that they were bad, but just that their wasn't much development with them. Drax was so dam lovable in his crazy way, but I hoped their be more development for him, instead it just reverted to what we already knew about his family. Groot feel like less of a character in this and more just the comedic element, I've wanted to know some more about him, like his origin, how rocket found him, how they first meet, maybe rocket explaining his backstory as groot says I'm am groot' over and over, just something to give some element into his backstory.
One of the final scenes too, had something that didn't peg to be at first, when Ayesha in the post credit scene, explains how she's developed a way to create a perfect being, showing the pod they will use, with her intent to create a new being to kill the guardians, and she will call him Adam. I didn't honestly peg at first what that meant, since the cosmic elements of marvel are few and far between to me, but as I was leaving the cinema it dawned on me, gold skin, extremely powerful, in connection to cosmic beings, Adam bloody Warlock. So we're be seeing him show up.
That said, this movie was fun, great special effects, love the cast, just a crazy rollarcoaster, whats great about these movies is how they can just go all out crazy with what they do, because their in space, so they can have planets blowing up, new worlds being discovered, giant mechanical constructs, space battles, all that good stuff, so whatever faults it might have, i loved it, and will watch again/buy on blueray.
I'll give it a good 8.5/10[/spoiler]
All the crazy characters: a green woman, a blue guy that guides a silly arrow by whistling, a tree, a raccoon, and a band of looneytoon ravagers. By all accounts, Guardians should have been a screwball failure that appeared to be written by an 8th grader, but it avoids that somehow. I identified with the characters and had feelings for them. It defies the logic of ordinary story telling, but somehow it works.
On the way home, I was thinking about the well known actors with established careers reading the manuscript before they consented to taking on the job. What made them think this thing might be a success, rather than a dead end for their careers? Actors seem to be bending over backwards just to have a chance at a cameo spot in a Marvel movie, any Marvel movie. I get that, but the Guardian premise seems like a risky venture that for reasons that don't make sense to me, becomes a success.
Quote from: SGOS on May 05, 2017, 08:20:24 PM
All the crazy characters: a green woman, a blue guy that guides a silly arrow by whistling, a tree, a raccoon, and a band of looneytoon ravagers. By all accounts, Guardians should have been a screwball failure that appeared to be written by an 8th grader, but it avoids that somehow. I identified with the characters and had feelings for them. It defies the logic of ordinary story telling, but somehow it works.
On the way home, I was thinking about the well known actors with established careers reading the manuscript before they consented to taking on the job. What made them think this thing might be a success, rather than a dead end for their careers? Actors seem to be bending over backwards just to have a chance at a cameo spot in a Marvel movie, any Marvel movie. I get that, but the Guardian premise seems like a risky venture that for reasons that don't make sense to me, becomes a success.
Concepts aren't what make or break a movie or story, characterization is what makes it, you can take the silliest of concepts, but if you give great characterization to the players, it becomes memorable. Take gravity falls for example, the summery, two kids go to live with their uncle in a town and weird things happen, it sounds like the plot of a goosebumps episode. But by clever writing, good characterization and witting dialogue, they made a show that won awards.
Couple days ago I finally got to see the original Japanese cut of "The Return Of Godzilla" (1984). Oh my god, this movie is so fucking dull, and the effects are terrible even by Godzilla standards. I would honestly recommend the American "1985" version over this. At least that version is funny.
Quote from: SGOS on May 05, 2017, 08:20:24 PM
All the crazy characters: a green woman, a blue guy that guides a silly arrow by whistling, a tree, a raccoon, and a band of looneytoon ravagers.
Two green women, dammit.
(https://alemdatorre.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/82.jpg?w=242&h=300)
Gamora
(https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/77/455662-groot_mantis_paul_pelletier01.jpg)
Mantis
GotG: Really Fucking good.
Teared up at the end. No shame.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 05, 2017, 11:18:46 PM
Two green women, dammit.
In the film version she is flesh colored, but yeah, she'd look good in green too. She is also a fun character. Gifted with superpowers, but naïve.
Quote from: SGOS on May 06, 2017, 07:46:27 AMIn the film version she is flesh colored, but yeah, she'd look good in green too. She is also a fun character. Gifted with superpowers, but naïve.
In the comics, she's friendly and likable, which juxtaposes well with cantankerous Rocket. Not naive, because her empathic powers give her a good (but not perfect) read of the room. She can fight, but she noticeably holds back (unlike Gamora), doesn't harm more than necessary (unlike Rocket), and prefers nonviolent solutions when possible. It's implied that her empathic powers contribute to her dislike for violence, since she likely experiences some of the pain she inflicts.
Life of Dogs...or something like that....if you love dogs, as I do, you can't help but want such superstitious nittwittery to be true... so it pulls on your emotions. But all the same, if you love dogs, well....you love dogs.
Arrival - 7/10
It's like a 70ies scifi
Sendt fra min SM-G920F med Tapatalk
Rewatched "The Book of Life". 10/10, once again fuck Frozen for winning an Oscar and this hundredfold superiour film not even getting nominated because it came from a smaller studio and is Mexican.
Often I find stop motion animated movies don't get the focus they deserve, yet more often then not I find more heart goes into their creation then CGI movies do.
Coralines probably one of my fav animated movies, because of the theme, the characters, the dark tones and twists, and just the design work is flawless.
Of all the superhero movies, I have never seen any Marvel group as lame as The Guardians Of The Galaxy. It's like they're a joke you should catch, but not quite any reason to. "I am Groot" all the time? Pleeeeese...
Quote from: Cavebear on May 12, 2017, 01:49:34 AM
Of all the superhero movies, I have never seen any Marvel group as lame as The Guardians Of The Galaxy. It's like they're a joke you should catch, but not quite any reason to. "I am Groot" all the time? Pleeeeese...
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Dwight-Schrute-Shakes-Head-and-Rolls-Eyes.gif)
Quote from: Sorginak on April 30, 2017, 12:02:40 AM
Movies I want to watch, but cannot find the time to watch:
Rogue One
Hidden Figures
Ghost in the Shell
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Seen 'em. Make time.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 12, 2017, 01:49:34 AM
Of all the superhero movies, I have never seen any Marvel group as lame as The Guardians Of The Galaxy. It's like they're a joke you should catch, but not quite any reason to. "I am Groot" all the time? Pleeeeese...
Well, the reverse is true. GotG is more fun than the rest combined.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 12, 2017, 01:49:34 AM
Of all the superhero movies, I have never seen any Marvel group as lame as The Guardians Of The Galaxy. It's like they're a joke you should catch, but not quite any reason to. "I am Groot" all the time? Pleeeeese...
It is a joke. Although, I don't put it in the same category as the superhero genre. It's satire like Kick Ass, Super, or my Super Ex Girlfriend. And I think you are right that it is lame, actually lamer than the superhero mainstays, which are pretty lame to begin with. A guy that flies around in the sky and wears a cape? That's ridiculous. A raccoon and a tree? Even more so.
Or maybe it's not satire. Stan Lee may have developed it because he thought it could reach a much younger demographic, but the 20 and 30 somethings, conditioned to the comic book phenomena, saw something else in the idea. Maybe die hard fans of Stan Lee just have to read everything he produces, like fans of James Michener, or Dostoyevsky. Or maybe Stan Lee just doesn't have what it takes to shed all vestiges of the adult world, and simply can't write something that doesn't have at least a hint of adult appeal.
But I think there's more than that. I was never conditioned to the comics. My parents forbade them. My biggest indulgence is the movies, sitting there in the theater mucking around with the rest of the lowbrows and morons. But I had to learn to let go of my intellectual conditioning to fully enjoy it all. I had to learn to enjoy movies for any reason that might tickle some half buried emotional need. And childhood needs still unsatisfied are some of them, I suppose. One of my favorite modern animations is Inside Out, which attempts to explain childhood needs in the silliest and most childlike way possible, a movie that explains in part, why I like movies that are silly.
Superhero movies are currently my favorite genre. It used to be romantic comedy, which is equally lame and utterly naïve about love, but inspires us to indulge ourselves in the impossible. Except we don't believe in the impossible. We just fantasize about it and enjoy the moment, and we relate to the similar moments we have had in real life. Romantic comedy and superheroes play to those needs.
I have a friend who goes to movies, but has never talked about the superheroes. He likes movies like Manchester by the Sea that probe deep concepts like existentialism, existential angst, and mankind's hopeless condition, even better if they are foreign and require subtitles. Why does he like that stuff? I don't know. I think he takes life too seriously, but I'll never say that to him.
Quote from: SGOS on May 12, 2017, 08:04:29 AMIt is a joke. Although, I don't put it in the same category as the superhero genre. It's satire like Kick Ass, Super, or my Super Ex Girlfriend. And I think you are right that it is lame, actually lamer than the superhero mainstays, which are pretty lame to begin with. A guy that flies around in the sky and wears a cape? That's ridiculous. A raccoon and a tree? Even more so.
It's intentionally outlandish, partly to underscore how strange the universe is (especially to Quill, who's usually the only human in the room) and partially so that writers have a wide berth in what they can do. A sentient, gun-toting racoon and his BFF, a walking, talking tree would be totally ridiculous on Earth. But we're not on Earth. We're somewhere far away, in the middle of Knowhere. We're somewhere where strange is commonplace, normal is strange, and almost anything can happen at any time. A place in need of guardians. That's pretty much the foundation premise of Guardians of the Galaxy.
I saw Guardians II for the second time in 2D, the visual feast at the very end is almost a non-event in 2D, or maybe my initial perception of it was flawed.
In one or two dimensions, however, the way the highly advanced golden people fight their battles in space is extremely clever. Watch for that one.
Guardians of the Galaxy 7/10
Ghost in the Shell 9/10
Life 9/10
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 is hilarious. Don't know how I feel about the frequent dick jokes, though. At one point, Drax just blurts out, "Do you have a penis?" I thought Marvel movies were supposed to be family friendly. Other than that, I had no objections. Very funny. Lots of interesting characters. Character development that is rich and not cliche. As is often the case in these Marvel movies, characters' interactions with each other are the main source of entertainment.
(https://i.imgur.com/8UtUVth_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=high)
Rewatching the original Alien movie: 10/10, it is a classic for a reason. Makes me long for the days of "real" baddies and spaceships instead of CGI, even if it is absolutely beautiful in cases like GotG. There is something just more visceral and real about Alien that appeals to the subconscious as you watch it[size=78%]. [/size]
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 12, 2017, 12:11:38 PMGuardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 is hilarious. Don't know how I feel about the frequent dick jokes, though. At one point, Drax just blurts out, "Do you have a penis?" I thought Marvel movies were supposed to be family friendly.
Well, it does have a serious amount of violence (way more than the previous one) and a pretty long body count, but yeah, those dick jokes are really pushing the boundaries of good taste.
...okay, maybe I came off a little too strong there.
<deploying measured response>
Sure, Marvel movies are family-friendly, to a certain extent. But they've been creeping into more adult territory for a while now. Deadpool is a pretty good example of that. It makes sense that they're starting to aim for a slightly older audience. A big portion of their fans are 30+ now. Besides, GotG is rated PG-13, and I didn't see/hear anything that would push it into R territory.
Guardians of the Galaxy 2. 10/10.
My new favorite Marvel movie. It's on my short list for most enjoyable movies I've ever seen. Even better than the first Guardians of the Galaxy, imo.
It was thrilling. It was adorable. It was funny. It even made me cry. What an emotional rollercoaster!
The action was exciting, and there was way more of it this time around. And the jokes had me laughing out loud, which is weird because I'm normally pretty reserved and the jokes aren't exactly masterpieces on paper. 80% of it was the delivery, imo. Drax's maniacal laugh must be infectious. He could talk about eating a kitten and I'd probably find it hilarious.
I loved how the secondary characters are way more fleshed out and now have their own character arcs! And I was pleasantly surprised to see Ben Browder on the big screen. I could give or take Stallone, though. The Stan Lee cameo was pretty good.
[spoiler]Favorite gag: Drax's dancer/non-dancer speech. His non-dancer wife sounds incredibly sexy.
I'm slowly coming to terms that the movie versions aren't much like their comic book counterparts. Movie Gamora is too goodie-goodie than comics Gamora, and I'm 90% sure comics Gamora never had romantic feelings for Starlord. Drax is far more of a joker than he ever was in the comics. Movie Mantis's naivety and lack of martial arts skill is a big departure from the comics, but it makes sense from her movie backstory.
I wasn't sure about the main villain this time around, I anticipated a pretty mediocre villain. And I've gotta say, this one surprised and impressed me with his sheer power and insidious plot. White isn't a typical look for a big bad, so the big reveal caught me a little off-guard.
I liked how Nebula and Gamora finally hash things out and reconcile the differences, having a little character growth in the process. Nebula's actress, Karen Gillan, friggin killed it.
Favorite action scene: Yondu and Rocket going full-auto on the mutineers. Sweet glorious carnage. And speaking of Yondu, man did he steal the show or what! It's funny how eerily similar Yondu's arc is to Merle's arc from The Walking Dead.
Minor gripe #1: Drax says that Mantis is beautiful on the inside. But it's already established that metaphors go over his head (unless he catches them), so him using a metaphor like that doesn't make sense.
Minor gripe #2: Yondu is apparently cool with the Ravangers now after being exiled for selling kids. What changed? Cause it wasn't the selling kids part. Realistically, they wouldn't be showing up at his funeral. Sure, you could argue that him playing a part in saving the day might've helped change minds, but none of them were there to witness it (except one and I dunno if he'd have much credibility) and there's not a clear causal connection between what's going on there and elsewhere in the galaxy. He'd likely still have a bad rap.
Post-credits scenes: holy smokes, did we get a lot of post-credits scenes! I didn't leave until I saw the ushers come in to clean up. I love how they set things up for Infinity War. Adam Warlock is all set to make his film debut and Nebula's going after Thanos. Infinity War should be amazing.[/spoiler]
I think the standards for PG-13 may have changed since the inception of ratings, although there was something startling about Drax's dick comment to me also. It might be that he's referring to an actual body part, as opposed to one of my favorite lines from the first movie, where John C Reilly is relating a message from Quill to the Novacorps Administrator:
Nova Prime: "Do you think we can trust him?"
Corpsman: "Well,... yes,... I do. He wanted me to relate to you,... and I'm quoting him here,... 'that while I might be an asshole, I'm not one hundred percent, a dick.'"
Which for some totally illogical reason, Quill seemed to think would convince the administrator of his sincerity.
And then of course, the fact that the sequel may have even surpassed the original, gives me hope that failure does not have to be a defining quality of a sequel. A good premise, if given some thought, can work a second time.
Quote from: SGOS on May 14, 2017, 07:13:08 AMI think the standards for PG-13 may have changed since the inception of ratings, although there was something startling about Drax's dick comment to me also. It might be that he's referring to an actual body part
He was. He doesn't (normally) use metaphors, so his comment is 100% literal. He stated that it's normal in his culture to talk openly and directly about sex. He finds it strange that Quill considers it a taboo subject. Perhaps that's a message intended more for the audience than Quill.
I watched LaLa Land....s'okay. I had been drinking a bit all day so I had more than one run to the potty and several to the fridge and a couple to the cubboard for some "kettle style" popcorn. If I missed anything it didn't seem like I did....so....probably something in there that says something..... ..
One last thing about Guardians of the Galaxy 2:
(https://img4.goodfon.com/wallpaper/big/1/2d/guardians-of-the-galaxy-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-groot.jpg)
^ Still image from the trailer. In the actual movie, Groot is not wearing a uniform in this scene.
LITERALLY UNWATCHABLE.
But that would have put time out of joint, unless lil'groot can time travel and break the forth wall
Alien Covenant: Hard to rate. I think I will give it a 7/10. I did find it enjoyable to watch. And, as most reviews point out, Fassbender's dual role is the best part of the movie.
I didn't know it until after seeing the movie, there are at least two "prologues" you can see. One is called "The Last Supper" which is actually a scene cut from the movie that would have been in the beginning. It shows the characters on the Covenant before it launches. Gives more character backstory.
Then there is another "The Crossing" which includes Noomi Rapace's Dr. Shaw. At the end of Prometheus, David just had a head. In "The Crossing", we see Dr. Shaw repairing David.
I found it fun to watch. But, you know too much of what is going to happen. When crew members get infected, what is going to happen? Well, duh! Burst out of course.
Then, at the movie's conclusion, there is a "plot twist" that there should be literally zero people watching the movie not see coming. I guess you are supposed to see it coming. But then why make it as if it is a "twist".
Not everybody is thrilled with the new mythology. Eh, I find it kind of interesting. I'm okay with it. But, does seem overly convoluted.
Scott has said he wants to make several more Alien movies. Not sure if the box office will support his dream. He has said what he wants to make next is Alien Awakening which would actually take place between Prometheus and Covenant. That's right, he wants to make a prequel to a sequel of a prequel.
Fuck :(. Alien is alien... Just let it exist as the masterpiece it is instead of cashing in on it and ruining the franchise.
Angry Joe called it another George Lucas situation (creator drives his/her franchise into the ground with bad installments)
Is he being too harsh?
Quote from: Shiranu on May 21, 2017, 10:48:56 PM
Fuck :(. Alien is alien... Just let it exist as the masterpiece it is instead of cashing in on it and ruining the franchise.
I saw the original in the theater when I was in high school. Personally, I've never understood the idea that new movies somehow "ruin" other movies. If you don't like the new ones, fine. How does that change the old ones? Further, it doesn't seem like a "cash grab" to me. I don't fully understand Ridley Scott's newfound reattachment to the franchise. But they haven't been huge hits and he can probably make more money making other films. I don't fully understand it. But not a "cash grab" as far as I can tell.
There have indeed been many criticisms that exploring the origin isn't necessarily a good idea. Obvious comparisons to Star Wars where it seems clear that learning the origin of Darth Vader was not the wisest course for the franchise. Personally, I think the origin of the aliens is somewhat interesting. Though, I do think it is has been excessively muddied with all the alien-ish aliens that aren't *the* alien.
Bottom line is, I enjoyed Prometheus and Covenant even if they could have been better.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 21, 2017, 11:47:53 PM
Angry Joe called it another George Lucas situation (creator drives his/her franchise into the ground with bad installments)
Is he being too harsh?
I noted in my reply to Shiranu that there certainly are parallels. The Star Wars prequels and the Alien prequels are origin stories that some might say that were better left as mysteries. So, yes, there are parallels in the two franchises. But I damn sure would rather watch Prometheus than The Phantom Menace! And rather watch Covenant than Attack of the Clones.
I like Prometheus and will like covenant, but it's just a fatigue thing. Some things are just suppose to end, and alien after this prologue is over is one of those things. You don't just get tired of seeing the new, knock off feeling things... you get tired of the entire brand.
Funny thing with the star wars prequels, how could anyone not have predicted there creation, when the original movies were episodes 4, 5, and 6? It was a forgone conclusion Lucas would want them made eventually.
Quote from: Munch on May 22, 2017, 03:02:20 AM
Funny thing with the star wars prequels, how could anyone not have predicted there creation, when the original movies were episodes 4, 5, and 6? It was a forgone conclusion Lucas would want them made eventually.
At the time of the second Star Wars ... there were magazine articles interviewing George Lucas ... that clarified ... that there would be three prequels and three post-quells ... the only surprise being how long it has taken for him to get them out. The prequels were supposed to be released 1983 - 1987 and the post-quells 1989 - 1993.
If you're familiar with Groot's history you'd find his current incarnation rather odd.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 21, 2017, 10:48:56 PM
Fuck :(. Alien is alien... Just let it exist as the masterpiece it is instead of cashing in on it and ruining the franchise.
Movies aren't sacred.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 22, 2017, 08:56:59 AMIf you're familiar with Groot's history you'd find his current incarnation rather odd.
Yeah, but the invader Groot isn't necessarily the same individual as the GotG Groot. I believe the alternate origin story where GotG Groot was exiled from his homeworld and eventually became Rocket's bodyguard/BFF.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 22, 2017, 10:00:46 AM
Yeah, but the invader Groot isn't necessarily the same individual as the GotG Groot. I believe the alternate origin story where GotG Groot was exiled from his homeworld and eventually became Rocket's bodyguard/BFF.
Just saw the backstory in a Youtube, so I'm sure you're more correct about this.
Quote from: Munch on May 22, 2017, 03:02:20 AM
Funny thing with the star wars prequels, how could anyone not have predicted there creation, when the original movies were episodes 4, 5, and 6? It was a forgone conclusion Lucas would want them made eventually.
Yeah, the idea of there being a full set of 9 movies was much talked about back in the '80s. But after so many years past, it seemed like they were never going to happen. When they actually did happen, I was surprised even though I knew they had been planned, at least at a time.
After the prequels finished he said, yeah, he talked about episodes 7-9 back in the day, but, he never really had full stories fleshed out and just wasn't going to do them. And so it looked like 7-9 would never happen, until Disney bought Lucasfilm.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 22, 2017, 12:53:49 AM
I like Prometheus and will like covenant, but it's just a fatigue thing. Some things are just suppose to end, and alien after this prologue is over is one of those things. You don't just get tired of seeing the new, knock off feeling things... you get tired of the entire brand.
People always say, gee, why doesn't Hollywood do anything new? Thing is, new things are always a higher gamble. We can look at flops, and people will say, "well, they flopped cuz they sucked". That may be, but lots of sucky things also sell. Its just hard to predict what will sell when looking at new properties. You make a Star Wars movie, you know you are going to make a billion. You make a Star Battle movie and maybe it makes a billion, or maybe it makes ten bucks. And the "Star Battle" might be just as good or better. But its not Wars.
You can predict to a fair degree how much you can expect at the box office with a known property. Not always of course. Known properties sometimes tank. But, you have higher degree of predictability. And if you are investing dollars, you like predictable returns.
If everybody went to a couple a movies a week, new properties and old properties, you wouldn't have as many sequels.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 22, 2017, 11:00:26 PMPeople always say, gee, why doesn't Hollywood do anything new? Thing is, new things are always a higher gamble. We can look at flops, and people will say, "well, they flopped cuz they sucked". That may be, but lots of sucky things also sell. Its just hard to predict what will sell when looking at new properties. You make a Star Wars movie, you know you are going to make a billion. You make a Star Battle movie and maybe it makes a billion, or maybe it makes ten bucks. And the "Star Battle" might be just as good or better. But its not Wars.
You can predict to a fair degree how much you can expect at the box office with a known property. Not always of course. Known properties sometimes tank. But, you have higher degree of predictability. And if you are investing dollars, you like predictable returns.
If everybody went to a couple a movies a week, new properties and old properties, you wouldn't have as many sequels.
I agree with that to a certain extent, and I could understand Hollywood pushing franchises pretty hard. But Hollywood has since taken that to a whole new level (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/54f69af6e4b00ed71355a46e/1425447670137/the-decline-of-original-movies-infographic-geektyrant.png). It's like pushing pine needles into solid titanium. And that's with outdated info. I'd love to see an updated version and see what's changed since then.
And this strat isn't working (http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-summer-box-office-20170505-story.html). I've seen projections of up to 10% slump this year compared to last year. And one of the reasons offered is franchise fatigue. Nowadays, I brace for terrible reviews whenever I see new sequels coming out (with the notable exceptions of Marvel and Star Wars). I see a wretched parade of franchises that used to be glorious (or at least passable) get all the life sucked out of them with one terrible sequel after another. Shambling and chained shadows of what they once were: Resident Evil, Pirates of the Caribbean, Underworld, Terminator, etc. I also see stuff that never struck me as any good inexplicably still very much alive: Transformers, Alvin and the Chipmunks, 50 Shades of Grey, the Fast and the Furious, etc.
As a child, I used to see stuff get cancelled and wonder why it couldn't survive. Now I see stuff still alive and wonder why it can't die. *coughTheSimpsonscough*
And besides, I don't buy this argument that putting out original stuff is too risky. No other creative industry (books, music, tv, video games, etc) seems to be quite as originality-averse as Hollywood. Case in point, Netflix has been trying out a bunch of original content and it's been working out pretty nicely for them. Apples to oranges comparison maybe, but imo shows like Stranger Things could've just as easily been a movie, provided there was anyone at Hollywood willing to give it a shot. Same with Westworld. Or Breaking Bad. How many smash hits has Hollywood let slip through its fingers? How many authors have smash hits in their hands that'll never come to pass? Meanwhile, we have brilliant stuff like the emoji movie getting the green light.
India is the movie capital of the world. Bollywood. America needs to pull its head out of its ass. Exceptional? Not.
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/box-office-alien-covenant-underwhelms-with-36m-debut/
Aliens is the most popular new opening now. I'm thinking about seeing it just for something to do. But I've never been a big fan, and the opening hasn't exactly set the box offices on fire. The alien series have been marginally interesting to me, but not in very creative ways. Prometheus kept my attention by the stupidity of the characters who when instructed not to touch anything start touching things which of course unleashes horror. But it's the old horror scenario, where they guy tells the girl to stay in the room, and don't open the door, so of course she has to leave the room to go look for the guy after 30 seconds. It makes me wonder how that guy managed to disappear in such a hurry. The house certainly can't be that big, but he's not around for the next 10 minutes as the girl opens every door in the house and then ends up going down into the basement for reasons that can only be explained by an unconscious death wish. It's like she's never seen a horror movie before, and makes all the obvious mistakes.
I do give kudos for the opening scene in Prometheus, although I've never figured out how it relates to the rest of the movie, but the scenery is both wonderful and eerie and creates a visceral experience which I can't explain. But the end that dresses up Guy Pearce in old man skin is so unconvincing that I leave feeling gipped, like I've been watching a stage play.
But it's raining today, and I kind of need to get out of the house, and the popcorn is always good at the theater. But I haven't decided if I want to take the drive yet.
Finally watched Rogue One yesterday. It was alright.
Alien 7/10
Better than I thought it would be. Creepy as always.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 23, 2017, 01:42:58 PM
I do give kudos for the opening scene in Prometheus, although I've never figured out how it relates to the rest of the movie, but the scenery is both wonderful and eerie and creates a visceral experience which I can't explain.
Ridley Scott has said that's Earth, "way back when."
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 23, 2017, 09:35:56 PM
Ridley Scott has said that's Earth, "way back when."
How did you fuck up your quotes so bad that you got SGOS' statement being attributed to me?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 23, 2017, 01:42:58 PM
Finally watched Rogue One yesterday. It was alright.
I really enjoyed the movie, even though a few scenes didn't really make any sense. And seeing the reminded me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agcRwGDKulw
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 24, 2017, 11:29:19 AM
I really enjoyed the movie, even though a few scenes didn't really make any sense.
Well it's Gareth Edwards. He's the master of making hit films that make no sense; just look at his Godzilla movie.
Looper (2012) - 7/10
Exactly how does time travel work anyways?
Pirates of the Caribbean. 30% on Rotten Tomatoes (11 points higher than Baywatch). I think I'll pass this time. I liked the first one, but the franchise went from unique to stale after that. Surely, Johnny Depp can find better things to do.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 25, 2017, 03:37:42 PM
Exactly how does time travel work anyways?
You can spin counterclockwise at the speed of light.
You can slingshot around the Sun in a Klingon ship.
You can fold space/time and do the burrito jump.
You can sit in an overstuffed chair with a throttle, blinking lights, and a spinning colander thing behind you.
There are probably other ways too. It's actually not that hard.
My Wonder Woman hype is getting too real.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 26, 2017, 11:00:21 AM
My Wonder Woman hype is getting too real.
I've gotten a really pleasant visceral experience from the trailer I saw. I'm looking forward to it with a lot of anticipation. Since Guardians II, there has been kind of a dry spell at the theaters for me.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 26, 2017, 11:00:21 AM
My Wonder Woman hype is getting too real.
If you prefer Wonder Man ... then that is OK too ;-)
Beauty and the beast, starring Emma watson.
The GF and I've been working on our house a lot as of late and decided to make some time for ourselves and go to the cinema.
I wasn't too excited about this. I'd have prefered Alien Covenant, but I'll be seeing that with my dad most like and besides, the gf wouldn't have enjoyed it one bit, I'm betting.
Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised by the film. It was great for what it was. And it was clear a lot of love and passion and respect for the classic went into this one. Also the first flick with Emma Watson I've seen that doesn't feature her as a witch. It was nice to see she's more than a one-trick pony. Hoping to see her in more films.
Watched previews of B & the B ... but I like musicals and fairy tales. A beautiful young woman always turns my head ;-)
Logan..though I admit I watched it with just as many pee breaks as I would if it was a show about peeing, I was not all that into it. So it was somewhat captivating but because quite simply.....I paid 3 bucks for it so........meh
Quote from: SGOS on May 26, 2017, 09:51:15 AM
I liked the first one, but the franchise went from unique to stale after that. Surely, Johnny Depp can find better things to do.
I know that is the general consensus among most movie viewers. For me, when I watched the first, sure, I liked Johnny Depp's character. Yet, most of its jokes just didn't work for me. The second one, well, it often felt excessively drawn out and could use some editing. Yet, more of the humor worked for me. So, overall, I'd say I liked the second one better. Never saw 3 or 4. No interest in seeing 5. Not anymore anyway. The trailer actually looked good. And a couple of early reviews I saw were mostly positive. So, I though, well, maybe I'll see it. But now that consensus is that it is even worse than before, I'll pass.
As far as Depp finding better things to do.... well, I certainly remember the day when he eschewed "blockbuster" type movies, wanting to be more of an "artist". Ancient history now, eh? It seems he has gotten addicted to an extravagant lifestyle that would have made Michael Jackson say, "reel it back a notch, dude". Meanwhile, moviegoers seem to have gotten tired of his shtick. And Pirates will surely have lower box-office than previous installments. It has grown tired. And yet, I suspect, he can still get a bigger paycheck doing more Pirates than about anything else. So, expect more Pirates movies...
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 27, 2017, 10:21:20 PM
As far as Depp finding better things to do.... well, I certainly remember the day when he eschewed "blockbuster" type movies, wanting to be more of an "artist". Ancient history now, eh?
I guess you could call him an artist (he does have a lot of talent, and he can be very convincing), but early on, I thought of him as a marginal actor because he was always playing quirky characters that most actors would shy away from. Now, I think he actually sought those roles out.
The first time I stood up and took notice of him was in the movie, Blow. He played such a convincing role as a drug runner that I thought he was some new actor I had never seen before. Then I saw his name in the credits at the end of the movie, and I couldn't believe it was Johnny Depp. I kept thinking he was out of character playing a serious role, and didn't even look like Johnny Depp because he wasn't wearing some weird clownish outfit with his face painted, and that was when it dawned on me that he was really a serious actor. I don't know why he messes around so much with the odd ball stuff. Just his thing, I guess.
Remember Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? I didn't know it was him until the end of the movie either, but in that film, he was pure quirky.
I enjoyed the new Wonder Woman. Of course that come as no surprise to some of you. I think the woman cast for the part ... she is poured into her outfit ... is a very good pick. Sorry, no hints, you will have to see it for yourself.
I thought I posted a 10/10 rating for Wonder Woman. I wonder if I put it in the wrong thread. Good movie.
Just saw it tonight. Really enjoyed it and the gal is smokin hot. Fun movie, 10/10 from me as well.
And even if she wasn't smokin' hot, she would still be downright loveable. Of course smokin' hot doesn't hurt either.
Last I looked, Rotten Tomatoes rated Wonder Woman at 93%. Not sure how they compile their data, but I think it means 93 our of 100 critics give it a thumbs up, because some critics don't assign a numerical rating to their review. So I'm guessing that someone at Tomatoes reads each review and sorts the thrust of each review into the fresh category or the rotten category. Wonder Woman had 16 reviews judged as negative and labeling WW as "rotten" out of a total of 228.
I was curious what a rotten review would look like, so I read three of the negative reviews. I didn't read all the negative reviews because there were 13 pages of reviews, some pages having no "rotten" rated review at all. What I found was that the critics considered to have given WW a negative rating seemed to like the movie, and usually seemed to like it a lot, often offering generous praises with perhaps one area of minor criticism, so someone at Tomatoes was reading a seemingly generous review as negative. At any rate, a mathematical computation used to arrive a percentage seems heavily influenced by a subjective opinion about what is someone else's subjective opinion to begin with.
Everything doesn't translate well into math. I still think Tomatoes is the most helpful rating site out there. It considers a large number of reviews, and actually prints each of the reviews. There is one site; I can't remember it's name, but it claims to be a theater exit poll, which has the built in bias of only interviewing people who wanted to see the movie. In addition, it uses an ABCDF grading system, but only gives out As, Bs, and Cs, with rare exceptions for anything below that. And I usually disagreed with that site more that Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb. I'm guessing it's funded by the movie industry.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 23, 2017, 10:48:52 PM
How did you fuck up your quotes so bad that you got SGOS' statement being attributed to me?
Great skill and utter determination, of course.
I actually had to backup through the thread to find the post in question, and I still didn't find it. I didn't look all that hard so I'll assume it happened somewhere. I know I've done the same thing myself, so I'm not going to take offense.
Quote from: SGOS on June 03, 2017, 10:09:00 PM
I thought I posted a 10/10 rating for Wonder Woman. I wonder if I put it in the wrong thread. Good movie.
Parallel universe ;-)
Who won't like Wonder Woman? Feminists for instance ... they would be supportive of the woman mad scientist character ;-(
The emotional arc is from utopian idealism, to hard cynicism, to pragmatic hope. Some people are ideologically opposed to that. I found it directly relevant to my emotional journey thru life. A few women are shield maidens ... but most of them won't be. So one has to take care with building role models from fiction.
Quote from: Baruch on June 04, 2017, 10:38:08 AM
Parallel universe ;-)
Who won't like Wonder Woman? Feminists for instance ... they would be supportive of the woman mad scientist character ;-(
The emotional arc is from utopian idealism, to hard cynicism, to pragmatic hope. Some people are ideologically opposed to that. I found it directly relevant to my emotional journey thru life. A few women are shield maidens ... but most of them won't be. So one has to take care with building role models from fiction.
I had a similar reaction while watching the movie. I adored Wonder Woman, and I was wondering if my reaction would be considered politically incorrect. She was almost a perfect fit for my male fantasies. She had every admirable female trait in my fantasy expectations rolled into one perfect female. I can excuse it as just a fantasy. No female in reality could be so perfect. I also wondered if the movie reflected the feeling of the original comics. I've never read a Wonder Woman comic from the 50s and 60s. Was that Wonder Woman more bash, thrash, and God bless America than the one in the movie?
I kept thinking my ex would be pissed off about the movie. But she is an old school feminist dating back to the 70s, the kind that would tear your head off for having any expectation whatsoever about female behavior. However, feminism seems to have changed over the years, with women being more accepting of other females choosing who they want to be, even if being pleasing to men happens to be one of their primary goals. And in recent years, I have met such women. I find them delightful.
A friend of mine long back in the 70s mentioned one time, "Some women really like men. They like the whole idea of men in general." I never forgot that comment, probably because it was somewhat inconsistent with my perception of the women I was surrounded by in college in those years. What would be the feminist reaction to the movie be today? I'd like to see some polling data, not just a poll of those women who identify themselves as feminists, but women in general. Perhaps the poll could be broken down into sub sets.
Never got into reading wonder woman comics, though I liked her in the justice league unlimited series.
Quote from: SGOS on June 04, 2017, 11:11:35 AM
A friend of mine long back in the 70s mentioned one time, "Some women really like men. They like the whole idea of men in general."
It occurred to me as well, many years ago, that the feminists of the late 70's 80's were really only "feminist" to men their age or younger, or the older obvious male chauvinists. The "typical" male and all his "typical" leanings were quite "liked" as long as they were 8 to 10 years older and with some type of status. One particular hot gal who was 3 years older than me when I started collage, and very obvious as to her distain for men in general but younger men in particular, found herself openly chasing an man 10 years her senior who status was that of a simple disc jockey in a small collage town. She paraded about with him as if she conquered him, when the rest of us knew she simply fulfilled his fantasy, he moved on, she morphed into a ditto head's "Femi-nazi".
Quote from: SGOS on June 04, 2017, 11:11:35 AM
I had a similar reaction while watching the movie. I adored Wonder Woman, and I was wondering if my reaction would be considered politically incorrect. She was almost a perfect fit for my male fantasies. She had every admirable female trait in my fantasy expectations rolled into one perfect female. I can excuse it as just a fantasy. No female in reality could be so perfect. I also wondered if the movie reflected the feeling of the original comics. I've never read a Wonder Woman comic from the 50s and 60s. Was that Wonder Woman more bash, thrash, and God bless America than the one in the movie?
I kept thinking my ex would be pissed off about the movie. But she is an old school feminist dating back to the 70s, the kind that would tear your head off for having any expectation whatsoever about female behavior. However, feminism seems to have changed over the years, with women being more accepting of other females choosing who they want to be, even if being pleasing to men happens to be one of their primary goals. And in recent years, I have met such women. I find them delightful.
A friend of mine long back in the 70s mentioned one time, "Some women really like men. They like the whole idea of men in general." I never forgot that comment, probably because it was somewhat inconsistent with my perception of the women I was surrounded by in college in those years. What would be the feminist reaction to the movie be today? I'd like to see some polling data, not just a poll of those women who identify themselves as feminists, but women in general. Perhaps the poll could be broken down into sub sets.
My ex is similar, ideologically and generationally. Though perhaps more quiet and less militant, but definitely dismissive of men in general. As a poll, I will mention that the post Millennial generation (18 or younger) is very conservative compared to the Millennials. It is relatively speaking, a 180 degree turn. My daughter is a Millennial, and not surprising is much like her mother ... that is my personal datum. I think that my daughter is more of an individualist, that she isn't ready to exchange one conformity with another. I don't know why women's culture has changed back and forth so much in the last 150 years ... though I think it is good that the corset and hoop skirt have been abandoned ;-) As Wonder Woman says while trying on conventional feminine costume ... how can a warrior fight in this? As Freud said ... "What do women want?".
One small but thoughtful device used in Wonder Woman that truly captures the feeling of the comics is slowing down the camera every time Diana does one of her Wonder Woman leaps as she begins her attack. She leaps high in a hundred yard arc frozen in the classic comic book pose holding her shield in front and her other arm brandishing a weighty sword toward the heavens, one leg pointed toward the ground and the other with knee bent and a partially bared thigh and calf sporting a sexy boot of armor behind her like a rudder guiding her flight. While I haven't read the comics, I've seen this classic pose somewhere, perhaps on the cover of the comic. It's an absurd fantasy, but foretells of the wrath she is about to unleash on the wicked.
(http://img15.deviantart.net/805f/i/2017/002/1/6/wonder_woman_fan_art__for_print_by_brianfajardo-dau1frs.jpg)
(http://img08.deviantart.net/0b4b/i/2015/268/4/2/wonder_woman_by_yosarian13-d9atgog.jpg)
Saw Wonder Woman. It is good, no doubt. The big battle scene with the main villain was boring to me, seen too many similar scenes. But everything else was good.
Logan - 6/10
a bit overrated, IMO.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on June 04, 2017, 06:35:44 PM
The big battle scene with the main villain was boring to me, seen too many similar scenes. But everything else was good.
I remember thinking it was time for the movie to end, but I knew it wasn't over because the first guy went down too easy. Maybe they could have just made the first guy some science nobody and dispensed with the first fight altogether. The second guy was the better villain. He was making me nervous even when I thought he was the good guy.
One thing I forgot to mention... how come WW kills dozens of people with her sword, and we see not one drop of blood? Honestly, I realize that if they tried to make the killing realistic based on how they were stabbed, it would be a bloodbath, and they couldn't have that. So, I understand. Yet, it was still pretty glaring to me how bloodless it was. In fact...
[spoiler]
There is a scene where WW stabs one of the bad guys right through his chest and the blade goes through the floor beneath him. Moments later, you see from the floor below the blade sticking through the ceiling. Not a drop of blood on it.
[/spoiler]
So, I get why they had to "sanitize" it, but, I still found it glaring.
Quote from: SGOS on June 04, 2017, 10:04:28 AM
I actually had to backup through the thread to find the post in question, and I still didn't find it. I didn't look all that hard so I'll assume it happened somewhere. I know I've done the same thing myself, so I'm not going to take offense.
Certainly none intended.
Quote from: SGOS on June 04, 2017, 07:46:00 PM
I remember thinking it was time for the movie to end, but I knew it wasn't over because the first guy went down too easy. Maybe they could have just made the first guy some science nobody and dispensed with the first fight altogether. The second guy was the better villain. He was making me nervous even when I thought he was the good guy.
Remus Lupin is a bad ass. ;)
I told the wife he was the MV early on. Never bet on the obvious bad guy.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on June 05, 2017, 02:54:13 AM
One thing I forgot to mention... how come WW kills dozens of people with her sword, and we see not one drop of blood? Honestly, I realize that if they tried to make the killing realistic based on how they were stabbed, it would be a bloodbath, and they couldn't have that. So, I understand. Yet, it was still pretty glaring to me how bloodless it was. In fact...
[spoiler]
There is a scene where WW stabs one of the bad guys right through his chest and the blade goes through the floor beneath him. Moments later, you see from the floor below the blade sticking through the ceiling. Not a drop of blood on it.
[/spoiler]
So, I get why they had to "sanitize" it, but, I still found it glaring.
There is a shortage of ketchup in Hollywood, and blood isn't PC anymore. So the actors are doing all they can, eating lots of french fries with ketchup, doing their bit to create an artificial shortage ;-)
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on June 05, 2017, 02:54:13 AM
how come WW kills dozens of people with her sword, and we see not one drop of blood?
So, I get why they had to "sanitize" it, but, I still found it glaring.
It's the director. They should have hired Mel Gibson to design the carnage scenes.
Moana - 7/10
Touchy-feely-goody-two-shoes movie. Amazing how they were able to navigate through and avoid all the nasty stuff in the real world. The dumb chicken was a constant reminder of this.
That dumb chicken is actually her brother.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 09, 2017, 08:04:58 AM
That dumb chicken is actually her brother.
DID YOU JUST ASSUME THAT CHICKEN'S GENDER, YOU FUCKING SHITLORD!?/s
If you hear a cackle then it is a hen. Not one cackle, has to be a rooster ... the god guy can change form ... he isn't the chicken
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsKMIwD-Bt8
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mummy-tom-cruise-needs-get-back-acting-1011529
QuoteAfter roughly 40 films made across 35 years, Tom Cruise has starred in notably few absolute stinkers. Sure, Cocktail, Vanilla Sky, Lions for Lambs and Knight and Day were pretty bad but, by and large, he's maintained a pretty good batting average. Certainly nothing he's ever done before compares in its absolute awfulness to his latest, The Mummy. As we fled the screening the other night, my son quipped that we had just witnessed the collision of the Hindenburg and the Titanic, while my first thought was that the film should go directly to its proper home on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
I'm not going to see this at the theater, because of the rotten reviews, and because I haven't really enjoyed any of the Mummy movies in the last 20 years. I thought the original Boris Karloff Mummy was very good when I was a kid, but what surprised me here was that the list of Tom Cruise stinkers included Vanilla Sky.
I thought Vanilla Sky was very good. While Critics gave it a 42% on Rotten Tomatoes, audiences gave it a 72%. I would have given it 80% because I thought it was highly creative, although that was mostly the director and writers. The long interwoven interviews with the main character in that prison cell did drag somewhat, and I thought the movie would have been better without any of them.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 09, 2017, 09:09:17 AM
DID YOU JUST ASSUME THAT CHICKEN'S GENDER, YOU FUCKING SHITLORD!?
/s
No, Polynesian folklore did.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 09, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
No, Polynesian folklore did.
I should have known. Kamehameha is always a dick to me in Civ 5.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I liked Night and Day....sometimes peeps overthink this shit. Its a movie, fall in with the fantasy and try to have fun. Even the worst is still better than "swamp people" wtf is going on?
"Had" to watch the new Beauty and the beast.....meh.....the cartoon version was better.
So its finally happened, the gay community did something that made me cringe :S
I've seen and supported a lot from it, though not really been part of 'the community' for a while, but I've always backed it being gay myself..
Until today :S
They took this.
(http://www.spiralnature.com/wp-content/uploads/babadook-title.png)
(https://a.wattpad.com/cover/42264511-352-k497620.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TA-5e200suw/maxresdefault.jpg)
And did this to him..
(https://i1.wp.com/bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ba1.jpg?resize=700%2C871)
(http://cdn.pinknews.co.uk/images/2017/06/miles-jai-babadook-1.jpg)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/e4a7d5527725fa783f21febd5a877b97/tumblr_or8p8uw4Do1r6q8euo1_1280.jpg)
Its like turning marilyn manson into the face of the Disney channel unironically
Then again this comes from buzzfeed so no surprise there
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomvellner/i-am-babashook?utm_term=.lvjy32Y3w#.lvjy32Y3w
Quote from: Munch on June 12, 2017, 05:51:05 AM
So its finally happened, the gay community did something that made me cringe :S
I've seen and supported a lot from it, though not really been part of 'the community' for a while, but I've always backed it being gay myself..
Until today :S
They took this.
(http://www.spiralnature.com/wp-content/uploads/babadook-title.png)
(https://a.wattpad.com/cover/42264511-352-k497620.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TA-5e200suw/maxresdefault.jpg)
And did this to him..
(https://i1.wp.com/bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ba1.jpg?resize=700%2C871)
(http://cdn.pinknews.co.uk/images/2017/06/miles-jai-babadook-1.jpg)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/e4a7d5527725fa783f21febd5a877b97/tumblr_or8p8uw4Do1r6q8euo1_1280.jpg)
Its like turning marilyn manson into the face of the Disney channel unironically
Then again this comes from buzzfeed so no surprise there
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomvellner/i-am-babashook?utm_term=.lvjy32Y3w#.lvjy32Y3w
I'd still fap to it.
Logan. 4/10. Yes, I'm serious.
I went to this movie wanting to like it. I truly did. Everyone I know online who saw it liked it. It has a score of 93 with critics and 91 with the audience on Rotten Tomatoes. This is a beloved movie. Generally, the crowd doesn't steer me wrong, at least when it comes to movies.
Imagine my shock at having a completely different take-away. I feel like I've been taking crazy pills.
Allow me to explain.
I didn't really care about any of the characters (I'm on record as generally not liking Wolverine, but I don't dislike him to the extent of disliking everything he's in. He was pretty much the only character I even mildly cared about this time around).
The plot was an extremely predictable. We're talking MacGuffin and Chekov's bullet stuff. Really hacky stuff. I just read an issue of Old Man Logan to try to compare. The comic was far more impressive.
I love blood and gore as much as the next guy, but god damn, seeing dozens of face-stabbings was just downright unpleasant. I dunno why. Deadpool was pretty bloody as well but it was somehow way less off-putting.
Was the movie supposed to be a political allegory? Because I got a big immigrant/refugee crisis vibe while watching it. Just curious if that was the intent. There was also a Fury Road / Terminator vibe but in a bad way - like most of the movie was one drawn-out chase scene that just didn't jell correctly.
I wasn't moved one bit by any of the deaths because I know they'll return later on. Death is cheap when it comes to Marvel characters.
But the thing that really poured salt into the wound was Logan dismissing comic books as "icecream for bed-wetters".
WTF.
I know they're going for a gritty, realistic feel and Logan would have a pretty cynical take on the idealism of superhero comics, but this just came across as a mean-spirited insult to their fans. It'd be like a wrestler in the square circle telling wrestling fans that wrestling is fake and they're idiots for thinking otherwise. And not just any wrestler, but John Cena and to a crowd including children with leukemia. And strangely enough, there's actually a kid in the movie with a Wolverine action figure who seems to directly contradict that bed-wetter assertion, so it's an insult that refutes itself.
Also, I scoured the web for Eden, because I figured that comic would be the one good thing to come out of this bad movie. Doesn't exist. Made up just for the film. Mucho disappointment.
[spoiler]Dramatis personae:
Logan (aka Mr Frustrated). Perpetually put-upon. Moody. Kind of an asshole. Memorable quote: "Shit." Has an undiagnosed medical problem that is brought up but apparently never addressed. (Cut content?)
Professor X (Taco Bell spokesman and guy putting demands on Logan like an asshole) May be an actual asshole. Power: Mindquake AoE that just happens to go off at an extremely opportune time. *feigned shock and surprise*
Arya with knives for hands. Screams. Rips out hearts. Screams in Spanish. Poster child of muscles are meaningless (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MusclesAreMeaningless).
Caliban. ??? Hates cleaning up blood and reacts about the same way as me to direct sunlight. Aside from that, this guy is utterly unknown to me. Did they explain who he is and what he wants before the movie and I just missed it or something?
Man with bionic hand. ??? Name: ? Goal: wants the girl. No wait, that's an objective. What does he actually want? Haven't the foggiest. Qui-Gon Gin was a more fleshed-out character than this guy. Francis from Deadpool was a way more compelling villain than this guy. The chicken from Family Guy was a more compelling villain than this guy.
All the other characters are all just a blur of blood and viscera. So out of 5 characters, I know jack about 2 and really dislike the remaining 3 in different ways. I think one of them may have actually had something approaching a character arc. And it's not that one, it's the other one. Yeah, the Prof.
All in all, a pretty bad showing in the character department.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Munch on June 12, 2017, 05:51:05 AM
So its finally happened, the gay community did something that made me cringe :S
I've seen and supported a lot from it, though not really been part of 'the community' for a while, but I've always backed it being gay myself..
Until today :S
They took this.
(http://www.spiralnature.com/wp-content/uploads/babadook-title.png)
(https://a.wattpad.com/cover/42264511-352-k497620.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TA-5e200suw/maxresdefault.jpg)
And did this to him..
(https://i1.wp.com/bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ba1.jpg?resize=700%2C871)
(http://cdn.pinknews.co.uk/images/2017/06/miles-jai-babadook-1.jpg)
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/e4a7d5527725fa783f21febd5a877b97/tumblr_or8p8uw4Do1r6q8euo1_1280.jpg)
Its like turning marilyn manson into the face of the Disney channel unironically
Then again this comes from buzzfeed so no surprise there
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomvellner/i-am-babashook?utm_term=.lvjy32Y3w#.lvjy32Y3w
That's hilarious.
Logan is quite the shitfest of a movie.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 19, 2017, 12:20:44 AM
Logan. 4/10. Yes, I'm serious.
I went to this movie wanting to like it.
If X-Men were a genre of it's own, Logan would be a different genre. It doesn't follow the theme of an assortment of mutants working collectively to fit into a hostile society. We could invent another genre, one called the "old man protecting young girl on perilous journey" genre. I call this a genre, because I've seen it done several times. I've seen it enough times that it's starting to get stale, and Logan would have been better had it been done earlier.
If you wanted to introduce a newcomer to the X-Men, Logan wouldn't be a good place to start. It's just one strange guy doing something else, and the newcomer would ask, "Why to they call Logan the X-Men?. He's just one guy. The X-
MAN maybe, but then why do they also call him the Wolverine? I get Wolverine. He has claws and a testy disposition. But the X-Man?"
The question might be how well does Logan do the "older man guiding younger girl on perilous journey" shtick? And by the time I get that far into the analysis, I'm confused about what's supposed to happen in an X-Men movie. My focus is lost, and it's like I'm deducting points from the Exorcist because it's not a very good romantic comedy.
Quote from: SGOS on June 19, 2017, 06:58:41 AMIf X-Men were a genre of it's own, Logan would be a different genre.
Yeah. Some of the reviews praised how different it was from other superhero movies - one even implied that the other movies are just pablum for kids while Logan is a more "mature" story for adults. I'm not sure what exactly was mature about it, except from drinking away one's problems and pushing people away. Being "mature" sounds like a real blast.
Apparently, the pitch was to make a superhero movie for people who don't like superhero movies. Not sure about the marketing wisdom in that, personally.
QuoteWe could invent another genre, one called the "old man protecting young girl on perilous journey" genre. I call this a genre, because I've seen it done several times.
Same here. Many, many times. Probably too many times. But I've seen it done better and with Wolverine. He's often put in that sort of role. This one didn't really work.
You know what I really could have gone for? The Cable/Hope one - the Messiah Complex story. Now that was a good "old man protecting young girl on perilous journey" story. Someone needs to adapt that after Cable is introduced to moviegoers in Deadpool 2.
Went to the annual Smithee Awards (http://smitheeawards.com/) on Thursday (MegaMeta Smithees) and Friday (26th Annual (regular) Smithees). I always have a great time; the movies are for the most part of the "so bad it's good (or at least hilariously awful)" calibre.
It's pretty sad when on a year by year basis, I find the so-called 'bad' movies infinitely more entertaining than the shit Hollywood foists on us.
Quote from: trdsf on June 19, 2017, 01:04:43 PM
Went to the annual Smithee Awards (http://smitheeawards.com/) on Thursday (MegaMeta Smithees) and Friday (26th Annual (regular) Smithees). I always have a great time; the movies are for the most part of the "so bad it's good (or at least hilariously awful)" calibre.
Any favorites?
The list at the website has Doghouse, which has a familiar face from Doctor Who - Noel Clarke. Poor guy. :(
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 19, 2017, 06:56:40 PM
Any favorites?
The list at the website has Doghouse, which has a familiar face from Doctor Who - Noel Clarke. Poor guy. :(
Yeah, that was very much not a good movie; I don't remember seeing Noel in it, though.
They haven't posted the 'winners' yet and my checklist from the voting is at home. I can cobble together a list then; it'll refresh my memory.
Now, next year is the first UltraMegaMeta Smithees -- there are now five MegaMeta "winners", and we're going all the way back to the beginnings of the Smithee Awards to see who's the mostest awfulest (so far). And that's going to mean the return of several Ed Wood classics from the early years. Although
Hard Rock Zombies (http://smitheeawards.com/film_details.cfm?Film_ID=872) is gonna be really difficult to beat in 'Worst Premise'...
Megan Leavey 7/10
Recommended for dog people. Bomb sniffing German Sheppard connects with female Marine handler. I'm not really into the Sheppard, but it held my attention, and was enjoyable.
The extended version of "Dune" was directed by Alan Smithee. Had to have it for my Smithee collection.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 23, 2017, 01:28:45 PM
The extended version of "Dune" was directed by Alan Smithee. Had to have it for my Smithee collection.
Still sniffing Spice? ;-)
Cheating as usual:
RWBY Volume 4 came in my mail the other day. It blows my mind how much they continue to improve the animation with each passing volume. Jen Taylor is also playing an actual character now instead of just being a mysterious narrator; the evil mastermind, to be precise. There's also a new Grimm pulled out of some rather obscure Scottish mythology. I won't give it away, but god damn that thing's scream gave me nightmares.
Transformers: The Fallen
No rating. I'm not even going to see it. I was impressed with the first movie, so impressed that I went to all the rest, except for the current one. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 15%. The clever story telling in Film #1 was replaced by machines bashing each other. Bashing machines were an important aspect of the first movie to be sure, but along with a well thought out story, there was a definite need for the bashing.
So based on the entertainment provided me in Film #1, I kept going to the rest of the films looking for the franchise to regain a footing. While anything can be possible, within limits, I've developed a mindset that another good Transformers movie is unfortunately impossible. It's like it simply can't be done as if some law of the universe dictates this. OK, it could be done, but Hollywood seems to be determined not to allow it to happen, and they have the power to insure that it won't, and you can't argue with Hollywood when they set their mind to something.
While I'm obviously a big fan of film, I usually don't care what Hollywood puts out. If they put out a stinker, it's no skin off my nose, but I have to honestly confess, that somewhere around Transformers III, I really wished with all my heart that Hollywood would stop making Transformer movies, not because I cared about what Hollywood does or the franchise itself, but that I seemed to have lost all self control and was buying tickets to the Transformers because of an irrational desire that they would stop getting progressively worse. It was deranged compulsive behavior which I think I have finally cured. Specifically, I have just accepted the fact that there will never be another Transformers that I can stay awake through. It was so bad at the last one, that I fell asleep while still holding a half a box of popcorn. I woke up somewhere in the middle with popcorn spilled all over my lap. I brushed if off and went back to sleep.
Quote from: SGOS on June 24, 2017, 01:09:13 PM
Transformers: The Fallen
No rating. I'm not even going to see it. I was impressed with the first movie, so impressed that I went to all the rest, except for the current one. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 15%. The clever story telling in Film #1 was replaced by machines bashing each other. Bashing machines were an important aspect of the first movie to be sure, but along with a well thought out story, there was a definite need for the bashing.
So based on the entertainment provided me in Film #1, I kept going to the rest of the films looking for the franchise to regain a footing. While anything can be possible, within limits, I've developed a mindset that another good Transformers movie is unfortunately impossible. It's like it simply can't be done as if some law of the universe dictates this. OK, it could be done, but Hollywood seems to be determined not to allow it to happen, and they have the power to insure that it won't, and you can't argue with Hollywood when they set their mind to something.
While I'm obviously a big fan of film, I usually don't care what Hollywood puts out. If they put out a stinker, it's no skin off my nose, but I have to honestly confess, that somewhere around Transformers III, I really wished with all my heart that Hollywood would stop making Transformer movies, not because I cared about what Hollywood does or the franchise itself, but that I seemed to have lost all self control and was buying tickets to the Transformers because of an irrational desire that they would stop getting progressively worse. It was deranged compulsive behavior which I think I have finally cured. Specifically, I have just accepted the fact that there will never be another Transformers that I can stay awake through. It was so bad at the last one, that I fell asleep while still holding a half a box of popcorn. I woke up somewhere in the middle with popcorn spilled all over my lap. I brushed if off and went back to sleep.
The Nostalgia Critic had a history of reviewing every Transformers movie, but this time he did an "unreview." That is, he reviewed the movie without even watching it. I'm willing to bet it was very accurate too.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 24, 2017, 04:10:12 PM
The Nostalgia Critic had a history of reviewing every Transformers movie, but this time he did an "unreview." That is, he reviewed the movie without even watching it. I'm willing to bet it was very accurate too.
I had to look up Nostalgia Critic, who I had never heard of, and I found that review. He mirrored my sentiments exactly, although with a lot more theatrical flair. I can't believe Michael Bay actually said, "It doesn't matter to me if you don't like it. You are going to go see it anyway." Clever comment? Maybe. Offensive? Definitely. Talk about treating your target audience like a bunch of morons. That did it for me. I can't resist a challenge like that. I'm not going to see this film. And now when the DVD comes out, I'm not even going to rent it. Michael Bay, fuck you right back at ya. OK, so you don't care. I don't care that you don't care.
Quote from: SGOS on June 24, 2017, 01:09:13 PM
Transformers: The Fallen
No rating. I'm not even going to see it.
What about The Last Knight? Arthurian legend + transforming robots from outer space. Makes sense to me.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 24, 2017, 08:41:25 PM
What about The Last Knight? Arthurian legend + transforming robots from outer space. Makes sense to me.
Actually, that's the one I meant. Well, err, whatever the current one is. It's all just a jumble.
I asked the wife is she wanted to watch anything, she said no, so I told her I was going to watch a mindless drivel of bloodletting and violence...you know...a bed time show.
John Wick 2..holy jabberwocky and ice picks to the testicles...what a load of crap! This fucker kills about 439 peeps in an insane rolling frolocking high spirited bullet flying blood splattering martial arts laden, super secret spy handshaking, assassin obligated honor coded behind the back stabbing hell hole of glory. Got damn that is some bad shit! One has to climb a ladder to get to -100....holy shit on a shingle.
Well, you always were the cerebral type.
Quote from: aitm on June 26, 2017, 02:06:08 PM
I asked the wife is she wanted to watch anything, she said no, so I told her I was going to watch a mindless drivel of bloodletting and violence...you know...a bed time show.
John Wick 2..holy jabberwocky and ice picks to the testicles...what a load of crap! This fucker kills about 439 peeps in an insane rolling frolocking high spirited bullet flying blood splattering martial arts laden, super secret spy handshaking, assassin obligated honor coded behind the back stabbing hell hole of glory. Got damn that is some bad shit! One has to climb a ladder to get to -100....holy shit on a shingle.
...you're dead to me.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 26, 2017, 06:20:05 PM
...you're dead to me.
really? You liked that? Wow......never in a million...
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 12, 2017, 10:47:38 AM
I'd still fap to it.
You'd.. urm.. be able to do more then that with him now..
[spoiler](https://cdn-image.avn.com/fit/width:1024,height:600/https://cdn-images.avn.com/article-images/2017/6/0/5951572fd1018-babadong.jpg)[/spoiler]
Again I keep asking.. why.? Why is this happening :S
Apparently the reason why this is happening was because the babadook was accidentally put it the LGBT section of Netflix, and the LGBT community now claim he's an icon for subverting the traditional family system, which is weird because the movie starts out with the mother already a widow.
https://avn.com/business/articles/gay/indiegogo-set-for-odd-lgbt-icon-the-babadook-to-become-a-dildo-734013.html
That is some gnarly marketing there! I prefer my girls to be distracted by the Cthulhu butterfly vibrator, when I am unavailable ;-)
Quote from: aitm on June 26, 2017, 09:32:16 PM
really? You liked that? Wow......never in a million...
I mean, it certainly wasn't as good as the first, and I might have been high when I saw it, but John Wick is basically an action movie taken to as close to it's pure form as you can get without making it just a constant fight.
I saw The Godfather. Well, part of it. Couldn't get into it. I felt that it insisted upon itself.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 27, 2017, 06:17:17 PM
I saw The Godfather. Well, part of it. Couldn't get into it. I felt that it insisted upon itself.
Gave you an offer you could refuse? Albanian Mafia is much more scary.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 27, 2017, 06:17:17 PM
I saw The Godfather. Well, part of it. Couldn't get into it. I felt that it insisted upon itself.
Y'all are Fucking killing me here.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 27, 2017, 06:17:17 PM
I saw The Godfather.
Well, it's about time. And there's two more to go.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 27, 2017, 06:17:17 PM
Couldn't get into it.
At the time of it's release, it was considered gritty and cutting edge, and back then, I did too. I rented it a couple of years ago in the mood for some nostalgia and watched it again. It wasn't as good as I remembered it, but I pushed myself, and decided to respect it based on its classic status. It's probably one of those movies that you had to be there when it first happened.
It was still better than Gone with the Wind, which was before my time, and based on a book I'd never read. I've heard it referred to on a couple occasions as "the best movie of all time." This of course is a matter of taste, with possibly a bit of snobbery thrown in to create an impression that the speaker is a person of culture, but never-the-less, it still gets a great deal of respect from critics. So I rented it maybe 10 years ago, and thought it was...Hmm, let me think about the exact wording here... "Trivial," I think comes pretty close.
The Godfather is by comparison a work of art IMO. But then I though Police Squad with Leslie Neilson was a good film, so whatever. Edit: Not Police Squad. It was called Naked Gun 33 1/2, and focused on the special unit, "Police Squad" headed up by Leslie Neilson.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2017, 06:34:49 PMY'all are Fucking killing me here.
I was making a joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pnwE_Oy5WI
I really saw it, though. I kinda liked it. It didn't blow me away or anything, but it was alright. Long, long movie though.
Quote from: SGOS on June 27, 2017, 08:28:19 PMIt was still better than Gone with the Wind, which was before my time, and based on a book I'd never read. I've heard it referred to on a couple occasions as "the best movie of all time." This of course is a matter of taste, with possibly a bit of snobbery thrown in to create an impression that the speaker is a person of culture, but never-the-less, it still gets a great deal of respect from critics. So I rented it maybe 10 years ago, and thought it was...Hmm, let me think about the exact wording here... "Trivial," I think comes pretty close.
Frankly, I don't give a damn about Gone with the Wind. It's certainly not the best movie of all time. For that, I'd probably go with Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971). Or maybe Raiders of the Lost Ark. Hard to decide. I might have to flip a coin on this one.
Trying to think what my favorite movie would be...
The obvious answer is Star Wars, simply because it has had the most effect on my life.
Second would b e the funny answer, and I would have to go with something like Blazing Saddles or Spaceballs, or anything Mel Brooks really, that really pushes the limit of what is offensive and what is funny.
Citizen Kane is an absolute classic, which by itself is not necessarily the best movie but when put into film making history context is simply undeniably one of the most influential and greatest movies of all time.
Spirited Away would probably be my top animated, followed by The Lion King.
Action wise, Mad Max: Fury Road is just absolutely wonderful... it's fusion of practical effects and CGI, and it's just "rawness" is perfection.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is damn near perfect as well.
And there are so, so many more that I have either forgotten how good they are or just blanking on their names atm, which is only a statement about how much damage booze, weed and shrooms are doing to my memory and not a statement on the quality of the film...
I think the point I intended to make, and got distracted, is I don't have a favorite movie because I try to judge every movie on it's own merits rather than compare it to something else, unless it is specifically a movie meant to be compared to something else.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2017, 01:52:32 AM
Trying to think what my favorite movie would be...
It's hard to do. It's easier to do a top ten list, but you're probably still going to make changes to it 5 minutes after you write it down. Easier still would be top 10 in the last 2 years. People always seem to list movies they've recently seen, but I'm not sure if that's a measure of quality or attention span. A life time list is hard for me because there must be 20 films I think deserve the top 10 spots, which is a bit mathematically illogical but still feels so emotionally necessary.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 27, 2017, 11:21:24 PM
Frankly, I don't give a damn about Gone with the Wind. It's certainly not the best movie of all time. For that, I'd probably go with Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971). Or maybe Raiders of the Lost Ark. Hard to decide. I might have to flip a coin on this one.
Oddly, I noticed a local theater either had or is having one of those one time special showings of Willy Wonka. I've only attended one special showing, the original Planet of the Apes, but I though about seeing Wonka at the theater, assuming it's the original. I love that movie as embarrassing as it is to admit, and I can't even explain why. I've decided it must all come down to Gene Wilder. I don't think anyone else could make it work. I'll bet Gene Wilder didn't think it would work.
Quote from: SGOS on June 28, 2017, 06:54:09 AMI love that movie as embarrassing as it is to admit, and I can't even explain why. I've decided it must all come down to Gene Wilder. I don't think anyone else could make it work. I'll bet Gene Wilder didn't think it would work.
Gene absolutely killed it but the songs and sets were amazing, especially for the time. Wacky fun and amazement (and the occasional freakout) with a very serious, sardonic undercurrent (no pun intended). It's an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish.
The only bad thing is that it's basically a morality play and can come across as excessively preachy. And the lessons are somewhat dated now. Sure, gluttony and greed are timeless vices, but one kid's main vice is chewing gum (which is kinda rude, but not exactly 7 deadly sins material) and the other one is a big fan of television (ironically condemned while being broadcast on TV) and he's obnoxiously loud and impulsive (duh, he's a kid) but otherwise not nearly as terrible as the greedy kid.
Also, was Charlie really better than any of the other kids? He screwed up, too. But he redeemed himself by facing failure with a certain amount of selflessness and non-retaliation. But for all we know, some of the other kids could've done the same offscreen.
The movie is a classic, but your mileage may vary on the message.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 28, 2017, 10:35:49 AM
Also, was Charlie really better than any of the other kids? He screwed up, too.
I caught that one too and always wonder about it when I watch the movie. It seems he was relatively forgiven all too easily. Years ago, my wife and I rented a motel on a Saturday night, because we were away skiing for the weekend. Willy Wonka was playing on a local channel Sunday Morning, and we started watching it for the 4th time, commercials and all. When it was over, we made it up to ski but is was just after noon, so we waited another hour and bought the half day ticket.
Quote from: SGOS on June 28, 2017, 06:54:09 AM
Oddly, I noticed a local theater either had or is having one of those one time special showings of Willy Wonka. I've only attended one special showing, the original Planet of the Apes, but I though about seeing Wonka at the theater, assuming it's the original. I love that movie as embarrassing as it is to admit, and I can't even explain why. I've decided it must all come down to Gene Wilder. I don't think anyone else could make it work. I'll bet Gene Wilder didn't think it would work.
There's not one damn thing embarrassing about loving that movie. I saw it in the theater when it was first released, and I've loved it ever since. I'd love to see it on the big screen again.
Quote from: SGOS on June 28, 2017, 01:54:33 PMI caught that one too and always wonder about it when I watch the movie. It seems he was relatively forgiven all too easily.
Or maybe the other kids were judged too harshly and written off when they could've realized their mistakes as Charlie did.
I've screwed up many times and if someone were to judge me solely based on that situation, I'd probably seem horrible. But a scant time later I'm making amends and resolving to do things differently. And later, I'm a very different sort of person, like Robert Downey Jr pre-Iron Man and Robert Downey Jr post-Iron Man.
I think about that sort of thing before I judge. People are far too eager to condemn. Especially people who know little.
Completely forgot about Pans Labyrinth, another absolutely excellent movie.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 28, 2017, 10:06:56 PM
Or maybe the other kids were judged too harshly and written off when they could've realized their mistakes as Charlie did.
That too.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 28, 2017, 10:06:56 PM
Or maybe the other kids were judged too harshly and written off when they could've realized their mistakes as Charlie did.
I've screwed up many times and if someone were to judge me solely based on that situation, I'd probably seem horrible. But a scant time later I'm making amends and resolving to do things differently. And later, I'm a very different sort of person, like Robert Downey Jr pre-Iron Man and Robert Downey Jr post-Iron Man.
I think about that sort of thing before I judge. People are far too eager to condemn. Especially people who know little.
In both the original movie and the remake, it's heavily implied that Willy Wonka purposefully put kids in situations where they were be tempted by their greatest weaknesses. Only those who would survive his trials would be considered as candidates for his successor. So did he intend for Charlie to be chopped up by that fan...? Seriously, the guy should spend the rest of his life in jail for purposefully endangering several children.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 29, 2017, 09:31:00 PM
In both the original movie and the remake, it's heavily implied that Willy Wonka purposefully put kids in situations where they were be tempted by their greatest weaknesses. Only those who would survive his trials would be considered as candidates for his successor. So did he intend for Charlie to be chopped up by that fan...? Seriously, the guy should spend the rest of his life in jail for purposefully endangering several children.
Apparently eating too much candy and chocolate induces psychosis ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 29, 2017, 09:31:00 PM
In both the original movie and the remake, it's heavily implied that Willy Wonka purposefully put kids in situations where they were be tempted by their greatest weaknesses. Only those who would survive his trials would be considered as candidates for his successor. So did he intend for Charlie to be chopped up by that fan...? Seriously, the guy should spend the rest of his life in jail for purposefully endangering several children.
For all the bright colors, wonderful inventions, and dancing Oomp Loompas, that ghoulish aspect of the film provides a shocking contrast, but it's so over the top that it's entertaining. Instead of acting like a psycho, Wonka remains light hearted and ecstatic in his odd pursuits: Woman loses her daughter swallowed up by a Wonkavention. No problemo! Life is too wonderful of an adventure in a chocolate factory to stop and mourn. In fact, the Wonka attitude is, "Mourning does not exist in a chocolate factory. There are no cares at all. We do not care about death. It's simply too much to bother ourselves with during the pursuit of fantasy."
I've never taken the time to actually analyze those dynamics of the movie before.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2017, 06:34:49 PM
Y'all are Fucking killing me here.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2017, 05:38:12 AM
I mean, it certainly wasn't as good as the first, and I might have been high when I saw it, but John Wick is basically an action movie taken to as close to it's pure form as you can get without making it just a constant fight.
Wick should have been dead in the first movie. At the Red Circle when he's fighting the best of the bad guys he gets slammed and take a few seconds to get up (I think it's on the balcony), during which time the bad guy could have shot him ten-fifteen times. Bad editing.
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter.
It isn't. 4/10
Quote from: SGOS on June 30, 2017, 07:59:37 AM
For all the bright colors, wonderful inventions, and dancing Oomp Loompas, that ghoulish aspect of the film provides a shocking contrast, but it's so over the top that it's entertaining. Instead of acting like a psycho, Wonka remains light hearted and ecstatic in his odd pursuits: Woman loses her daughter swallowed up by a Wonkavention. No problemo! Life is too wonderful of an adventure in a chocolate factory to stop and mourn. In fact, the Wonka attitude is, "Mourning does not exist in a chocolate factory. There are no cares at all. We do not care about death. It's simply too much to bother ourselves with during the pursuit of fantasy."
I've never taken the time to actually analyze those dynamics of the movie before.
I believe there's a word for people like that.
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/e3f3cefefd5107711ad7705b051d6ccc/tumblr_n4k9rtYRXJ1sbfxdgo1_r1_400.gif)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 30, 2017, 08:39:44 AMResident Evil: The Final Chapter.
It isn't. 4/10
I haven't seen it yet, but I've been told it should've been titled "Resident Evil: The Final Nail In The Coffin"
And not just that the story was bad (it apparently didn't pick up where the last one left off, among other problems), but it was bad on a technical level. Shakey-cam with nausea-inducing rapid cuts. The reviewers I've seen didn't like it at all.
I'll probably still see it anyway just to see for myself.
<--- potential Stockholm syndrome
Spider Man: Homecoming
starts Thursday night and is already at 93% at Rotten Tomatoes. The last reboot apparently fizzled after its sequel, and even at that, the reboot itself didn't do much for me. I'm not sure why. It just didn't grab my attention. But after 5 Spiderman movies, I'm ready for another attempt, and this one has a potentially interesting scenario, with a cast that would draw me to the theater no matter what movie they were in. Spiderman is also one of the most interesting superheroes for me. I like the fact that he's just a kid, fumbling with his powers and his high school relationships. My one criticism is that his foils are always a little too strange and over the top, but it's a minor criticism, and unless something comes up, I'm going to the theater on Friday.
Just one randomly selected review from Rotten Tomatoes site.
https://www.timeout.com/london/film/spider-man-homecoming
QuoteWick should have been dead in the first movie.
Well, yeah, but he is the mother-fuckin' Neo.
No more whiney super heros, please.
Baby Driver is suppose to be amazing as shit. Hopefully going to see it soon.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 03, 2017, 07:45:38 PMNo more whiney super heros, please.
Eh, there's room for a little angst in fiction (and real life). A little tragedy should have an appropriate reaction. Taken too far, it comes across badly.
[grammar nazi]"whiney" needs to loan its e to "heros"[/gn]
Quote from: SGOS on June 27, 2017, 08:28:19 PM
It was still better than Gone with the Wind, which was before my time, and based on a book I'd never read. I've heard it referred to on a couple occasions as "the best movie of all time." This of course is a matter of taste, with possibly a bit of snobbery thrown in to create an impression that the speaker is a person of culture, but never-the-less, it still gets a great deal of respect from critics. So I rented it maybe 10 years ago, and thought it was...Hmm, let me think about the exact wording here... "Trivial," I think comes pretty close.
GWTW sucks donkey balls. Scarlette O'hara bawling every other fucking second. I did actually find the burning of Atlanta part to be watchable. Then the second half of the movie came. Gads!
I regards to the Godfather movies, I've actually never seen them. Humorously, since they are supposed to be such classics, I bought the 3 Blu Ray set. And lost them. I'll find it someday and watch them. I understand there is debate as to whether I or II is better, and everybody thinks III is crappy, or at least nowhere near as good.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 04, 2017, 12:43:07 AM
I regards to the Godfather movies, I've actually never seen them. Humorously, since they are supposed to be such classics, I bought the 3 Blu Ray set. And lost them. I'll find it someday and watch them. I understand there is debate as to whether I or II is better, and everybody thinks III is crappy, or at least nowhere near as good.
Godfather I ... sequels of anything usually suck. Also it helps if you didn't come from some early 20th century American urban hell hole. Don't want to trigger your PTSD if you are (but then you would be as old or older than my parents).
The Sopranos was a good update ... an less a drama than a "based on real events" kinds of entertainment.
As far as Willie Wonka, believe it or not, I hadn't ever seen the original until Gene Wilder died. My local theater did a showing of it. I went. It was okay, but, I think I would have enjoyed it better as a kid. Just before seeing it, I saw an old interview with Wilder where he said he insisted about the cane scene. When you first see him, he appears to need a cane but it is a rouse. I know what I'm about to say is heresy, but I actually liked the Johnny Depp version better. But that is probably only because I actually saw it first. I know, weird.
My parents didn't pay for me to go see movies very often. I remember when the original was new and my cheap-ass parents didn't take me or let me go. And for whatever reason, I never happened to see it on TV. I don't know why actually.
It seems like the was a time when Willy Wonka was on TV at least every week on different stations. That was a while back. It may have been on every two weeks, but that's not how I remember it.
I didn't see the Depp version. I think Depp has a lot of talent, but he keeps doing these off beat characters that don't interest me. I know that's how he made a name for himself, but I've never found one of those characters to be the least bit entertaining when Depp does them. When he does a straight role, he is convincing, phenomenally so. He's probably as good as any male actor in the last 30 years.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 04, 2017, 12:48:24 AM
As far as Willie Wonka, believe it or not, I hadn't ever seen the original until Gene Wilder died. My local theater did a showing of it. I went. It was okay, but, I think I would have enjoyed it better as a kid. Just before seeing it, I saw an old interview with Wilder where he said he insisted about the cane scene. When you first see him, he appears to need a cane but it is a rouse. I know what I'm about to say is heresy, but I actually liked the Johnny Depp version better. But that is probably only because I actually saw it first. I know, weird.
My parents didn't pay for me to go see movies very often. I remember when the original was new and my cheap-ass parents didn't take me or let me go. And for whatever reason, I never happened to see it on TV. I don't know why actually.
I never was a fan of either version. I never really liked movies with a lot of songs in them (though I can tolerate it in the better Disney movies, like Aladdin), and the Oompa Loompa songs in the original had some of the laziest lyrics I've ever heard, with made up words used just to rhyme with the next line.
Oompa loompa doompety doo
I've got a perfect puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me
As for the songs in the 2005 movie, they just seemed out of place in a movie that seemed to be trying to be darker and more...realistic? The entire movie was lacking in color too, including the Oompa Loomas who were lacking their bright orange skin. Overall, I think the original was the better version, but the twist at the end of the 2005 movie when [spoiler]Charlie rejects Willy Wonka's offer because he wanted to stay with his family threw me for a loop. I wasn't expecting that, and it grabbed my attention. I knew that the book both were based on didn't have Slugworth as a double agent to test Charlie, but I didn't know where the movie was going to go from there.[/spoiler]
I watched .......two nights ago....SO bad I am ashamed to say I actually watched it all. Now mind you I was home and I did have a ready supply of beer...but...good lord that is one bad as 12 day old fish. Man.....I can't tell you...its just sooooooo bad. IF you see it you will know.
Quote from: SGOS on July 04, 2017, 06:33:24 AM
It seems like the was a time when Willy Wonka was on TV at least every week on different stations.
That is probably an exaggeration, well at least for terrestrial stations. It is probably on 24x7 on some cable channel somewhere. But, whatever, I'm sure it was on often and I really can't explain how it is that I managed to never see it. Oh well. Did I mention how much Gone With the Wind sucks?
Saw Baby Driver today. To be honest, while I enjoyed it and thought it was good. But, I still felt somewhat disappointed in that it was the absolute 5 star masterpiece that some seem to say it is. Its good, its fun. Its not 5 star. Probably 3.5....
I was on Fandango and looking at the movie star ratings. Boy are they inflated! I guess fanboys do all the star ratings there. The current Transformers was rated 4 stars. Cars 3 was 4.5 stars. LOL...
About to spend the next day or two binge watching the original Planet of the Apes and then the post 2011 remakes. Don't know why I never watched them, they seem exactly like the type of movies I would enjoy, but ce la vie.
Planet of the Apes - Yeah, it was really good.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 03, 2017, 10:39:41 PM
Eh, there's room for a little angst in fiction (and real life). A little tragedy should have an appropriate reaction. Taken too far, it comes across badly.
[grammar nazi]"whiney" needs to loan its e to "heros"[/gn]
If you like that shit, fine. I was disgusted with Bruce Wayne in the early '60s.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 05, 2017, 02:44:45 AM
About to spend the next day or two binge watching the original Planet of the Apes and then the post 2011 remakes. Don't know why I never watched them, they seem exactly like the type of movies I would enjoy, but ce la vie.
I only care for the first two originals .. and the new series not at all. Good luck.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 05, 2017, 04:46:23 AM
Planet of the Apes - Yeah, it was really good.
Strangely, the glaring weak point, even back in 1968, were the ape and gorilla costumes. While those costumes were fabulously Hollywood at the cutting edge, they were still horribly fake. The mouths didn't move right and even the actors voices were muffled by the masks. It's not like we were all dumb enough to fall for it 40 years ago. The cheesy attempt at talking apes in costumes was laughable, actually laughable right there in the theater to the extent that it was like watching clowns in a circus. If it were not for the fact that the plot was so well thought out and dealt with such highly relevant social issues, and that the writers had a fundamental grasp of anthropology as it was then being taught, the movie would have been relegated to the library of Mystery Science Fiction Theater.
The sequels never came close to the original, and the one about the underground bomb worshipers or whatever they were was flat out bad. I rewatched it a few years ago, and actually felt embarrassed for the poor writers that were commissioned to come up with a script in such a shallow interpretation of what happens after nuclear war. But the Planet of the Apes concept as developed in the original is still a relevant and worthwhile movie today. And its classic status deserves to endure.
I only put the first sequel in with the original, because Charlton Heston is in both. But I agree that cinematically, the story ends at the end of the first movie. You know the real logic of the first movie, by a Frenchman no less, is racism?
As far as the special effects to, perhaps you have been spoiled by CGI.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 04, 2017, 11:25:55 PM
Saw Baby Driver today. To be honest, while I enjoyed it and thought it was good. But, I still felt somewhat disappointed in that it was the absolute 5 star masterpiece that some seem to say it is. Its good, its fun. Its not 5 star. Probably 3.5....
I was on Fandango and looking at the movie star ratings. Boy are they inflated! I guess fanboys do all the star ratings there. The current Transformers was rated 4 stars. Cars 3 was 4.5 stars. LOL...
I've been meaning to get around to that movie partly because the ratings are so high, and partly because it has Lili James, who I first noticed on Downton Abbey, and then later in Cinderella. Aside from the fact that she takes my breath away, I think she is also a worthy talent, and I want to see how she does in movie so unlike Downton and Cinderella.
What is holding me back is of all things, the title of that movie. Whatever emotion it stirs up in me brings to mind a gangster movie that fails so badly that they decided that even an interesting title wouldn't save it at the box office. So they didn't bother coming up with a title, and wrote it off as a flop before it even hit the screen.
Quote from: Baruch on July 05, 2017, 06:48:13 AM
As far as the special effects to, perhaps you have been spoiled by CGI.
I don't think so, because in 1968 when the movie first came out, everyone older than 10 agreed that the costumes were absolutely silly. As for being spoiled by modern CGI, I'm not. I give Hollywood credit for being good at it, and I expect them to be good at it. At the same time, I'm almost always disappointed with modern CGI films because that's all many of them offer, and it seems like directors get caught up in CGI and think that's all it takes to make a good movie. In my opinion, CGI can never be more than frosting on a good script. The technology behind it is a big deal, a pinnacle of human ingenuity, but when it is the focus because that's all the director wants to think about, the story telling is going to take a hit.
Back in the '90s, there was a forgettable remake of The Planet of the Apes. The CGI was a vast improvement over '68 approaching modern standards, and I remember this scene where thousands of apes came charging across the landscape like an unstoppable Mongol horde. I'm sure it was meant to be breathtaking, but I was sitting there in the theater during that scene wondering if the director had any idea at all what The Planet of the Apes was about.
I have to admit, the costumes didn't put me off at all. For a 60's movie, I thought they were actually pretty good.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 05, 2017, 09:04:19 AM
I have to admit, the costumes didn't put me off at all. For a 60's movie, I thought they were actually pretty good.
I doubt they put anyone off ever. It's part of the charm, I suppose.
Did my annual viewing of Independence Day yesterday. The original, not the garbage sequel. The original is still awesome.
Quote from: SGOS on July 05, 2017, 09:16:26 AM
I doubt they put anyone off ever. It's part of the charm, I suppose.
I couldn't think of them as anything but people in monkey suits. Made the movie very boring.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 05, 2017, 10:47:50 AM
I couldn't think of them as anything but people in monkey suits. Made the movie very boring.
That's raciiiiist ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on July 05, 2017, 06:51:54 AM
What is holding me back is of all things, the title of that movie. Whatever emotion it stirs up in me brings to mind a gangster movie that fails so badly that they decided that even an interesting title wouldn't save it at the box office. So they didn't bother coming up with a title, and wrote it off as a flop before it even hit the screen.
LOL. I seriously doubt that was the reason for the title. While I agree that its title does NOT make you think, "hip gangster car chase movie", but, honestly, what would *you* call it that wouldn't come across as *trying* to sound "hey this is hip, guys!". I think the title was intentionally odd for that reason.
As far as the original, and the new Planet of the Apes movies. I was born in 62. So I would have only been 6 when the original came out. I was 9 when Escape came out. I had seen the original on TV, but hadn't seen Beneath. I don't think it had even been on TV yet, not sure. And I just loved Escape. I hadn't seen it since, and I know it is considered cheesy these days. But, at least for me when I was 9, I thought it was great. I knew obviously they had to have humans playing the apes and so I didn't see any reason to complain about the costumes. I also saw and enjoyed Conquest and Battle in the theater. I don't think I ever got to see Beneath until after Battle, if I recall correctly. I didn't really care for the praying to the bomb shit. So at least for me as a kid, Beneath was the worst.
As an adult, I have fond memory. But, never had any inclination to rewatch them as I can gather that I would have a different opinion now. Though I probably should rewatch just the original at some point.
As far as the new movies, I think they have been fantastic! I can't believe some people don't like them. Oh well... I very much look forward to the next installment.
Wonder Woman 9/10
It's a pretty cool movie, now I am ready to watch Spider-man: Homecoming!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 05, 2017, 10:47:50 AM
I couldn't think of them as anything but people in monkey suits. Made the movie very boring.
After all this posting, I got it out last night and watched it again. I actually have it on Blu-ray. I'll still defend the overall premise, but will admit there are some rather serious errors of execution and other things that make little sense or deify normal human behavior. The beginning is especially weak. After they crash and have no idea where they are in the galaxy, Heston comments, "Here we are not knowing if we can survive on a strange desert planet with no moon and bla bla." No moon? Really? By the end of the movie it's obvious that it has to have a moon. But after spending an hour in the middle of the afternoon on the planet, he declares there is no moon.
Then he begins taunting one of his crew members for no reason at all telling him the sooner he accepts his situation, the better off he will be when in fact, the crew seems to be accepting their situation with professional equanimity, and then after delivering this berating, Heston breaks into forced laughter that becomes louder and more maniacal and begins to echo off the canyon walls as the camera wanders up to view the hot desert sky. This is the guy NASA picked to lead the crew? WTF? He's acting like a lunatic! At other times in the film, Heston makes some clever quips, although they are often inappropriate in the context. <Note to writers: insert clever observation here> And while his predicament is dire, he tends to get theatrically over dramatic. "It's a madhouse! A madhouse!" he screams to no one in particular. Yeah, OK, it's a madhouse, but if someone else were around to scream that, Heston would be the more level headed leader who would grab him by the shoulders and slap him across the face while forcefully telling him to get a grip and gain some self control."
Yeah, the movie could use a bit more polish on the script. However, as farcical as some parts are, they are recorded in famous moments in movie history. Heston's "It's a madhouse," is now a classic line with an identifiable origin. You could scream it at an frat party or an orgy, and people would understand the reference.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 05, 2017, 10:40:53 AM
Did my annual viewing of Independence Day yesterday. The original, not the garbage sequel. The original is still awesome.
[spoiler](http://d.facdn.net/art/wolfiecanem/1499257712/1499257712.wolfiecanem_eagle_fireworks_bulge.png)[/spoiler]
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 05, 2017, 06:56:17 PM
As far as the original, and the new Planet of the Apes movies. I was born in 62. So I would have only been 6 when the original came out. I was 9 when Escape came out. I had seen the original on TV, but hadn't seen Beneath. I don't think it had even been on TV yet, not sure. And I just loved Escape. I hadn't seen it since, and I know it is considered cheesy these days. But, at least for me when I was 9, I thought it was great. I knew obviously they had to have humans playing the apes and so I didn't see any reason to complain about the costumes. I also saw and enjoyed Conquest and Battle in the theater. I don't think I ever got to see Beneath until after Battle, if I recall correctly. I didn't really care for the praying to the bomb shit. So at least for me as a kid, Beneath was the worst.
As an adult, I have fond memory. But, never had any inclination to rewatch them as I can gather that I would have a different opinion now. Though I probably should rewatch just the original at some point.
As far as the new movies, I think they have been fantastic! I can't believe some people don't like them. Oh well... I very much look forward to the next installment.
I think the original movie of the latest reboot is a very interesting film that cleverly explains how the evolution started. The second was also a good film, but with my particular interest on movies that explain origins, it can't be as good as the first, but that's just because of my particular interests. I can't predict how good the next in the sequel will be, but I wouldn't miss it for the world.
And I'd like to see a sequel that redoes the 1968 film which would complete the circle and bring us back to the future when the planet is rediscovered by the accidental time traveling humans.
Quote from: SGOS on July 06, 2017, 07:11:38 AM
I think the original movie of the latest reboot is a very interesting film that cleverly explains how the evolution started. The second was also a good film, but with my particular interest on movies that explain origins, it can't be as good as the first, but that's just because of my particular interests. I can't predict how good the next in the sequel will be, but I wouldn't miss it for the world.
And I'd like to see a sequel that redoes the 1968 film which would complete the circle and bring us back to the future when the planet is rediscovered by the accidental time traveling humans.
I enjoyed the general plot of the original and the sequel. After that, the time loop started to make less interesting sense and became more of an action thriller with emphasis on the action. It is really hard to extend the disbelief into several sequels.
Closest for me was Alien, and I was getting so I really wanted Ripley to just die after a few movies. But then there was Prometheus and that was cool!
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 08:13:44 AM
I enjoyed the general plot of the original and the sequel. After that, the time loop started to make less interesting sense and became more of an action thriller with emphasis on the action.
Wow! I think you nailed that one.
Watched Moana and Zootopia with friends over the holidays. Hadn't seen either one before. Both were okay. Guess I probably liked Moana just a little bit better, but ain't neither one of 'em another Fantasia. Disney has their formula down pat, and they're sticking with it. Although I did notice that for a change, neither lead character was an orphan. That's new for WaltCo.
I watch 'The Incredibles' and 'Battleship' any chance I get on TV. Don't throw popcorn at me, I just love them both. Dash cracks me up running on water, and when the alien on the destroyer looks at the turrets aimed at him, unknowing of their purpose, I laugh my ass off. Really!
BTW. speaking of 'Battleship', did you all note that the aliens are all mechanical engineering and don't know much about explosives? Their (amazingly interesting) weapons are kinetic energy. So.... How did they get here?
If there is ever an explanation, I bet it was massive slingshots. ;)
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 11:58:15 AM
I watch 'The Incredibles' and 'Battleship' any chance I get on TV. Don't throw popcorn at me, I just love them both. Dash cracks me up running on water, and when the alien on the destroyer looks at the turrets aimed at him, unknowing of their purpose, I laugh my ass off. Really!
BTW. speaking of 'Battleship', did you all note that the aliens are all mechanical engineering and don't know much about explosives? Their (amazingly interesting) weapons are kinetic energy. So.... How did they get here?
If there is ever an explanation, I bet it was massive slingshots. ;)
Haven't seen
Battleship, but I too loved
The Incredibles. Oh, that Mid-Century Modern style! Meanwhile, I think I'll make some time Saturday to go see Despicable Me 3. I loved the first two, let's see if they can keep it up.
Quote from: trdsf on July 06, 2017, 12:23:39 PM
Haven't seen Battleship, but I too loved The Incredibles. Oh, that Mid-Century Modern style! Meanwhile, I think I'll make some time Saturday to go see Despicable Me 3. I loved the first two, let's see if they can keep it up.
You have GOT to watch Battleship! I'm almost sorry I mentioned the turrets now, but you will understand when you see it. It is probably available free on your cable.
Meanwhile, I hate theaters. Loud disruptive teens are using them as gang rooms here. I wait for movies to get on cable free. Right now, I'm waiting patiently for Dr Strange. I loved it as a comic book and have always wondered how they would show magic spells!
Can ... NOT ... watch ... Battleship.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 06, 2017, 12:34:04 PM
Can ... NOT ... watch ... Battleship.
You...Must...Watch...Battleship!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 06, 2017, 12:34:04 PM
Can ... NOT ... watch ... Battleship.
Ah ... Navy anything ... thumbs up! How about Last Ship?
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 12:38:18 PM
You...Must...Watch...Battleship!
You forget, I'm retired Navy and a working naval historian.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 12:31:35 PMMeanwhile, I hate theaters. Loud disruptive teens are using them as gang rooms here. I wait for movies to get on cable free.
I love and hate movie theaters. On one hand, I dislike how expensive it can be ($9 a ticket adds up, especially if you get concessions or go to the 3-D version), annoying people, shitloads of ads before the movie, sitting in what I assume is day-old cola mixed with melted gummy bears, etc.
And maybe it's just because I'm getting older, but lately I've been placing greater importance on the ability to tweak settings (brightness, sound), use closed captions, and briefly rewind because I didn't fully understand something that was going on. And I swear to god, the usher at this discount movie theater looks at me like I'm on a terrorist watch list or something when he takes my ticket.
The only good things about theaters are that I get to see the movie on opening week when the buzz is still fresh and I'm shut off from distractions. There's also this weird sort of communal thrill of seeing it with a bunch of other people and watching them react in the same way as me to the same stuff. The cons definitely outweigh the pros, but when there's a new movie that I absolutely have to see (like Spiderman: Homecoming), I'm willing to go through with it.
And while I'm on the subject of griping about theaters, here's one thing that kinda stuck in my craw. It shouldn't have bothered me, but it really did.
I watched a movie outdoors. I was in a field and there was a screen set up and the movie was projected onto the screen. The projection took up <90% of the screen and it was in one of those ultrawide resolutions, so the top and bottom had these giant black bars. So now about 70-80% of the screen is actually showing the movie - the rest is just empty space.
So I'm watching a movie outdoors and the experience was roughly equivalent to playing a movie on my phone held at arm's length. Not ideal.
Also, isn't the whole point of having different resolutions to match the screen? Assuming they had access to the standard resolution of the film, why not just show that instead? Do people actually like those black bars? If I gave someone the option of a movie that fit their screen and one with those black bars, would people choose to go with option #2? Would they feel good about their choice?
I feel like I've potentially encountered an alien species.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 06, 2017, 03:50:05 PM
I love and hate movie theaters. On one hand, I dislike how expensive it can be ($9 a ticket adds up, especially if you get concessions or go to the 3-D version), annoying people, shitloads of ads before the movie, sitting in what I assume is day-old cola mixed with melted gummy bears, etc.
And maybe it's just because I'm getting older, but lately I've been placing greater importance on the ability to tweak settings (brightness, sound), use closed captions, and briefly rewind because I didn't fully understand something that was going on. And I swear to god, the usher at this discount movie theater looks at me like I'm on a terrorist watch list or something when he takes my ticket.
The only good things about theaters are that I get to see the movie on opening week when the buzz is still fresh and I'm shut off from distractions. There's also this weird sort of communal thrill of seeing it with a bunch of other people and watching them react in the same way as me to the same stuff. The cons definitely outweigh the pros, but when there's a new movie that I absolutely have to see (like Spiderman: Homecoming), I'm willing to go through with it.
Same here. I go to the earliest morning or afternoon showing on Tuesday because the ticket is 6.50 and popcorn is half price. I rarely share the theater with more than 5 other people. Of course metro areas probably won't be that empty. For Spiderman, I'll be there tomorrow for the earliest showing. There might be 20 people in the theater. I never ever go at night, except when I'm in Chicago visiting family. Sometimes the seats are actually sold out, although I don't recall people being rude or thoughtless the times I've been there. However, I have seen that kind of behavior in the past at other theaters. My whole life revolves around avoiding crowds. OK, that's a slight exaggeration, but very slight, indeed. I can deal with people OK. I just prefer not to.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 05, 2017, 04:46:23 AM
Planet of the Apes - Yeah, it was really good.
I enjoyed it less because of the book. The book ending was so much more powerful than the movie ending. That sort of ruined it for me. BTW, the book is quite short and can be read in a day or two and is a sci-fi classic.
American Anarchist.. It's a biographical documentary of Bill Powell, the author of the Anarchist Cookbook.
He had little to zero in common with the vast majority of people who buy it or read or use it.
Turns out he wrote it at 19 in 1971 and went on to teach children with learning disabilities.
Quite interesting. It's currently on Netflix.
Three theater nights next week: MST3K Live showing 'Eegah!' with the new crew on Wednesday, then unknown movies with Trace "Dr Forrester" Beaulieu and Frank "TV's Frank" Conniff on Thursday and Friday. Reports afterwards!
Spiderman: Homecoming 6/10
And the reason I scored it that high was fear of reprisal, although I admit that a 6 isn't much greater than 3. In spite of the fact that Rotten Tomatoes gives it 94%, which causes me to wonder of the professional critics are too cowardly to not give it a "certified fresh" rating because its unthinkable to rate anything Marvel does less than 90%, especially in light of the fact that Homecoming partially reflects a homecoming of Spiderman back to the partial control of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and should therefore be better and truer to form, it just didn't interest me. I had high expectations, which sometimes sets me up for disappointment that I may or may not exaggerate into failure. Perhaps I can deflect some criticism with that explanation.
I was bored and wanted to leave the theater, but I had only one empty seat on each side of me and then four other people in my row that I would have bothered by leaving. And at my age, I didn't want to be the grumpy old fart that left because I bought a ticket by accident or simply no longer had the mental flexibility of youth to relate to the active and alert minds of he younger generation. Indeed, some guy in the back of the theater would frequently give out one of those echoing belly laughs that dominated the audience, and he would do it when what just happened made no sense to me. Oh well.
This is science fiction and Marvel should have the last say in how much license they have to mold their own characters, but it failed for me. Spiderman has always been special, more like Thor with innate powers, rather than technological advancements like Iron Man and Peter Quill. He gets his powers from the chemically or biologically altered DNA of a super spider, but now Peter Parker get's his powers from Tony Stark's computerized components found in the everyday Iron Man suit with a digitized heads up display that enhances his ability to see and hear. He's like Iron man in a spandex, instead of a purely cosmetic outfit he doodled out during a math lecture. He still shoots out web material, which I presume is still of organic nature, but it doesn't seem to go as far and his graceful trapeze skills aren't as grand or dramatic.
His foil isn't much of a super villain. Michael Keaton is a junk dealer of alien left overs who mostly sends out his nameless goons to blast Spiderman with energy fields sending him smashing into buses and brick walls, but Keaton doesn't play a central role and isn't much better with his alien left overs than his goons.
I hope others love this movie. I don't want this one to signal that Marvel might be losing its edge and it's days are numbered. I don't want that to happen. Marvel has been the best thing to come along to movies in my lifetime, and there is nothing in the wings to replace it.
I confess I am not the toughest critic. I like most movies I see. I really, really, really LOVED SpiderMan Homecoming! 9.5/10. I thought Keaton made a great villain.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 08, 2017, 10:48:49 AM
I confess I am not the toughest critic. I like most movies I see. I really, really, really LOVED SpiderMan Homecoming! 9.5/10. I thought Keaton made a great villain.
I have no doubt that I'm going to be the odd man out on this one.
Quote from: SGOS on July 08, 2017, 11:43:19 AM
I have no doubt that I'm going to be the odd man out on this one.
Your complaint about his suit is not unfounded. In fact, the reason I preferred his shooters being organic, like in the Rami Spiderman films over them being mechanical as in the Webb movies was for the same reason. Though they are mechanical in the comics.
[spoiler]
And, in fact, I was thinking that the next movie, the complaint about the suit will be more pronounced since he will have it full time next movie. If you recall, he had to do a lot without the special suit in this movie.[/spoiler]
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 08, 2017, 01:04:42 PM
Your complaint about his suit is not unfounded. In fact, the reason I preferred his shooters being organic, like in the Rami Spiderman films over them being mechanical as in the Webb movies was for the same reason. Though they are mechanical in the comics.
I'm totally unfamiliar with the comics, so it's probably what you get used to. What was the source of the mechanized suit in the comics? Same as the movie? And with that much high tech power available to him, how much of his organic spider power comes into play in the comics? I don't want emphasize the suit issue that much. It was just a minor issue that surprised me.
One thing I did think was funny in the movie was
[spoiler]Captain America continually showing up on classroom monitors with his motivational pep talks addressed to half interested students who were not all that captivated by his shtick. I had the feeling the nation's public school system had adopted the captain as an ethical example to make good little citizens out of all the students, and as usual, it was just another waste of money dreamed up by the National Board of Education. It seems like they must of had compulsory workshops for the teachers to learn how to use the Captain America resource.[/spoiler]
I thought it was pretty good, but not near Wonder Woman or Guardians level.
Quote from: SGOS on July 08, 2017, 06:43:25 AMSpiderman: Homecoming 6/10
Ouch!
QuoteAnd the reason I scored it that high was fear of reprisal, although I admit that a 6 isn't much greater than 3.
That's not what the ladies say. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
QuoteIn spite of the fact that Rotten Tomatoes gives it 94%, which causes me to wonder of the professional critics are too cowardly to not give it a "certified fresh" rating because its unthinkable to rate anything Marvel does less than 90%, especially in light of the fact that Homecoming partially reflects a homecoming of Spiderman back to the partial control of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and should therefore be better and truer to form, it just didn't interest me. I had high expectations, which sometimes sets me up for disappointment that I may or may not exaggerate into failure.
Ouch. Sounds like a mirror of my Logan experience. With some of the TV comedies I watch, I can't tell if a joke has been told without the laugh track to remind me. I sometimes worry that critics have become a sort of laugh track - trying to convince an audience to like a product rather than giving their honest appraisal of the film.
QuoteThis is science fiction and Marvel should have the last say in how much license they have to mold their own characters, but it failed for me. Spiderman has always been special, more like Thor with innate powers, rather than technological advancements like Iron Man and Peter Quill.
Technically, Spiderman donning power armor is canon in the comics (http://spiderman.wikia.com/wiki/Iron_Spider_Armor). So I dunno about license.
But you could make the case that there's too much going on with his powers - he already has a bunch of spider-derived powers (agility, strength, web-shooting, advance warning of imminent danger) so adding powered armor to the mix creates a too expansive powerset lacking a unifying theme.
I'm much more open to the latter argument than the former.
QuoteHe still shoots out web material, which I presume is still of organic nature, but it doesn't seem to go as far and his graceful trapeze skills aren't as grand or dramatic.
That's actually a plus in my book. I've always pictured him as fairly acrobatic, but there are limits to what he can successfully pull off. Especially a young, inexperienced Spidey. Sure, he can leap from tall buildings, somersalt over bad guys, and dodge most of what's coming at him - but zigging when he should have zagged often lands him in a world of hurt. That's my impression, at least.
QuoteHis foil isn't much of a super villain.
Yeah, I thought the Vulture would be a pretty lame villain. He's pretty low on the Spiderman rogues' gallery compared to Venom, Carnage, Green Goblin/Hobgoblin, Doc Ock, Kingpin, Rhino, The Reptile, etc. The Vulture probably wouldn't even crack the top 10.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 08, 2017, 09:04:35 PM
I sometimes worry that critics have become a sort of laugh track - trying to convince an audience to like a product rather than giving their honest appraisal of the film.
I wonder about that too. Everyone is going to disagree with the critics, or in the case of Rotten Tomatoes, the average of the critics from time to time, but it's not just about critics having personal reactions to films. It's about predicting audience reactions correctly too. Otherwise, viewers will start to disregard you, and in the worst case, stop reading your column.
What I do suspect happens is a kind of group think and semi-conscious desire to not stray too far from the pack for fear of being labeled as "wrong." But then I might suspect that because it's exactly the feeling I had when I voiced my opinion about this movie, especially when the reviews were already in, and I already knew I was the contrarian. Also, with Marvel's reputation and Box Office record of repeated success, I have a tendency to think every movie they put out has to be a phenomenal block buster, so why not add a point or two, just to be on the safe side? I can't see why critics wouldn't be similarly influenced. And with their careers and reputation on the line, it's easier to justify being wrong when everyone else is wrong. It's safer to travel with the pack.
Another thing I think I notice critics doing is reviewing each film with the demographic in mind that will likely see the film, although I understand the actual merit in that. Try to get it right for the demographic involved. For example, horror films that are given ratings as high as the average Marvel film, even though they don't compare in creativity, production quality, plot, cinematography, or inspirational value, and I see what seems to be a lot of oddly high scores for horror films that don't even do that well financially at the box office.
Commercialism is the death of culture. Follow the money. Good culture requires a plutocratic base who is competing over who is the most cool Don (see Italian Renaissance).
So hyped for Dunkirk.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 09, 2017, 07:15:25 AM
So hyped for Dunkirk.
"Great movies are not won by retreats!"
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 09, 2017, 07:43:21 AM
"Great movies are not won by retreats!"
Hopefully, this one will be authentic, because I'm said to say the only thing I know about the actual battle of Dunkirk is from what I've seen in this movie trailer.
Quote from: SGOS on July 09, 2017, 07:48:09 AM
Hopefully, this one will be authentic, because I'm said to say the only thing I know about the actual battle of Dunkirk is from what I've seen in this movie trailer.
I'm sure Nolan will take a fair bit of artistic license, but I also know he is one of the greatest directors alive atm, and made several desicions that are really confidence building; filming at Dunkirk despite the conditions not being easy to work in, casting almost all young, unheard of actors because the first-hand accounts he heard were all from people who were teenagers, demanding the cast be all English, not wanting a German soldier to be shown in the film because they were under siege rather than in combat, and keeping dialog to the minimum and letting the situation of the characters speak for itself and build tension for itself rather than trying to force you to like characters you don't know. That, and making the film triopic; showing the scenario from land, sea and air instead of just focusing on one section.
Then you have Hans Zimmer as the musical director...
And on that songs note; you get fucking Spitfires. A movie cant be bad if it has a Spitfire in it. It's just not scientifically possible.
Dunkirk - fish in a barrel. And the actual reason why the Germans stopped short ... they were led by an idiot. Blitzkrieg was invented by someone other than Hitler, and happened as an accident due to the Wehrmacht not following Hitler's plan. Hitler expected to be stopped by the French and the Maginot Line. His local commanders simply took targets of opportunity and kept on going, and the Franco-British forces could never catch up. Until Hitler finally regained control and had them stop. Germany could have won the war at Dunkirk, but was defeated by Hitler, not by France nor Britain. And a damn good thing it was that he did so. For five days when Winston Churchill became PM .. his cabinet and himself had to decide if they were going to surrender to Germany (before Dunkirk). That decision, opposed by half of Britain ... to not surrender, was even more crucial than Hitler's failure to finish the job ... but Hitler's failure enabled Britain to fight back. France chose the opposite ... and betrayed their ally. And got 4 years of brutal occupation. I think it was because, in spite of WW I .. that the French hated the British even more than they hated the Germans.
Quote from: SGOS on July 09, 2017, 07:48:09 AM
Hopefully, this one will be authentic, because I'm said to say the only thing I know about the actual battle of Dunkirk is from what I've seen in this movie trailer.
Seems authentic in a pro-British way. Now with the Chunnel, Britain will have to surrender to Merkel occupation ;-(
From 1969 movie ... why it was crucial that the Royal Air Force not be over-committed to France ... which led to eventual air superiority of the Royal Air Force over the Channel (for Dunkirk evacuation) and over London ... after a stiff challenge by the Luftwaffe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXOyklW4Ps
German success leads to German arrogance ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dUv5FcyNM0
Clearing up the mythology ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXYij5JxC-M
Quote from: SGOS on July 08, 2017, 02:34:49 PMI'm totally unfamiliar with the comics, so it's probably what you get used to. What was the source of the mechanized suit in the comics? Same as the movie? And with that much high tech power available to him, how much of his organic spider power comes into play in the comics? I don't want emphasize the suit issue that much. It was just a minor issue that surprised me.
There are actually multiple versions of Spider-Man in the comics. There's Ultimate Spider-Man, which I believe the original trilogy was based on, and there's Amazing Spider-Man. The latter is what the two reboots were based on. Ultimate Spider-Man's web is organic, but Amazing Spider-Man's web comes from a cartridge in his wrist that he made for himself. His relationship with Iron Man was in the comics, and I believe Stark did give him a suit, but Spider-Man had his iconic look before then. The 90's Spider-Man cartoon was also based on Amazing Spider-Man, and he would occasionally run out of webbing in his cartridges and have to swap them out.
Quote from: SGOS on July 08, 2017, 10:08:53 PMI wonder about that too. Everyone is going to disagree with the critics, or in the case of Rotten Tomatoes, the average of the critics from time to time, but it's not just about critics having personal reactions to films. It's about predicting audience reactions correctly too. Otherwise, viewers will start to disregard you, and in the worst case, stop reading your column.
I didn't think about that. Straying too far from the crowd opinion can hurt the critic's reputation. But isn't the crowd's opinion shaped by early critical reviews? I think my brain just pulled a muscle.
QuoteAnother thing I think I notice critics doing is reviewing each film with the demographic in mind that will likely see the film, although I understand the actual merit in that. Try to get it right for the demographic involved.
That makes sense. You don't rate a barbacue competition by the standards of 5-star hotel cuisine. If you're reviewing a sci-fi film, you're trying to see how it stacks up compared to its peers. The problem can be when you get too narrow and you're doing silly stuff like saying that the Transformers movies are great...if you're a 12-year-old boy who already loves the other Transformers films.
QuoteFrance chose the opposite ... and betrayed their ally. And got 4 years of brutal occupation. I think it was because, in spite of WW I .. that the French hated the British even more than they hated the Germans.
Only about half the French state surrendered officially (Free France made up about half of France proper, as well as the colonies), and the Resistance was a huge part of the occupied territories population. The Régime de Vichy was not remotely popular or accepted by the French people, but it was necessary due to the overwhelming wins of the Germans.
Really want to kick up the conspiracy theory ideas watch Everything is a rich man's trick. Everything from the JFK assassination to modern day " terrorism" according to the writer is a trick by the filthy rich to get richer and control the entire planet. It's really not far fetched as it may seem.
In the least it's very interesting. Look it up on YouTube.
It is very true that the very rich in WWII funded both sides and became fabulously wealthy as a result. Only the very sick minded get to become heads of state and so on. It's painfully obvious that human life and suffering means absolutely nothing to these people and if 10 million or billion even have to die to protect their wealth then so be it .. In the film the current wave of immigration, Muslim and other brown people is a scheme of the rich to create a boogie man and a reason for every country to have paid armies to protect their wealth and power and for absolutely no other reason. All of the terrorist acts are cooked up to keep us all scared of each other.
After all, if you had a trillion dollars and were worried about poor people taking it wouldn't you want a professional army to protect it from them?
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 09, 2017, 09:17:17 PM
Straying too far from the crowd opinion can hurt the critic's reputation. But isn't the crowd's opinion shaped by early critical reviews?
I don't see how it could be otherwise. Human society thrives on people being told what to think, and with a fairly high degree of success. It's the foundation of politics, religion, and advertising. We are immersed in it from birth. Movie critics may or may not strive to shape public opinion intentionally, but they do. And they also shape each other's views.
I was a Siskel and Ebert fan back in the day. I was captivated by the format of two critics often disagreeing and sometimes agreeing that a movie was either bad or good. It seemed innovative at the time. When they disagreed, I didn't know what to think, which is not very comforting. So was the movie good or bad? I didn't know. If they agreed, I was relieved because then I thought the movie must be good or bad depending on the agreement. But then I started to notice that they would often give a movie two thumbs up (essentially that's a 100 percent), and it would turn out later that I thought that movie was bad, sometimes even egg sucking bad. I would question my judgment because I didn't know what to think. It wasn't a good feeling. It might have been better just to decide the movie blew chunks and be done with it, but if others disagreed with that, then I would feel bad again, not because people disagreed as much as that I wasn't sure what to think. The confusion would upset me.
It would be easier if you had someone tell you what to think. We see this in teenage peer groups. People think what the peer group tells them. Parents hate the peer group influence even though as adults they are molded by their own peer groups. But being told what to think and wanting to be told seems to be part of our social nature.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 09, 2017, 09:35:02 PM
Only about half the French state surrendered officially (Free France made up about half of France proper, as well as the colonies), and the Resistance was a huge part of the occupied territories population. The Régime de Vichy was not remotely popular or accepted by the French people, but it was necessary due to the overwhelming wins of the Germans.
Sorry you accept the French Vichy POV. The French fought honorably if incompetently until they surrendered. Their fathers would never have done that. All the Resistance were Communists (a minority) and they only fought when Uncle Joe told them to. But I am glad they did. Most of the French who made it to England after Dunkirk chose to repatriate to occupied France, rather than stay in England and fight. My grandfather had to fight the Vichy French (as did Churchill earlier) in order to land in N Africa .. or do you support Admiral Darlan too? Marshal Petain was a hero of WW I ... at Verdun. He was popular. The French originated the predecessor to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ... they were fierce Catholic anti-semites ... and didn't miss their Jewish neighbors, or mind their political opponents being sent to forced labor in Germany.
The French who stood up in WW I ... weren't cowards (that is how non-French excuse their betrayal) ... and neither were their sons. The politics differed. The alliance between the British and French Empires against Germany in WW I ... was an unnatural creation of President Teddy Roosevelt. Had the British Empire been allied to the Kaiser (he was family) then WW I would have ended quickly with French defeat (fighting on two fronts) and millions of lives would have been saved. And WW II ... wouldn't have happened.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 09, 2017, 09:17:17 PMI didn't think about that. Straying too far from the crowd opinion can hurt the critic's reputation. But isn't the crowd's opinion shaped by early critical reviews? I think my brain just pulled a muscle.
Mutual influence is common in relationships of all kinds. Parents teach their children, but even parents learn from their children. Pets increase the life expectancy of their owners, and pets live longer with an owner.
When he says "One of ours" in the trailer, was that a Beaufighter?
"King Kong vs. Godzilla". 11/10 for the ham fest. Seriously fun without trying to be, which just makes it better!
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 09, 2017, 11:26:57 AM
There are actually multiple versions of Spider-Man in the comics. There's Ultimate Spider-Man, which I believe the original trilogy was based on, and there's Amazing Spider-Man. The latter is what the two reboots were based on. Ultimate Spider-Man's web is organic, but Amazing Spider-Man's web comes from a cartridge in his wrist that he made for himself. His relationship with Iron Man was in the comics, and I believe Stark did give him a suit, but Spider-Man had his iconic look before then. The 90's Spider-Man cartoon was also based on Amazing Spider-Man, and he would occasionally run out of webbing in his cartridges and have to swap them out.
The original Spiderman was a puny loser teenage boy on his own, good at chemistry in school. After being bitten by a radioactive spider, he gained his powers. He didn't even know he had them until he was surprised by a wayward car and jumped out of the way, sticking to a building.
He spent some time earning small money as a freak wrestler until he ignored a thief running past him who later killed his Uncle Bill. After that, he took his abilities seriously. He built cartridges strapped to his wrists to spurt a synthetic web he could hang on and sewed his suit himself how he made cloth with a needle and thread is beyond me, but I remember the panel well.
Stark had nothing to do with any of it. Who, BTW, was wearing metal armor like an 8 year old would draw a robot and about all he had at the start was a heavy punch and roller skates.
Yes, Spiderman has changed (and not usually for the better), but I was there at the beginning. And Fantastic Four and Hulk and Thor. Did you know that Thor was originally the lame Dr Blake who found a staff in a cave and when he hit it against a wall became Thor? And changed back routinely? Jane Foster was just his nurse back then. ;)
Quote from: Cavebear on July 11, 2017, 08:05:43 AM
The original Spiderman was a puny loser teenage boy on his own, good at chemistry in school. After being bitten by a radioactive spider, he gained his powers. He didn't even know he had them until he was surprised by a wayward car and jumped out of the way, sticking to a building.
He spent some time earning small money as a freak wrestler until he ignored a thief running past him who later killed his Uncle Bill. After that, he took his abilities seriously. He built cartridges strapped to his wrists to spurt a synthetic web he could hang on and sewed his suit himself how he made cloth with a needle and thread is beyond me, but I remember the panel well.
Stark had nothing to do with any of it. Who, BTW, was wearing metal armor like an 8 year old would draw a robot and about all he had at the start was a heavy punch and roller skates.
Yes, Spiderman has changed (and not usually for the better), but I was there at the beginning. And Fantastic Four and Hulk and Thor. Did you know that Thor was originally the lame Dr Blake who found a staff in a cave and when he hit it against a wall became Thor? And changed back routinely? Jane Foster was just his nurse back then. ;)
So many interpretations and levels of knowledge and expertise about super heroes. It seems to be driven by the same mechanics that drive the creation of various concepts of god, and the descriptions of what those gods think, and how they behave and what they want. In the world of make believe, things can get out of hand pretty fast. When I was a boy, I don't remember such a huge knowledge base surrounding zombies. Our understanding of zombie lore has quadrupled during my lifetime. Zombies are now well understood across the many cultures of the Earth. Knowledge is power; We now know that we can kill them. We know that they are capable of great speed, and have acute sensory abilities, and are not a all like we thought during my youth where everyone believed that zombies would move about in a dull witted trance.
Just think how this knowledge base can grow and refine in 4000 years. We now have universities dedicated to mythical gods, and supported by "true" believers. What was just a band of migrating outcasts has become a major industry and life force on Earth, with books written by real experts that can explain the finer points of god lore that are unknown to the less diligent.
Quote from: SGOS on July 11, 2017, 09:36:21 AM
So many interpretations and levels of knowledge and expertise about super heroes. It seems to be driven by the same mechanics that drive the creation of various concepts of god, and the descriptions of what those gods think, and how they behave and what they want. In the world of make believe, things can get out of hand pretty fast. When I was a boy, I don't remember such a huge knowledge base surrounding zombies. Our understanding of zombie lore has quadrupled during my lifetime. Zombies are now well understood across the many cultures of the Earth. Knowledge is power; We now know that we can kill them. We know that they are capable of great speed, and have acute sensory abilities, and are not a all like we thought during my youth where everyone believed that zombies would move about in a dull witted trance.
Just think how this knowledge base can grow and refine in 4000 years. We now have universities dedicated to mythical gods, and supported by "true" believers. What was just a band of migrating outcasts has become a major industry and life force on Earth, with books written by real experts that can explain the finer points of god lore that are unknown to the less diligent.
The difference is that some of us can distinguish between fantasy and reality. And that really is important. Make-believe can be fun. But some people slip on the ice.
I'm thinking that if you need someone else to watch and rate a movie for you ahead of time you probably ought to just skip movie watching altogether. It's like deciding which sports team to follow based on the number of fans that team has as opposed to just following your hometown team.
When a movie has lots and lots of reviews I generally decide ahead of time it's probably gonna suck. I have little to zero interest in what the great unwashed masses think about, well, much of anything..
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 11, 2017, 02:55:23 PM
I'm thinking that if you need someone else to watch and rate a movie for you ahead of time you probably ought to just skip movie watching altogether. It's like deciding which sports team to follow based on the number of fans that team has as opposed to just following your hometown team.
Eh, I'd say it is more like deciding which team to follow based on which team experts say has the best chance of being a championship team. Besides, I doubt many people decide whether to watch a movie purely based on reviews, as a general rule. But, I for one don't have the time to watch every movie to decide for myself if it is worth watching. So, I do use reviews as a tool to help filter which ones I might see. I'm totally aware that I sometimes miss movies that I would have liked if I had seen them. And I sometimes see a movie that reviewers said was great and I didn't care for. I've survived...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 11, 2017, 08:05:43 AM
The original Spiderman was a puny loser teenage boy on his own, good at chemistry in school. After being bitten by a radioactive spider, he gained his powers. He didn't even know he had them until he was surprised by a wayward car and jumped out of the way, sticking to a building.
He spent some time earning small money as a freak wrestler until he ignored a thief running past him who later killed his Uncle Bill. After that, he took his abilities seriously. He built cartridges strapped to his wrists to spurt a synthetic web he could hang on and sewed his suit himself how he made cloth with a needle and thread is beyond me, but I remember the panel well.
Stark had nothing to do with any of it. Who, BTW, was wearing metal armor like an 8 year old would draw a robot and about all he had at the start was a heavy punch and roller skates.
Yes, Spiderman has changed (and not usually for the better), but I was there at the beginning. And Fantastic Four and Hulk and Thor. Did you know that Thor was originally the lame Dr Blake who found a staff in a cave and when he hit it against a wall became Thor? And changed back routinely? Jane Foster was just his nurse back then. ;)
I thought Dr. Blake was the name Thor took when Odin sent him to Earth to learn humility.
Quote from: SGOS on July 11, 2017, 09:36:21 AM
So many interpretations and levels of knowledge and expertise about super heroes. It seems to be driven by the same mechanics that drive the creation of various concepts of god, and the descriptions of what those gods think, and how they behave and what they want. In the world of make believe, things can get out of hand pretty fast. When I was a boy, I don't remember such a huge knowledge base surrounding zombies. Our understanding of zombie lore has quadrupled during my lifetime. Zombies are now well understood across the many cultures of the Earth. Knowledge is power; We now know that we can kill them. We know that they are capable of great speed, and have acute sensory abilities, and are not a all like we thought during my youth where everyone believed that zombies would move about in a dull witted trance.
Just think how this knowledge base can grow and refine in 4000 years. We now have universities dedicated to mythical gods, and supported by "true" believers. What was just a band of migrating outcasts has become a major industry and life force on Earth, with books written by real experts that can explain the finer points of god lore that are unknown to the less diligent.
It's kinda similar in that both are occasionally rebooted to reflect the modern age and their standards. The anti-gay position of fundamentalist Christians will be mostly phased out, or at least turned into a subtler form of prejudice. Just as racism and sexism still exist in the church, but have become more subtle. For example, Christians will say that woman are equal to men, but God has different uses for them. Still sexism, but a more palatable form of sexism.
For comics, though, reboots don't mean that previous comics are completely erased from canon. Instead, they have multiverses now. Each age of super hero takes place in a differently numbered universe, which sometimes interacts with other universes. Both DC and Marvel do this.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 11, 2017, 08:05:43 AM...metal armor like an 8 year old would draw a robot...
Excellent memory, overall...but,
THIS STATEMENT...
now your raggin' on
JACK KIRBY, man! You don't want me to come through this screen, and
SLAP YOU, now do you?
Quote from: SGOS on July 10, 2017, 02:21:15 AMI was a Siskel and Ebert fan back in the day. I was captivated by the format of two critics often disagreeing and sometimes agreeing that a movie was either bad or good. It seemed innovative at the time. When they disagreed, I didn't know what to think, which is not very comforting. So was the movie good or bad? I didn't know. If they agreed, I was relieved because then I thought the movie must be good or bad depending on the agreement. But then I started to notice that they would often give a movie two thumbs up (essentially that's a 100 percent), and it would turn out later that I thought that movie was bad, sometimes even egg sucking bad. I would question my judgment because I didn't know what to think. It wasn't a good feeling. It might have been better just to decide the movie blew chunks and be done with it, but if others disagreed with that, then I would feel bad again, not because people disagreed as much as that I wasn't sure what to think. The confusion would upset me.
I liked them, too. And I also found their mixed verdicts to be uncomfortable.
I stopped liking them after a few years. I got the impression that they consistently thumbs-down sci-fi and fantasy and superhero films, especially the sorts of films that I like. It felt like they were writing off whole genres just because that's not their cup of tea. Looking back, that's probably not 100% accurate. But what is accurate is that I frequently had MAJOR disagreements with them on specific movies:
Ebert (all reviews out of 5 possible stars)
Star Wars: Phantom Menace - 3.5 stars
Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back - 4 stars
Matrix - 3 stars
Matrix Reloaded - 3.5 stars
Kick-Ass - 1 star
The Passion of the Christ (2004) - 5 stars
Clearly, something is
very wrong here.
QuoteIt would be easier if you had someone tell you what to think. We see this in teenage peer groups. People think what the peer group tells them.
I don't blindly follow my peers (or maybe I do and tell myself I don't) but I find peer groups to be the most useful source of input. That's why I'm here and not on some swanky hollywood review site. Generally speaking, you guys give me a pretty good impression of what to expect.
I trust someone with a similar background and similar interests over someone who doesn't understand these darn kids and their Star Trails and Iron Mans, doesn't know anything about the source material of the movie, and watches the movie out of obligation rather than interest and so might come into it with the verdict already in hand (not necessarily directed at Siskel and Ebert, but at aged professional reviewers in general)
I'm glad the internet has somewhat balkanized reviewers. Instead of an all-purpose reviewer, you can go to several reviewers who specialize in different genres. For example, a critic who specializes in sci-fi movies is more likely to have the expertise to rate a movie fairly accurately than some random suit who doesn't know jack about the movie and probably doesn't even care.
Viva la revolución!
Eegah! - rotten movie, fantastic live MSTing: even though this movie was done during the Joel era, that was 25 years ago now (oy) and while the riffs are updated, they're just as hilarious. Joel looks so happy to have MST up and running again, and Jonah and company are worthy successors. If the Watch Out For Snakes tour (http://www.mst3k.com/tour) comes anywhere near you, run, don't walk to your ticketing outlet.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory - Always a little creepy despite being great fun, watching it with the knowledge of the mind games that both star Gene Wilder and director Mel Stuart pulled on the kids to get the reactions they wanted does kick the creepy meter up just a little.
Speaking of creepily fun...
https://vimeo.com/113180815
Yes, exactly what it sounds like, Primus covered the WW&tCF soundtrack and someone went and dubbed their music in. 'Candyman' takes on a WHOLE 'nother spin done this way.
There is no life I know to compare with pure imagination, living here your be free.. if you truly wish to be.
At least when Willie Wonka went into the bizarre and irrational, it lead to something sweet. All religion leads to are dry crackers and rice
Quote from: Hydra009...I stopped liking them after a few years. I got the impression that they consistently thumbs-down sci-fi and fantasy and superhero films, especially the sorts of films that I like...
I didn't watch them all that much, but I do remember, oddly enough, that Ebert, for the 1998 movie "season," endorsed
Dark City, for "Best Picture"(
outstanding movie, in my opinion, as well).
Quote from: trdsf on July 13, 2017, 12:35:21 PM
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
The video, that you posted, looks
a little bit long, for me...but that movie is one, of
a handful of movies, that I remember seeing, at the
long-gone local theater, as a child(
Benji is another).
I still find this song inspirational...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-uV72pQKI
My black panther hype might be even higher than Dunkirk (which is getting great reviews).
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on July 13, 2017, 02:21:06 PM
The video, that you posted, looks a little bit long, for me...but that movie is one, of a handful of movies, that I remember seeing, at the long-gone local theater, as a child(Benji is another).
Yeah, it is the whole movie, save the link for when you have time. :)
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on July 13, 2017, 02:21:06 PM
I still find this song inspirational...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-uV72pQKI
I don't mind admitting that I misted up watching that scene in the original.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on July 13, 2017, 02:13:41 PM
I didn't watch them all that much, but I do remember, oddly enough, that Ebert, for the 1998 movie "season," endorsed Dark City, for "Best Picture"(outstanding movie, in my opinion, as well).
Great film. It mixes fantasy with the sublime. I loved the down to business inspector. He's as serious as anything, but the writers named him Bumstead in spite of his demeanor which commands the utmost respect. The evil doers are entirely unique, and while they are almost comical, you couldn't make them any more creepy.
I've got another favorite film from about the same time period, probably a few years earlier, The Thirteenth Floor, which is an entirely different plot. It's about computer technology that so outpaces our present abilities that it has to be centuries ahead of us, but because it was filmed when it was, the programmers are filmed using big heavy monitors and entering commands in DOS.
When I watch one, I end up not having had enough, so I usually watch the other one as soon as possible, and after that I end up wishing I had more movies of that caliber.
Quote from: Munch on July 13, 2017, 02:00:19 PM
There is no life I know to compare with pure imagination, living here your be free.. if you truly wish to be.
At least when Willie Wonka went into the bizarre and irrational, it lead to something sweet. All religion leads to are dry crackers and rice
No more cruel gruel for Yule ... Oliver!
I enjoyed War for the Planet of the Apes. Wonderful filming! If you hate 3D, well, then see it in 2D. But, if you occasionally like 3D if it is good quality and effectively used. If that is the case, then consider seeing this one in 3D. I thought the 3D was well done and effective.
It is certainly a war movie. The title is apt.
Yet, for me, for whatever reason, it didn't hit me as strongly as the previous two. Maybe it is just my mood, or whatever. But I didn't feel as engaged in the story this time as much as the previous two. I still really enjoyed it, but, at least for me, a notch below the previous two.
It has been many years since I saw the original, and Beneath. To my recollection, the story indicated a nuclear war. Of course Beneath ended with a nuclear bomb destroying the world. But, to my recollection, a nuclear war was explained as part of how apes became the masters of the planet. Yes? Hopefully it is not much of a spoiler for me to say that we don't see any nuclear war yet. And while I have read that there are possible plans to continue the series, overall, this feels like a good way to end the series, that no more films are really needed. But if they did continue the story, then maybe nuclear war could be a part of any remaining movies.
I suppose they could also do a movie where the apes start to enslave the humans, to put the story up to the moment that Heston arrives. Or even show the humans that still talk going underground to set the stage for Beneath. But, at least at the moment, I'm not feeling like those are good stories to tell, the nuclear war story, the human enslavement story, the humans going underground story. But, who knows, I could be wrong. But my vote is to end it on a high note.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 12, 2017, 11:26:21 PM
I thought Dr. Blake was the name Thor took when Odin sent him to Earth to learn humility.
That may well have been the after-story, but I clearly recall the earliest panel when Dr Blake picked up a staff in a cave and accidentally struck it on a wall and became Thor. Sadly I do not recall the reason or the threat that caused the event. My recollection is that the staff was just sitting there in the cave.
Glen or Glenda? - seen it before, but never on the big screen, and while it's an unintentionally hilarious movie due to Ed Wood's... well, let's call them Ed's limitations as a writer, actor and director, it was turned into a special event due to the live commentary from Trace Beaulieu and Frank Conniff, Classic MST3K's Dr Forrester and TV's Frank. And unlike classic MST3K, they're not restricted by what they can get past the censor...
If The Mads Are Back (http://www.themadsareback.com/) comes to your town, run, don't walk, to the appropriate ticketing agent.
Quote from: trdsf on July 14, 2017, 12:31:40 PM
Glen or Glenda? - seen it before, but never on the big screen, and while it's an unintentionally hilarious movie due to Ed Wood's... well, let's call them Ed's limitations as a writer, actor and director, it was turned into a special event due to the live commentary from Trace Beaulieu and Frank Conniff, Classic MST3K's Dr Forrester and TV's Frank. And unlike classic MST3K, they're not restricted by what they can get past the censor...
If The Mads Are Back (http://www.themadsareback.com/) comes to your town, run, don't walk, to the appropriate ticketing agent.
Interesting. One of those is a family name and I don't know the person...
Walk the Dark Street (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049932/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_108) - a nothing of a movie, written and directed by the man who wrote Robot Monster (the one with the gorilla suit wearing a diving helmet) and an abysmal Alpha Video print, so only barely at 640x480... and blown up to the big screen. A movie that has absolutely nothing to recommend it... but made wildly and hilariously entertaining by Trace and Frank.
Also, my brother and sister heathens, be proud: the idea for them to do this tour came out of their experience a couple years ago when they riffed live on 'God Is Not Dead' at an atheist convention. :D
Spiderman homecoming.
6/10
My expression coming from this movie was kinda like this.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/37H5XhwrXuHPq/giphy.gif)
There were parts of this movie I enjoyed, the action sequences were a lot of fun, some of the actors were pretty good, and it was now set in the canon marvel movieverse which opened up more of the marvel movies into it.
But there was a lot of cringe in this. Why the fuck is Peter Parker 15? Why the fuck is aunt May in her late 30s? Why is Adrian Toomes a scrap metal dealer instead of an ancient millionaire? Why is ironman such a dislikeable cock in this movie?
There thankfully wasn't a load of sjw narrative thrown in like I dreaded there be, but it just felt so out of place having Spiderman be this young, not even in university or with his job at the bugle, yet he's offered to join the avengers?
Seriously, tobey maguire is still the best Spiderman, maybe this new kid playing him could grow into the role, but I won't be seeing the sequals to this anytime soon.
Next? Chibi Avengers!
Quote from: SGOS on July 15, 2017, 07:03:35 AM
Battle for the Planet of the Apes 8/10
Which movie was it you were reviewing...?
Quote from: Munch on July 15, 2017, 07:06:15 PMThere thankfully wasn't a load of sjw narrative thrown in like I dreaded there be, but it just felt so out of place having Spiderman be this young, not even in university or with his job at the bugle, yet he's offered to join the avengers?
Watsonian explanation: In the MCU timeline, Tony Stark scouted for talent to help in the Civil War, apparently discovering Spidey extremely early in his career. So yes, he's offered to join the avengers before he goes to college or works for Mr Hitler mustache.
Doylist explanation: Marvel wanted to introduce Spidey to filmgoers without the baggage of the previous Spiderman films. Clean slate. So they have to start him out super young.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 15, 2017, 11:25:08 PM
Which movie was it you were reviewing...?
Sorry, it was the War for the Planet of the Apes. Well, I sure made a mess out of that. I need to go back to movie reviewer school, and take a refresher course.
Quote from: Munch on July 15, 2017, 07:06:15 PM
Spiderman homecoming.
6/10
My expression coming from this movie was kinda like this.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/37H5XhwrXuHPq/giphy.gif)
There were parts of this movie I enjoyed, the action sequences were a lot of fun, some of the actors were pretty good, and it was now set in the canon marvel movieverse which opened up more of the marvel movies into it.
But there was a lot of cringe in this. Why the fuck is Peter Parker 15? Why the fuck is aunt May in her late 30s? Why is Adrian Toomes a scrap metal dealer instead of an ancient millionaire? Why is ironman such a dislikeable cock in this movie?
There thankfully wasn't a load of sjw narrative thrown in like I dreaded there be, but it just felt so out of place having Spiderman be this young, not even in university or with his job at the bugle, yet he's offered to join the avengers?
Seriously, tobey maguire is still the best Spiderman, maybe this new kid playing him could grow into the role, but I won't be seeing the sequals to this anytime soon.
I always thought it was kinda weird that Peter Parker's
Aunt May was the age of an elderly grandmother. How much of an age difference could there have been between Peter's father and his aunt?
QuoteWhy the fuck is aunt May in her late 30s?
Because that's normally what age an aunt should be.
QuoteWhy is ironman such a dislikeable cock in this movie?
Did we watch the same movie?
Quote from: Shiranu on July 16, 2017, 09:00:58 AM
Because that's normally what age an aunt should be.
Not this aunt. Best I can gather from canon is peters parents gave peter to May and Ben as a baby when they were already in their forties, which explains why she looks like this in the comics.
(https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/3/30334/1132187-mu4487.jpg)
Did we watch the same movie?
[/quote]
He was though, he kept down playing peter in his role and gave him little to no respect, even shunned him when trying to do his own thing. He pretty much ignored his growth, not their training him to be a hero, or his assistant Happy, and only showing up when the plot demanded it. I just found him really dislikeable in this movie.
I also disliked the lack of anything uncle Ben in this movie, he's pretty much peters father figure, but nope, need to spend more time talking about the his class mates and winning a school quiz contest. Infact I believe the reason why uncle Ben wasn't even mentioned was to try and force the idea of tony stark being a father figure, which honestly he sucked at if that's the case.
Quote from: Munch on July 15, 2017, 07:06:15 PM
Why the fuck is Peter Parker 15? Why the fuck is aunt May in her late 30s? Why is Adrian Toomes a scrap metal dealer instead of an ancient millionaire? Why is ironman such a dislikeable cock in this movie?
15 is the official age that Peter Parker was bitten by the spider, according to Marvel.
Where the fuck do you get "late 30s" for Aunt May???? Did they say anything about her age in the movie? Marisa Tomei is 52. But, as Shiranu points out, even Aunt May was portrayed as being late 30's, that would be perfectly reasonable for an aunt of a 15 year old. Though I suppose 40's would be more common. But since Tomei is 52, you seem to be just GRASPING at straws to bitch about!
As far as Toomes back story being changed, okay, it was. Big fucking deal.
Did you not notice that Ironman/Tony Stark as portrayed as RDJ has always been cocky and dickish? Have you watched ANY previous Ironman movie?
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 16, 2017, 08:34:40 AM
I always thought it was kinda weird that Peter Parker's Aunt May was the age of an elderly grandmother. How much of an age difference could there have been between Peter's father and his aunt?
I technically have a first cousin who's 30 years younger than me. So, it's possible. Not likely, but possible.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 16, 2017, 12:06:51 PMDid you not notice that Ironman/Tony Stark as portrayed as RDJ has always been cocky and dickish? Have you watched ANY previous Ironman movie?
That's true. He is totally a jerk with a heart of gold. Though I think that sometimes the writers forget that underneath the layers of jerk, there is a decent human being under there. Hopefully, Spiderman Homecoming isn't one of those occasions.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 16, 2017, 12:30:30 PM
That's true. He is totally a jerk with a heart of gold. Though I think that sometimes the writers forget that underneath the layers of jerk, there is a decent human being under there. Hopefully, Spiderman Homecoming isn't one of those occasions.
He pretty much is that way in this, hence why I pointed it out.
Quote from: Munch on July 16, 2017, 12:37:15 PM
He pretty much is that way in this, hence why I pointed it out.
I'll have to watch it and get back to you guys on this.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 16, 2017, 12:06:51 PM
15 is the official age that Peter Parker was bitten by the spider, according to Marvel.
Where the fuck do you get "late 30s" for Aunt May???? Did they say anything about her age in the movie? Marisa Tomei is 52. But, as Shiranu points out, even Aunt May was portrayed as being late 30's, that would be perfectly reasonable for an aunt of a 15 year old. Though I suppose 40's would be more common. But since Tomei is 52, you seem to be just GRASPING at straws to bitch about!
As far as Toomes back story being changed, okay, it was. Big fucking deal.
Did you not notice that Ironman/Tony Stark as portrayed as RDJ has always been cocky and dickish? Have you watched ANY previous Ironman movie?
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/b14ee48019b2aa710a95e743a1c2a0c0/tumblr_ntplcm62ga1su2of1o8_500.jpg)
May and Ben parker, older then peters parents.
I'll retort with the old classic: it's a comic book, characters change. Isn't uncle Been not showing up again more realistic since the character would have to be either reanimated or reinterpreted?
Quote from: Munch on July 16, 2017, 12:37:15 PM
He pretty much is that way in this, hence why I pointed it out.
He was a decent person, he was trying to protect and teach a 15 year old who is dealing with people's lives...
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 16, 2017, 12:06:51 PM
Where the fuck do you get "late 30s" for Aunt May???? Did they say anything about her age in the movie? Marisa Tomei is 52.
Part of the issue here might be in the casting. Marisa Tomei maybe 52, but she looks 30. I can't remember that Aunt May's age was given in the movie, but since it was Marisa, I'll give all of this a pass, because well it's Marisa, and I love her.
Quote from: SGOS on July 16, 2017, 01:18:31 PM
Part of the issue here might be in the casting. Marisa Tomei maybe 52, but she looks 30. I can't remember that Aunt May's age was given in the movie, but since it was Marisa, I'll give all of this a pass, because well it's Marisa, and I love her.
I'll give her that she's a fine actress, if they even cast her as being peters mother before giving her to Ben and May I'd say that would work. She just wasn't aunt May to me.
(http://www.chasingamazingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/ASM38v2_05.jpg)
This is aunt may to me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PIlStdAb1EY
So is this.
Quote from: Munch on July 16, 2017, 12:42:41 PM
May and Ben parker, older then peters parents.
Okay. But, I still think 52 qualifies. But, honestly, if you want complete consistency with the comics you should probably stay away from the movies. You said you like the Tobey Maguire movies. I agree they were good but they weren't completely consistent with the comics either.
Quote from: Munch on July 16, 2017, 02:35:37 PM
This is aunt may to me.
I'll totally agree that Tomei looks a lot younger than the other actresses who have played Aunt May. But I think they were intentionally trying to not duplicate too much.
Just saw Spiderman Homecoming. 8/10 Very good.
This is maybe the best Spiderman movie I've ever seen, and I've seen a whopping 3 of them. It's also about average for an MCU movie, but average isn't bad compared to enormous blockbuster hits.
One thing that really stood out to me is that this movie was mostly sunny and bright. Not dark (in both senses of the word), gloomy, and angst-ridden, as other movies have been. A very welcome change. Between this and GoTG, I think Marvel finally figured out this whole color palette thing.
Most of the humor was good. Cap definitely got a chuckle or two out of me. It could've used more classic Spiderman zingers, but you can't have it all.
I also really liked Michael Keaton. I even liked his fur-trimmed jacket. I take back 90% of the bad things I said about the Vulture. Marvel Studios took this (http://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/The-Vulture-Steve-Ditko.jpg) and turned him into the closest thing the MCU has to a Chaos Raptor. What an upgrade!
The action scenes were filmed beautifully for the most part. The night action scenes got a little choppy and hard to follow in places, but the action was mostly done very well.
And I dunno who said that this movie was too similar to an Iron Man movie, but I will personally fly to their hometown, knock on their door, and...*reviews the footage*...respectfully disagree. I can see where you got that impression, but I don't share it.
And finally, Tony Stark was NOT a 100% asshole in this film. He was a bit rough on Peter, but it was clear by the end that he was just trying to look out for him.
And super finally, there are two end credits scenes so be sure to stay until the very end for some amazing Captain Marvel footage. *snickers*
[spoiler]I think this is the first time I've seen Peter Parker in a high school that actually looked like a high school. Crowded, messy, socially awkward, teachers just play videos and generally hate their lives. Throw in a couple MTG decks, Deadpool-level pimple outbreaks, a blind eye to bullying, and filthy bathrooms with non-working sinks and over-filled toilets, and I'd be right at home.
The heroism was for the most part pretty lowlevel, which can be good or bad depending on your tastes. Aside from the main plot, nothing too high stakes. Pretty mundane and boring, to be honest.
I fucking LOVED the villain crew. Powered armor? Check. Flashy alien weapons? Check. Like some sort of villainous XCOM. I'm already at halfmast just thinking about it.
I hated Pete's clingy, annoying friend, who's pretty much just like the Adoring Fan from Oblivion. I could see him being super excited and peppering Pete with questions for a single scene, but goddamn if he didn't do it the whole damn movie. And nearly spilling the beans at almost every opportunity. The vulture isn't the real villain of this movie, it's that little douchebag.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 16, 2017, 05:52:40 PM
I also really liked Michael Keaton. I even liked his fur-trimmed jacket. I take back 90% of the bad things I said about the Vulture. Marvel Studios took this (http://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/The-Vulture-Steve-Ditko.jpg) and turned him into the closest thing the MCU has to a Chaos Raptor. What an upgrade!
I agree that if they tried to make him look like he did in that panel, it would have been laughable. Though I was thinking of one thing... What do Ironman, Vulture and Green Goblin have in common? Guys that invented gizmos to fly with. Just cosmetically different devices.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 16, 2017, 08:34:40 AM
I always thought it was kinda weird that Peter Parker's Aunt May was the age of an elderly grandmother. How much of an age difference could there have been between Peter's father and his aunt?
Linguistically, one generally doesn't differentiate between an aunt and a great-aunt, at least not in English. So my grandparents' siblings (and there were a thundering lot of them) were my aunts and uncles. I didn't call them 'great-aunt' and 'great-uncle' so-and-so. I don't recall that it was ever stated that May was the sibling of one of his parents; I always took it as read that she was the sister (or sister-in-law) of one of his
grandparents, not of his parents. I don't believe it was ever clarified in canon one way or the other.
By way of examples, my dad's brother was only 13 years older than me, so after I grew to adulthood, I dropped the 'uncle'. I know several people from large families who are
older than their own aunts and uncles, or have aunts and uncles in the first degree that are of an age range more typically that of a great-aunt or -uncle. I'm 32 years older than my older niece... and 33 years younger than my youngest great-aunt. The age difference, and the uncertainty of the degree of relationship, are nothing to go by when trying to determine the 'proper' age difference between a nephew and an aunt.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 16, 2017, 06:15:43 PM
I agree that if they tried to make him look like he did in that panel, it would have been laughable. Though I was thinking of one thing... What do Ironman, Vulture and Green Goblin have in common? Guys that invented gizmos to fly with. Just cosmetically different devices.
There are subtle differences. The Vulture's wide wingspan and reach lends it to circular skirmishing and slashing attacks. Green Goblin ops more for straight-line ramming attacks or bombing runs. And Iron Man can hover in place or jet to a destination like a cruise missile.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 16, 2017, 05:34:01 PM
I'll totally agree that Tomei looks a lot younger than the other actresses who have played Aunt May. But I think they were intentionally trying to not duplicate too much.
Its an adaptation from a source material, it owes it to fans give them its based upon. Of course adaptations need to do their own thing to fit it into a run time.
Quote from: Munch on July 16, 2017, 07:47:44 PMIts an adaptation from a source material, it owes it to fans give them its based upon. Of course adaptations need to do their own thing to fit it into a run time.
*tries to find a way to justify deviating somewhat from the source material while not exposing myself as a hypocrite for the many, many times I've heavily criticized an adaption for doing just that*
*almost comes up with something*
*erases post*
QuoteIts an adaptation from a source material, it owes it to fans give them its based upon.
Yeah, I see where you are coming from... if it made any relevance to the plot. It doesn't. Turning Spiderman into a transgendered Asian blind kid who wasn't actually bitten by a spider but rather by the power of social justice is able to shoot freedom webs? That would be terrible.
Making aunt May actual aunt age? I just don't even. Out of all the things to get hung up about, I put that somewhere between, "Oh no, that piece of grass blew to the left!" and, "That brick on the wall was red 323 instead of red 322, absolutely horrible, how dare they change the source material!".
Second: Movie aint owe you shit. It's a big girl, it can do what it want. A Spiderman movie owes you a Spiderman with roughly the same story as the comics... it gave you that. If it was called Spiderman and gave you a Teletubbie film, that would be it not giving you what it owes you.
Corporations owe consumers ... nothing.
"transgendered Asian blind kid who wasn't actually bitten by a spider but rather by the power of social justice is able to shoot freedom webs" ... I like your idea. Get it crowd-funded now!
PC folks are offended by one race playing another, but I think if that was routine, racism would die. PC keeps the racism going, while claiming the opposite. PC are like ex-smokers who like to claim they never smoked in the first place. I vote for a Christian Shylock, a Black Hamlet, and a White Othello.
Quote from: Munch on July 15, 2017, 07:06:15 PMSeriously, tobey maguire is still the best Spiderman
As long as we don't acknowledge the third film. ;)
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 17, 2017, 09:57:41 AM
As long as we don't acknowledge the third film. ;)
Now I blame that on the director, and casting agent for Eddie Brock/venom
Munch: Seriously, tobey maguire is still the best Spiderman
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 17, 2017, 09:57:41 AM
As long as we don't acknowledge the third film. ;)
I agree. Taking truth to the original comics out, and taking film as a stand alone medium, Tobey makes a better Spiderman, but of course this is all personal opinion. The Amazing Spiderman didn't ring true for some reason; He may have been too old for the part to be convincing. The third one acts well enough, but lacks a dynamic in his personality that doesn't excite me. But Tobey might be too old himself now to play the role of a high school kid. Besides that, I've heard he became difficult to work with, and apparently had some had some physical issue, or maybe he just got uppity.
And the third film of the original series somehow just went haywire. Each of the villains on their own were good concepts, but together perhaps a bit too confusing. Throw in a black fungus from outer space that turns Spidey into a generic dickhead bent on self destruction, and the focus of the movie is gone. How much shit is Spiderman expected to deal with in one movie? Peter becomes such a dick that the love interest in the plot is destroyed to the point where I hoped Peter and Mary Jane would never see each other again. OK, that was the fault of the fungus, but Spiderman should have known better than to give into such an addiction. And when some of the issues get resolved as Hollywood knows they must, I had lost interest to the point where I didn't care what happened to any character in the film, including Spidey.
Oh I know, even in the third movie he was better then Andrew Garfield
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 17, 2017, 09:57:41 AM
As long as we don't acknowledge the third film. ;)
There wasn't a third film. There was the one with the Green Goblin then the one with Doc Ock then nothing until the Amazing Spider Man.
I guess this will just prove how easy to please I am, but, honestly, I liked all of the Spiderman movies. Even the much hated "third". Was it as good as the first two? No, but I didn't hate it.
As to Garfield, he had more Spidey zingers. That was one of the things that people said the current Spiderman lacks. And I loved Emma Stone as Gwen. Yeah, Rhino was corney, but, was a minor part. Now, sure, I would rate the Garfield movies lowest of the three actors, but still good. I can say there are things I liked and disliked about each. But the current one had probably the most pluses.
Note that I never really read the comics. Maybe one comic maybe? Not sure. I'm sure I read at least some, but very little and I have no personal attachment to any of the comics. I might feel different if I had more of an attachment to the source material.
Collateral Beauty 9/10
Strange, poignant, touching, and magical. I had no clue what it was about and put off watching it for a long time, but it was a delightful surprise.
Will Smith, Helen Mirren, Keira Knightley, Kate Winslet, Edward Norton, Michael Pena, and Naomie Harris make up the core of the cast, so there's a lot of power right there. Haven't seen Edward Norton in anything for a while, but the storyline in this one must have tempted him out of hiding.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 17, 2017, 06:54:12 PM
I guess this will just prove how easy to please I am, but, honestly, I liked all of the Spiderman movies. Even the much hated "third". Was it as good as the first two? No, but I didn't hate it.
I actually kinda hated the second one. I'm difficult to please. There's one kinda good one (the 2002 one), one decent one (Amazing Spider-Man), and one very good one (Homecoming) according to me.
QuoteNote that I never really read the comics. Maybe one comic maybe? Not sure. I'm sure I read at least some, but very little and I have no personal attachment to any of the comics. I might feel different if I had more of an attachment to the source material.
I read a few of them, but for some reason, it never really clicked with me. It might be because I was already reading Darkhawk at the time, and they share an awful lot of similarities to each other. Probably one of the reasons why Darkhawk ended up getting cancelled.
But I loved the Spider-Man animated TV show in the 90s.
Quote from: Munch on July 15, 2017, 07:06:15 PM
Spiderman homecoming.
Why is ironman such a dislikeable cock in this movie?
Iron man IS a dislikeable cock. That's part of his character. Like Thor is unsufferably godish, Hulk is randomly destructive, and Spiderman is angst-ridden.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 18, 2017, 04:05:50 AM
Iron man IS a dislikeable cock. That's part of his character. Like Thor is unsufferably godish, Hulk is randomly destructive, and Spiderman is angst-ridden.
I think this describes it. He wasn't any different around Spidey than he is 80% of the rest of time. The original observation may have implied something like, "Around adults fine, but don't model that behavior in front of an impressionable kid. He might think he's expected to act that way, especially when he adores you."
Quote from: SGOS on July 18, 2017, 04:55:06 AM
I think this describes it. He wasn't any different around Spidey than he is 80% of the rest of time. The original observation may have implied something like, "Around adults fine, but don't model that behavior in front of an impressionable kid. He might think he's expected to act that way, especially when he adores you."
If Spiderman "adores" Tony Stark, I'm going to hurl... He isn't that way. He is just himself.
According to an article I read, Ghost in the Shell lost 60M at the box office. I liked it, quite a bit actually, but sometimes things flop. It's comes out on DVD July 25th. I'm going to buy it. I can't even remember the plot. I just remember cool high tech cityscapes that were a wonder to watch in 3D, and they may not be as interesting on my home theater screen. But I must have liked more than just the imagery.
I'm totally fucking psyched for Dunkirk!
Quote from: SGOS on July 18, 2017, 05:58:39 PM
According to an article I read, Ghost in the Shell lost 60M at the box office. I liked it, quite a bit actually, but sometimes things flop. It's comes out on DVD July 25th. I'm going to buy it. I can't even remember the plot. I just remember cool high tech cityscapes that were a wonder to watch in 3D, and they may not be as interesting on my home theater screen. But I must have liked more than just the imagery.
That's a shame. I heard the movie was a good adaptation of the anime. I haven't been out to the movies much lately, but I remember people complaining about the white washing of the main character. I wonder how many of those complainers would have seen the movie in the first place.
I saw the new Spider-Man yesterday, and I have mixed feelings about it. It's a decent movie in its own right, but it's kinda slow getting started. Spider-Man is pretty incompetent in the movie. He's very much a rookie who hasn't even figured out how to web swing properly yet. And Jesus Christ, aside from Peter, none of the Spider-man cast is recognizable. People are constantly hitting on Aunt May (who doesn't act or look like the character), Harry and Gwen don't exist yet, Mary Jane isn't even referred to by that name until the end of the movie, and she's an awkward, creepy nerd. Flash is still a bully, but he's apparently a nerd now too. I dunno. I liked the Vulture, but the movie as a whole hasn't completely won me over on the new Spider-Man yet. It's definitely an improvement over Amazing Spider-Man, but Spider-Man 1 & 2 were better movies in my opinion, even if they were very goofy.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 20, 2017, 10:25:35 AM
I liked the Vulture, but the movie as a whole hasn't completely won me over on the new Spider-Man yet. It's definitely an improvement over Amazing Spider-Man, but Spider-Man 1 & 2 were better movies in my opinion, even if they were very goofy.
They are goofy, and of all the Marvel super villains, which can be goofy enough on their own, Tobey's Spiderman villains were the most ludicrous of the lot, and had a negative impact for me, although I still liked the Tobey Spiderman best of all. Oddly, the Vulture didn't do much for me, even though he's a real person doing real business. He was actually the kind of villain I wished for, not one so wonky and demented to be laughable. After thinking about it, I should take that part of the movie as a blessing.
Free Fire 8/10
I don't think this one made it to the theater, but if you're a fan of gunfights, you're gonna love this. It's the weirdest gunfight I've seen in a movie, but somehow it struck me as believable, but in a really strange way. I kept saying to my self, "Are these people all nuts?" The plot for the movie is that a bunch of guys are in a gunfight. That's about it. No, really. That's it. I thought it was unique. It could be a new genre in film.
Quote from: SGOS on July 20, 2017, 06:33:28 PM
Free Fire 8/10
I don't think this one made it to the theater, but if you're a fan of gunfights, you're gonna love this. It's the weirdest gunfight I've seen in a movie, but somehow it struck me as believable, but in a really strange way. I kept saying to my self, "Are these people all nuts?" The plot for the movie is that a bunch of guys are in a gunfight. That's about it. No, really. That's it. I thought it was unique. It could be a new genre in film.
That would be cutting to the chase, if it was a car chase movie ;-)
So, I'm the first kid on the block to see Dunkirk! It is a good movie. And incredible filming. Yet, at least for me, it wasn't as good as I hoped. Or perhaps it wasn't quite as what I expected. I was told that it would be draining and high tension. And, there was moderate tension, and some moments of fairly high tension. But, it wasn't as consistent high tension as I was expecting. And, very little plot, though that much I understood. Still a good movie but wasn't quite as good as I expected. 3.5/5
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 20, 2017, 09:20:21 PM
So, I'm the first kid on the block to see Dunkirk! It is a good movie. And incredible filming. Yet, at least for me, it wasn't as good as I hoped. Or perhaps it wasn't quite as what I expected. I was told that it would be draining and high tension. And, there was moderate tension, and some moments of fairly high tension. But, it wasn't as consistent high tension as I was expecting. And, very little plot, though that much I understood. Still a good movie but wasn't quite as good as I expected. 3.5/5
It is all in the directing and editing and intensity of the actors engaged in pretend. Think the recent James Bond movies. They make me constipated with tension ;-)
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on July 20, 2017, 09:20:21 PM
It is a good movie. And incredible filming. Yet, at least for me, it wasn't as good as I hoped.
I only read one review out of a around 100, and it was pretty much what you report here. The reviewer said he felt other reviewers over hyped it, and people would experience a negative reaction when their highest expectations weren't met. He didn't diss the movie, and said it was worthwhile, just not great.
I've seen the same trailer 4 times at the theater in the last month, and my reaction each time was, "Gee, I hope the movie is better than this." I'm going to see it tomorrow, and my expectations are not very high, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. I'd be happy with that.
Dunkirk - Part of the reason for seeing a historical movies, is for the history. And war usually can't be described as entertaining. The real thing is long boredom punctuated with terror.
Quote from: Baruch on July 21, 2017, 06:46:43 AM
Dunkirk - Part of the reason for seeing a historical movies, is for the history. And war usually can't be described as entertaining. The real thing is long boredom punctuated with terror.
The average Joe does not realize that about war. It is boring. And when it is not, it is simply terror. And when the action does start, it is so terrorizing that if in a well trained squad of 10, it is working it's best efficiency if 3/4 soldiers are firing at the enemy. It is usually less than that. In doing research, it is apparently the same for much of modern history. War is boring. Then when chaos hits, it is panic educing. Even well trained soldiers panic at times. It is not unusual for more soldiers in a typical squad to be moving away from the action than are firing at the enemy. The war movies tend to not show what combat is really like.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 21, 2017, 11:24:27 AM
The average Joe does not realize that about war. It is boring. And when it is not, it is simply terror. And when the action does start, it is so terrorizing that if in a well trained squad of 10, it is working it's best efficiency if 3/4 soldiers are firing at the enemy. It is usually less than that. In doing research, it is apparently the same for much of modern history. War is boring. Then when chaos hits, it is panic educing. Even well trained soldiers panic at times. It is not unusual for more soldiers in a typical squad to be moving away from the action than are firing at the enemy. The war movies tend to not show what combat is really like.
Hollywood, except for the movie version of Red Badge Of Courage, romanticize everything, including war. The Romans understood this ... you were on the front line for only minutes, then rotated to the back of the cohort, so fresh men could advance. This way the front line was always fresh. Barbarians throwing themselves on Roman steel (typically) didn't understand this. Disciplined units fighting face to face ... that is the hard thing to beat ... early Roman forces weren't so disciplined, but they got better, and their opponents didn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7MYlRzLqD0
Of course FPS games take all the boredom out, and edit the terror to be more interesting.
Mostly the British got to play targets, not shooters ... at that time. Evacuating 300,000 men is amazing.
War is long times on tedium broken by short bursts of terror. Unless you control a drone from home. I would love to do THAT!
Quote from: Cavebear on July 22, 2017, 03:23:51 AM
War is long times on tedium broken by short bursts of terror. Unless you control a drone from home. I would love to do THAT!
Says it all, doesn't it?
Dunkirk. 9/10
Dismal, terrifying, extremely nerve-wracking.
This isn't one of those idealized, upbeat war movies where the good guys kick Hitler in the nuts and then later have a pint together in a pub. This is a movie where some asshole is taking potshots at a sinking ship and the survivors are desperately trying to avoid pissing their pants long enough to come up with some sort of strategy to get the hell out of there in one piece.
This isn't a war film. This is a goddamn slasher film with the Luftwaffe as Jason Voorhees and every day is Friday the 13th. People die in increasingly horrific ways. Not for the faint of heart.
I looked up the historical Dunkirk and the movie seemed fairly true to life, though obviously dramatic liberties were taken. Thankfully, the real deathtoll wasn't as gigantic as the impression given by the movie. Out of 400,000 troops, 338,226 successfully evacuated (https://www.thewrap.com/dunkirk-fact-check-how-many-rescued/). It wasn't like everyone was getting blow away or strafed or drowning then crushed or burning while drowning (jeez).
I'd also like to point out that there was a Russian equivalent to Dunkirk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_evacuation_of_Tallinn) which wasn't quite as miraculous and incurred much higher casualties (proportionately speaking)
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 24, 2017, 12:19:29 AM
I'd also like to point out that there was a Russian equivalent to Dunkirk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_evacuation_of_Tallinn) which wasn't quite as miraculous and incurred much higher casualties (proportionately speaking)
We tend to focus on ourselves and our English speaking allies when thinking about sacrifices in WWII, but the Russians paid dearly with their lives, and took huge losses. I put off seeing Dunkirk until tomorrow, when the "cheap seats" are available and popcorn goes on sale.
Quote from: SGOS on July 24, 2017, 05:43:07 AM
We tend to focus on ourselves and our English speaking allies when thinking about sacrifices in WWII, but the Russians paid dearly with their lives, and took huge losses. I put off seeing Dunkirk until tomorrow, when the "cheap seats" are available and popcorn goes on sale.
Enemy At The Gates didn't do Stalingrad justice.
Quote from: SGOS on July 24, 2017, 05:43:07 AM
We tend to focus on ourselves and our English speaking allies when thinking about sacrifices in WWII, but the Russians paid dearly with their lives, and took huge losses. I put off seeing Dunkirk until tomorrow, when the "cheap seats" are available and popcorn goes on sale.
Pretty much, although a significant number of Soviet losses were due to mismanagement from the top -- Stalin's own Great Purge essentially blew the brains out of the Soviet military, and many of those promoted to lead in the wake of that were proponents of traditional forms of warfare, even though World War I had definitively industrialized and mechanized war.
Even some of our English-speaking allies look askance at American claims of "winning" World War II. The US came three years late to
both world wars, and both the Battle of Britain and the Blitz were over before even the attack on Pearl Harbor, much less the actual involvement of any American troops. In some of the BBC radio comedies from the 60s and 70s, there is a tendency to refer to American involvement in the European theater as 'having shown up late to help with the mopping up'.
Quote from: SGOS on July 24, 2017, 05:43:07 AM
We tend to focus on ourselves and our English speaking allies when thinking about sacrifices in WWII, but the Russians paid dearly with their lives, and took huge losses. I put off seeing Dunkirk until tomorrow, when the "cheap seats" are available and popcorn goes on sale.
I do not ignore the massive losses the Soviets paid. I really pissed off some teachers saying that WWII in Europe was mainly fought in Russia. If Hitler had just protected his Eastern Front and guarded the Atlantic coast, the Iron Curtain would have been German and have covered all of Continental Europe.
The Belko Experiment 9/10
53% on Rotten Tomatoes
I think this one may have gone straight to DVD. It's a maximum blood fest, not Academy Award material, but will keep you on the edge of the seat and explains itself at the end when it provides the viewer with some much needed relief and brief sense of satisfaction. I hate to even admit I liked this, but in the interest of full disclosure and honest reporting, I'm giving it 9/10 for not letting my mind wander, keeping me guessing, and making me a nervous wreck.
NOT FOR CHILDREN OR NORMAL ADULTS
EXERCISE CAUTION
War movies...Saving Private Ryan was the most horrific movie I ever watched. It was probably the most authentic....horrific. I have never and have no desire to ever see it again.
Not one I've seen recent, but one I want to talk about.
As a kid, I loved Roald Dahl books, the Witches, Georges Marvelous Medicine, The Twits, Matilda, The BFG, James and the giant Peach. But of all of them, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was my all time favorite of all his books, I reread it so many times. So of course when I was introduced to the movie, with Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, this movie became one of my all time favorites.
Sure the movie took cinematic liberties, such as making it into a musical, but as so many good classical movies were given such treatment, as an adaptation, it ended up becoming its own thing, its a film that holds up together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-uV72pQKI
Gene Wilder just made this movie, all the other actors were great, the set designs were on a level to something like the wizard of oz, but Gene delivered the best role in the movie, and set the stage as Willy Wonka, which holds up together.
I think its not just the childhood imagination come to life theme of the movie, but also the darker twists in it. It felt like a movie that was ahead of its time in terms of what it got away with, EVERYONE remembers the tunnel scene, the images shown in it, in a kids movie, was pretty dam dark, but it showed that kids could watch something like this and not be scared by it, like some parents would have themselves believe.
9/10
Of course, can't talk about this movie with talking about its remake, and Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcREWDplGBo
Urm.. just.. nah. I didn't like this movie all that much. I felt more like a flashy spectacle rather then something with some heart and soul put into it, all show and no tell. The acting was nothing special, Depp was just not Willy Wonka, instead just being another johnny depp character like he's high as fuck. The kid playing charlie was to fucking goodie good to be believable, and the oompa loompa's being digital inserted clones of the same actor was just fucking annoying, at least in the original they were individuals and not just one guy doing an army of himself.
Also the music in this was was forgettable, honestly the only thing in this movie held up was the set designs, everything else just seemed to work to pushing me out of the imaginary world it was meant to be in.
2/10
Just one mention too because I brought the original up due to what was released recently on nostalgia critics channel, but I can't miss on talking about the tom and jerry willy wonka crossover.
Why this movie was made, or any of the recent tom and jerry merging into classic movies, its just a bizarre choice, and as doug walker said it, all it does it make you feel remove from whatevers going on, if your a fan of the movie you feel put off by tom and jerry being there, and if your a fan of tom and jerry you feel like the movie gets in the way of their slapstick.
But, we can't ignore this scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygv_EIpyDvY
For everything working against this movie, this scene was probably the best thing I've seen in an animated movie in years.
5/10
Girl on a Train.
Um, could have been better. Much better. Acting was great but the script jumped around too much and didn't leave you feeling like the end was really "the end." I've heard so much about how awesome the book is but the movie was just meh. Typical cheating spouse-drama-crazy ex type of movie with a few surprises but probably better as a book.
Superheroes in General 8/10
Somewhere in the din of Marvel superheroes, there remains a place for interesting story telling. I love the superheroes, and some of them have interesting stories, but mostly I love them for the emotional joy of their super powers and the concept of saving humanity. But there are other good stories and good scenarios of equal value, which currently seem to be taking a back seat in today's environment of superhero excitement.
Colossal 8/10
Just out on DVD, this is an interesting story that breaks out of the usual movie formula. Ann Hathaway has powers with just a hint of the typical super power, but mostly it's just a strange power that society could easily do with or without. It's hard to anticipate what's going to happen next. You can anticipate a jump or two ahead as the story unfolds, but never completely. It's kind of spooky in an unbelievable but clever way. I would categorize it as fantasy/sci fi, but it's also touching and addresses the human condition. I wish I could explain more, but unfortunately, that would run the risk of ruining it for others. For me, it seemed a bit more softly thoughtful than exciting, something I've been missing of late.
Baby Driver 7/10
Good reviews from Rotten Tomatoes. Yeah, it's about bank robbers and fast cars, but the hook is that it is playfully overacted with tongue in cheek. It starts with a fascinating car chase the likes of which require more than the usual suspension of reality. Up until now most car chase scenes have been rather redundant, except for maybe the ones in Blues Brothers. There are some places in the middle where my head kind of slumped forward as the action paused to make way for the story line, but soon enough the love interest Lily James would appear, and I would suddenly get interested once again. Kevin Spacey does this usual shtick as some evil mastermind that runs a successful but rather pointless and disorganized crime syndicate. The only worthwhile guy on the payroll is the driver with extraordinary almost super power driving skills that works for the crime lord because of some unexplained debt. The rest of the time, he's involved in creating weird post modern musical art forms. He's just biding his time until Lily James shows up and has more power over him than Kevin Spacey. The hook in this one for me was the hint of overacting and playful, almost satirical melodrama. It's also bloody, but the love story still holds together if you don't demand too much reality.
When I was a teen, I loved Marvel comics. And I still do. Because Marvel was for angst and DC was for jocks.
I loved the Marvel movies critics panned. FF was great, every Spiderman movie was good. Seriously, how could you understand the villain as a sort of decent character (Sandman)? I am waiting for Dr Strange coming to standard play (loved that story). Loved the Avengers. Loved Iron Man. Loved X men.
Never saw any DC character (except Batman) that made sense to me) and that was so dark in the last ones.
You know what superhero movie I REALLY loved? Hancock! I thought he was an anti-hero f-ing lunatic at first and almost stopped watching it. Then the story drew me in and I found he was SO Complicated.
That's what Marvel is about.
This is lowest Rotten Tomatoes score I've ever seen. Critics 0%, although viewers gave it 41%, probably because this is a niche movie if there ever was one. To be fair, this was the third in a series, and the first two did better, although I didn't look them up.
I didn't think it was very good, and it's a shame because Part 3 was the best part of the novel; A self sustaining commune organized on something like a barter economy. At least that's what I remembered from the novel when I read it 30 years ago.
[spoiler]Atlas Shrugged: Part 3
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_who_is_john_galt/[/spoiler]
Sorry, most of us got over Dagny Taggart 40 years ago. I think she would have been too married to her destiny to make a good lay ;-)
Solomon Kane
6.5/10
Not bad but rushed and cheesey
Quote from: SGOS on August 02, 2017, 09:05:58 AM
The only worthwhile guy on the payroll is the driver with extraordinary almost super power driving skills that works for the crime lord because of some unexplained debt.
The debt was explained. Spacey's character said that the kid stole his BMW with 'product' in it, and he let the kid do it just cuz he was impressed with the kid's balls.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on August 04, 2017, 02:15:40 PM
The debt was explained. Spacey's character said that the kid stole his BMW with 'product' in it, and he let the kid do it just cuz he was impressed with the kid's balls.
My head must have been tipped over when he said that.
The zookeeper's wife.
Audio was a bit off from time to time. But visually stunning. Amazing feel for weight. Masterfully acted. Great dialogue. And overal marvelous storytelling.
Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2017, 08:01:58 PM
This is lowest Rotten Tomatoes score I've ever seen. Critics 0%, although viewers gave it 41%, probably because this is a niche movie if there ever was one. To be fair, this was the third in a series, and the first two did better, although I didn't look them up.
I didn't think it was very good, and it's a shame because Part 3 was the best part of the novel; A self sustaining commune organized on something like a barter economy. At least that's what I remembered from the novel when I read it 30 years ago.
[spoiler]Atlas Shrugged: Part 3
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_who_is_john_galt/[/spoiler]
You might want to mention which movie you are discussing... LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 02:42:48 AM
You might want to mention which movie you are discussing... LOL!
That was in the spoiler. It was a crude attempt at playing, "Can you guess what movie this is?" I don't know why I did that. Just trying to be cute, I guess.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 02:42:48 AM
You might want to mention which movie you are discussing... LOL!
If you have to ask, then you don't know Atlas Shrugged.
Quote from: SGOS on August 06, 2017, 07:47:36 AM
That was in the spoiler. It was a crude attempt at playing, "Can you guess what movie this is?" I don't know why I did that. Just trying to be cute, I guess.
Oh. Well, hey, that IS clever. But I'm blanking. I don't watch that many movies even when they reach the TV.
BTW, I just read that 'Battleship' was supposedly a real loser movie. I LOVED it and rewatch it often. So many great scenes and clever ideas. The scene where the destroyer turrets focus on the alien point blank cracks me up every time. The aliens had mechanical weapons but not explosives. When I see that scene, I count 3...2...1 Boom!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 10:52:11 AM
Oh. Well, hey, that IS clever. But I'm blanking. I don't watch that many movies even when they reach the TV.
BTW, I just read that 'Battleship' was supposedly a real loser movie. I LOVED it and rewatch it often. So many great scenes and clever ideas. The scene where the destroyer turrets focus on the alien point blank cracks me up every time. The aliens had mechanical weapons but not explosives. When I see that scene, I count 3...2...1 Boom!
I vaguely remember that. I remember it being clever.
Independence Day is more realistic, except for the ending. Battleship? Yes to anything with Navy in it.
Quote from: SGOS on August 06, 2017, 12:36:56 PM
I vaguely remember that. I remember it being clever.
And I totally forgot my other TV watching fixation. If 'The Incredibles", is on, I'll watch that too.
"The Dark Tower" - I really enjoyed it, for a movie that has like... a 16% from critics on rotten tomatoes (but a 67% from audiences when I checked). It was a good movie... but having not read the books, I don't know if it's a good book adaptation, which I think is what brings it down so much.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 06, 2017, 02:25:34 PM
"The Dark Tower" - I really enjoyed it, for a movie that has like... a 16% from critics on rotten tomatoes (but a 67% from audiences when I checked). It was a good movie... but having not read the books, I don't know if it's a good book adaptation, which I think is what brings it down so much.
I've mostly read negative reviews, but that never stopped me. I can enjoy the worst movies imaginable if watching at home with cats and wine.
I tend to avoid new movies because the local theater in Summer is a teen gang hideout.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 02:31:14 PM
I tend to avoid new movies because the local theater in Summer is a teen gang hideout.
I've heard that before. I must have it good, because the local theater, actually 40 miles from my house, is a quiet place. I always go to the early showing, which is sometimes 11:00 AM, so I don't have to drive home in the dark. Mid week, I often have the theater to myself. The last time I went, a woman came in before the movie to play this trivia game where you can win a free popcorn by entering the answers on your smart phone. She was the only one playing, so of course she won, and then she left. She would have to buy a ticket to get that far, so I wondered if she had some kind of scam going on, buy a ticket for another movie an hour later, and go from empty theater to empty theater, playing the game until her feature started. I give her credit for beating the system.
Quote from: SGOS on August 06, 2017, 03:10:49 PM
I've heard that before. I must have it good, because the local theater, actually 40 miles from my house, is a quiet place. I always go to the early showing, which is sometimes 11:00 AM, so I don't have to drive home in the dark. Mid week, I often have the theater to myself. The last time I went, a woman came in before the movie to play this trivia game where you can win a free popcorn by entering the answers on your smart phone. She was the only one playing, so of course she won, and then she left. She would have to buy a ticket to get that far, so I wondered if she had some kind of scam going on, buy a ticket for another movie an hour later, and go from empty theater to empty theater, playing the game until her feature started. I give her credit for beating the system.
I may have to check out the local theater again. It has been a few years. A peaceful center seat would be nice.
Maybe this belongs in books more then movies, but it related to both. With the new dark tower coming out and already being regarded as a flop, and the upcoming remake of IT, I looked back on a lot of stephen king movie adaptations of his novels, and it began to make me think.
This is probably sacrilege to some people who are fans of his work, but has anyone ever considered the idea that, maybe, just maybe, King is that that good a writer?
Sure, he's popular, he's written some the most award winning novels, and their adaptations are some of the finest in cinematic history, adaptations like Misery (kathy bates still gives me shivers today), The Green Mile, the shining, many great and cinematic masterpieces that last today, infact I went out and brought misery recently because of kathy bates' role in it was so perfect.
But from what I understand of the process, these award winning or nominated movies adapted from his work, are as said, adaptations, they are reworked from the original story and made for cinema, the director making them into these great experiences. From what I read, King was against how the movie the shining was made, despite it being a massive success, so much so he had a direct to TV 2 part made of the shining, and it didn't do anywhere near as good as the Kubrick adaptation.
Getting back to the point, i'm not saying King is an awful writer, he is able to make some great books, but often it seems like he just gets lucky with it, that only a handful of his work extends to the wider spectrum, and only die hard fans can really say they like all his work. I've always found kings writing very, VERY long winded, over the top in detail, and it really takes a masterwork to cut down all the fat in his books to be adaptable for cinema.
We can't ignore the fact that there are so many crap stephen king adaptations, ones he has never seemed intrested in downgrading for how crap they are, but went to the trouble of saying he disliked the Kubrick version of the shining enough to try and make his own version? Something doesn't sit right there, any sane writer should know a book adaptation needs to be altered for a cinematic experience.
I think he's just someone who got lucky, since he's writer sooooooooooo many books, that a few of there were a success, and that is what put him on the map, which really can't excuse so much crap that he has done. I'll give him his phrases for his works that adapted into cinema, but theres always been something about king, either having an ego, or just caught in his own bubble, that stopped me reading a lot of his work.
I wouldn't call it luck... he cranks out so much work, on purpose, that something has to hit. While I'm enjoying the first dark tower book, it is not my favorite writing style by any means. If I wasn't interested in the setting, I provably couldn't have gotten past page 50.
So if I just cranked out 10 books, one would get famous?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 09, 2017, 05:12:53 AM
So if I just cranked out 10 books, one would get famous?
Well he's been writing books since 1947 and published around 91 so far, so yeah
Quote from: Munch on August 09, 2017, 06:06:53 AM
Well he's been writing books since 1947 and published around 91 so far, so yeah
Just Kidding. My short stories are crap.
Atomic Blond 5/10
I was kind of bored. Charlize Theron makes a great bombshell in the right wig and is pure pleasure to behold, but the story seems to be a remix of putting the best scenes of a sexy spy kicking male ass down the road in a different order.
The Wolverine (2013) - 5/10
Nothing too interesting.
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 12, 2017, 11:18:57 AM
The Wolverine (2013) - 5/10
Nothing too interesting.
That movie rides on Hugh Jackmans sexiness, I don't even remember the plot
There were three Wolverine movies made, and I'd rank them all on the low end of the series. The first one was helpful in explaining his origins. But I think the rest of the X-Men movies were all better.
Quote from: SGOS on August 12, 2017, 01:13:39 PM
There were three Wolverine movies made, and I'd rank them all on the low end of the series. The first one was helpful in explaining his origins. But I think the rest of the X-Men movies were all better.
I forget which Wolverine movie it was, but where he lost the memory of his lady heroine from the bullets in his head, that made me very sad.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2017, 04:23:09 PM
I forget which Wolverine movie it was, but where he lost the memory of his lady heroine from the bullets in his head, that made me very sad.
Can't remember that, and I never watched a Wolverine Movie twice.
Quote from: SGOS on August 12, 2017, 06:24:40 PM
Can't remember that, and I never watched a Wolverine Movie twice.
Someone will know...
X men origins: wolverine
I think.
Movie wasn't good enough to make sure The other X-men could get their origins stories.
Quote from: SGOS on August 12, 2017, 06:24:40 PM
Can't remember that, and I never watched a Wolverine Movie twice.
You're ahead of me, I haven't seen any Wolverine movie once.
*sigh* I remember when he wore Michigan colors and had a personality, before he became The Thing That Ate Marvel's Brain. The last time I walked into a comic shop (two or three years ago), the entire top row of the 'New Arrivals' rack was five different Wolverine titles. I just walked away.
Quote from: trdsf on August 14, 2017, 10:47:48 PM
You're ahead of me, I haven't seen any Wolverine movie once.
*sigh* I remember when he wore Michigan colors and had a personality, before he became The Thing That Ate Marvel's Brain. The last time I walked into a comic shop (two or three years ago), the entire top row of the 'New Arrivals' rack was five different Wolverine titles. I just walked away.
As part of the X-Men group, he fits in fine. The first movie starts with him, and he is one of the primary figures, but the real fascination comes when you start meeting all the other X-Men Characters, and learn about their society, and how Magneto split from the group. When the first Wolverine movie came out, my immediate reaction was, "Why Wolverine?" In fact, why any particular X-Man? I thought maybe Marvel was experimenting so see if they could make theater-worthy stand alone superheroes out of individual X-Men.
When that failed, they did it again, and when the second one turned the first failure into an outright flop, they went for a third without even considering that the strategy may have worked better with a different character. Somebody at Marvel is obsessed with proving a point or forcing a point that doesn't need to be made. The X-Men is fine as a team. The group is the hook, and the uniqueness of a group is what draws attention to the concept. Wolverine is just a player.
X-Men to me is always going to mean Scott, Jean, Bobby, Warren and Hank. But I'm old. :D
Quote from: trdsf on August 15, 2017, 11:48:14 AM
X-Men to me is always going to mean Scott, Jean, Bobby, Warren and Hank. But I'm old. :D
for me its always gonna be the 90s lineup, Scott, Hank, Logan, Ororo, Jean, Chuck, Remy, Rogue, with additional characters Peter, Kitty, Kurt, Bobby and Betsy, with maaaaybe Jubilee if she would shut up.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
10/10, mainly due to the first five minutes with baby Groot dancing.
Quote from: Munch on August 08, 2017, 09:13:42 AM
Maybe this belongs in books more then movies, but it related to both. With the new dark tower coming out and already being regarded as a flop, and the upcoming remake of IT, I looked back on a lot of stephen king movie adaptations of his novels, and it began to make me think.
This is probably sacrilege to some people who are fans of his work, but has anyone ever considered the idea that, maybe, just maybe, King is that that good a writer?
Sure, he's popular, he's written some the most award winning novels, and their adaptations are some of the finest in cinematic history, adaptations like Misery (kathy bates still gives me shivers today), The Green Mile, the shining, many great and cinematic masterpieces that last today, infact I went out and brought misery recently because of kathy bates' role in it was so perfect.
But from what I understand of the process, these award winning or nominated movies adapted from his work, are as said, adaptations, they are reworked from the original story and made for cinema, the director making them into these great experiences. From what I read, King was against how the movie the shining was made, despite it being a massive success, so much so he had a direct to TV 2 part made of the shining, and it didn't do anywhere near as good as the Kubrick adaptation.
Getting back to the point, i'm not saying King is an awful writer, he is able to make some great books, but often it seems like he just gets lucky with it, that only a handful of his work extends to the wider spectrum, and only die hard fans can really say they like all his work. I've always found kings writing very, VERY long winded, over the top in detail, and it really takes a masterwork to cut down all the fat in his books to be adaptable for cinema.
We can't ignore the fact that there are so many crap stephen king adaptations, ones he has never seemed intrested in downgrading for how crap they are, but went to the trouble of saying he disliked the Kubrick version of the shining enough to try and make his own version? Something doesn't sit right there, any sane writer should know a book adaptation needs to be altered for a cinematic experience.
I think he's just someone who got lucky, since he's writer sooooooooooo many books, that a few of there were a success, and that is what put him on the map, which really can't excuse so much crap that he has done. I'll give him his phrases for his works that adapted into cinema, but theres always been something about king, either having an ego, or just caught in his own bubble, that stopped me reading a lot of his work.
King really is a good writer. But not like a Michener--every book he wrote is excellent. With King that's not so, for me. But his style is always good--great character development. I either seem to love or to hate his books. The Stand I loved, for example. Delores Claiborne was brilliant. Cujo, Pet Cemetery and Misery I hated. But even in the hated books, the writing was very good. I read the first Dark Tower book and could make neither heads nor tails of it--just confused. But the writing was good. And his books like the Cell seems to be just part of a book--loved it, but it sort of ended in mid story. Anyway, the moves based on his books are all okay--none are really outstanding for me.
Quote from: trdsf on August 15, 2017, 11:48:14 AM
X-Men to me is always going to mean Scott, Jean, Bobby, Warren and Hank. But I'm old. :D
You and me both! The Marvel Movies always mess me up by screwing around with origins. Weren't the original origins good enough? I mean, how much willing suspension of disbelief is required? The original team would have worked fine for a movie. Then add all the others.
And why mess around with the FF origins? They would have been the same and Dr Doom would have been just as evil...
BTW, you ever read the Wild Cards books?
Is wild cards good, i want to know before i invest
Quote from: Cavebear on August 17, 2017, 11:57:24 AM
You and me both! The Marvel Movies always mess me up by screwing around with origins. Weren't the original origins good enough? I mean, how much willing suspension of disbelief is required? The original team would have worked fine for a movie. Then add all the others.
And why mess around with the FF origins? They would have been the same and Dr Doom would have been just as evil...
BTW, you ever read the Wild Cards books?
I have, though I can't say they made as much of an impression on me as
Thieves' World did. My main memory of Wild Cards is having our supers APA reviewed in Comic Buyers Guide #1000 and being compared favorably thereto. :)
Quote from: trdsf on August 17, 2017, 01:24:35 PM
I have, though I can't say they made as much of an impression on me as Thieves' World did. My main memory of Wild Cards is having our supers APA reviewed in Comic Buyers Guide #1000 and being compared favorably thereto. :)
I'm not on the technical side of books and looking up APA didn't help me much. A little info please?
Quote from: Sorginak on August 15, 2017, 04:49:37 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
10/10, mainly due to the first five minutes with baby Groot dancing.
I've watched it in theaters three times so far. I rarely watch a movie more than once.
I gave it a 10/10 and I stand by that score. Even the end credits are pleasant.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 17, 2017, 03:43:07 PM
I'm not on the technical side of books and looking up APA didn't help me much. A little info please?
APA - Amateur press association. Essentially, a self-published magazine.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 17, 2017, 10:53:36 PM
I've watched it in theaters three times so far. I rarely watch a movie more than once.
I gave it a 10/10 and I stand by that score. Even the end credits are pleasant.
Three times? That matches my personal best with Dr. Strange. I did go see Guardians twice, however, which is the second most times I've seen the same movie in the theater.
I usually go to one movie a week. It's such a habit that even if nothing special comes out for the week, I'd go anyway. One week with nothing particularly uninteresting debuting, I decided to go see some tripe like "The Crooked Dormer Creep House." But when I got there I realized I was going to be utterly bored, and Guardians II was still playing from two weeks ago. On the spur of the moment, I realized that it would be far more entertaining than Creep House, and well worth seeing again anyway.
Guardians II will be out at the Red Box next Tuesday.
Quote from: SGOS on August 18, 2017, 07:30:26 AM
I usually go to one movie a week. It's such a habit that even if nothing special comes out for the week, I'd go anyway.
I go to the movies maybe 10 times a year. More if a family member drags me out there. *sees the sunlight, hisses* So three is big for me.
I usually just go for the big summer superhero blockbuster, an acclaimed sci movie, the latest Star Wars, and something from a francise that I already like. I never go out on a whim and I'm prone to stay home when a promising movie gets a bad or mediocre reception. I still haven't seen the latest Resident Evil and I always see those no matter how awful they are.
Three times seen at theater ... only once ... 1977, first Star Wars movie ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on August 18, 2017, 07:30:26 AM
Three times? That matches my personal best with Dr. Strange. I did go see Guardians twice, however, which is the second most times I've seen the same movie in the theater.
The only movies I've gone to see more than once in a theater -- not counting Rocky Horror, of course -- are Jaws, all three Star Wars movies (anything made after A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi doesn't count IMO), Mystery Science Theater: The Movie, Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit, and Despicable Me.
Movies I would
like to see in a theater again are 2001: A Space Odyssey and Fantasia.
Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit ... so funny I am still laughing years later.
Quote from: Baruch on August 19, 2017, 01:27:39 PM
Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit ... so funny I am still laughing years later.
(http://www.chud.com/nextraimages/feb19wg2.jpg)
"May contain nuts."
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2017, 01:41:22 AM
(http://www.chud.com/nextraimages/feb19wg2.jpg)
"May contain nuts."
They got away with a lot in that movie. Ah, British humo(u)r.
Quote from: trdsf on August 20, 2017, 09:04:40 PM
They got away with a lot in that movie. Ah, British humo(u)r.
The British aren't a bunch of hypocritical Puritans. They exiled them to my country.
We watched 'The Martian' on the coach trip home. Not bad. Got ridiculous at the end. The actual stranded part was interesting and fairly well done, the unnecessary and increasing complications on the way to the rescue broke my 'nope' meter. Would watch the first half again, not so much the second.
got myself 'get out' today, dunno anything about the premise, but heard its terrifying and suspenseful, and some good acting.
Quote from: Munch on August 24, 2017, 07:47:43 PM
got myself 'get out' today, dunno anything about the premise, but heard its terrifying and suspenseful, and some good acting.
I particularly liked that movie a lot, not because it's terrifying and suspenseful, although that's there too. I gave it high marks for creativity. Every once in a while, Hollywood comes up with something unique, and sometimes it works. When it does, it's refreshing to see something that isn't just a redo of the standard plot line written with the aid of a robot consultant.
Quote from: Munch on August 24, 2017, 07:47:43 PM
got myself 'get out' today, dunno anything about the premise, but heard its terrifying and suspenseful, and some good acting.
I personally didn't like it. I was expecting it to be so wonderful, since everyone was creating this hype about it, but by the end all it got from me was a "meh".
I just rented Guardians of the Galaxy II, and watched it again after seeing it twice in the theater. I liked it even better the third time. It's nonsense, a parody of superhero movies, as well as the comics they are based on. Maybe it requires the right frame of mind. I'm going to call it exquisite. That may be a stretch, but I can't find the word I want right now. Can comic nonsense be exquisite? Would I call Fantasia exquisite? Not really, although it was a great film. The music of Guardians is a nostalgia that beckons from my past. I loved the way the music becomes part of the movie itself. The absurd characters become real for me. I even loved the evil guy and his madness. The visuals are stunning. I can't even imagine the creators of the film thinking it could be so wonderful to anyone. But it is to me. Should I be worried?
I think the reason why movies like deadpool and guardians of the galaxy do so well and hold on their own, is because their not taking themselves seriously. With comic books, if you take them to seriously, especially marvel comics, it makes what you know of the world and characters to lineal and predictable, and thus kinda dull. By having movies embrace that comic book style of humor, high action, overblown setups and dramatic plot resolutions, thats what makes a good marvel comic storyline, I mean just thinking of the infinity gauntlet storyline, thats the perfect setup for that.
Quote from: Munch on August 27, 2017, 06:45:14 PM
I think the reason why movies like deadpool and guardians of the galaxy do so well and hold on their own, is because their not taking themselves seriously. With comic books, if you take them to seriously, especially marvel comics, it makes what you know of the world and characters to lineal and predictable, and thus kinda dull. By having movies embrace that comic book style of humor, high action, overblown setups and dramatic plot resolutions, thats what makes a good marvel comic storyline, I mean just thinking of the infinity gauntlet storyline, thats the perfect setup for that.
I think you've probably identified the appeal. Let go of reality, let the fantasy wash over you, and embrace the sublime.
Quote from: Munch on August 27, 2017, 06:45:14 PMI think the reason why movies like deadpool and guardians of the galaxy do so well and hold on their own, is because their not taking themselves seriously.
In both movies, the main character (Wade Wilson and Peter Quill) masks serious trauma with comedic quips and seem unflappable in the midst of serious danger (Peter Quill kicks away lizards trying to attack him, gripping one like a mic while singing along with his headphones. Deadpool chillaxes on a highway bridge before jumping into a car and chatting with and murdering its occupants). Both also rely heavily on parody and pop culture references.
Quote from: SGOS on August 26, 2017, 09:56:24 AMI loved the way the music becomes part of the movie itself.
The sailor said "Brandy, you're a fine girl, what a good wife you would be. But my life, my love, and my lady is the sea."
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 27, 2017, 10:40:19 PM
In both movies, the main character (Wade Wilson and Peter Quill) masks serious trauma with comedic quips and seem unflappable in the midst of serious danger (Peter Quill kicks away lizards trying to attack him, gripping one like a mic while singing along with his headphones. Deadpool chillaxes on a highway bridge before jumping into a car and chatting with and murdering its occupants). Both also rely heavily on parody and pop culture references.
True, through in any production movie, TV, comic, game, its needs more then just pop culture references to make it work, it needs the right combination of charm, likeable characters, and humor to support that, otherwise pop culture references can date something pretty bad.
Quote from: SGOS on August 27, 2017, 10:23:56 PM
I think you've probably identified the appeal. Let go of reality, let the fantasy wash over you, and embrace the sublime.
Yeah, like religion. ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2017, 06:35:41 AM
Yeah, like religion. ;-)
With a few subtle differences: You know it's not real. You actively sacrifice realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment. And you understand what you are doing, and can accept reality when it's over.
The average movie goer recognizes that he is letting himself pretend for the purpose of enjoyment, while the believer sees no reason to consider that his religion as anything but real, even if the supporting claims are as unbelievable as a movie actor using a rat sized lizard for a microphone.
Spiderman the homecoming..wait for a rainy or snowy day when you are out of food and water and are waiting to die.......pretty good then.
Quote from: aitm on August 28, 2017, 07:42:23 AM
Spiderman the homecoming..wait for a rainy or snowy day when you are out of food and water and are waiting to die.......pretty good then.
I dunno if it was that bad, but I wouldn't watch it again. I would rewatch the original spiderman movies.
Ok, so just watched Get Out.
(https://img06.deviantart.net/3e20/i/2015/120/d/e/head_desk_by_bakura240-d3ctd6g.jpg)
I was expecting so much more from this movie. The hype put into it was a draw, I love a good, fun, gritty horror movie, even if the acting is not that good, as long as the story works. For a good horror, you either need to make it grounded enough to make it something to unnerve you, or make the plot something with a suspension of disbelief that your taken out of the normal.
This movie tries to subvert the normal, but same time tries and hammers in a forced political message that just makes the plot so convoluted you lose all sense of where it was trying to go.
So screw it spoilers from here on.
[spoiler]The premise is basically the main character goes with his girlfriend to see her parents. Right from the start I paused it when he said to her "do they know I'm black", because when it showed this movie was set in the modern day, it made me ask 'why would he need to ask her that question?', this movie did nothing to establish the setting, just an all american suburb, so why would he ask something like that? That be like my boyfriend asking me "does your mum know I'm german" before he meet her.
Anyway it goes on with the first stupid jump scare, which was not earned (A good jump scare is earn, because its meant to break tension, when there is no tension to begin with, all it does it deflate all forthcoming expectations), and they arrive, the parents are nice to start, but theres some other black people living on the dads estate in their own house, and their weird acting.
The boyfriend then after so much boring padding ends up getting put in a trance, where he's convinced the mother did it. An old school friend of his shows up, married to a 60 year old woman, and after taking a camera flash of him with his phone, the old school friend breaks from whatever trance he's in screaming out to him to GET OUT, GET OUT, before being carted off.
So the big reveal, and were you realise this movie is just an M Night Shyamalan movie, the big reveal is that the girlfriend has been luring young black men to her dads estate, the mother using hypnotism to weaken their will, and the father performs brain surgery on them to remove most of their brains and replace them with the brains of their relatives and friends so white people can love out their lives in a young black persons body, the other black people on the farm are the grandparents.
He manages to escape by powers of plot convenience, killing the family, including the brain switched grandparents and his girlfriend, also using his camera flash on the grandfather to give the original black guy time to grab the shotgun, kill the girlfriend and then kill himself, before the main characters sassy black airport security friend arrives to pick him up.
This movies story was atrocious. While I'll give it points for its cinematography, and the acting from some of the characters were okay, the plot it just so stupid it kills whatever this movie was trying to convey.
You can essentially call this "White Guilt the Movie", because thats what the real premise is, being how every white person in this movie was evil, every black person were victims or good guys, and every white person dies at the end. The people who gave this movie a high rating, its so bloody obvious why, this movie isn't a horror movie, its not a comedy, and if it claims to be a suspense thriller it killed that in the first 10 minutes with deer hitting the car scene.
[/spoiler]
in summery, the plot is awful, the writing drags down worse and worse every act, and I was just left stumped on whatever direction they were trying to go with this movie. The only good stuff was there cinematography and some acting, but it wasn't enough to save the movie.
The reason why this movie was given so much phrase, was because it play a modern day progressive tune, how all black people are victims, and all white people are evil, and it worked perfectly for a social justice modern narrative.
2/10
Quote... "do they know I'm black", because when it showed this movie was set in the modern day, it made me ask 'why would he need to ask her that question?...
...just an all american suburb, so why would he ask something like that?
It's just a cultural difference. As an American, particularly a Southern American where I believe it takes place (haven't seen it yet), that seems like the first, and honestly the most logical possible question, he would ask. Interracial couples are still heavily looked down upon, and in places still harassed.
I get in a first world, 2017 country that concept probably seems weird, but you have to remember where it was filmed. The American South, or even just America, does not live in the year 2017 for the most part.
(Not going to spoil, because I think that part was literally in the trailer.)
Edit: Completely skimmed over this...
QuoteThat be like my boyfriend asking me "does your mum know I'm german" before he meet her.
No, that's literally not at all like your boyfriend asking you that. White + white =/= white + black. I mean in reality it does, but not in our culture.
And yes, in places in the United States, to this day, that would be a perfectly reasonable question to ask too. We're still just a little bit racist, even against whites who aren't the same type of white.
I have seen foreign films that simply do not make sense to me that received stellar reviews because I just cant relate to the culture; I think that is probably the problem you had with this movie, and I'm actually glad you posted that review because it helps me understand where you are coming from overall a bit more easily. If you haven't experienced this culture, then it's perfectly reasonable to not expect you to understand it.
oh wow Shiranu thats so super do you really mean it.
Its like moths to a flame. How did I know you'd be chiming in about it like the crap reviews on imdb.
also you don't have to live in a culture to know the state of it, this movie is pandering, the story is convoluted, and the narrative is forced.
Quote from: Munch on August 29, 2017, 08:18:14 PM
oh wow Shiranu thats so super do you really mean it.
Its like moths to a flame. How did I know you'd be chiming in about it like the crap reviews on imdb.
also you don't have to live in a culture to know the state of it, this movie is pandering, the story is convoluted, and the narrative is forced.
As a nearly White person, if I don't actually eat Black people every day, I at least think my White neighbors are doing so ;-))
This is a lot like the movie "Eating Raul" ... where a White couple eats a Hispanic. Bet you can't eat just one! Yes, feed the paranoia!!
Quote from: Munch on August 29, 2017, 08:18:14 PM
oh wow Shiranu thats so super do you really mean it.
Its like moths to a flame. How did I know you'd be chiming in about it like the crap reviews on imdb.
also you don't have to live in a culture to know the state of it, this movie is pandering, the story is convoluted, and the narrative is forced.
I tried to give you an honest answer, and you just act like a douchebag who doesn't care about anyone's opinion but his own.
Moths to the flame, indeed.
As I said, I have never seen the movie so I cant say anything about the plot. But for the parts I quoted, I gave you an honest answer about how it is here in the states, but you clearly know more than anyone else so I guess that was a waste of time. I'm sorry I believed you were an asshole out of ignorance instead of just being an asshole out of being an asshole.
I suppose Get Out had a political message, although it didn't strike me as an important one, because the characters and the plot were too insane to consider the whole thing as anything other than over the top comedy/fantasy. I did think it was a sensitive topic, and I wondered how many people might be offended. I wondered if Black people would be offended. Members of the Aryan Nation? I have no idea if they would be offended or delighted.
It was definitely a social commentary drawing from past injustices that still linger today that have been rekindled by a black president in the White House. But it's still too over the top to take seriously. When I left the theater, I didn't feel like I had been politically manipulated. I felt no collective guilt or pity for the plight of others. What I felt quite strongly was the sensation that I had allowed my brain to be fucked with and that I might have put myself in danger of losing some of my marbles by exposing myself to such insanity. The only other time I felt this from a movie was when watching Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but that was probably precipitated by the memory of a bad experience with LSD years before.
I shared the viewing of a midweek matinee Get Out with one other couple, who sat two rows behind me. I left during the credits in a daze, but I stopped and looked at the couple who were watching me leave. I just stood silently for a couple of seconds until they went from smiling to a look of questioning concern, and then I asked out loud, "What have I done to myself?" They nodded and laughed like that made sense in the context of the film.
Maybe that's what I was missing, you need to be off your ass on LSD to find some other meaning in the movie
Quote from: trdsf on July 15, 2017, 03:50:30 PM
Walk the Dark Street (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049932/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_108) - a nothing of a movie, written and directed by the man who wrote Robot Monster (the one with the gorilla suit wearing a diving helmet) and an abysmal Alpha Video print, so only barely at 640x480... and blown up to the big screen. A movie that has absolutely nothing to recommend it... but made wildly and hilariously entertaining by Trace and Frank.
Also, my brother and sister heathens, be proud: the idea for them to do this tour came out of their experience a couple years ago when they riffed live on 'God Is Not Dead' at an atheist convention. :D
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Skeleton_of_Cadavra
I watched Age Of Ultron last night (finally came on free). It was "interesting". Wanda and Pietro were well-presented. I love Black Widow. She described them "He's fast; she's weird". I enjoyed the scenes where they showed Pietro in slo-mo watching an arrow or bullet passing along with him.
I watched it in 2 parts over 2 nights. I might have missed a few scenes.
I liked the failure of Stark at first and his success the 2nd try with (I think) Jarvis personified. I liked that the Avengers realized they had to work together to be freed from duty (though that will never really happen). I liked that The Hulk set himself in stealth at the end.
One thing that bothered me is that Hawkeye/Barton always has a full quiver of arrows in this movie.
I am annoyed that they seem to have killed Pietro. I assume that will be corrected in some way. Quicksilver is too good a character to lose. Wanda and Pietro are actually mutants...
Ultron was a bi too human. That may have been deliberate, but I thought a robot should be a bit less of that. And I'm not sure what happened when Jarvis and broken Ultron combined at the end.
The coolest scene was when Jarvis lifted Thor's hammer. I just went Uh, Uh, UH, wait a minute. And later, was it Barton who asked "What if the hammer is on an elevator and the elevator goes up"? Apparently, it goes up. which seems to violate the hammer rules.
The action was mostly over-the-top. Even Captain America couldn't do most of the things he did in previous Avenger movies. But one has to allow the willing suspension of disbelief.
I cracked up when Jarvis grew a cape... Capes are bad things. They get caught in things.
Thoughts?
QuoteI watched Age Of Ultron last night
I like the part where Ultron is first waking up: "This doesn't feel right. I don't know what I am." Sometimes during moments of awakening, he will have an insight. It doesn't make any difference what it is. He treats it like a "Eureka!" event, even if it's totally bonkers, as Drew would when he has a "religious experience." He arrives at conclusions out of half baked thought parts and eventually makes himself into the ultimate annoyance. He's almost loveable in his flawed and misguided delusions.
Quote from: SGOS on August 31, 2017, 06:23:28 AM
I like the part where Ultron is first waking up: "This doesn't feel right. I don't know what I am." Sometimes during moments of awakening, he will have an insight. It doesn't make any difference what it is. He treats it like a "Eureka!" event, even if it's totally bonkers, as Drew would when he has a "religious experience." He arrives at conclusions out of half baked thought parts and eventually makes himself into the ultimate annoyance. He's almost loveable in his flawed and misguided delusions.
Yeah, I thought he was nearly religious! Or maybe seeking it though not knowing what he was seeking.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 06:36:28 AM
Yeah, I thought he was nearly religious! Or maybe seeking it though not knowing what he was seeking.
Not being sure of who you are and what you are ... is part of religious experience. Of course there are secular descriptions of everything.
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2017, 07:25:15 AM
Not being sure of who you are and what you are ... is part of religious experience. Of course there are secular descriptions of everything.
For Ulton, it was more similar to a new born becoming self aware, "Oh look, I an kick my feet, and when I bump those things that dangle above me, they make interesting noises. Wow, I can make noises. Oh wow! I like making noises." It was religious in the sense that it was self concocted and done without verifiable information. Well, that's not completely true. Ultron was created to be predisposed to someone else's needs. But he had to learn those needs and internalize them as his own. It was fun to watch the transformation from "blank slate" to periods of befuddlement, and finally to the illusion of self determination.
Quote from: SGOS on August 31, 2017, 07:59:24 AM
For Ulton, it was more similar to a new born becoming self aware, "Oh look, I an kick my feet, and when I bump those things that dangle above me, they make interesting noises. Wow, I can make noises. Oh wow! I like making noises." It was religious in the sense that it was self concocted and done without verifiable information. Well, that's not completely true. Ultron was created to be predisposed to someone else's needs. But he had to learn those needs and internalize them as his own. It was fun to watch the transformation from "blank slate" to periods of befuddlement, and finally to the illusion of self determination.
Ultron did have some very interesting thoughts and internal struggles. I thought, at first, he could be more. but then realized he was what he was. I liked the idea that he was more "Starkish" in the middle of the movie and that Stark had to become less "Starkish" toward the end.
Stark has a real martyr syndrome. And I am still stunned that Jarvis could pick up Thor's hammer.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 08:38:22 AM
And I am still stunned that Jarvis could pick up Thor's hammer.
Jarvis being robotish with some human elements may meet the criteria for possession of the hammer. I forgot what is was, but perhaps he is pure of heart or whatever jibberish is the rule.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 08:38:22 AMStark has a real martyr syndrome.
He really does. He feels like it's up to him and him alone and if he can't do it and live, then he'll do it and die. Stark lets others in somewhat, but he still maintains that mentality.
Quote from: aitm on August 31, 2017, 08:43:13 AM
Jarvis being robotish with some human elements may meet the criteria for possession of the hammer. I forgot what is was, but perhaps he is pure of heart or whatever jibberish is the rule.
Jarvis has no heart, but does have some rational ethics. Thus a certain purity.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 31, 2017, 10:51:24 AM
He really does. He feels like it's up to him and him alone and if he can't do it and live, then he'll do it and die. Starks lets others in somewhat, but he still maintains that mentality.
One of the Avengers, and I forget which one, observed that Ultron had Starks ethics about "killing for the greater good". "Stark" is named that for a reason. He measures things mathematically. He can lose one child for 10M adults.
They all have their strengths and weaknesses.
And Stark does manage to save himself from his own instincts when things get hard... If I could be one, guess who?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 11:31:14 AM
One of the Avengers, and I forget which one, observed that Ultron had Starks ethics about "killing for the greater good". "Stark" is named that for a reason. He measures things mathematically. He can lose one child for 10M adults.
They all have their strengths and weaknesses.
And Stark does manage to save himself from his own instincts when things get hard... If I could be one, guess who?
Commander Data before the emotion chip ... beep, beep
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 30, 2017, 11:32:17 AM
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Skeleton_of_Cadavra
I am
long since familiar with that movie; I first saw it in '02 or '03, and have followed Larry Blamire's career since. One still holds out hope he'll be able to get his 'Steam Wars' movie off the ground; his other genre parodies (
Trail of the Screaming Forehead,
Dark and Stormy Night and
The Lost Skeleton Returns Again, and his mobster movie
Johnny Slade's Greatest Hits) are all just as weirdly wonderful as LSoC.
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2017, 09:41:14 PM
Commander Data before the emotion chip ... beep, beep
You would rather be Data than Riker or Seven?
Quote from: trdsf on September 01, 2017, 03:27:41 PM
I am long since familiar with that movie; I first saw it in '02 or '03, and have followed Larry Blamire's career since. One still holds out hope he'll be able to get his 'Steam Wars' movie off the ground; his other genre parodies (Trail of the Screaming Forehead, Dark and Stormy Night and The Lost Skeleton Returns Again, and his mobster movie Johnny Slade's Greatest Hits) are all just as weirdly wonderful as LSoC.
Forgive my ignorance, but I haven't the SLIGHTEST idea what you are talking about.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 04, 2017, 02:19:27 AM
You would rather be Data than Riker or Seven?
I was mocking your choice ... sorry I wasn't clear. I am definitely more like Seven in some ways than like Data.
Quote from: Baruch on September 04, 2017, 07:20:48 AM
I was mocking your choice ... sorry I wasn't clear. I am definitely more like Seven in some ways than like Data.
What living being isn't?
Quote from: Cavebear on September 04, 2017, 02:20:46 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but I haven't the SLIGHTEST idea what you are talking about.
It's a parody of/homage to the B-movies of the 50s and early 60s. It started with
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Skeleton_of_Cadavra) which was done in the style of a low-budget Roger Corman/Bert I. Gordon/William Castle movie; the sequel,
The Lost Skeleton Returns Again, was a parody of studio B movies rather than indie Bs. He did a mobster movie,
Johnny Slade's Greatest Hits (aka Meet the Mobsters, which is not his title), which was a sort of vanity project for John Fiore of The Sopranos.
Trail of the Screaming Forehead was a parody of the bigger budget sci-fi movies, and Dark and Stormy Night (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_and_Stormy_Night) does in lonely haunted house movies.
All come with the trdsf seal of approval. Highly recommended.
Quote from: trdsf on September 04, 2017, 12:35:30 PM
It's a parody of/homage to the B-movies of the 50s and early 60s. It started with The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Skeleton_of_Cadavra) which was done in the style of a low-budget Roger Corman/Bert I. Gordon/William Castle movie; the sequel, The Lost Skeleton Returns Again, was a parody of studio B movies rather than indie Bs. He did a mobster movie, Johnny Slade's Greatest Hits (aka Meet the Mobsters, which is not his title), which was a sort of vanity project for John Fiore of The Sopranos. Trail of the Screaming Forehead was a parody of the bigger budget sci-fi movies, and Dark and Stormy Night (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_and_Stormy_Night) does in lonely haunted house movies.
All come with the trdsf seal of approval. Highly recommended.
I will accept what you say, as fiction seldom is stranger than the truth. Subject later verification. I'm finally just all worn out.
Death Note (2017)
Doesn't hold a candle to the original story.
[spoiler]But I will give them kudos for having the balls to take a very beloved series, and daring to take it into a different route. And I will say that this version is more... 'realistic'. Don't get me wrong, I prefer watching Kira and L duke out wits in the anime. But the long cat and mouse game with two impossibly intelligent people seemed very surreal at times. Here, unlike the manga/anime, the characters seem much more flawed.
But in the end, while interesting to see, that's where a lot of the story fails. Yes, I was glad not being able to predict every single thing because I hadn't seen it in the manga/anime before... But the characters, while more realistic, are just too different to see this as the same 'grander story'. Instead of Light's calm demeanor and sociopathy, we get Light as a an emotional, frustrated guy. Instead of blindly, bimbo loyal Mia... well... And instead of the removed and objective superintelligent L, we get a highly emotionally involved above-average investigator. And the story focuses too little on the chess these two minds play. Rather it's become a tragic lovestory with loads of dead bodies... or something.
That being said. I don't hate it. And I think it should get a slightly better score than it does on metacritic and rotten tomatoes. I just wouldn't recommend it to people that don't know Death Note nor people that are huge fans of it. To those who merely like Death Note and aren't too fussy about an adaptation going fanfic on this franchise, like me, it's an okay movie.
And Ryuk looks great.[/spoiler]
6.5/10
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 08, 2017, 06:53:20 PMDeath Note (2017)
Doesn't hold a candle to the original story.
Yeah, I figured as much. I'm tempted to rewatch the original then watch the movie just to be able to compare the two.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 08, 2017, 06:57:56 PM
Yeah, I figured as much. I'm tempted to rewatch the original then watch the movie just to be able to compare the two.
I saw the movie as well as the anime years before. IMO, the movie is best enjoyed without comparing it to the original. Ryuk is the only character who is mostly unchanged (Dafoe was perfect for the role), and I found myself thinking of Light Turner as a completely different character from Light Yagami. In fact, I think the movie would have been better if it were a continuation of the original instead of an adaptation.
Spoiler for those who haven't seen the whole anime + Relight...
[spoiler]Light didn't simply fade from existence when he died, but he became a shinigami. And Ryuk suggests that he drop his notebook in the human world and see what happens. If the Netflix movie took the story from there, with Light serving as shinigami over a new Kira (after killing everyone who knew about the death note from the shinigami realm). Then the characters would have been seen as they should have been seen: as their own characters. It would have also been interesting to see Light interacting with the new Kira. Unlike Ryuk, who took a neutral stance, Light would have an interest in Kira's success.[/spoiler]
I actually enjoyed the movie. But I would recommend holding off on reviewing the anime until after seeing the movie, so the movie will better stand on its own merits.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 08, 2017, 10:44:14 PM
I saw the movie as well as the anime years before. IMO, the movie is best enjoyed without comparing it to the original. Ryuk is the only character who is mostly unchanged (Dafoe was perfect for the role), and I found myself thinking of Light Turner as a completely different character from Light Yagami.
Is that a typo? Or is that seriously his name? I'm sorry, but Light Turner comes across as only a slightly less comical name than Taserface. I might not watch the movie after all. It'd be difficult to not laugh whenever someone says his name.
(https://i.redditmedia.com/F7zF8DznYoCHTXeJnMpkIjiCN7KEI6KJ11wCtLXvtbQ.jpg?w=320&s=2938633343afd108e8b40b2b5c6baed5)
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 08, 2017, 11:11:20 PM
Is that a typo? Or is that seriously his name? I'm sorry, but Light Turner comes across as only a slightly less comical name than Taserface. I might not watch the movie after all. It'd be difficult to not laugh whenever someone says his name.
(https://i.redditmedia.com/F7zF8DznYoCHTXeJnMpkIjiCN7KEI6KJ11wCtLXvtbQ.jpg?w=320&s=2938633343afd108e8b40b2b5c6baed5)
Turner is his last name, yes. He isn't Japanese anymore, so they changed his last name. But if you think about it, Light Yagami is an odd name too. "Light" is a random English word to use for a Japanese man. Yagami means "god," so his name is literally Light God. The name Turner was probably used to symbolize Light's loss of innocence and his descent into darkness.
Regardless of whether people like it or not, it's clear that a lot of work and passion went into making the movie, even after multiple delays and difficulty getting the green light. If the movie was just a cash in of a popular anime, it probably wouldn't have been finished. The effects were very realistic, and the deaths are much more interesting than they are in the original. No more heart attacks. When Light kills, it's an accident with a knife, a decapitation, or something more dramatic than someone grabbing their chest and falling over. The camera work was masterfully done as well, often reflecting the mood of the characters. At the dinner table with his father, who this Light doesn't get along with, shots are all closeups to give the viewer an uncomfortable and claustrophobic feeling. Then when Light leaves the table, the camera pulls back to reflect Light's feeling of relief. The movie has its weaknesses, but it has plenty of strengths as well.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 09, 2017, 12:18:40 PMNo more heart attacks. When Light kills, it's an accident with a knife, a decapitation, or something more dramatic than someone grabbing their chest and falling over.
Aw, I actually liked the heart attacks.
1) It shows that Light isn't a sadist; he sees these killings as executions. And with executions, you want to do it as cleanly and efficiently as possible.
2) It's a method of killing that's difficult to distinguish from death by natural causes. Initially, it was less likely to arouse much suspicion.
QuoteThe camera work was masterfully done as well, often reflecting the mood of the characters. At the dinner table with his father, who this Light doesn't get along with, shots are all closeups to give the viewer an uncomfortable and claustrophobic feeling. Then when Light leaves the table, the camera pulls back to reflect Light's feeling of relief. The movie has its weaknesses, but it has plenty of strengths as well.
Well, that's good. I'm now partially interested in checking it out.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 09, 2017, 12:18:40 PM
Turner is his last name, yes. He isn't Japanese anymore, so they changed his last name. But if you think about it, Light Yagami is an odd name too. "Light" is a random English word to use for a Japanese man. Yagami means "god," so his name is literally Light God. The name Turner was probably used to symbolize Light's loss of innocence and his descent into darkness.
I suppose I do have a bit of a double standard. In anime, I can excuse bizarre names like Full Frontal or Allelujah Haptism. In live action, I'm liable to crack up if someone's named Seymour Dickinson.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 09, 2017, 12:35:30 PMAw, I actually liked the heart attacks.
1) It shows that Light isn't a sadist; he sees these killings as executions. And with executions, you want to do it as cleanly and efficiently as possible.
2) It's a method of killing that's difficult to distinguish from death by natural causes. Initially, it was less likely to arouse much suspicion.
Actually, in the anime, Ryuk noted how Light always used "heart attack" as the cause of death. Light wanted his activity to be noticed, so he initially used the same cause of death so that the rising death toll would clearly be due to some new force. And since the increased heart attack mortality rates only affected criminals, people quickly attributed it to divine intervention and started worshiping Kira as a god. Unlike Turner, Yagami liked playing with fire too, purposefully making his connection to the police known so that he could get closer to L.
There isn't as much cat and mouse play in the movie, so don't go into it expecting that. While the original story is kind of a Sherlock vs Moriarty battle of wits between two ridiculously brilliant minds, the movie is something else, like it switched genres. Turner is book smart but he's street stupid, more like a real teenager. He also has a conscience. Unlike Yagami who would kill anyone who got in his way, Turner strictly only kills criminals. He does sort of change towards the end to be a little more like his anime counterpart, though.
Light God = Lucifer. Japanese folks not only borrow and repurpose Western words and names, they also borrow Western culture when it suites them.
Quote from: Baruch on September 09, 2017, 03:37:19 PM
Light God = Lucifer. Japanese folks not only borrow and repurpose Western words and names, they also borrow Western culture when it suites them.
The original opening of the anime portrayed Light standing in front of what appeared to be a painting of Lucifer, and there were several other Christian allusions as well. The death god eating apples, Light washing the feet of L, the organ and choir music. It wasn't very subtle. lol
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 09, 2017, 05:44:37 PM
The original opening of the anime portrayed Light standing in front of what appeared to be a painting of Lucifer, and there were several other Christian allusions as well. The death god eating apples, Light washing the feet of L, the organ and choir music. It wasn't very subtle. lol
According to the creator, the apples aren't symbolic, just chosen because of the contrast with Ryuk's dark appearance. Pssht! Next they'll tell me that Fahrenheit 451 wasn't about censorship.
Imho, sometimes the audience interpretation is more definitive than the author. The author raises the work and lets it out into the world (not unlike Ryuk with the Death Note), the world is where it fully develops.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 09, 2017, 08:59:29 PM
According to the creator, the apples aren't symbolic, just chosen because of the contrast with Ryuk's dark appearance. Pssht! Next they'll tell me that Fahrenheit 451 wasn't about censorship.
Imho, sometimes the audience interpretation is more definitive than the author. The author raises the work and lets it out into the world (not unlike Ryuk with the Death Note), the world is where it fully develops.
Maybe the animators created more symbolism than the manga writer intended. There's literally a depiction of Michelangelo's the Creation of Adam, except with Ryuk on the place of God, and Light taking the place of Adam. And in Ryuk's hand, being offered to Light, is the apple. The apple on the desk also phases into the Death Note. Both the apple of Eden and the Death Note are symbols of death.
I'm inclined to agree, the creator's protests notwithstanding. Art is great for inspiring sometimes contradictory interpretations.
Anyone ever read the "Wild Cards" book? They could be a fantastic movie series.
Ghostbusters (2016) - 2/10
Boring tripe, and nothing of interest or value happens in the entirety of the movie.
Quote from: Sal1981 on September 11, 2017, 06:22:37 AM
Ghostbusters (2016) - 2/10
Boring tripe, and nothing of interest or value happens in the entirety of the movie.
There were BOOKS of that tripe? Sorry to fans' "nonsense"?
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2017, 05:50:17 AM
Anyone ever read the "Wild Cards" book? They could be a fantastic movie series.
I'm hoping to make that my next series of books. Once i finish with The discworld saga.
Liked the live action discworld movies btw, just not ad much as the books.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 11, 2017, 03:51:41 PM
I'm hoping to make that my next series of books. Once i finish with The discworld saga.
Liked the live action discworld movies btw, just not ad much as the books.
Start and you're hooked.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 09, 2017, 08:59:29 PM
Imho, sometimes the audience interpretation is more definitive than the author. The author raises the work and lets it out into the world (not unlike Ryuk with the Death Note), the world is where it fully develops.
As a writer myself, I cannot agree with that. I can think of few things that would annoy me more than someone telling me "Oh, what you were
really trying to say was (...)." No, I was trying to say what I as creator say I was trying to say -- if someone got something else out of it, either it was mis- (or over-)interpreted, or I failed to make my point.
Quote from: trdsf on September 13, 2017, 08:46:53 AM
As a writer myself, I cannot agree with that. I can think of few things that would annoy me more than someone telling me "Oh, what you were really trying to say was (...)." No, I was trying to say what I as creator say I was trying to say -- if someone got something else out of it, either it was mis- (or over-)interpreted, or I failed to make my point.
You made Derrida sad ;-)
Quote from: trdsf on September 13, 2017, 08:46:53 AMAs a writer myself, I cannot agree with that. I can think of few things that would annoy me more than someone telling me "Oh, what you were really trying to say was (...)." No, I was trying to say what I as creator say I was trying to say -- if someone got something else out of it, either it was mis- (or over-)interpreted, or I failed to make my point.
People take ideas and run with them. Or alter how those ideas appear by looking at them through their own experiences. It can't be helped. Plenty of people experience paintings and sculptures and music and see meanings to it that the person beside them (least of all the creator) doesn't.
Besides, sometimes the audience comes up with far more interesting interpretations than what the author intended. If I told you that Fahrenheit 451 was nothing more than a polemic against television, would you agree? If I described the Force from Star Wars as microscopic organelles, would you be satisfied with that answer?
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 13, 2017, 06:45:51 PM
People take ideas and run with them. Or alter how those ideas appear by looking at them through their own experiences. It can't be helped. Plenty of people experience paintings and sculptures and music and see meanings to it that the person beside them (least of all the creator) doesn't.
Besides, sometimes the audience comes up with far more interesting interpretations than what the author intended. If I told you that Fahrenheit 451 was nothing more than a polemic against television, would you agree? If I described the Force from Star Wars as microscopic organelles, would you be satisfied with that answer?
I like The Force as something like Zen better than midichlorians ... sounds like a foot fungus.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 13, 2017, 06:45:51 PM
People take ideas and run with them. Or alter how those ideas appear by looking at them through their own experiences. It can't be helped. Plenty of people experience paintings and sculptures and music and see meanings to it that the person beside them (least of all the creator) doesn't.
Besides, sometimes the audience comes up with far more interesting interpretations than what the author intended. If I told you that Fahrenheit 451 was nothing more than a polemic against television, would you agree? If I described the Force from Star Wars as microscopic organelles, would you be satisfied with that answer?
There's a difference between coming up with an interpretation, and divining authorial intent.
Can you interpret Fahrenheit 451 as an anti-television polemic? Sure, I suppose so. But that's miles different from saying that was the story Bradbury
meant to tell.
It's the difference between someone telling me 'this is what I see in it'
versus 'this is what you were really saying'. I can accept the former, even if I disagree with the interpretation. But I absolutely reject the latter. That requires telepathy to divine my intent, and that's fictional.
Quote from: trdsf on September 13, 2017, 11:39:17 PMCan you interpret Fahrenheit 451 as an anti-television polemic? Sure, I suppose so. But that's miles different from saying that was the story Bradbury meant to tell.
What I'm referencing (http://www.laweekly.com/news/ray-bradbury-fahrenheit-451-misinterpreted-2149125) is the latter. The author coming out and saying that he meant his story as a polemic against television, not as a story about censorship. This of course flies in the face of pretty much everyone's impression of that story.
QuoteIt's the difference between someone telling me 'this is what I see in it' versus 'this is what you were really saying'. I can accept the former, even if I disagree with the interpretation. But I absolutely reject the latter. That requires telepathy to divine my intent, and that's fictional.
Fair enough.
Movie news:
https://www.polygon.com/2017/9/13/16304380/hellboy-david-harbour-first-look
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/eb058615098026049b25054e395e4d89/tumblr_ow8wi5HmMU1rb1m5ro1_500.jpg)
QuoteThe first look at David Harbour’s Hellboy has arrived and it’s slightly more muscular than what fans may be used to.
Habour’s version of the character is very similar to Ron Perlman’s portrayal of the devil in the original Hellboy and Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Both characters were muscular, red beasts, but there are a few key distinctions between the two. Habour’s version of the character has much more defined eyes and his hair is cut differently from Perlman’s. Harbour’s Hellboy is less stocky, sporting more defined muscles.
Or, to put it another way, Harbour’s Hellboy is a little more realistic while Perlman’s is a little more cartoonish or abstracted.
Even if Harbour’s Hellboy looks similar to Perlman’s, the actor has said before that their portrayals will be different in a couple of different ways.
“I think Hellboy has a certain psycho dynamic, where occasionally he has to prove that he's the lion, has to roar, and I think he struggles with his own masculinity,†Harbour told Cinema Blend. “But I don't think he needs that as much as maybe those other movies. I have a bit of a different take on his capability or his slickness. I sort of think that for me he's a little less skilled at constructing that persona.â€
The new Hellboy, which is being developed without Guillermo del Toro or Perlman, is being directed by Neil Marshall (The Descent, Game of Thrones.) Both del Toro and Perlman have spoken about the new movie and have wished Marshall the best of luck with the project. Despite spending years trying to get Hellboy 3 made, del Toro confirmed in February that his time with the franchise had come to an end.
Hellboy will be released in 2018.
Looks pretty good. I loved perlman as Hellboy, but it looks like they really focused as trying to make this new Hellboy as close to the original as possible.
Remains to be seen if Harbour can make him as memorable as perlmans take.
No more than most superheroes... Hulk beats him. Yawn...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 14, 2017, 08:45:56 AM
No more than most superheroes... Hulk beats him. Yawn...
never really been a fan of hulk. His character stems from whoevers playing Bruce Banner in the movies, hulk himself is just a big dumb child raging at the screen with only the most occasional glimpse at any other emotion besides 'Rrrraauugh'.
If they were to make him into like world breaker hulk who had a personality, then it might seem like a progression in character.
Quote from: Munch on September 14, 2017, 08:50:02 AM
never really been a fan of hulk. His character stems from whoevers playing Bruce Banner in the movies, hulk himself is just a big dumb child raging at the screen with only the most occasional glimpse at any other emotion besides 'Rrrraauugh'.
If they were to make him into like world breaker hulk who had a personality, then it might seem like a progression in character.
Childhood abuse... Always angry.
Quote from: Munch on September 14, 2017, 08:50:02 AM
never really been a fan of hulk. His character stems from whoevers playing Bruce Banner in the movies, hulk himself is just a big dumb child raging at the screen with only the most occasional glimpse at any other emotion besides 'Rrrraauugh'.
If they were to make him into like world breaker hulk who had a personality, then it might seem like a progression in character.
Well, good news, he speaks in "Ragnarok". First step.
Quote from: Munch on September 14, 2017, 08:50:02 AM
If they were to make him into like world breaker hulk who had a personality, then it might seem like a progression in character.
But in the last movie, he shows emotion and thought by taking the plane off into wherever he went, I think "he" knew he needed to get away from that woman. She wanted him bad and who knows how doing the hibbity jibbety with him could turn out at the last seconds prior to that blissful moment eh?
Quote from: aitm on September 14, 2017, 09:45:58 AM
But in the last movie, he shows emotion and thought by taking the plane off into wherever he went, I think "he" knew he needed to get away from that woman. She wanted him bad and who knows how doing the hibbity jibbety with him could turn out at the last seconds prior to that blissful moment eh?
Actually, I was surprised by that. It hints that Bruce Banner has some intellect or at least instinct to rational action while still the Hulk. There have been times in the Marvel series wjen he was actually quite intelligent as the Hulk.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. - 8/10
I'm a sucker for family reunions.
Quote from: Sal1981 on September 14, 2017, 02:39:37 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. - 8/10
I'm a sucker for family reunions.
I just can't past "I am Groot"! Over and over and over again. I'd rather listen to Jar Jar Bing another whole Summer! And talk about asking for pain...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 14, 2017, 04:16:27 PM
I just can't past "I am Groot"!
It's no different from Chewbacca's distinct growl (which Han Solo understands perfectly) or Hodor's hodoring (which people only vaguely understand based on his tone and body language)
Plus, he's actually communicating a lot of information, it's just that it has to be deciphered from the inflections/tone of his three-word vocabulary. Several Guardians (Rocket, Mantis, movie Star Lord) have learned to understand him to the point of having conversations with him, as does Maximus (but he's crazy, so that might not be genuine understanding)
I just put down Groots emotion and facual expressions as his language and you just make up what you will of it, like his smile in the first movie after impaling a load of soldiers on his vine, his smile just screamed "look what I did" or "That was hell'a fun!"
Quote from: Munch on September 14, 2017, 06:03:16 PM
I just put down Groots emotion and facual expressions as his language and you just make up what you will of it, like his smile in the first movie after impaling a load of soldiers on his vine, his smile just screamed "look what I did" or "That was hell'a fun!"
That would mean he couldn't use a radio.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 14, 2017, 06:09:55 PM
That would mean he couldn't use a radio.
unless it was to rocket, or mantis, or starlord, who all understand him.
Quote from: Munch on September 14, 2017, 06:37:31 PM
unless it was to rocket, or mantis, or starlord, who all understand him.
But if he used his facial expressions that wouldn't xmit over the radio.
My first reaction to Groot was, "OMG, this is really dumb," but he grew on me, which I really didn't expect to happen. Marvel just kept pushing at it until I sensed Marvel was demanding I get with it or else. So I suspended a little more of my disbelief, and finally I understood. It was like having a religious revelation, and I became free at last.
And Marvel's depiction of him struggling to remember which was the right button to push is much the same. They could have gotten the point of his struggle across in one fifth of the time, but they stretched on and on and on, until I didn't know if I was laughing at Groot for being so stupid, or laughing at Marvel punishing me for trying to be such a pseudo intellectual snob.
Quote from: SGOS on September 14, 2017, 07:03:56 PM
My first reaction to Groot was, "OMG, this is really dumb," but he grew on me, which I really didn't expect to happen. Marvel just kept pushing at it until I sensed Marvel was demanding I get with it or else. So I suspended a little more of my disbelief, and finally I understood. It was like having a religious revelation, and I became free at last.
And Marvel's depiction of him struggling to remember which was the right button to push is much the same. They could have gotten the point of his struggle across in one fifth of the time, but they stretched on and on and on, until I didn't know if I was laughing at Groot for being so stupid, or laughing at Marvel punishing me for trying to be such a pseudo intellectual snob.
You have to admit that just about any tree would have the same problems.
Comic books do require a lot of suspension of disbelief, and thats when they get fun. If you focus to much on the logical details you don't have as much fun. For example how golden age superman could do ANYthing the writers wanted him to, they just invented new powers each week for him, but come the 90s in cartoons like the animated superman or justice league, he was toned down and shown to feel pain when he got hit by a missile or lazer.
It really depends on how far your allow yourself to have that suspension of disbelief of course, theres been plenty of moments I've just facepalmed at in comics for how out the way they've gone, like previously mentioned wolverine regenerating from a single cell in moments, superman grabbing a chain of planets and toeing them behinnd though space, or when punisher gets plastic surgery and becomes black
I quit comics when I discovered scifi.
Quote from: trdsf on September 13, 2017, 08:46:53 AM
As a writer myself, I cannot agree with that. I can think of few things that would annoy me more than someone telling me "Oh, what you were really trying to say was (...)." No, I was trying to say what I as creator say I was trying to say -- if someone got something else out of it, either it was mis- (or over-)interpreted, or I failed to make my point.
My favorite counter to this would be Mel Gibson's
Passion of the Christ. Basically everyone who saw it said it was terribly anti-Semitic. But Mel Gibson insisted they were wrong, that he didn't intentionally put any antisemitic elements in his movie.
And then a couple years later he got rip-roaringly drunk and was caught in tape screaming "You goddamn Jews start all the wars."
Gibson was not lying when he said his movie wasn't anti-Semitic. He almost certainly didn't intend to offend Jews with it. But his personal antisemitic views were so overbearing that he couldn't prevent them from seeping to the surface in his art.
Those critics WERE right; their interpretations of the movie in fact WERE more accurate than Gibson's, even though Gibson created it.
This happens a lot; authors are humans, which means they can lie and they can suppress unpleasant truths and they can even make subconscious connections that only other readers can explicate. It's why I align firmly with the New Critics on the question of intent.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 14, 2017, 09:39:17 AM
Well, good news, he speaks in "Ragnarok". First step.
He spoke in The Avengers too. "Puny god." Not a magnum opus, but he spoke.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 14, 2017, 09:44:31 PM
He spoke in The Avengers too. "Puny god." Not a magnum opus, but he spoke.
...one of the greatest movie lines of that year.
Quote from: SGOS on September 14, 2017, 10:06:03 PM
...one of the greatest movie lines of that year.
The only part of that movie I actually liked -- in the main, I can't stand superhero movies, mainly because they're effects extravaganzas that give me vertigo, a headache, or both.
Quote from: trdsf on September 15, 2017, 12:57:40 AM
The only part of that movie I actually liked -- in the main, I can't stand superhero movies, mainly because they're effects extravaganzas that give me vertigo, a headache, or both.
You can enjoy ground based heroes, like Charles Xavier in his wheelchair.
Though maybe his mind swirly thing might have the same effect
Quote from: Munch on September 15, 2017, 02:41:22 AM
You can enjoy ground based heroes, like Charles Xavier in his wheelchair.
Though maybe his mind swirly thing might have the same effect
I haven't read Marvel comics in 25 years. I got sick of the 'all angst all the time' and seventeen different Wolverine titles.
Quote from: trdsf on September 15, 2017, 10:30:25 AM
I haven't read Marvel comics in 25 years. I got sick of the 'all angst all the time' and seventeen different Wolverine titles.
From what I've seen of recent Marvel comics, they're not any better now. The higher ups seem to think it's more important to push a diverse cast of characters that no one cares about than to tell good stories or produce good artwork. They have a complete disdain for their fans, claiming that the only reason they haven't been successful lately is because they're racists.
Okay, quibblisauri, Hulk has a conversation in "Ragnarok".
Quote from: trdsf on September 15, 2017, 10:30:25 AM
I haven't read Marvel comics in 25 years. I got sick of the 'all angst all the time' and seventeen different Wolverine titles.
Stopped in 1963. SciFi appeared in my life.
Wonder Woman - 6/10
Pretty bland origin story, IMO.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 15, 2017, 11:08:07 AM
Stopped in 1963. SciFi appeared in my life.
I lasted through Kirby's run on FF. Came back briefly for X-Factor, mainly because original X-Men. Then they peed
that down their collective leg.
So I saw two movies last night:
1- My Cousin Rachel (2017, Roger Michell): An adaptation of a du Maurier novel that has all the personality of a Wikipedia summary; it's paper-thin, no texture, no soul. Michell--one of my least favorite of the prestige directors--once again butchers even the simplest tasks, shooting every dialogue scene like a Tom Hooper with the DTs. A complete absence of romance and suspense is pretty rough in a romantic suspense film.
2- Girl Walk //All Day (2011, Jacob Krupnik): A 75-minute dance/music video set to the mashup artist Girl Talk's 2010 album All Day. There's a discernible plot of sorts, but for the most part this is just 100% watching people dance through New York City, in public and in private, alone and in groups. It's shot in a total guerilla style (with curious onlookers gawking in the background of almost every scene--and even one great part where The Girl is dancing through the aisles of Yankee Stadium that ends with her being escorted out by security). The attempts at social commentary are cringe-worthy (e.g. The Girl dances through an Occupy Wall Street rally with her arms full of boutique shopping bags), as are anything which foreground the love triangle plot, but all in all the experience is one of pure joy, a world where dance and music are truly unifying powers, within reach of everyone. (In many sequences total amateurs get so caught up in the moment they start dancing right along with the stars.) Very highly recommended.
Finally got back to live theater after years and years. Picasso at the Lapin Agile ... a comedy by Steve Martin. So much better than any movie.
I miss the theatre too, last I saw was the woman in black. A much more entertaining experience then any movie
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 14, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
I quit comics when I discovered scifi.
I grew up thinking Little Lulu and Donald Duck were the comics. There were also the superheroes which were more real, but I wasn't allowed to read those, and I never bothered to look into them, even when I was older and had more freedom. OK, I opened them up and looked inside those comics, even when they were off limits. I did wonder why they were considered "comics" when there was nothing comical about them. I should think Marvel would have come up with another more appropriate and descriptive name for that art form. But instead they just remained misnamed, "the comics" (IMO) until they because socially recognized as "comics", and now everyone calls them the comic books. But it still befuddles me. Whatever.
Marvel Comics, and to a lesser extent, DC Comics, have sure tapped into a part of the theater goers neural networks. They have turned what was just another interesting genre into something that is revitalizing the whole film industry, pushing the projects to greater limits, attracting movie stars who are standing in line to audition, and teams of highly skilled technical types. Have you noticed how long the credits last in a Marvel movie? They can take 15 minutes to watch. I don't know if they are simply giving credit to the overlooked "nobodies" on the industry's low end of the pay scale that were never previously acknowledged, or are the thousand or so people named in the credits actually highly skilled contributors to the movie. It does give the impression that making superhero movies requires a grand scale, and producers with deep pockets who are willing to take big risks to fund these projects.
The scroll is long because there are more "artists" involved. The industry rules require them to be named.
Are you familiar with Allen Smithee?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 17, 2017, 11:59:50 AM
The scroll is long because there are more "artists" involved. The industry rules require them to be named.
Are you familiar with Allen Smithee?
I wasn't, but I just looked him up. It reminds me of the 555 telephone exchange used in TV and film.
IT
Fuck yes/Fuck yes.
Quote from: SGOS on September 17, 2017, 01:01:56 PM
I wasn't, but I just looked him up. It reminds me of the 555 telephone exchange used in TV and film.
The credits are idiotically long only because they outsource so much of the graphic production. Seriously do I care whether some company produced a 3 second shot of Thor's hammer up close? Of course not.
The saving grace is that the cable company speeds up the credits so fast you can't read anything in them anyway. And even if they slowed it down to a possible reading speed, I'm channel-flipping anyway.
If I had a job in a movie, I would want money in place of the credit list. My resume would have it and I would have some money.
gonna go see IT in a few hours.
Quote from: Munch on September 19, 2017, 06:41:23 AM
gonna go see IT in a few hours.
An insult to clowns. The reviews are terrible. Enjoy the popcorn...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2017, 07:08:02 AM
An insult to clowns. The reviews are terrible. Enjoy the popcorn...
85% at Rotten Tomatoes. You might be thinking of another movie.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/it_2017
I'm going to the movies today also, but I'll see either Wind River or Mother.
Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 08:55:25 AM
85% at Rotten Tomatoes. You might be thinking of another movie.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/it_2017
I'm going to the movies today also, but I'll see either Wind River or Mother.
Well, OBVIOUSLY rotten tomatoes is wrong, LOL!
Got my ticket and going in, bwaa haw haw, can't stop me now!
Quote from: Munch on September 19, 2017, 10:38:30 AM
Got my ticket and going in, bwaa haw haw, can't stop me now!
Hey what ever rocks your boat... Some of my favorite movies were panned and some I gagged on are considered "great".
Wind River 6/10
It kept my interest.
Back. That was fun, the movie was a lot of fun, the thing that sort of left a red cloud over my head though were the two nod head guys two rows back whispering loudly thoughout the movie, and raising their whisper levels higher when the volume got higher, because everyone who paid to see the movie so wanted a idiots commentary throughout. Seriously, they need a law in place to shut up in cinema, if your meant to turn off your phone in the cinema, you should shut your mouth too for it.
Anyway, I really enjoyed this one. 8/10.
I broke this into two halves, first part is my thoughts on the original tv movie, the second parts about the new film.
The thing with IT, is how much of an impact its had on me for years now. I never read the book, and likely never will, just based on the size of the thing, and from what I gather from reviews King bloat a lot of the story with more details then is really needed for a story. Sure its his original, but when you've had a preconceived idea of a story for so long, namely the Tim Curry tv adaptation, then reading the book now might change my perception of a few things, and I kinda don't want that.
I saw the original tv movie when I was 11, forced to watch it when my brother got a vhs copy from a friend and made me watch it when I slept on the floor of his bedroom when my grandmother came to visit, he did that a lot, and it probably why I love horror movies so much now. But for all the stuff I saw back then, for me the IT tv movie had the most impact, mostly because of Tim Curry's role, but also the child actors in the first part were pretty dam good too, and even today I will like that first half due to those roles.
What I liked about Tim Curry's version, is how he subverted expectations so much. He posed as a happy smiling clown on screen, and as the kid, I had that preconceived idea of clowns being nice and friendly, this being back in the late 1980s well before the times of which clowns became creatures of fear they are today. So going in as a kid then, seeing tim curry being all smiling and friendly one scene surprised me.
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/dfb0e7b96e7c09bac72726c9306e5126/tumblr_o2egxy0wQs1rp0vkjo1_500.gif)
Only for that expectation to be shattered when he did something terrifying.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/ed6da1a54dcd7d28691438c637b45c5c/tumblr_moa65tHcec1sqjw2to1_500.gif)
As a kid, even though I was told it was a horror, I wasn't expecting something like that, and it left its mark on me about subverting expectations, and maybe even introduced me to the idea of the uncanny valley, that something that seems unnatural can lead to that kind of fear and expectation.
Anyway thats the original series, seeing that as a kid and seeing it now, I can see a lot of the faults and cringeworthy moments in it, but I still think the child actors in the tv series and Tim Curry still hold up today.
This new version however is something both similar and different, but still delivers.
Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise is pretty fantastic, but he plays a very different kind of character. Its kind of like comparing Christopher Reeve's superman to Henry Cavill's superman, both are great performances, but are both unique in their execution. Skarsgård goes full on creepy with Pennywise here, unlike Tim Curry, he doesn't subvert your expectations, he simply is a creepy as hell clown like from old times, and in a way that works. The problem with the original I suppose is once you knew how evil Tim Curry's pennywise was, the charm of the soft smiling clown is already lost in the first scene. Here, Skarsgård gives that uncanny performance, along with the special effects and makeup, the small details like the cracked face paint and his expressions are the stuff of nightmares.
The kid performers in this are awesome, infact I'd say better then the original, maybe a couple cringe moments here and there but overall they delivered their roles blood well, and you ended up feeling for the characters and all the shit they go though. And unlike in the original, the adult actors were pretty good too.
the camerawork, the lighting, the sound and music, all of it was awesome. The actual horror elements in it were pretty good too, when it comes to horror, if you do nothing but cheap jump scares, you deflate the audience and it makes the experience kinda shallow. This movie built up expectations, and their were no cheap jump scares, they were all delivered well, including one that even made me jump (the two idiots rows back saying it almost made them wet themselves).
The thing with any adaptation is the director is taking a property, breaking it down, and putting it back together in how he thinks it should be seen. There is no way you can adapt kings original book of this story, its to big. So for what he did with it, the director, Andy Muschietti, did a fantastic job of trimming so much fat from the story and only leaving in the important stuff, or making it a better cinematic experience.
So worth it, if you've ever seen the tv movie or read the book, or even if not, this is worth a look.
I do have just a couple nit-picks, but it didn't take anything out of the movie, so spoilers.
In it at the start we see pennywise luring georgie in, and biting off his arm, before pulling him into the sewers. This was pretty graphic compared to the tv movie as it was only implied back then. Seeing this raises some questions, if pennywise/IT is a manifestation, or a physical entity that can effect the physical world, a shape shifter, which I often assumed was a non-corporeal entity, but this one pretty much comfirms IT is a shapeshifter and not just a physic image.
So he eats children who are afraid because fear tastes so much sweeter to him, but then at the end of the movie we see the bodies of dozens of missing children floating in IT's lair, since we see him using his deadlights on Beverly Marsh, making her float in the air in a comatose state. Does this mean the other children floating in his lair are also in a comatose state, are they dead, why hasn't he consumed them, were none of all those children afraid of him so he did the same to all of them as he did Beverly? We know he ate Georgie because all they found of him in the end was his raincoat.
Thats really my only nit-pick actually, but it didn't take me out of the movie at all.
Sorry for the long review, just like putting my mind about movies down somewhere.
Quote from: Munch on September 19, 2017, 05:42:12 PM
Back. That was fun, the movie was a lot of fun, the thing that sort of left a red cloud over my head though were the two nod head guys two rows back whispering loudly thoughout the movie, and raising their whisper levels higher when the volume got higher, because everyone who paid to see the movie so wanted a idiots commentary throughout. Seriously, they need a law in place to shut up in cinema, if your meant to turn off your phone in the cinema, you should shut your mouth too for it.
Anyway, I really enjoyed this one. 8/10.
I broke this into two halves, first part is my thoughts on the original tv movie, the second parts about the new film.
The thing with IT, is how much of an impact its had on me for years now. I never read the book, and likely never will, just based on the size of the thing, and from what I gather from reviews King bloat a lot of the story with more details then is really needed for a story. Sure its his original, but when you've had a preconceived idea of a story for so long, namely the Tim Curry tv adaptation, then reading the book now might change my perception of a few things, and I kinda don't want that.
I saw the original tv movie when I was 11, forced to watch it when my brother got a vhs copy from a friend and made me watch it when I slept on the floor of his bedroom when my grandmother came to visit, he did that a lot, and it probably why I love horror movies so much now. But for all the stuff I saw back then, for me the IT tv movie had the most impact, mostly because of Tim Curry's role, but also the child actors in the first part were pretty dam good too, and even today I will like that first half due to those roles.
What I liked about Tim Curry's version, is how he subverted expectations so much. He posed as a happy smiling clown on screen, and as the kid, I had that preconceived idea of clowns being nice and friendly, this being back in the late 1980s well before the times of which clowns became creatures of fear they are today. So going in as a kid then, seeing tim curry being all smiling and friendly one scene surprised me.
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/dfb0e7b96e7c09bac72726c9306e5126/tumblr_o2egxy0wQs1rp0vkjo1_500.gif)
Only for that expectation to be shattered when he did something terrifying.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/ed6da1a54dcd7d28691438c637b45c5c/tumblr_moa65tHcec1sqjw2to1_500.gif)
As a kid, even though I was told it was a horror, I wasn't expecting something like that, and it left its mark on me about subverting expectations, and maybe even introduced me to the idea of the uncanny valley, that something that seems unnatural can lead to that kind of fear and expectation.
Anyway thats the original series, seeing that as a kid and seeing it now, I can see a lot of the faults and cringeworthy moments in it, but I still think the child actors in the tv series and Tim Curry still hold up today.
This new version however is something both similar and different, but still delivers.
Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise is pretty fantastic, but he plays a very different kind of character. Its kind of like comparing Christopher Reeve's superman to Henry Cavill's superman, both are great performances, but are both unique in their execution. Skarsgård goes full on creepy with Pennywise here, unlike Tim Curry, he doesn't subvert your expectations, he simply is a creepy as hell clown like from old times, and in a way that works. The problem with the original I suppose is once you knew how evil Tim Curry's pennywise was, the charm of the soft smiling clown is already lost in the first scene. Here, Skarsgård gives that uncanny performance, along with the special effects and makeup, the small details like the cracked face paint and his expressions are the stuff of nightmares.
The kid performers in this are awesome, infact I'd say better then the original, maybe a couple cringe moments here and there but overall they delivered their roles blood well, and you ended up feeling for the characters and all the shit they go though. And unlike in the original, the adult actors were pretty good too.
the camerawork, the lighting, the sound and music, all of it was awesome. The actual horror elements in it were pretty good too, when it comes to horror, if you do nothing but cheap jump scares, you deflate the audience and it makes the experience kinda shallow. This movie built up expectations, and their were no cheap jump scares, they were all delivered well, including one that even made me jump (the two idiots rows back saying it almost made them wet themselves).
The thing with any adaptation is the director is taking a property, breaking it down, and putting it back together in how he thinks it should be seen. There is no way you can adapt kings original book of this story, its to big. So for what he did with it, the director, Andy Muschietti, did a fantastic job of trimming so much fat from the story and only leaving in the important stuff, or making it a better cinematic experience.
So worth it, if you've ever seen the tv movie or read the book, or even if not, this is worth a look.
I do have just a couple nit-picks, but it didn't take anything out of the movie, so spoilers.
In it at the start we see pennywise luring georgie in, and biting off his arm, before pulling him into the sewers. This was pretty graphic compared to the tv movie as it was only implied back then. Seeing this raises some questions, if pennywise/IT is a manifestation, or a physical entity that can effect the physical world, a shape shifter, which I often assumed was a non-corporeal entity, but this one pretty much comfirms IT is a shapeshifter and not just a physic image.
So he eats children who are afraid because fear tastes so much sweeter to him, but then at the end of the movie we see the bodies of dozens of missing children floating in IT's lair, since we see him using his deadlights on Beverly Marsh, making her float in the air in a comatose state. Does this mean the other children floating in his lair are also in a comatose state, are they dead, why hasn't he consumed them, were none of all those children afraid of him so he did the same to all of them as he did Beverly? We know he ate Georgie because all they found of him in the end was his raincoat.
Thats really my only nit-pick actually, but it didn't take me out of the movie at all.
Sorry for the long review, just like putting my mind about movies down somewhere.
Fine with me horror is really just a laugh to me, but just what ever kid needs - a scary clown, LOL! Bet this one ruins kids' birthday parties for years. ;)
I think it was somewhere in Texas a couple of years ago where a high school girl was texting during a movie, and when asked to put her phone away, she refused, so management expelled her from the theater. So she goes home incensed about not being able to text whenever she feels like it, calls the theater, and tells them she will never come back to their crappy theater because they threw her out for texting her girlfriend, and bla bla bla for another 3 minutes of this childish loss of self control.
So the theater stops playing their professionally made "Please don't talk or text during the movie," and starts playing the recording of the girl doing her high school tantrum over the phone, and ends the recording with their own message that they are serious about their do not disturb others policy. NPR ran the news story, and actually played the recording of the girl doing her self centered rant.
Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 08:55:25 AM
85% at Rotten Tomatoes. You might be thinking of another movie.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/it_2017
I'm going to the movies today also, but I'll see either Wind River or Mother.
Wind River was excellent. I damn near froze to death.
But really, how much trouble could there be if they only needed one Avenger?
Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2017, 06:13:56 PM
Fine with me horror is really just a laugh to me, but just what ever kid needs - a scary clown, LOL! Bet this one ruins kids' birthday parties for years. ;)
Compare and contrast John Wayne Gayce.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2017, 06:13:56 PM
Fine with me horror is really just a laugh to me, but just what ever kid needs - a scary clown, LOL! Bet this one ruins kids' birthday parties for years. ;)
its not like the current adaptation is something new, if anything the original tv movie and the real horror story of John Wayne Gayce, along with bands like insane clown posse, started this trend of evil clowns in culture.
Quote from: Munch on September 19, 2017, 05:42:12 PMWhat I liked about Tim Curry's version, is how he subverted expectations so much. He posed as a happy smiling clown on screen, and as the kid, I had that preconceived idea of clowns being nice and friendly, this being back in the late 1980s well before the times of which clowns became creatures of fear they are today. So going in as a kid then, seeing tim curry being all smiling and friendly one scene surprised me.
Same. Tim Curry was great because he didn't just run at you with an axe. He enticed you in, started being creepy as hell, then got more and more monstrous and threatening.
A lot of his scenes weren't scary in a traditional way - no one's particularly scared of balloons filled with blood or happy carnival music or insults like "girly boy" - but because of how it's put together, it really was legitimately creepy, especially as a kid.
QuoteSkarsgård goes full on creepy with Pennywise here, unlike Tim Curry, he doesn't subvert your expectations, he simply is a creepy as hell clown like from old times, and in a way that works.
That doesn't sound like a good change. :(
I like that all the child actors and music and stuff are all better, but changing the villain like that...I dunno if I'm even going to go see it.
QuoteIn it at the start we see pennywise luring georgie in, and biting off his arm, before pulling him into the sewers. This was pretty graphic compared to the tv movie as it was only implied back then.
I kinda liked that it was implied. I don't remember, but didn't his brother hope that Georgie might still be alive?
QuoteSeeing this raises some questions, if pennywise/IT is a manifestation, or a physical entity that can effect the physical world, a shape shifter, which I often assumed was a non-corporeal entity, but this one pretty much comfirms IT is a shapeshifter and not just a physic image.
I always took him as an extremely limited Q. He can change forms, disappear and appear at will, literally jump out of a book, but he has limits. He can't stay non-corporeal for long or do it often. He has a physical body and can be harmed/destroyed.
QuoteSo he eats children who are afraid because fear tastes so much sweeter to him, but then at the end of the movie we see the bodies of dozens of missing children floating in IT's lair, since we see him using his deadlights on Beverly Marsh, making her float in the air in a comatose state.
Wait...they literally float? In the air? Because I always assumed by "they float" he meant that people's bodies float in the water. You know, the deadman's float.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 19, 2017, 06:38:54 PM
Wait...they literally float? In the air? Because I always assumed by "they float" he meant that people's bodies float in the water. You know, the deadman's float.
sorry for the spoilers first off, I did give a warning but still sorry if you didn't wanna see that part. But yes, the children are literally floating in the air in his lair, dunno if their dead or not even, but yeah in the original that was my interpretation that floating meaning in the waters, since its a sewer.
I suppose though given what IT is, an entity from the macroverse that's composed of 'deadlights', there isn't a reason why it couldn't have done this anyway, just the director changing something up for cinematic presentation.
This goes in with what I say about adaptation, sometimes a good story can only work when transferred to film if its adapted well, so taking liberties or changing something out while respecting the source material is in the nature of any good director.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 19, 2017, 06:23:21 PM
Wind River was excellent. I damn near froze to death.
But really, how much trouble could there be if they only needed one Avenger?
Maybe two Avengers, but I'm not sure. I think the actress that played the FBI agent might have been the gal from the Avengers that would sneak up next to someone and "poof" them with a little handful of her mystical red smoke and screw with their heads. Yeah, that's who it was, I just looked her up: Elizabeth Olsen.
Quote from: Munch on September 19, 2017, 06:45:36 PMsorry for the spoilers first off, I did give a warning but still sorry if you didn't wanna see that part.
lol, the floating thing doesn't seem too integral to the plot and it's been 30 years since the book was published, so unless the new version has a completely different ending and you talk about that in detail, no spoiler tags are necessary imho.
Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 06:47:55 PM
Maybe two Avengers, but I'm not sure. I think the actress that played the FBI agent might have been the gal from the Avengers that would sneak up next to someone and "poof" them with a little handful of her mystical red smoke and screw with their heads. Yeah, that's who it was, I just looked her up: Elizabeth Olsen.
You mean Scarlett Witch?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 19, 2017, 06:54:24 PM
You mean Scarlett Witch?
I couldn't remember the name of her Avengers character. But that would be a good name for her.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/1b/39/22/1b392246c3f5dbdb425ce6fa50ec9b6f--elizabeth-olsen-gorgeous-women.jpg)
Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2017, 10:09:57 AM
Well, OBVIOUSLY rotten tomatoes is wrong, LOL!
imdb: 8/10
metacritic: 70/100
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/it-movie-box-office-opening-thursday-1202551182/
Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 06:56:51 PM
I couldn't remember the name of her Avengers character. But that would be a good name for her.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/1b/39/22/1b392246c3f5dbdb425ce6fa50ec9b6f--elizabeth-olsen-gorgeous-women.jpg)
Just remember that she was married to "Quick Silver" in "Godzilla".
Transformers the last knight or some shit - 1/10
I didn't, honestly, want to watch the rest of this piece of shit movie. So, I didn't.
Currently watching "Wonder Woman". Gal Gadot and some guys, I think. Definitely Gal. Definitely.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 19, 2017, 07:20:28 PM
Just remember that she was married to "Quick Silver" in "Godzilla".
I saw that, but I wasn't paying much attention. The Avengers was the first time I noticed her, although she looked vaguely familiar, so I'd probably had seen her someplace. The witch wasn't a big part. It's almost like she was thrown in, but I was taken with the character, so she imprinted on my mind, and I'm thinking she may have a successful career ahead of her.
Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 07:27:14 PM
I saw that, but I wasn't paying much attention. The Avengers was the first time I noticed her, although she looked vaguely familiar, so I'd probably had seen her someplace. The witch wasn't a big part. It's almost like she was thrown in, but I was taken with the character, so she imprinted on my mind, and I'm thinking she may have a successful career ahead of her.
She's been busy since 2011, so I'd agree.
Quote from: Munch on September 19, 2017, 06:59:27 PM
imdb: 8/10
metacritic: 70/100
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/it-movie-box-office-opening-thursday-1202551182/
IMDB tends to have skewed ratings (https://medium.freecodecamp.org/whose-reviews-should-you-trust-imdb-rotten-tomatoes-metacritic-or-fandango-7d1010c6cf19) - instead of a normal distribution of a few crap movies, a ton of mediocre movies, and a few good movies, IMDB has a ton of 7/10 movies. Like a lot of review sites, they use the Four Point Scale (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourPointScale). (Almost everything is between 7/10 and 9/10 with the exception of a handful of panned movies. Hell, Transformers is 7.1 and Star Wars Phantom Menace is a 6.5)
Generally speaking, I trust Metacritic more (it more closely resembles a normal distribution). I also like Rotten Tomatoes, but there have been a few movies lately where it's been very different from my perception.
IT got a 85% on Rotten Tomatoes. Not bad.
Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 06:17:03 PM
I think it was somewhere in Texas a couple of years ago where a high school girl was texting during a movie, and when asked to put her phone away, she refused, so management expelled her from the theater. So she goes home incensed about not being able to text whenever she feels like it, calls the theater, and tells them she will never come back to their crappy theater because they threw her out for texting her girlfriend, and bla bla bla for another 3 minutes of this childish loss of self control.
So the theater stops playing their professionally made "Please don't talk or text during the movie," and starts playing the recording of the girl doing her high school tantrum over the phone, and ends the recording with their own message that they are serious about their do not disturb others policy. NPR ran the news story, and actually played the recording of the girl doing her self centered rant.
Alamo draft house. They are great :D.
Skarsgard's Pennywise was absolutely amazing.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 19, 2017, 10:42:47 PM
Alamo draft house. They are great :D.
Thanks, I googled her disgruntled call. That girl sure does love her phone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs
okay, so the newest jeepers creepers movie is coming out. I saw the original, and kinda liked it. Thought the sequal was crap. Then I learned the director, Victor Salva, is a convicted pedophile who sexually molested a 12 year old back in 1989.
Lets just say I've no interest in seeing any of his movies anymore, new or old, but what I don't understand is a fact knowing its public about what he did, why did any studio want to allow him to make a movie and then advertise it? I mean theres being an asshole director who can hide that image from the public to get a film made, but then theres this, why would any advertising company want to promote his work?
Fantastic 4 - 5/10
Pretty meh movie.
Quote from: Munch on September 20, 2017, 01:15:28 PM
okay, so the newest jeepers creepers movie is coming out. I saw the original, and kinda liked it. Thought the sequal was crap. Then I learned the director, Victor Salva, is a convicted pedophile who sexually molested a 12 year old back in 1989.
Lets just say I've no interest in seeing any of his movies anymore, new or old, but what I don't understand is a fact knowing its public about what he did, why did any studio want to allow him to make a movie and then advertise it? I mean theres being an asshole director who can hide that image from the public to get a film made, but then theres this, why would any advertising company want to promote his work?
Roman Polanski. But then I wouldn't watch a film made by Bill Clinton either.
Quote from: Sal1981 on September 19, 2017, 07:24:02 PM
Transformers the last knight or some shit - 1/10
I didn't, honestly, want to watch the rest of this piece of shit movie. So, I didn't.
How many times can the Transformer series play "the last knight" idea? I watched one once and they all seem to be the same but with more transforming. Well, I guess that's the point.
What Happened To Monday; Noomi Rapace did an amazing job. 10/10
Quote from: Sorginak on September 24, 2017, 09:44:09 AM
What Happened To Monday; Noomi Rapace did an amazing job. 10/10
I never heard of it, but I found a trailer and it looked like it would be right up my alley. It looked like it may have been made for Netflix, which I don't get. But if it's good enough, I'm thinking it will make it's way out of Netflix exclusivity and it to the greater public domain.
Quote from: SGOS on September 24, 2017, 10:03:04 AM
I never heard of it, but I found a trailer and it looked like it would be right up my alley. It looked like it may have been made for Netflix, which I don't get. But if it's good enough, I'm thinking it will make it's way out of Netflix exclusivity and it to the greater public domain.
Yes, it was Netflix, as the bottom of the poster reveals.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjE4MDQxMDg3MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjQ0MTcwMzI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_.jpg)
Trailer, for if anyone else wants to view it:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1536537/videoplayer/vi1748678937?ref_=tt_ov_vi
Quote from: Sorginak on September 24, 2017, 10:05:57 AM
Yes, it was Netflix, as the bottom of the poster reveals.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjE4MDQxMDg3MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjQ0MTcwMzI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_.jpg)
Trailer, for if anyone else wants to view it:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1536537/videoplayer/vi1748678937?ref_=tt_ov_vi
Seven Sisters? Looks like a Samurai Jack steal. LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 02:46:18 AM
Seven Sisters? Looks like a Samurai Jack steal. LOL!
Just another Republican dystopia ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2017, 07:55:23 PM
Just another Republican dystopia ;-(
A rational world helping all people? Maybe I should check it out.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 04:21:06 AM
A rational world helping all people? Maybe I should check it out.
To each their own totalitarianism. For those overweight, there is always Hunger Games ..
American Made 6/10
If you kind of like high tech drug smuggling movies. Not as good as Johnny Depps "Blow."
Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2017, 03:38:12 PM
To each their own totalitarianism. For those overweight, there is always Hunger Games ..
The movie was a combination of "let them eat cake" and a survival game. I stopped watching halfway through the first. I could tell who would win and didn't much care how.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 03:55:20 AM
The movie was a combination of "let them eat cake" and a survival game. I stopped watching halfway through the first. I could tell who would win and didn't much care how.
My daughter was riveted by the first movie, because of her age at the time. By the time the third one came out, she had moved on.
Blade Runner 2049 8/10
I could very likely raise that after watching it a couple more times. It creates unique and interesting future technology, and it refers back to the original and builds on it, not only by developing the story further, but by pleasantly drawing in sounds and background music reminiscent of the original. The environments don't feel as crushed and chaotic anymore, the streets not so over crowded, something that I liked about the first movie.
I have to admit, I didn't know what was happening for much of the first half. I shared the theater with one other guy for the 11:00 AM showing. He walked out, but I don't know why. Even without knowing where the story was going, there is a lot of visual interest that kept me there during the first part. I assume seeing it again will help in following the early part of the story, which would influence my rating possibly even upping it to 10/10.
It helps to have seen the first movie. There are a couple of loose ends that might suggest another sequel. The movie may seem a bit slow to some, although those parts often have cerebral aspects about them. I would describe the movie as powerful. Much of this is the sound track that sometimes goes so far as to rely on unaccompanied but thunderous tympani being played by the likes of Joe Frazier or the Hulk. Think the closing sound track of the first film.
Quote from: SGOS on October 06, 2017, 07:24:22 PM
Blade Runner 2049 8/10
I could very likely raise that after watching it a couple more times. It creates unique and interesting future technology, and it refers back to the original and builds on it, not only by developing the story further, but by pleasantly drawing in sounds and background music reminiscent of the original. The environments don't feel as crushed and chaotic anymore, the streets not so over crowded, something that I liked about the first movie.
I have to admit, I didn't know what was happening for much of the first half. I shared the theater with one other guy for the 11:00 AM showing. He walked out, but I don't know why. Even without knowing where the story was going, there is a lot of visual interest that kept me there during the first part. I assume seeing it again will help in following the early part of the story, which would influence my rating possibly even upping it to 10/10.
It helps to have seen the first movie. There are a couple of loose ends that might suggest another sequel. The movie may seem a bit slow to some, although those parts often have cerebral aspects about them. I would describe the movie as powerful. Much of this is the sound track that sometimes goes so far as to rely on unaccompanied but thunderous tympani being played by the likes of Joe Frazier or the Hulk. Think the closing sound track of the first film.
The original was good but disturbing. I'll have to wait to see the new one.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 08, 2017, 03:46:39 AM
The original was good but disturbing.
It was disturbing, although I never really thought about that. It managed to stay within my zone of acceptable limits, and contrary to movies made for the purpose of graphically assaulting your sensibilities, Blade Runner had a story where the disturbing aspects are a vital to a philosophical subplot about what is OK to do to things that aren't human or even alive, and how society becomes conditioned to dealing with outsiders in mindless ways. Murdering our very creations that turned out to be inconvenient is seen as entirely normal, and maybe it even is in some situations.
Here it is, 35 years later and I'm still analyzing that movie, and thinking about moral issues I hadn't even considered before. But presenting these kinds of philosophical dilemmas is something I like about movies, and Blade Runner does it far better than most in ways that are almost too subtle to even notice.
Quote from: SGOS on October 08, 2017, 04:55:48 AM
It was disturbing, although I never really thought about that. It managed to stay within my zone of acceptable limits, and contrary to movies made for the purpose of graphically assaulting your sensibilities, Blade Runner had a story where the disturbing aspects are a vital to a philosophical subplot about what is OK to do to things that aren't human or even alive, and how society becomes conditioned to dealing with outsiders in mindless ways. Murdering our very creations that turned out to be inconvenient is seen as entirely normal, and maybe it even is in some situations.
Here it is, 35 years later and I'm still analyzing that movie, and thinking about moral issues I hadn't even considered before. But presenting these kinds of philosophical dilemmas is something I like about movies, and Blade Runner does it far better than most in ways that are almost too subtle to even notice.
Bladerunner explored the idea that AI replicants could have fully human concerns and fears. It was way ahead of its time. I recall reading the antecedent 'Do Robots Dream Of Electric Sheep'?
Quote from: Cavebear on October 08, 2017, 05:13:06 AM
Bladerunner explored the idea that AI replicants could have fully human concerns and fears. It was way ahead of its time. I recall reading the antecedent 'Do Robots Dream Of Electric Sheep'?
Speilberg's movie, AI, does the same thing, and as I recall it too was not well received by movie goers. It has more of fairytale feel about it, but it's even more disturbing. I liked that film too.
Blade Runner refers to the androids as "replicants," but they are actually no different than human, utilizing genetically designed human organs to function. There are no mechanical parts or electronic circuits. Earlier films portrayed such androids as having at least slightly robotic personalities. Even Data in StarTrek had these qualities. Blade Runner androids had none of that, but they still called them androids. The disturbing part is because, as the Tyrell Corporation claims, "They are more human than human." I think Blade Runner may have been a first film portraying androids as indistinguishable from human, so much so that they could only be detected with a sophisticated psychometric device. Even society worried about accidentally murdering a human because you could never tell an android from an actual human without the Voight Kompt test, which was so well known that detecting an android in the movie was sometimes phrased as, "We VK'ed him last week, and terminated him." All done without a hint of legal proceeding.
Quote from: SGOS on October 08, 2017, 06:13:40 AM
Blade Runner refers to the androids as "replicants," but they are actually no different than human, utilizing genetically designed human organs to function. There are no mechanical parts or electronic circuits. Earlier films portrayed such androids as having at least slightly robotic personalities. Even Data in StarTrek had these qualities. Blade Runner androids had none of that, but they still called them androids. The disturbing part is because, as the Tyrell Corporation claims, "They are more human than human." I think Blade Runner may have been a first film portraying androids as indistinguishable from human, so much so that they could only be detected with a sophisticated psychometric device. Even society worried about accidentally murdering a human because you could never tell an android from an actual human without the Voight Kompt test, which was so well known that detecting an android in the movie was sometimes phrased as, "We VK'ed him last week, and terminated him." All done without a hint of legal proceeding.
But they WERE different. They were preternatually strong but with a limited lifespan. And they could be distinguished from humans. Perhaps I should re-read the Brunner book.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 08, 2017, 06:25:48 AM
But they WERE different. They were preternatually strong but with a limited lifespan. And they could be distinguished from humans. Perhaps I should re-read the Brunner book.
Minor differences at best, like having blue eyes or brown eyes. Would you use eye color, strength, or longevity as the reason to discriminate, let alone terminate on sight? It would make sense if they were dangerous, which they are, but only because humans treat them worse than shit as slaves, both for labor and sexual gratification. Such simple social differences could be worked out politically and technologically, rather than just bathing the crowded streets in their blood.
Quote from: SGOS on October 08, 2017, 06:49:51 AM
Minor differences at best, like having blue eyes or brown eyes. Would you use eye color, strength, or longevity as the reason to discriminate, let alone terminate on sight? It would make sense if they were dangerous, which they are, but only because humans treat them worse than shit as slaves, both for labor and sexual gratification. Such simple social differences could be worked out politically and technologically, rather than just bathing the crowded streets in their blood.
I wasn't suggesting bathing the streets in their blood. I was asking why the preturnaturally strong differences and lesser lifespan should be ignored. There is a difference about that.
Bought a fire stick a few weeks back, only watched a couple so far, issues with my internet speed. Anyhoo....watched "the hitmans bodyguard" it was alright, had it's moments. Worthy of wasting a couple hours if your not doing anything interesting. 2.5/5
Quote from: Cavebear on October 08, 2017, 07:27:46 AM
I wasn't suggesting bathing the streets in their blood. I was asking why the preturnaturally strong differences and lesser lifespan should be ignored. There is a difference about that.
According to the first movie, the four year lifespan was built into the androids to prevent them from developing annoying habits, like thinking on their own or adopting strategies of self preservation. That always struck me as a weak point in the story, since the four year life span itself was precisely the cause of android discord that it was designed to prevent. Such a problem was not anticipated by the designers and would have been the 'well, duh??' moment in history if there ever was one.
Another story inconsistency in film #1 was when Roy Batty asked Tyrell how he could get more life. Tyrell told him he couldn't because he was designed as well as they could make him. Whereas earlier, the movie said the life span issue was intentional. I suppose that he could have meant once designed to live four years, Roy could not be redesigned. But Tyrell didn't indicate that at all. Also, the android Rachael, had no such life span limitation, so it seems like androids can be built anyway you want.
There is a scene in the second movie, where Deckart meets Tyrell again briefly. Tyrell is no longer played by
Studs Edit: Joe Turkel, but a younger actor, making it seem like maybe Tyrell was an android himself, but I think that was an unintended mistake by the director, and not something to be developed in another sequel. At any rate, that brief scene was a surreal encounter in the film, but I'm not sure why. It's not like I'm trying to avoid giving anything away. I don't understand it. There was just something about it that gave me the heeby jeebies. The acting maybe. I want to watch that scene again.
Quote from: SGOS on October 08, 2017, 09:07:38 AM
According to the first movie, the four year lifespan was built into the androids to prevent them from developing annoying habits, like thinking on their own or adopting strategies of self preservation. That always struck me as a weak point in the story, since the four year life span itself was precisely the cause of android discord that it was designed to prevent. Such a problem was not anticipated by the designers and would have been the 'well, duh??' moment in history if there ever was one.
Another story inconsistency in film #1 was when Roy Batty asked Tyrell how he could get more life. Tyrell told him he couldn't because he was designed as well as they could make him. Whereas earlier, the movie said the life span issue was intentional. I suppose that he could have meant once designed to live four years, Roy could not be redesigned. But Tyrell didn't indicate that at all. Also, the android Rachael, had no such life span limitation, so it seems like androids can be built anyway you want.
There is a scene in the second movie, where Deckart meets Tyrell again briefly. Tyrell is no longer played by Studs Edit: Joe Turkel, but a younger actor, making it seem like maybe Tyrell was an android himself, but I think that was an unintended mistake by the director, and not something to be developed in another sequel. At any rate, that brief scene was a surreal encounter in the film, but I'm not sure why. It's not like I'm trying to avoid giving anything away. I don't understand it. There was just something about it that gave me the heeby jeebies. The acting maybe. I want to watch that scene again.
The limited lifespan seems rather self-preservational for humans and sensible. Why couldn't or wouldn't that be built into them?
Quote from: Cavebear on October 08, 2017, 09:39:10 AM
The limited lifespan seems rather self-preservational for humans and sensible. Why couldn't or wouldn't that be built into them?
The four year life span has always bothered me about the story.
1. Bioengineered life forums, according to the story, are very expensive, as Zora explained about her snake, and Rachel explains about "our owl." I would expect futuristic technology to be better than that.
2. A four year life span breeds discontent. Robots are fine with it, but androids get pissed off about it. Build robots to do dangerous jobs.
3. They could already build the androids as they wanted. They built Rachael, who seemed to exceed their expectations in every way.
A better solution than a short shelf life, would have been to build them less hot headed. The first film did say that engineering an easier going personality did have some problems, and was the reason they gave them false memories "as a cushion of life experiences that you and I take for granted." I never bought that. How do memories of piano lessons make one content with a short life span? They had already built Rachael, and she apparently integrated with society as desired, and she lived a long time, so we know they had the capability of building androids that worked the way they wanted.
Sheesh. All your questions are making me think about all the shit I didn't like in the first movie. I loved that movie. Don't wreck it for me. Just kidding. I actually enjoy this kind of stuff.
Quote from: SGOS on October 08, 2017, 10:01:32 AM
The four year life span has always bothered me about the story.
1. Bioengineered life forums, according to the story, are very expensive, as Zora explained about her snake, and Rachel explains about "our owl." I would expect futuristic technology to be better than that.
2. A four year life span breeds discontent. Robots are fine with it, but androids get pissed off about it. Build robots to do dangerous jobs.
3. They could already build the androids as they wanted. They built Rachael, who seemed to exceed their expectations in every way.
A better solution than a short shelf life, would have been to build them less hot headed. The first film did say that engineering an easier going personality did have some problems, and was the reason they gave them false memories "as a cushion of life experiences that you and I take for granted." I never bought that. How do memories of piano lessons make one content with a short life span? They had already built Rachael, and she apparently integrated with society as desired, and she lived a long time, so we know they had the capability of building androids that worked the way they wanted.
Sheesh. All your questions are making me think about all the shit I didn't like in the first movie. I loved that movie. Don't wreck it for me. Just kidding. I actually enjoy this kind of stuff.
Actually, I've only seen the movie in bits and pieces. The whole thing is too dark. Dystopia is not my thing.
Blade Runner: 2049 - 9.8/10
Super, super refreshing to watch a movie that makes you think.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 09, 2017, 01:58:00 AM
Blade Runner: 2049 - 9.8/10
Super, super refreshing to watch a movie that makes you think.
I'll have to see that one...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 09, 2017, 02:04:29 AM
I'll have to see that one...
It's dark, but I love the Cyberpunk genre in large part because I think it's a very realistic portrayal of what humanity (if it is not careful) is heading towards; a world where scientific enhancements and corporatism slowly erodes the humanity in us, as well as the issues of creating life through A.I. and not morally being equipped to handle the ramifications of that. I guess it's a borderline morbid, sitting in a corner sulking, satisfaction of knowing someone else sees the same writing on the wall and is equally disgusted by it.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 09, 2017, 02:41:30 AM
It's dark, but I love the Cyberpunk genre in large part because I think it's a very realistic portrayal of what humanity (if it is not careful) is heading towards; a world where scientific enhancements and corporatism slowly erodes the humanity in us, as well as the issues of creating life through A.I. and not morally being equipped to handle the ramifications of that. I guess it's a borderline morbid, sitting in a corner sulking, satisfaction of knowing someone else sees the same writing on the wall and is equally disgusted by it.
I sometimes suspect much the same. Corporate mercantilism could return, and Robber Barons are present already in politics and society.
The AI is consuming us (not me, I don't even have a cell phone and Siri doesn't know I exist). I won't have a AI car, I won't have "the internet of things" and I even keep my TV "stupid".
Quote from: Cavebear on October 09, 2017, 02:58:22 AM
I sometimes suspect much the same. Corporate mercantilism could return, and Robber Barons are present already in politics and society.
The AI is consuming us (not me, I don't even have a cell phone and Siri doesn't know I exist). I won't have a AI car, I won't have "the internet of things" and I even keep my TV "stupid".
I "hate" (for lack of a better word) the situation I find myself in, in that... as a product of my generation (and awkwardly, of a very early 1900s generation thanks to being adopted by my great-grandfather), there are certain truths that are inescapable for me (which is true for all generations, obviously).
I cannot escape the lure of modern technology, both through my own lack of strength but also the fact that the entire modern world is basically built upon it. Sure, I could head to the middle of nowhere, or a third world country, but the first one I lack the skills to survive in due to those skills not being something the modern generation is taught, as well as tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt to the system, and for the third world... almost all jobs I could work revolve around modern tech and industry exploiting a weaker social system, meaning I am still part of that system. Likewise for corporations... I cant fucking stand them. The very thought of most of them is abhorrent to my world view on how economies should operate, that they are built on exploitation rather than hard work and mom-and-pop ethics (which is not always a good thing)... but there is not much I can do about it. Even if I try to open my own mom and pop business (preferably mechanic or retail based), the reality is that today I don't stand a chance when the super corporations run the market and they run the politicians who would be the only realistic means of giving me a fighting chance. At the rate we are going, corporations will be running for office by the end of my life time.
But at the same time, I was raised by a generation that didn't have these things, didn't grow up on these things, and in truth were much closer to life as it was in the 1600s than in the 21st century, so I have many biases that most people my age don't have, or even know exist.
I am thankful to have been adopted by an "ancient" family and raised in that tradition, but it gives me a view on the world that doesn't have a happy ending... I often feel like that Luddite complaining about how cars and the telephone will destroy society as we know it, but instead of being 95 and in a nursing home i'm at the prime of my youth and should be embracing all that is new.
I guess, after typing that, a better way of describing my love of cyberpunk is that it gives me something I can relate to. It's not just about sulking in a corner, it's about knowing that, thank god, I'm not alone in my age group. And to be fair, I have met a few people who try to keep the "old" modern ways alive; my ex would not text to save her life and instead insisted on calls only because it's more personal (something I still fully agree with and hate that the modern generation has gone away from), only bought cars that relied primarily on mechanical engineering rather than computer engineering, small stuff like that... but to see it make it to the big screen and be successful makes me feel a bit more comfortable that a fair number of people think likewise and we aren't just the overwhelmingly minuscule exception to the rule.
Of course, that could all just be overthinking everything, but this last week is or two honestly the first weeks I have thought about anything rather than mulking about and worrying about the presidency or the problems he is causing... so it's refreshing to be focused more on myself and my worldview than on something completely out of my control at this point and I'm going to embrace it and overthink the fuck out of it. Might make me miserable, but at least it's misery I'm causing myself god damn it.
Every generation has its challenges and the future does not seem brightest when you are just stating. And I will say that there is something to be said for being able to live off the grid if required.
I love my internet, my M/W, and my car. I am no "survivalist" in the sense of hoarding guns and rations. . But I also do know how to hunt a deer with a bow, track it to the death, gut it, and build a fire to cook it on.
I could get by in a failed world so long as some mob doesn't kill me. And they would probably take me in for my skills.
I think I would miss my cats the most.
Looking at reviews... It's apparently a critic hit, a box office flop, with older generations being the main ticket buyers (my friend fell asleep during it).
I guess I put too much faith in my generation.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 09, 2017, 03:37:01 AM
Looking at reviews... It's apparently a critic hit, a box office flop, with older generations being the main ticket buyers (my friend fell asleep during it).
I guess I put too much faith in my generation.
I sure won't bother to see it in a theater. It will come on TV in a few years. I wouldn't go to a theater if they paid me to attend.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 09, 2017, 03:37:01 AM
Looking at reviews... It's apparently a critic hit, a box office flop, with older generations being the main ticket buyers (my friend fell asleep during it).
Not really a flop. People like the movie. It just didn't meet expectations that it would make oodles of money, rather than a lackluster solid profit. And the first one WAS actually poorly received at the box office, but remains a benchmark that sets a standard that most science fiction still struggles to reach. Granted by today's music video standards, most people will go for something that doesn't challenge their attention deficit disorder. As proof of this, one only has to consider that they are still making Transformers movies, but thought provoking films still have a place, and always will. Not that the sequel here is as thought provoking as the first by any means, but it piggy backs well on the first, and actually develops the original story line, which most sequels don't do. There are portions of the sequel that seemed slow, moments where 17 story buildings were not being demolished by the sweeping tail of a giant alien, but it still delivers something that many movie goers want to see.
Ghost in the Shell (2017) - 6/10
They pretty much butchered the original plot to some wishy-washy "spirit of human". I can't imagine a sequel being any better.
Sendt fra min SM-G920F med Tapatalk
Quote from: Sal1981 on October 09, 2017, 06:50:53 AM
Ghost in the Shell (2017) - 6/10
They pretty much butchered the original plot to some wishy-washy "spirit of human". I can't imagine a sequel being any better.
Visually, the movie does well in IMAX 3d, especially the swirling city scape hologram bill boards. But the story was weak. The plot seemed familiar, like maybe I had seen it 20 times before. I remember a distinct "Is that all?" feeling at the end of my second viewing.
Quote from: SGOS on October 09, 2017, 07:16:52 AM
Visually, the movie does well in IMAX 3d, especially the swirling city scape hologram bill boards. But the story was weak. The plot seemed familiar, like maybe I had seen it 20 times before. I remember a distinct "Is that all?" feeling at the end of my second viewing.
The anime original is positively venerable by now.
Bladerunner was too long and over-engineered.
Quote from: SGOS on October 09, 2017, 06:14:33 AM
Not really a flop. People like the movie. It just didn't meet expectations that it would make oodles of money, rather than a lackluster solid profit. And the first one WAS actually poorly received at the box office, but remains a benchmark that sets a standard that most science fiction still struggles to reach. Granted by today's music video standards, most people will go for something that doesn't challenge their attention deficit disorder. As proof of this, one only has to consider that they are still making Transformers movies, but thought provoking films still have a place, and always will. Not that the sequel here is as thought provoking as the first by any means, but it piggy backs well on the first, and actually develops the original story line, which most sequels don't do. There are portions of the sequel that seemed slow, moments where 17 story buildings were not being demolished by the sweeping tail of a giant alien, but it still delivers something that many movie goers want to see.
Yes, every movie (for 12 year old minds) needs giant robots, giant lizards and Hulk going "smash" ;-)
I just realized something about Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
Finn defects from the stormtroopers. This is the first time we see a stormtrooper humanized in Star Wars. He's a conscript who was taken from his family at a very young age and indoctrinated into the First Order.
He didn't choose his affiliation and his indoctrination plus constantly having a gun to his back didn't give him much of an option except to go along with his superiors' wishes. The fact that he rebelled anyway is nothing short of amazing. It opens up the possibility of mass defection or surrender. The rebels don't necessarily have to...
*X-Wing blows away a bunch of stormtroopers with Finn cheering*
*rebels shoot a bunch more who may or may not have been considering surrender*
Woot! Go good guys!
Remember, this isn't the Empire, those are not clones.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 09, 2017, 05:47:43 PM
Remember, this isn't the Empire, those are not clones.
Unless I'm mistaken, the clones in the prequels were given accelerated lifespans, meaning they became adults very quickly, but they also died very quickly. By Episode IV, the clones are all gone, replaced by natural humans. They go from Clone Troopers to Stormtroopers.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 10, 2017, 01:06:11 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, the clones in the prequels were given accelerated lifespans, meaning they became adults very quickly, but they also died very quickly. By Episode IV, the clones are all gone, replaced by natural humans. They go from Clone Troopers to Stormtroopers.
I've never bothered with the canon. The movies aren't that important to me.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 10, 2017, 01:06:11 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, the clones in the prequels were given accelerated lifespans, meaning they became adults very quickly, but they also died very quickly. By Episode IV, the clones are all gone, replaced by natural humans. They go from Clone Troopers to Stormtroopers.
Did they change that in the new canon? In Legends there was a clone rebellion on Kamino which prompted them to make new clones from different hosts.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 10, 2017, 09:45:10 AM
Did they change that in the new canon? In Legends there was a clone rebellion on Kamino which prompted them to make new clones from different hosts.
Star Wars Legends, or the Extended Universe as it was called before Disney's purchase of the franchise, is no longer canon. Only the movies, the Clone Wars cartoons, and some of the comics are now canon, as well as anything produced under Disney. But even that second set of clones you're referring to were after Episode VI, if I'm not mistaken. In Episode IV, Luke was planning to volunteer for the Imperial Military along with his friends. This was, of course, before the Empire torched his family and home.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 10, 2017, 12:16:06 PM
Star Wars Legends, or the Extended Universe as it was called before Disney's purchase of the franchise, is no longer canon. Only the movies, the Clone Wars cartoons, and some of the comics are now canon, as well as anything produced under Disney. But even that second set of clones you're referring to were after Episode VI, if I'm not mistaken. In Episode IV, Luke was planning to volunteer for the Imperial Military along with his friends. This was, of course, before the Empire torched his family and home.
The officers and crew of the Imperial ships weren't clones, quite obviously.
Correction: I think the Kamino Uprising was sometime between III and IV. I'm not sure if it's canon or not. It seems a few clones were made from a new genome, but the clone project in general ended up shut down. A few years later, the clones were outnumbered by the new recruits, who weren't as well trained but were much cheaper.
Thor 9/10
Not the usual Thor type movie. It's loaded with loopey dopey slapstick humor. Lots of fun with some interesting new characters.
Justice League meh/10
The story doesn't hang together very well. The plot is simple, and moves toward the obvious outcome, but the movie relies on a lot of unnecessary fighting without much character development. It reminded me of a Transformers movie heavy on bashing and smashing, and not much else. Lots of special effects, but it comes off as irrelevant. Sometimes they fight in a cave. Then an abandoned factory. Then a forest. Is this taking place on Earth or another planet? Who knows? It doesn't seem to be important. But superheroes go flying into cliffs, and keep coming back for more.
The actual high points are very spread out. There may be about 10 scenes in the movie that are good for an outright laugh or poignant. But they are usually brief and last only 5 or 10 seconds. It's good enough to kill some time, but you won't leave the theater feeling all that impressed.
Quote from: SGOS on November 17, 2017, 06:48:59 PM
Justice League meh/10
The story doesn't hang together very well. The plot is simple, and moves toward the obvious outcome, but the movie relies on a lot of unnecessary fighting without much character development. It reminded me of a Transformers movie heavy on bashing and smashing, and not much else. Lots of special effects, but it comes off as irrelevant. Sometimes they fight in a cave. Then an abandoned factory. Then a forest. Is this taking place on Earth or another planet? Who knows? It doesn't seem to be important. But superheroes go flying into cliffs, and keep coming back for more.
The actual high points are very spread out. There may be about 10 scenes in the movie that are good for an outright laugh or poignant. But they are usually brief and last only 5 or 10 seconds. It's good enough to kill some time, but you won't leave the theater feeling all that impressed.
In the DC vs Marvel comics, there was a bizarre reality that Marvel recognized and DC didn't.
Let's say Superman and The Hulk are both trying to hold down a jet. They are both superstrong. But you can't hold down a jet by strength. Superman just DOES. The Hulk holds on to something solid like a subway station.
That's the difference between DC and Marvel.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 18, 2017, 01:48:18 AM
In the DC vs Marvel comics, there was a bizarre reality that Marvel recognized and DC didn't.
Let's say Superman and The Hulk are both trying to hold down a jet. They are both superstrong. But you can't hold down a jet by strength. Superman just DOES. The Hulk holds on to something solid like a subway station.
That's the difference between DC and Marvel.
that one's heroes are grounded while the others is more mythical and defines the laws of rationality? I think I get that, marvel has always had more grounded superheroes who get hurt, have limits, and have problems to overcome/character flaws. DC always seems to just be able people getting awesome powers and being god like.
Quote from: Munch on November 20, 2017, 01:55:13 PM
that one's heroes are grounded while the others is more mythical and defines the laws of rationality? I think I get that, marvel has always had more grounded superheroes who get hurt, have limits, and have problems to overcome/character flaws. DC always seems to just be able people getting awesome powers and being god like.
Comic book religion. Just as Wonder Woman started as comic book feminism.
Quote from: Munch on November 20, 2017, 01:55:13 PM
that one's heroes are grounded while the others is more mythical and defines the laws of rationality? I think I get that, marvel has always had more grounded superheroes who get hurt, have limits, and have problems to overcome/character flaws. DC always seems to just be able people getting awesome powers and being god like.
Exactly. I think that's why I have a hard time empathizing with DC characters. Most of them are too larger than life, too alien (no offense, Supes). They don't feel like people, they feel like archetypes.
I prefer it when some nobody gets mixed up in some incredible circumstances and learns to deal with it the best he/she can and do some good. People who sometimes make mistakes, who don't always know what to do, who don't always save the day and get the girl.
Trick 'r Treat 4/5
I don't, as a general rule, like horror movies. However, I was willing to put up with one in order to see Fritz the Nite Owl (http://niteowltv.wixsite.com/main) (our local late night movie host) live.
I was completely wrong about *this* horror movie. Four separate narratives, all intricately interwoven -- you start to pick up that you're seeing either foreshadowing or aftermath in the background as you go along. Gore (what usually substitutes for actual horror in this genre) is minimal and sensible, rather than simply drowning the screen in gallons of stage blood.
We'll be going back to see Fritz for his holiday movie... Krampus. :D
Saw Thor: Ragnarok. It was funny, it was suspenseful, and the plot was good as a self-contained story, while also making good use of callbacks to previous movies. However, expect gratuitous use of Led Zeppelin and dramatic slow motion. There was also one cameo which felt like it was only used to remind you he's in the MCU, but it didn't detract too much from the experience. Overall, I think it's one of the best MCU movies so far.
Quote from: SGOS on November 03, 2017, 07:10:47 PM
Thor 9/10
Not the usual Thor type movie. It's loaded with loopey dopey slapstick humor. Lots of fun with some interesting new characters.
Yay! I'm sick of angst and comic book movies trying to be profound.
Bridge of Spies (2015) - 9.5/10
I doubt the movie is historically accurate, but very entertaining and good to watch.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 22, 2017, 07:19:10 AM
Bridge of Spies (2015) - 9.5/10
I doubt the movie is historically accurate, but very entertaining and good to watch.
I enjoyed it also. I think it caught the mood of the times. That is as good as it gets with Hollywood. I was alive then, but very young. I remember when the President would come on TV, it was like the Pope speaking to the faithful in Vatican square. The opposite of what corruption has created now. Of course back then, we didn't know that JFK was banging anything that moved. In today's witch hunt, JFK's demise would have been like the Murder On The Orient Express ... everyone would have been the assassin, except for Hercule Poirot. I still want to see Jackie, from earlier this year ... if you weren't alive then, you can't imagine how traumatic the assassination was.
The Right Stuff captures that time, though it takes a few liberties. Hidden Figures is a bit more fictional, but again, captures the spirit of that time. In the same genre is Fail Safe (nearly happened) ... not Dr Strangelove. And Seven Days In May. That last one is yet to happen as such, but predicted the assassination of JFK by the Deep State.
Watched Remember the other day.. From 2015
An old man, presumably a Jew who was at Auschwitz now suffering from dementia escapes his nursing home and goes on a hunt for the Nazi who killed his family in the infamous concentration camp.
He travels across the US and parts of Canada and finally locates the guy, also an old man to kill, but something just wasn't right as he finds out..
Well worth watching.. I won't play the part of the spoiler in case you want to watch it, but it's a well made movie with Christopher Plummer and Martin Landau.. Plummer still had his acting skills..
Krampus (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3850590/) (2015) -- Fritz the Nite Owl (http://fritzlives.com)'s holiday offering, directed by local boy done good Michael Doughtery (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1002424/), same director as "Trick 'r Treat" reviewed earlier.
Dougherty is now two for two in making movies that I like in a genre that I don't. He's a director that makes intelligent choices with his movies, even when he's doing patently silly things. Like Trick 'r Treat, this is a horror movie with very little splatter -- even less than T'rT, actually. Certainly some of that is to do with his decision to make as close to an R-rated movie as he could and still get a PG-13 rating -- which he did, Krampus is in fact rated "only" PG-13.
Dougherty also did something else with this I love: virtually all the effects were done in camera, there's almost no CGI. So everything feels solid on the screen and the actors are interacting with real things in real space. More directors should remember this before reaching for the server farm.
I can hardly wait for his Godzilla: King of Monsters (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3741700/) in 2019.
Lady Bird 9/10
This was at the theater. I think it might be the most interesting movie about not much of anything, but one which I got absorbed in totally. A high school senior girl is getting ready to off to college, and of course there has to be some minor turmoil in the family, because that's what families do. Rotten Tomatoes gave it 100%.
Acts of Vengeance 3/10
I didn't fall asleep, so I gave it 3 points for that. But this straight to DVD movie was really lame. It's like Antonio Banderas trying to follow in Nicholas Cage's footsteps.
A defense attorney whose wife and daughter are murdered takes a vow of silence until his wife and daughter are avenged. OK, this had been done before, but the first groan I let out was when Antonio's voice over explains that since he is no longer talking, his hearing has become unusually acute, and he's suddenly hearing things that should not be audible.
Then he gets shot by a thug, and is lying there dying when a emergency room nurse finds him lying in a puddle on her way home from the hospital. Being a ER nurse, it never occurs to her to take him to a hospital. Instead she takes him home where she nurses him back to health overnight. He leaves without thanking her because remember he's taken a vow of silence, so she has no idea what's going on.
But he leaves his wallet at her house and she brings it to his house, where through sign language and a kind of ESP thing they get to know each other.
Shit like this goes on through the rest of the movie, which does have one interesting twist. The big problem is the script, which is filled with plot holes like the above.
Watched Agatha Christie's "Mouse Trap" at the local amateur theater. It was good. Not as disturbing as "The Crucible". Support your local theater.
I watched "Sekigahara" on a JAL flight from Tokyo a couple of days ago. Overall, I thought that the movie was great. The acting was superb, and the set design and costumes were remarkable.
Released earlier this year, it is a film adaptation of an historical novel about the events leading up to and including the battle of Sekigahara, which was one of the most decisive events of the past four and a half centuries of Japan history. Watching the movie, it is interesting to ponder how the history of Japan, Asia, and the rest of the world might have been different if Tokugawa Ieyasu had lost the battle.
My Japanese isn't anywhere close to being fluent enough to follow the dialog, therefore had to rely upon the English subtitles. Simultaneously following the onscreen action and subtitles proved challenging at times due to the pace of the action and to the complex history of events leading up to the battle. I would recommend that anyone intending to watch the movie who is not already familiar with Japan's history during the Sengoku and early Edo periods to devote some time to study prior to seeing the film. That will greatly enhance the experience.
Quote from: Luther Martini on December 10, 2017, 10:43:00 AM
I watched "Sekigahara" on a JAL flight from Tokyo a couple of days ago. Overall, I thought that the movie was great. The acting was superb, and the set design and costumes were remarkable.
Released earlier this year, it is a film adaptation of an historical novel about the events leading up to and including the battle of Sekigahara, which was one of the most decisive events of the past four and a half centuries of Japan history. Watching the movie, it is interesting to ponder how the history of Japan, Asia, and the rest of the world might have been different if Tokugawa Ieyasu had lost the battle.
My Japanese isn't anywhere close to being fluent enough to follow the dialog, therefore had to rely upon the English subtitles. Simultaneously following the onscreen action and subtitles proved challenging at times due to the pace of the action and to the complex history of events leading up to the battle. I would recommend that anyone intending to watch the movie who is not already familiar with Japan's history during the Sengoku and early Edo periods to devote some time to study prior to seeing the film. That will greatly enhance the experience.
A crucial event in Japanese history, this has been done on video many times. I saw a really good bio of Tokugawa Ieyasu that of course included this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU4URaoQZ54
A huge battle, with many divisions on both sides, fought in a morning fog (literal fog of war). The people who fought there didn't know what was going on either.
Better Watch Out DVD (2017) 8/10
(https://resizing.flixster.com/6oFxzhCVT4_Uw34c4_5I16E-WRw=/206x305/v1.bTsxMjU5MjQxNztqOzE3NTYwOzEyMDA7MjAwMDsyOTA5)
A Christmastime variation of the classic homicidal maniac in the house horror/thriller. While I'm not a fan of the genre, one occasionally comes along that is well done, creative, and worth a watch. Ordinarily, I wouldn't have rented this one, but I watched the offerings that interested me from Redbox last week, and then got a coupon for a freebee today, and this was the best of the movies I wasn't interested in, so I took it, and I'm happy I did. It got an 87% from Rotten Tomatoes. OK, it's bloody, but not what I would call graphic. I did not anticipate the ending either, which seems unusual for this type of flick.
Rewatched Rogue One... still a perfect 10 for me and tied with Empire and A New Hope as the best Star Wars film imo.
Edit: Also, because I found this funny...
QuoteFor Rice, who voted for President-elect Donald Trump, the notion of interjecting politics into Star Wars doesn't sit right.
Rice being the one who designed the Star Wars logo... um, the film is literally about Space Nazis. How the fuck can that not be just a tad bit political?
Quote from: SGOS on December 11, 2017, 07:21:26 PM
Better Watch Out DVD (2017) 8/10
(https://resizing.flixster.com/6oFxzhCVT4_Uw34c4_5I16E-WRw=/206x305/v1.bTsxMjU5MjQxNztqOzE3NTYwOzEyMDA7MjAwMDsyOTA5)
A Christmastime variation of the classic homicidal maniac in the house horror/thriller. While I'm not a fan of the genre, one occasionally comes along that is well done, creative, and worth a watch. Ordinarily, I wouldn't have rented this one, but I watched the offerings that interested me from Redbox last week, and then got a coupon for a freebee today, and this was the best of the movies I wasn't interested in, so I took it, and I'm happy I did. It got an 87% from Rotten Tomatoes. OK, it's bloody, but not what I would call graphic. I did not anticipate the ending either, which seems unusual for this type of flick.
I drove by this house once, as a morbid idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Edward_Coneys
Man was hiding in the attic for 9 months.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 11, 2017, 07:29:06 PMRice being the one who designed the Star Wars logo... um, the film is literally about Space Nazis. How the fuck can that not be just a tad bit political?
Until recently, the opinion that Nazis were bad was not politically divisive.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 12, 2017, 02:57:11 AM
Until recently, the opinion that Nazis were bad was not politically divisive.
Art that is topical, won't last.
In certain circles, Nazis were, and still are, considered the good guys. You don't get out past your confirmation bias.
Quote from: Baruch on December 11, 2017, 11:39:18 PM
I drove by this house once, as a morbid idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Edward_Coneys
Man was hiding in the attic for 9 months.
The most chilling horror for me usually involves people rather than deformed monsters. It's closer to home and easier to identify with. When I was a little kid, monsters were scarier, but as I got older, real people can scare me more.
Quote from: SGOS on December 12, 2017, 09:06:20 AM
The most chilling horror for me usually involves people rather than deformed monsters. It's closer to home and easier to identify with. When I was a little kid, monsters were scarier, but as I got older, real people can scare me more.
You are wise. The most dangerous serial killers, they say ... are the most handsome and charming.
There are things to complain about in the new Star Wars movie. In any SW movie, good or bad, you have to engage very massive suspension of disbelief. And there are plot holes or at least things that don't seem explained well. But this one had pretty good plot twists I didn't see coming. And I felt a lot more connected with the characters than in the last two. I know lots of people loved Rogue One. And I didn't hate it. It had good moments. But, this is the first time since the original trilogy that I actually felt something for the characters. Best SW movie in over 30 years. At least for me.
I loved Blade Runner 2049 too.
QuoteI loved Blade Runner too.
The new one?
All my friend's hated it because it was "too slow" and "all the action was at the beginning of the movie, and then nothing happened.".
This is why I prefer to watch movies alone, or to meet someone who actually enjoys cinema and not just pretty explosions and gun fights.
The Last Jedi... a perfect 10, above Rogues perfect ten.
I don't really want to get into the reasons, because they are very personal. But this was an insanely emotional film for me, and in terms of how it effect me... regardless of how good or not of movie it was... it is right there with ANH and RotJ for perhaps most influential movie in my life.
All I have to say from a purely cinematic view... THAT scene. The light, the silence... it was literally the single most beautifully done scenes I have seen aesthetically, and not even close comes a second.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 15, 2017, 08:14:48 PM
The new one?
I guess I assumed it would be understood the new one. I edited my comment above. Yes, I loved the new Bladerunner.
The Last Jedi: though I had some issues, overall I put it up there among the top four SW movies. I really liked it (saw it twice already and plan to see it again) and of course I will get it on Blu-Ray.
On the Internet there seem to be a lot of upset fanboys out there, complaining about one thing or another.
My biggest complaint was...
[spoiler]Leia's Force survival in space, and floating Mary Poppins-like back to the ship. They could have handled that in a different way.[/spoiler]
Star Wars... 93% from critics, 57% from audiences. All the reviews I've seen from YouTubers? Excellent. Literally every comment underneath? Worst movie ever made in the history movies, Star Wars is dead because of how horrible it was, wahh wahhh waaaaaaaaahhhhh!
Honestly, Star Wars purists are one of the most toxic and obnoxious fandoms there are.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 11, 2017, 07:29:06 PM
Rewatched Rogue One... still a perfect 10 for me and tied with Empire and A New Hope as the best Star Wars film imo.
Edit: Also, because I found this funny...
Rice being the one who designed the Star Wars logo... um, the film is literally about Space Nazis. How the fuck can that not be just a tad bit political?
Compare it to "Iron Sky".
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 15, 2017, 07:59:54 PM
There are things to complain about in the new Star Wars movie. In any SW movie, good or bad, you have to engage very massive suspension of disbelief. And there are plot holes or at least things that don't seem explained well. But this one had pretty good plot twists I didn't see coming. And I felt a lot more connected with the characters than in the last two. I know lots of people loved Rogue One. And I didn't hate it. It had good moments. But, this is the first time since the original trilogy that I actually felt something for the characters. Best SW movie in over 30 years. At least for me.
I loved Blade Runner 2049 too.
My favorite oxymoron: High quality comic book movie.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 16, 2017, 03:57:30 PM
My favorite oxymoron: High quality comic book movie.
It's no oxymoron. Any genre, done correctly, has the potential for greatness.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 11, 2017, 07:29:06 PMRewatched Rogue One... still a perfect 10 for me and tied with Empire and A New Hope as the best Star Wars film imo.
Rogue One didn't really gel with me until about halfway through. I disliked the abruptly changing venues and the lack of characterization in the first half of the film. I didn't even know most of the character's names, let alone why they're doing what they're doing.
But the big mission completely turned around my initially fairly low opinion. The beach part alone was fantastic, the droid really grew on me, and the space battle...*just right meme*
[spoiler]My absolute favorite part was the abrupt violence of the Imperial star destroyer hyperspacing in and immediately swatting several rebel ships (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4GppY9Vh0k) at extremely close range. Then the rebel ram/kamikaze attack. Glorious.[/spoiler]
Still, there was some action footage from the trailer than never made it into the final cut, and that's disappointing because it looked like an amazing action sequence. [spoiler]I'm referring to this part:
(https://i.imgur.com/5oJ1xUl.gif)[/spoiler]
So, while I can't give it a 10 out of 10, it certainly wasn't bad, imho.
Saw Last Jedi. It was good in the traditional Star Wars way. A lot of action, not too many major characters killed off. But Rogue One was atypical ... basically everyone died. No hope in that, which is the whole mantra of The Resistance.
I absolutely loved The Last Jedi. I don't see what makes some fans so upset. Was it because their precious Luke Skywalker wasn't a flawless hero, that he actually had *gasp* a personality? People in the theater seemed impressed. They erupted in applause at least three times that I can recall (not counting the end credits).
EDIT: Do fans forget that Luke Skywalker had flaws in the original trilogy? He was tempted by the Dark Side, and showed signs that he might turn in Episode V.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 17, 2017, 05:42:20 PM
I absolutely loved The Last Jedi. I don't see what makes some fans so upset. Was it because their precious Luke Skywalker wasn't a flawless hero, that he actually had *gasp* a personality? People in the theater seemed impressed. They erupted in applause at least three times that I can recall (not counting the end credits).
EDIT: Do fans forget that Luke Skywalker had flaws in the original trilogy? He was tempted by the Dark Side, and showed signs that he might turn in Episode V.
It was a rather PC script. Some people don't like any heroines ... but they are stupid. Stereotypical masculine leadership isn't the best thing in all circumstances.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 17, 2017, 05:42:20 PMWas it because their precious Luke Skywalker wasn't a flawless hero, that he actually had *gasp* a personality?
Spoilers!
QuoteEDIT: Do fans forget that Luke Skywalker had flaws in the original trilogy? He was tempted by the Dark Side, and showed signs that he might turn in Episode V.
He was kind of an asshole in A New Hope. "I used to bullseye wamp rats in my T-16 back home" to a trained, perhaps veteran, pilot. 1) He headshotted rats for fun. 2) He brags about it to an actual soldier in the middle of a war, implying that the soldier is a poor marksman. Oy vey.
Luke was also kind of a naive, impressionable youngster. Then he was all kinds of messed up in The Empire Strikes Back. But he seemed to have finally found himself by the beginning of Return of the Jedi. His holographic overtures to Jabba seem very authoritative. Sure, he might've let anger get the better of him for a moment, but it was only a moment. By the time the film ends, he seems almost completely at peace, despite inhaling Vader ashes not far from a battlefield.
He had a nice character arc that seemed to end at some sort of self-actualization. So yeah, fans could be forgiven for mistakenly believing that Luke would've been on top of his game after the Battle of Endor.
I really liked The last Jedi. Funny yet dark and Well filmed.
[spoiler]only thing that was weird was the inclusion of Maz. Poe didn't interact with her in the previous flick and Finn met her once. She was funny in her one scene, but it felt kind of like fanservice.[/spoiler]
I also like The fightstyle of these new flicks. The prequels had flashy lightsaber fights, but The ones in these neder flicks feel grittier and more realistic.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 18, 2017, 05:03:22 AM
I really liked The last Jedi. Funny yet dark and Well filmed.
[spoiler]only thing that was weird was the inclusion of Maz. Poe didn't interact with her in the previous flick and Finn met her once. She was funny in her one scene, but it felt kind of like fanservice.[\spoiler]
I also like The fightstyle of these new flicks. The prequels had flashy lightsaber fights, but The ones in these neder flicks feel grittier and more realistic.
As usual, I will wait for the movie to come on free cable TV. I'm looking forward to seeing Dr Strange soon.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 17, 2017, 05:42:20 PM
I absolutely loved The Last Jedi. I don't see what makes some fans so upset.
Well, I loved it too. But, after reading some of the fan's criticisms, well, I think they do have merit, to varying degrees. Though I think all SW movies have flaws. I could nitpick the original trilogy if I wanted to, but they are still fine entertainment. That said, I do think some of the criticisms have some merit. Or at least I can see why they didn't like some things.
[spoiler]
1. Ray went down into the dark-side hole and found ... nothing?
2. Finn and Rose spent a lot of time on a mission that was a complete failure.
3. Why couldn't a Droid fly the ship instead of having Vice Admiral have to commit suicide?
4. What The Force could do is radically expanded. Flying dead Leia, astral projection, etc.
5. Some felt the humor was misplaced or used inappropriately.
6. Snoke died too quickly, with no back=story.
7. Phasma died too ungloriously. (Bobba Fett died ungloriously too...)
8. Ray was a nobody.
I'm kinda bummed that Luke died.
[/spoiler]
Reminds me of a kind-of funny story.
[spoiler]
I worked with someone back when Return of the Jedi came out. She claimed to be a giant Star Wars fan. But, I saw it opening day while she had plans to see it the second day because she wanted to see it with her husband and he was stuck at work on opening day. So the upshot is, I saw it first. And I said, "Luke dies". She was really mad and said I ruined it. I said Luke of course doesn't die. So, then she complained, "well now I know he doesn't die". I kept saying c'mon, you know Luke doesn't die. She kept saying that well, he could have but now she know he doesn't.
I remember her first name, since it was unusual. Brita. But I don't remember he last name. If I remembered her last name, I thought I should try to look her up and call her and say, "Luke dies!" LOL.
[/spoiler]
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 09:33:35 AM
As usual, I will wait for the movie to come on free cable TV. I'm looking forward to seeing Dr Strange soon.
I would think that has come and gone on cable by now. It came out on disk months ago.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on December 18, 2017, 07:56:11 PM
Well, I loved it too. But, after reading some of the fan's criticisms, well, I think they do have merit, to varying degrees. Though I think all SW movies have flaws. I could nitpick the original trilogy if I wanted to, but they are still fine entertainment. That said, I do think some of the criticisms have some merit. Or at least I can see why they didn't like some things.
[spoiler]
1. Ray went down into the dark-side hole and found ... nothing?
2. Finn and Rose spent a lot of time on a mission that was a complete failure.
3. Why couldn't a Droid fly the ship instead of having Vice Admiral have to commit suicide?
4. What The Force could do is radically expanded. Flying dead Leia, astral projection, etc.
5. Some felt the humor was misplaced or used inappropriately.
6. Snoke died too quickly, with no back=story.
7. Phasma died too ungloriously. (Bobba Fett died ungloriously too...)
8. Ray was a nobody.
I'm kinda bummed that Luke died.
[/spoiler]
Reminds me of a kind-of funny story.
[spoiler]
I worked with someone back when Return of the Jedi came out. She claimed to be a giant Star Wars fan. But, I saw it opening day while she had plans to see it the second day because she wanted to see it with her husband and he was stuck at work on opening day. So the upshot is, I saw it first. And I said, "Luke dies". She was really mad and said I ruined it. I said Luke of course doesn't die. So, then she complained, "well now I know he doesn't die". I kept saying c'mon, you know Luke doesn't die. She kept saying that well, he could have but now she know he doesn't.
I remember her first name, since it was unusual. Brita. But I don't remember he last name. If I remembered her last name, I thought I should try to look her up and call her and say, "Luke dies!" LOL.
[/spoiler]
1. That was kind of The confirmation though? It was her answer.
2. I liked that. ITS unrealistic if every time The last ditch effort, a million to one chance, works.
3. True enough.
4. I would think technically you could lift yourself with The force. And outside movie media, The force has done a lot more and a lot crazier stuff. Didn't bother me.
5. For me, it worked very Well. Especially in such a dark story.
6. I liked that he went when he did. With it, they passed through their ep v and vi and let The past die. Now ep ix can be iTS own thing if handled right. And besides before ep I, II and III, how Well did we know The equivalent character? His backstory wasn't in The original flicks.
7. If that character died that way, it's fine. I'm not whilst convinced that character is indeed dead, but it'd be fine. Got one good fight scène out of it and never was all that important to The plot. Basically a leveled up goon.
8. Best decision storywise. Hands down.
I have one complaint of my own though, ties in with 3.
[spoiler]It's Always these 'illogical' tactical decisions that end up bugging me. And while it seems dumb that in the medical frigates and in the case of the flagship indeed someone had to stay inside rather than using autopilot... Why didn't the empire have like half of their troops jump through hyperspace to cut the rebels off? They couldn't gain on them... sure... I'll buy that, but they could still go to hyperspace, right? Or were they all low on fuel?[/spoiler]
https://youtu.be/1vdl4pAtno4
Just thought i'd drop this here. Agree with most of him, ... apart from Snoke, the rose-finn mission, the poe-finnbromance, the parentage and BB-8.
[spoiler=The Last Jedi spoilers]Although I really, really enjoyed the film, there were a few things that bothered me and some things that have me concerned for the next movie. First, that scene with Rey in the Dark Side pit thing. I thought that infinite mirror thingy they did was kinda cool, the way the copies behind her would do something, only for her to repeat it and watch all of the copies in front of her do the same. But what almost ruined the moment for me was when Rey started giving her monologue. First off, the movie never lets us hear the thoughts of Rey or any other character anywhere else in this movie, so it felt very out of place. Did we really need to hear her explain (in past tense, BTW) that she felt trapped, but was certain she'd get her answers when it was over?
There are times when having something explained to you do not enhance the experience, and IMO this was one of those moments.
Also, that porg thing. They were interesting set pieces, as an alien species we hadn't seen before. And I appreciate that they were clearly using real props this time instead of pure CGI. But the trailer made it seem like the one with Chewy was going to be his new friend or something. I kept expecting the characters to name one and keep it as a pet, or to serve some purpose in the story. When that never happened, it just made it seem like they were only put there to sell toys.
Speaking of things I kept expecting to see in the movie, but never actually happened, Princess Leia. I could tell that the trailer was being deceptive, making it look like Leia would join the Dark Side, that Luke was a bad guy, etc, using clever editing tricks. I expected the part where Kylo Ren couldn't find it in himself to pull the trigger, but when those other fighters came in and finished the job, I thought for sure that was the end of it. But surprisingly, she lived. Then when she boarded the shuttle, and the Empire started firing on them, I thought that was how they were going to end it. But nope. She still lived. Much to my surprise, she made it to the end of the movie. This movie was very good at subverting my expectations. That's one of the reasons I enjoyed it so much. But in this case, it left me wondering what they're going to do in the next movie. Did they already film stuff with her for Episode IX? Are they going to kill off her character next time,
or are they going to have her silently disappear? I don't know if they've painted themselves in a corner or if they have something grand planned for next episode.
Another thing that has me concerned is the death of Emperor Snoke. I really didn't see that coming. The scene gave me goosebumps. It was brilliantly done. How do you kill an all-powerful force user, who can feel your intentions and even control your body? Lead him on to believe that the murderous intentions he feels in you are aimed at the person in front of you, not himself. It felt like the climax of the movie, with Rey and Kylo Ren joining forces to destroy the empire. But then Kylo Ren revealed his true plans, and oh man. A plot twist on top of another plot twist. The movie was really playing with my emotions then. So now, Kylo Ren is the leader of the Empire and... This leaves me a little concerned. First, we never did learn about who Snoke is, where he came from, or how he met Kylo Ren. Maybe we'll get more on that in the next movie, maybe Snoke will appear as an evil Force ghost to torture Kylo Ren, I dunno. We'll have to wait and see.
One thing we did see after Snoke's death was that Kylo Ren was not a good leader or strategist. He's easily distracted and manipulated, falling for every diversion set up for him. He lets his emotions take the better of him, doing stupid things like sending ALL of his fighters after one ship, just because he knew Rey was on it. As a result, the First Order feels very much weakened by the change of leadership. Will they be able to keep up the suspense in the next movie, or is the empire already on its last legs?
When it comes to Luke, though, I was pleased. Sure, he had an arc in the original trilogy, but that doesn't make him immune to making mistakes. I was concerned when they seemed to be setting him up as a murderer, but their explanation that he turned on his lightsaber in a moment of pure emotion after seeing what Ben would do in a vision of his future (which the movie leads me to think may have been a fabrication of Snoke), it was very understandable. He instantly regretted turning on his lightsaber, but Ben didn't see his regret. After seeing the effects of his momentary lack of judgement, Luke was filled with regret and shut himself off. Before the end of the movie, he finds his redemption, passing on his knowledge to Rey and confronting Ben (sort of). None of it felt out of character or beyond the realm of believabilily to me.
One last thing... Did anyone else notice that C-3P0's red arm was gone? He seemed to be back to his complete golden self. So what was the point of that plot point from the last episode? I thought they were going to explain it in a prequel or flashback or something.[/spoiler]
Quote from: SGOS on December 18, 2017, 08:31:25 PM
I would think that has come and gone on cable by now. It came out on disk months ago.
It never showed up on the free movie list. And I'm wondering why.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 06:06:45 AM
It never showed up on the free movie list. And I'm wondering why.
Dr Strangelove is still worth seeing, even if you have to pay for it.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 06:06:45 AM
It never showed up on the free movie list. And I'm wondering why.
I get new movies from Redbox. Dr. Strange was the one and only exception. I wanted to see it again so bad, that I kept track of the release date, and literally showed up at Walmart at 8:00am on the day of release. On occasion, movies don't show up at Redbox until a week after they air on pay per view, and like a four year old, I couldn't wait. After that, I never paid attention to what other outlets it might show up at.
There is no reason I can see to withhold it from viewing. While I was overwhelmed by that movie, others only generally liked it. It doesn't appear to be available at Amazon Prime, which is puzzling, but you can buy the disk for your private collection. I don't get it.
Quote from: SGOS on December 23, 2017, 07:37:06 AM
I get new movies from Redbox. Dr. Strange was the one and only exception. I wanted to see it again so bad, that I kept track of the release date, and literally showed up at Walmart at 8:00am on the day of release. On occasion, movies don't show up at Redbox until a week after they air on pay per view, and like a four year old, I couldn't wait. After that, I never paid attention to what other outlets it might show up at.
There is no reason I can see to withhold it from viewing. While I was overwhelmed by that movie, others only generally liked it. It doesn't appear to be available at Amazon Prime, which is puzzling, but you can buy the disk for your private collection. I don't get it.
The odd non-show of Dr Strange is irritating. I am patient about seeing movies, but this one baffles me.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 08:16:54 AM
The odd non-show of Dr Strange is irritating. I am patient about seeing movies, but this one baffles me.
The supernatural is real. In this case, supernatural branding.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 08:16:54 AM
The odd non-show of Dr Strange is irritating. I am patient about seeing movies, but this one baffles me.
It doesn't seem to be at Redbox either, although Redbox is mostly limited to recent movies. I'm not sure exactly when the "recent" expires and they remove it. Maybe they never did have it, and I didn't notice because I already bought it.
Quote from: SGOS on December 23, 2017, 10:29:43 AM
It doesn't seem to be at Redbox either, although Redbox is mostly limited to recent movies. I'm not sure exactly when the "recent" expires and they remove it. Maybe they never did have it, and I didn't notice because I already bought it.
The vanishing Dr Strange... Like his Greenbwich Village house... Perhaps it was awful and no one wants to show it, But *I* want to see it (but not own it).
Dr Strange was one of my favorite Marvel characters. I even had an opening movie theme song in mind.
To the tune of Frer Jacque... And sung by off-note children...
"Dr Stange, Dr Strange,
Dormamuu, Dormamuu
Mindless Ones are coming,
Mindless Ones are coming,
Where are you?
Where are you...
LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 10:36:21 AM
The vanishing Dr Strange... Like his Greenbwich Village house... Perhaps it was awful and no one wants to show it, But *I* want to see it (but not own it).
Dr Strange was one of my favorite Marvel characters. I even had an opening movie theme song in mind.
To the tune of Frer Jacque... And sung by off-note children...
"Dr Stange, Dr Strange,
Dormamuu, Dormamuu
Mindless Ones are coming,
Mindless Ones are coming,
Where are you?
Where are you...
LOL!
100 bonus points!
Actually, 'Oz The Great And Powerful' was a pretty decent movie. I've watched it several times.
Quote from: Baruch on December 23, 2017, 11:32:45 AM
100 bonus points!
Can I get the stuffed Tiger? (said Calvin)...
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 12:58:28 PM
Can I get the stuffed Tiger? (said Calvin)...
Only if you can throw balls to knock down all the bottles with Trump's face on them ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 23, 2017, 01:58:23 PM
Only if you can throw balls to knock down all the bottles with Trump's face on them ;-)
Unlikely. I guess we will have to set up a tiger rope trap. Bait is peanut butter sandwiches.
I'm going to go watch The Last Jedi tonight. I can't wait to find out more about Snoke - his identity, his backstory, his goals. This is going to be great!
To rewatch, "Spirited Away" or to rewatch the original Star Wars...
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 25, 2017, 04:48:18 PM
I'm going to go watch The Last Jedi tonight. I can't wait to find out more about Snoke - his identity, his backstory, his goals. This is going to be great!
Boarding train for Disappointmet Town. All aboard!
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 26, 2017, 02:01:16 AM
Boarding train for Disappointmet Town. All aboard!
Yeah, I was waiting for him to leave before I said something :P.
Got several bluerays/dvds this month I've not watched yet, rise of the guardians, the pass, legend of Korra, batman Harley Quinn, moonlight. Gonna settle down in the new year and watch them then.
Legend of Korra is brilliant.
Also, just finished watching "Spirited Away" for the 3rd time. It's a movie that only gets better with each watching. I never appreciated the poetry of the train scene, but now... it's almost tear inducing how beautiful it is.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 26, 2017, 05:19:40 AM
Legend of Korra is brilliant.
Also, just finished watching "Spirited Away" for the 3rd time. It's a movie that only gets better with each watching. I never appreciated the poetry of the train scene, but now... it's almost tear inducing how beautiful it is.
I just now remembered the Spirited Away movie! I was deeply impressed. Thank you for reminding me of that one.
The Last Jedi. 8/10.
A spectacular movie, with a few details I could have done without.
Why is it that so many people don't like it? Because it didn't live up to their Expanded Universe powered pet theories? Because they think Rian Johnson wrote it from scratch, instead of just filling in the details of an established three-movie story arc, of which this is merely the second, which is supposed to be a lowlight, like Empire? Or maybe they don't understand the themes of the movie?
[spoiler]One thing people need to realize is that a repeated theme of this movie is failure. Failure of the Canto Bight mission. Failure of the ski-speeder assault. Luke's failure of Ben, leading to his disillusionment and exile. Failure of Snoke in seeing Kylo Ben as a loyal ally. Failure of Poe's mutiny. Failure of the Resistance to the extent that the entire Resistance can fit easily aboard the Falcon. Yet amid each failure is a tiny spark of hope. The greatest teacher, failure is.
That said, they could have dealt with the Leia floating in space scene differently. That was my most hated moment. But Holdo's lightspeed launch more than makes up for it.
[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2017, 10:57:08 PM
It's no oxymoron. Any genre, done correctly, has the potential for greatness.
Comic fucking books.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 26, 2017, 03:23:28 PM
Comic fucking books.
Stories told by sequential artwork. Probably the second oldest form of storytelling, after oral.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 26, 2017, 02:01:16 AM
Boarding train for Disappointmet Town. All aboard!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QvhCDsFkk0
La La Land - 9/10
Justice League - 6/10
Blade Runner 2049 - 8/10
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 26, 2017, 03:23:28 PM
Comic fucking books.
Are a form of visual communication, one with potential to be extremely artistically masterful.
Avatar, the last airbender, is a comic book, and it is arguably one of the best pieces of media in the last hundred years, with amazing diversity in cultural influence, character development and philosophical thought.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 26, 2017, 05:17:55 PM
Are a form of visual communication, one with potential to be extremely artistically masterful.
Avatar, the last airbender, is a comic book, and it is arguably one of the best pieces of media in the last hundred years, with amazing diversity in cultural influence, character development and philosophical thought.
I enjoyed the comics even better than the movie. Showed a lot of pan-Asian cultures.
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
8/10
It had great action and a few compelling character moments, but I felt that overall, it was a disappointing installment. It's still a good movie, but imho, it could've/should've been much, much better.
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/f6355bc9d8362f5e05937f5d3d87e0f9/tumblr_ohr0jqWF901vjdt8po2_1280.gif)
The Good:
[spoiler]* Phenomenal action/special effects. All battle scenes, from the bombers to the praetorian guard to the quasi-Hoth battle were great. My jaw hit the floor during the kamikaze space scene.
* I liked how the interiors of the spaceships looked. The Imperial star destroyer, the rebel cruiser, Snoke's ship, the Millennium Falcon.
* Luke's island looked good and so did that oddly beautiful reddish planet. Great aesthetics.
* I even liked the new gorillaesqe AT-ATs (http://cdn1.sciencefiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/AtM6.png)
* I almost hit the floor laughing when Finn was yet again called a traitor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5jAW37Pq1k). Whappity.
* I loved Kylo's arc and the deeper insight we now have into his character. Same with Rey, who seems to be showing the first cracks in her otherwise near-angelic demeanor. I also enjoyed the psychic tête-à -tête between Kylo and Rey.
* Luke's badass last stand.[/spoiler]
The Bad:
[spoiler]* Snoke. Compelling villains are the lifeblood of this franchise. Money on the table. We do NOT kill off villains for no reason. We lost two big ones in this movie before knowing almost anything about them. Granted, the second one is supposed to be an echo of Boba Fett (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxU2eqZtYmc), so I might let the second one slide. But these villains could've been compelling characters who met their doom in a tragic twist of fate. Instead they're just cardboard cutouts consigned to the flames. Disappointing.
* It felt cramped. Beyond the ragtag rebel fleet and the surprisingly ineffective First Order fleet, we still know next to nothing about the current state of the galaxy. For a series renown for its worldbuilding, there's a worrying lack of it on display.
* Not enough aliens. There's been a steadily diminishing alien presence in the films, and that's a bad thing. Part of the charm of this franchise is that these exotic locales are populated with bizarre alien species. It helps separate Star Wars from other franchises and gives the setting an otherworldly feel. The series is diminished by their absence.
* This may seem like a strange complaint for a series with War in the name, but jeez, it's gotten a bit too grim and bloody at times. I'm trying to watch something somewhat uplifting, I'm not expecting Dunkirk in space.
* Your mileage may vary, but I hated Finn/Rose's subplot that didn't really have any sort of payoff. I suppose he learned some sort of lesson, but the real lesson here may be to not care about redshirts. And the whole casino scene seemed jarring and out of place next to the pressing siege. I probably would've cut that out entirely.[/spoiler]
The Headscratchers:
[spoiler]* Low fuel? Dafuq? I wasn't even aware that could be a problem. But that, combined with the unknown tracking device, serve as a narrative excuse for the Rebels to not be able to escape. Instead, couldn't they just have been in the presence of an interdictor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAfMEdV7AQY)?
* Why doesn't the First Order just radio for reinforcements and have them hyperspace in front of the rebels like they did in Rogue One? The Rebels rely on hit-and-run tactics for a reason. If they can just kite Imperial forces, how could the imperials ever possibly win even a single battle?
* After the rebel transports come under attack, when Hodor or whatever she's called turns the cruiser around...why didn't she try to block the shots instead of immediately going kamikaze?
* Since kamikaze attacks are apparently so effective, shouldn't the rebels rely more heavily on them? One crappy light cruiser with one person at the helm VS the goddamn First Order Flagship carrying god knows how many high-ranking imperials and imperial vehicles seems like a tempting trade.
* Who the fuck would respond to the rebel distress call? Who the hell wants to sign up for almost certain death?
* Why are the rebels perpetually on the brink of extinction? If you think there can no longer be an interesting story after a rebel victory, I recommend checking out Dune Messiah/Children of Dune.
* How the hell do the remaining 20 or so rebels constitute a "rebirth" of the rebellion? Imo, they just got handed a crushing - albeit not total - defeat. If anything, they're weaker now than they've ever been.[/spoiler]
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
How could you not like the little drunk alien guy who mistook BB-8 for a slot machine?
I agree about Dune Messiah/Children of Dune.
Jumanji 7/10
Entertainment, silly and simple.
couldn't think where else to put this, but just a little curiosity i realized when talking to my bf about movie, tv, comic and gaming characters.
Taking my avatar as example, when it comes to the ideal of super heroes, we often associate the look ones like these guys have, big, powerful builds.
(http://www.jewcy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Superman451.png)(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/5f/0e/f4/5f0ef4afcaff111c7d5b554520445275--comic-books-comic-art.jpg)
This kind of look is so associated with strength, peak physical performance, and what to aspire to. Even in none superhero movies, like Rambo, Terminator, actors like Stallone and Schwarzenegger were giving over the idea that that kind of build is the pinnacle of strength, which is pretty much the mainstay now.
Yet what I find ironic is how while that kind of look is what people most associate with strength, the reality is it isn't the highest form of strength and endurance that real life powerhouses actually have to them. When you look up actual 'strongest man' competition, what your more likely to see is this.
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/nintchdbpict000326983916.jpg?strip=all&w=687)
(http://c8.alamy.com/comp/CMBFG5/a-strong-man-is-pulling-a-huge-truck-at-2012-world-strong-man-competition-CMBFG5.jpg)
These are actual 'strong men', and their shape and form isn't about looking physically perfect like a bodybuilder does, but actually giving they bodies the endurance (and probably though steroids but then most building their bodies either way use them) there body needs to pull trucks via ropes or lift huge concrete balls over their head.
(http://www.ironmind.com/export/sites/ironmind/.galleries/IronMind-2/z-wsm14-yoke_lg.jpg)
Point I'm making is, the hollywood ideal of strength isn't quite up to par with actual real life strong men, but then these guys above wouldn't look as nice on a movie poster or cover of a comic book.
(https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/v1511171375/Screen_Shot_2017-11-20_at_4.03.32_AM_jb7aeu.png)
That guy with the big tires. Smart people mount those on their monster truck ... not on their monster biceps ;-)
Quote from: Munch on December 29, 2017, 07:38:04 PM
couldn't think where else to put this, but just a little curiosity i realized when talking to my bf about movie, tv, comic and gaming characters.
Taking my avatar as example, when it comes to the ideal of super heroes, we often associate the look ones like these guys have, big, powerful builds.
Charles Atlas was hugely influential for golden age superheroes like Superman, which in turn inspired yet more super heroes. There are strong but waify heroes like Spider-man and a few medium builds like Namor, but the big bruisers almost always sport a 6-pack paired with bulging biceps.
Mother 9/10 67% on Rotten Tomatoes
Apparently this is a movie you either like or you don't The short synopsis at Rotten Tomatoes reads: "Critics Consensus: There's no denying that mother! is the thought-provoking product of a singularly ambitious artistic vision, though it may be too unwieldy for mainstream tastes."
I liked it a lot. It's weird, and while I could relate at an emotional level, I don't understand the underlying plot. There are things that seem like hints, but I get the feeling they are only there to tease. The hints don't explain anything. They just cause you to wonder what they mean. I personally don't think they are intended to mean anything. They just add to the mental chaos that drives the film. The emotional connection for me was not fear or horror but frustration, which seems odd; A movie about frustration? For the main character, the causes of frustration gradually become more intense throughout the film until they reach a mayhem of unmanageable proportions. Even though they are way "over the top," I feel like I've experienced the situation in real life, not to the extent that the movie exaggerates the experience, but I certainly identify with it.
The movie is unique in that 90% of its purpose is just to be an emotional experience. At least that's what it was for me. Other's may find some other purpose in it. But maybe not. I'd be curious about other reactions. I obviously have a penchant for unique films. This is one of them.
Yuck ... M Night Shyamalan meets Freddy Kruger? I think the husband is Damien Part 666 meets Bates Motel.
Quote from: Baruch on January 03, 2018, 05:30:25 PM
Yuck ... M Night Shyamalan meets Freddy Kruger? I think the husband is Damien Part 666 meets Bates Motel.
Maybe a little different. There is no Freddy Kruger type supernatural entity. Evil perhaps, but not driven singularly by the need to be evil. Supernatural things may occur, but only as unexplainable events. Alternately, the unexplainable events may be perceptions from the mind of a schizophrenic, although whether any particular character is schizophrenic is not directly suggested in the story. As the film progresses, it becomes strangely dreamlike. Perhaps that's why I could identify with it, I may have had a dream very much like the movie. Or it may be some social situation as it would be perceived on a bad LSD trip. Yeah, dream or a bad trip; That may have been what the director was trying to create.
Any movie that creates (or demands) this much analytical thought is usually a movie I will rate very high. I can understand many people would find that sort of response to be tedious, but I tend to get involved in that sort of shit. It used to mildly annoy my ex.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 26, 2017, 03:36:09 PM
Stories told by sequential artwork. Probably the second oldest form of storytelling, after oral.
Yeah, very cavemanish.
Just started the series Black Mirror (3 episodes a season, hour long each, stand-alone episodes, a British Netflix series.
It's... interesting. I don't really know how to describe it, but the first episode is basically examining terrorism and hostage taking by your stereotypical youtube commentor or 4chan idiot. It actually seems to be a very poignant reflection on internet culture and apparently the entire series is much the same... examining the effects of technological society in a very distopian or unsettling way.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 16, 2017, 01:19:43 PM
King really is a good writer. But not like a Michener--every book he wrote is excellent. With King that's not so, for me. But his style is always good--great character development. I either seem to love or to hate his books. The Stand I loved, for example. Delores Claiborne was brilliant. Cujo, Pet Cemetery and Misery I hated. But even in the hated books, the writing was very good. I read the first Dark Tower book and could make neither heads nor tails of it--just confused. But the writing was good. And his books like the Cell seems to be just part of a book--loved it, but it sort of ended in mid story. Anyway, the moves based on his books are all okay--none are really outstanding for me.
Watched it just now Id say 7/10 besides the shitty review it got. I read gunslinger and it was not as awesome as the movie. The only thing the movie needed was an R rating and more details but man King did a good job(also to make it less depressing).
In the Last Person to Post Wins thread, there has been a lot of talk about The Last Jedi. So I figured I'd take the conversation over here so we can discuss it properly.
This has been a very polarizing film. Lots of rave reviews and also quite a bit of very negative reviews. Part of the reason for this is probably the fact that it's the first Star Wars sequel to go off in a new direction. A lot of people liked that new direction and a lot of people weren't happy with it.
Personally, I'm pretty mixed. I didn't love the film but I didn't really hate it either. It had its great moments and it had a lot of missed opportunities.
[spoiler]The fuel situation was a poorly written ticking clock plot. Everyone loves ticking clock plots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgngnzNEXzM). Hell, two out of three of the original trilogy movies had them. They give a sense of urgency and tension to the film. Done poorly, they can frustrate and annoy the audience.
Imo, this one was the latter for me. Why? Because the way it's written doesn't make any rational sense. The writers are essentially asking the audience to believe that the Rebel fleet is being chased by the First Order that can't catch up to them, can't do much damage at long range (for reasons), and can't call in reinforcements to intercept the Rebels. But we should still be worried for the Rebels because they'll run out of fuel eventually, a problem that IIRC didn't previously exist. This scene - which lasts almost the entirety of the movie - is basically the OJ Simpson chase minus the arrest. And as Johnnie Cochran probably once said: if the plot is shit, you must acquit.
The side quest to [Generic Gambling City] to get [Generic code guy] was pointless and annoying. The First Order pursuing the Rebels was basically an extended chase scene lasting most of the movie. You know what you can't do during a chase scene? Bail then come back. It just doesn't work. It kills whatever tension when you cut back and forth and it further reveals the ridiculousness of the plot by showing that characters can just opt-out whenever they want. Do you know what kind of reviews Mad Max Fury Road would have gotten if Max and Furiosa just jumped in another car and went to the Home Depot to get nails to create a nail trap to throw off their pursuers?!
Then there's curmudgeon Luke. I don't actually mind this one so much, it just could've been handled better. Some fans didn't like it because it didn't jive with their memories of Luke from the original trilogy (and they're right). Fans who accepted the character shift point out that Luke has seen the galaxy go to shit and feels personally responsible for it (and they're right). But we should've seen this on screen, maybe a brief flashback or something. Just a small scene from Luke's POV and viewers would probably be more sympathetic to Luke and understanding of his disillusionment and despair.
But the absolute most disappointing thing was all the unanswered questions from The Force Awakens and Last Jedi didn't answer a single goddamn one of them.
Who's Snoke? What was his backstory? Who are/were Rey's parents? Why does Rey possess such incredible natural talent with the Force? What's the state of the galaxy like right now? What about the Droid attack on the Wookiees? It's as if millions of theorists cried out for answers and were greeted with silence.
Related:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3r38iCpGJ0
"I thought the film would be more interesting without Snoke so I wrote him out of the story"[/spoiler]
And so I don't come off as too much of a Debbie downer, here's some positive stuff about The Last Jedi.
[spoiler](https://i.imgur.com/ZnS9aCc.jpg)
Great fight scene.
(https://gradypbrown.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/1513684723334.png?w=1400)
Jaw-dropping
I also really liked the space battle at the beginning of the film, though I was kinda miffed at the lack of the Rebels' signature Y-Wings in favor of the suicidal, all-or-nothing, Matrix-esqe bombers.[/spoiler]
Batman and Harley Quinn.
7/10
This was.. alright. I was a huge fan of the original batman the animated series, I was happy to hear Kevin Conroy as batman, but sad Arleen Sorkin didn't reprise her role as Harley. Melissa Rauch was okay I suppose, but not quite the flair Sorkin delivered in the role.
The animation while being in the style of the original, it also felt odd in places. It was more in style with the 'red sky season' of the original animated series, when they overhauled all the characters and art style, that was at the time the series began to loose ratings. So seeing this style instead of the classic art style made it seem serviceable.
Also the theme was bizarre in places, while the original kept itself within a pg rating of what they could get away with in terms of violence, vulgarity and innuendos, this one went balls to the wall all over the place, blood being sprayed one minute, fart humor the next, sex just being outright on the table. It was like it was set in the animated universe but like it had been withheld from doing more adult themes all this time, and just BOOM, all at once doing it all in the space of one hour.
Also the humor when it appeared was very loony toons, so yeah, that and the mature themes put in made it kind of jumbled.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--kHRaxQzr--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/vvp93i0g0tq1z4ykc6zc.gif)
It was alright, the setting, the characters, it was like the good old series in places, but seemed like a lot more liberties taken, it was more like a fan made project by fans of the original series now grown up, more then a real continuation of the original.
the mountain between us.
7/10
Brother had this and gave it to me, had only seen a glimpse of its trailer before and didn't really attract me then, but I like Idris Elba, so sat and gave it a go.
Overall, it was 'alright', Elba's always a delight in any role, Kate Winslet was pretty good two, they played off each other well in this, though despite it meaning to be a serious romantic survival movie, I found myself laughing a few times at this at some of the silly plot points. And it did wrap with in a pretty generic way. But overall it was alright, any fans of the two main stars would probably like to have this in their collection.
Darkest Hour Winston Spencer Churchill was handed the worst job on Earth in May, 1940, to try and save the British or to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. Gary Oldman plays Churchill and Mr. Shadow plays Hitler.
Gary Oldman is one of the best actors of our day! He's been in so many great roles- any movie he's in is worth watching just because he's In it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 25, 2018, 06:27:12 PM
Darkest Hour Winston Spencer Churchill was handed the worst job on Earth in May, 1940, to try and save the British or to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. Gary Oldman plays Churchill and Mr. Shadow plays Hitler.
I have wanted to see this in particular, but no opportunity ;-(
Too bad it wasn't a burlesque like The Inglorious Bastards. That way, the British-Nazi traitors, Lord Halifax and King Edward, could have been spectacularly eliminated on film, when they were in fact allowed to live.
Churchill was an ass, but he also saved civilization. He failed to save the British Empire ... because it was unsalvageable.
I saw "the Martian" last night. Pretty good. But as a gardener, I know you don't just cut potatoes in half and stick them in feces to grow the, And he was a BOTANIST! And I thought of several things he didn't. But on the whole, Pretty Damn Good! 3.5 of 5. I liked Gravity better and Interstellar less.
Still waiting for Dr Strange on regular cable...
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 11:49:35 AM
I saw "the Martian" last night. Pretty good. But as a gardener, I know you don't just cut potatoes in half and stick them in feces to grow the, And he was a BOTANIST! And I thought of several things he didn't. But on the whole, Pretty Damn Good! 3.5 of 5. I liked Gravity better and Interstellar less.
Still waiting for Dr Strange on regular cable...
The Martian felt like a big budget, sci-fi version of Survivorman. Which is not a bad thing, by any means. :D
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on January 27, 2018, 11:54:12 AM
The Martian felt like a big budget, sci-fi version of Survivorman. Which is not a bad thing, by any means. :D
Don't get me wrong, I LOVED the movie. Reminded me of Outcast (?). My objections were very minor. Details, and I bet the technical experts on the set screamed "NO, don't do that". But if more movies were like THAT, I would watch more movies.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 11:49:35 AM
I saw "the Martian" last night. Pretty good. But as a gardener, I know you don't just cut potatoes in half and stick them in feces to grow the, And he was a BOTANIST! And I thought of several things he didn't. But on the whole, Pretty Damn Good! 3.5 of 5. I liked Gravity better and Interstellar less.
Still waiting for Dr Strange on regular cable...
Gravity was well directed, had me shit my pants about once a minute. I once had a payload on the Shuttle (a project engineer in a big team).
Dr Strange is great.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 11:58:22 AM
Don't get me wrong, I LOVED the movie. Reminded me of Outcast (?). My objections were very minor. Details, and I bet the technical experts on the set screamed "NO, don't do that". But if more movies were like THAT, I would watch more movies.
We watched
The Martian on the charter bus back home after the eclipse fizzle. I really liked it, the first half more than the second; my objection was that they were piling on too many obstacles and it looked contrived even by the standards of fiction.
Interestingly enough, I've been listening to the audiobook the last couple days at work on the advice of my niece and find that even though all those "contrivances" and more are there in the book, it doesn't feel quite so much like dogpiling -- probably because in the book, you get some breathing space between disasters and in the movie it all has to be telescoped into two hours or less. I'll probably give Weir's
Artemis a chance.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 11:58:22 AM
Don't get me wrong, I LOVED the movie. Reminded me of Outcast (?). My objections were very minor. Details, and I bet the technical experts on the set screamed "NO, don't do that". But if more movies were like THAT, I would watch more movies.
"...being careful to keep the plants alive." DAFUQ?
Anyway, I've seen that one more than a dozen times. You should read the book.
Finally watched, Justice League, fantastic movie......if I was twelve.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 25, 2018, 06:30:08 PM
Gary Oldman is one of the best actors of our day! He's been in so many great roles- any movie he's in is worth watching just because he's In it.
He is a good actor, almost always in a supporting role, but in important supporting roles, and mostly in important films. He isn't talked about much, but he's probably talked about a lot by directors and producers. If I were a star, I would want him in my movie.
I hope that one goes up for "Best Foreign Film."
I recently bought two older movies that were listed in Rotten tomatoes as "not certified fresh". It was from one of their related articles along the often used format of something like "10 films that failed, but are still worth seeing." Obviously, it was some writer's judgment call suggesting the numbers don't always reflect the quality. Two of them looked personally interesting, and I took a chance and ordered them through two of Amazons sponsored dealers. These can sometimes be absurdly cheap, especially when they are used buybacks, so there wasn't much risk. I would say both were the better movies I've seen in the last three weeks or so. I usually watch at least one movie a day.
The Majestic 8/10 although it was given a 42% by critics
Jim Carrey played a straight role, although the movie was a combination of fantasy and romance. It had some negative but forgivable weak points, a bit overly patriotic, but applicable to the plot, and required some suspension of belief. But very entertaining, I easily identified with the characters.
The Cell 7/10 but 46% from critics
Vince Vaughn playing it straight along with Jennifer Lopez in a sci fi crime thriller. Turns out I had seen this chilling film years ago, and from time to time thought I'd like to see it again, but could never remember the name of the movie. A couple of plot holes were feebly explained away, and the scripting seemed a little loose, but it definitely kept me on the edge of my seat.
I liked The Majestic ... it was an interesting idea, and I like actors "out of role". Same reason why I love "Dead Poet Society" and "Good Will Hunting".
Mark Felt 10/10
Although Rotten Tomatoes gave it 34%, and audiences at 45%. I thought this was great political drama. I can't attest to the accuracy of the story, but none of the negative reviews I scanned at RT took issue with the movie's accuracy. Mostly they criticized the script and the direction, claiming that it spent too much time focusing on Felt's personal life and family matters. I adamantly disagree with that. I was in my 20s when Watergate happened and paid a lot of attention to the Watergate hearings, but that was just bunch of Senators investigating long after the part of history the movie focuses on. Deep throat was often mentioned, but I can't remember anything about how his leaks managed to prevent the White House from trying to stop the investigation. The movie sort of explains it as making the public aware, but I would have liked to see that part covered in more detail. I guess I would have liked to see more of Nixon's Cabinet scrambling to do the damage control, which ultimately failed.
But I'm getting picky here trying to understand the negative reviews. I was on the edge of my seat throughout the entire movie. Perhaps the critics and audience wanted a replay of what everyone already knows about Watergate. In my 20's I wasn't aware of the first leaks, and how they became gradually more revealing. I didn't start paying attention until everyone knew about the scandal. And Mark Felt, the movie, focuses on the part I wasn't paying attention to so it was mostly new to me.
Mark Felt was deputy director of the FBI under Nixon. He claimed he was Deep Throat. And Woodward, one of the two newsmen ... he was and still is, CIA.
Quote from: SGOS on January 31, 2018, 07:43:39 PM
Mark Felt 10/10
Although Rotten Tomatoes gave it 34%, and audiences at 45%. I thought this was great political drama. I can't attest to the accuracy of the story, but none of the negative reviews I scanned at RT took issue with the movie's accuracy. Mostly they criticized the script and the direction, claiming that it spent to much time focusing on Felt's personal life and family matters. I adamantly disagree with that. I was in my 20s when Watergate happened and paid a lot of attention to the Watergate hearings, but that was just bunch of Senators investigating long after the part of history the movie focuses on. Deep throat was often mentioned, but I can't remember anything about how his leaks managed to prevent the White House from trying to stop the investigation. The movie sort of explains it as making the public aware, but I would have liked to see that part covered in more detail. I guess I would have liked to see more of Nixon's Cabinet scrambling to do the damage control, which ultimately failed.
But I'm getting picky here trying to understand the negative reviews. I was on the edge of my seat throughout the entire movie. Perhaps the critics and audience wanted a replay of what everyone already knows about Watergate. In my 20's I wasn't aware of the first leaks, and how they became gradually more revealing. I didn't start paying attention until everyone knew about the scandal. And Mark Felt, the movie, focuses on the part I wasn't paying attention to so it was mostly new to me.
I didn't know they'd made a movie about Felt. I'll have to check it out. I have been a Watergate junkie since... well, since the Watergate scandal itself.
I mean, really, if you tried to write a political thriller with the same events as Watergate, no one would think it could possibly be anything but fiction. What an amazing time it was.
Quote from: trdsf on January 31, 2018, 10:39:32 PM
I didn't know they'd made a movie about Felt. I'll have to check it out. I have been a Watergate junkie since... well, since the Watergate scandal itself.
I mean, really, if you tried to write a political thriller with the same events as Watergate, no one would think it could possibly be anything but fiction. What an amazing time it was.
Yeah, if Felt had knuckled under the Administration's pressure to stop the investigation, the whole thing would have been buried, and no one would know it ever happened. I got the movie from Redbox. It's been out for two weeks, and I almost didn't rent it because of the reviews.
Well, perhaps not every FBI agent who had worked under J Edgar, was evil ;-)
According to the film, at the time he confessed to being Deep Throat, he also confessed to engineering some nefarious FBI undertakings that suggest he also had a dark side. All we know is that he did one ethical thing on his own while in the FBI, although he may have done other good things, as well as evils we will never know about.
Quote from: SGOS on February 01, 2018, 09:15:19 PM
According to the film, at the time he confessed to being Deep Throat, he also confessed to engineering some nefarious FBI undertakings that suggest he also had a dark side. All we know is that he did one ethical thing on his own while in the FBI, although he may have done other good things, as well as evils we will never know about.
Real people are like that. They aren't cardboard cut-outs.
Quote from: SGOS on February 01, 2018, 09:15:19 PM
According to the film, at the time he confessed to being Deep Throat, he also confessed to engineering some nefarious FBI undertakings that suggest he also had a dark side. All we know is that he did one ethical thing on his own while in the FBI, although he may have done other good things, as well as evils we will never know about.
Felt supervised COINTELPRO in the early '70s and was convicted in 1980 of violating the civil rights of some alleged members of the Weather Underground, having ordered warrantless break-ins (ironically enough) in a search for incriminating evidence. He was later pardoned by Reagan.
In short, he was neither white knight nor black night... he was just human.
I've now watched Blade Runner 2049 five times. After figuring out the plot, I'm now picking up on a lot of things I missed the previous times. I wouldn't have said this after the first or second watching, but it's a very well constructed story. The first time around I found it hard to follow, but the script is filled throughout with little seeds of premonition that don't seem directly related to the story on the first viewing because you don't know the ending. I also completely missed some rather obvious things, too. I've been a little slow on the uptake, I guess. There are also distractions that don't need to be there, but they do create a lot of interest that I initially focused on. Things like the new technologies that had come along since 2020, and I love the cityscapes that use humongous holograms like billboards that Hollywood introduced with Ghost in the Shell. The movie doesn't rely on a fast pace, and actually seems slow at times, but something related to the storyline is always happening.
I've watched the original more times than I could possibly count. Blade Runner, both the original and the sequel are good science fiction, the original being one of my all time favorites. Oddly, I wasn't impressed by the base short story, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The premise was fantastic, but the movie improved on the delivery by leaps and bounds.
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 04:51:35 PM
Gravity was well directed, had me shit my pants about once a minute. I once had a payload on the Shuttle (a project engineer in a big team).
Dr Strange is great.
Forgive me, but...
Since you SAID you "shit in your pants" I worry about your payload on the shuttle. ;)
OK... Actually, I'm impressed. What was it? That deserves some kudos.
And, also, thanks about the good review on Dr Strange... I may pay to watch a movie for once.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 03:08:05 PM
Forgive me, but...
Since you SAID you "shit in your pants" I worry about your payload on the shuttle. ;)
OK... Actually, I'm impressed. What was it? That deserves some kudos.
And, also, thanks about the good review on Dr Strange... I may pay to watch a movie for once.
Sorry, can't say. DoD. I did have a Shuttle simulation that I ran on my Fat Mac ... could see that orbital mechanics was a bitch, particularly if you were on a space walk ;-(
DoD = Department of Defecation?
Quote from: SGOS on February 02, 2018, 11:43:48 AM
I've now watched Blade Runner 2049 five times. After figuring out the plot, I'm now picking up on a lot of things I missed the previous times. I wouldn't have said this after the first or second watching, but it's a very well constructed story. The first time around I found it hard to follow, but the script is filled throughout with little seeds of premonition that don't seem directly related to the story on the first viewing because you don't know the ending. I also completely missed some rather obvious things, too. I've been a little slow on the uptake, I guess. There are also distractions that don't need to be there, but they do create a lot of interest that I initially focused on. Things like the new technologies that had come along since 2020, and I love the cityscapes that use humongous holograms like billboards that Hollywood introduced with Ghost in the Shell. The movie doesn't rely on a fast pace, and actually seems slow at times, but something related to the storyline is always happening.
I've watched the original more times than I could possibly count. Blade Runner, both the original and the sequel are good science fiction, the original being one of my all time favorites. Oddly, I wasn't impressed by the base short story, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The premise was fantastic, but the movie improved on the delivery by leaps and bounds.
Thank god I'm not the only person who liked the new Blade Runner. If I had a dollar for every time everyone told me, "eww, that movie sucked, there was no action!"...
Valerian and the Movie of a Thousand Disappointments 5/10
I really wanted to like this one (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=11485.msg1173020#msg1173020)
It tried so hard to be Fifth Element, but ultimately failed.
The immediate problem is that the main character, Valerian, is unlikable and has an extremely annoying voice (it's like an auditory version of punchable faces). His partner (I forget her name) has a similar but less intense problem.
When we're introduced to them, we're told that they're both badasses who achieve practically impossible tasks with no sweat before we ever see any of that. So they just come off as arrogant pricks instead.
The second problem is that they're supposed to be in love but they have hangups that they have to get over before they can really connect. But like the above, we don't really see either their love or their hangups so it falls flat. Sense a theme yet?
I feel bad for reviewing the movie so poorly because I can tell that a lot of love went into the alien races and sets. But this movie just hammers the audience with exposition dumps that alternatively fascinated and bored me.
TL;DR This movie was beautiful, but it had all kinds of pacing issues, characterization issues, and show-don't-tell issues that made me dislike it. It should've been a great movie, but it was mediobad instead. Shame.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on February 02, 2018, 08:53:30 PM
DoD = Department of Defecation?
No you AP = Agent Provocateur
Quote from: Shiranu on February 02, 2018, 09:32:51 PM
Thank god I'm not the only person who liked the new Blade Runner. If I had a dollar for every time everyone told me, "eww, that movie sucked, there was no action!"...
There probably wasn't enough action to satisfy what the usual movie goer has been trained to expect. But Blade Runner was punctuated with it here and there. Like the original, that inspired a series of discussion groups to spring up in larger cities, it involves a lot of unraveling, which some people enjoy. But I did wonder when I saw it the first time, how the box office crowds would respond to that kind of film. It might be too different from the modern format.
But if it had been speeded up with more action, it might seem like a different movie, rather than an attempt to capture the feeling of the original. There was a discussion here months before the movie was released, where people were wondering if it would be as worthy as the first. At that time, I assumed it wouldn't because Hollywood would present it using a Marvel format, and we would end up with a movie that didn't capture the essence that made the first one so good or even what makes the Marvel films as good as they are.
Saw the my little pony the movie, since my brother got ahold of a copy for his kids, and decided to check it out.
It was.. alright, as a kids movie it was okay, it had some good parts to it. The best character in the movie to me was pinkie pie, she had the same kinetic energy she does in the main series, and some of her parts did give me some laugh out loud moments. The art style was nice, some of the backdrops were pretty good, and the music had a nice score to it. Also the voice acting was pretty good, with an exception.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0vLd9McKE0
However, this one's got some problems that made it more tolerable then likable. For one thing the main character designs just seems far to cutesy compared to the main show, like the main characters were several years younger then there show counterparts. The main show made them seem more like young adults while this made them seem like young teenagers.
The voice acting, while good, it had this annoying pacing in the movie that was reflected heavily in the script, characters seeming to take long pauses that made the dialog seem more awkward then anything.
Also, the main villains in the story were just terrible. tempest just seemed like a starlight glimmer knockoff with her cut and paste backstory, and her 'I'm edgy' character got tiring after a while. The storm king was just goofy and childish, making him less then intimidating. This movie did do something different though, instead of like the main characters having an annoying sidekick on the heroes side, like Snarf or Orko or scrappy doo, this movie had an annoying sidekick for the villain, some stupid little hedgehog bastard (whos name I don't care to remember) who didn't add anything to the story and was just an annoyance everytime he was on screen, I just wanted to see the little bastard get impaled on a unicorn horn.
Overall it was alright, I felt the movie lacked some of the fast paced humor the show is known for, and the pauses in dialog was kind of cringey, but for a kids movie about the show it wasn't bad.
7/10
Edit: One thing that I realized too, they had a reference to discord in the movie, and he was in the end credits, but not in the movie itself. This didn't make sense, since seeing in the main show, every time fluttershy was in some bad situation, discord would step up to save her, so you'd think with her life under threat from an invading tyrant, he'd step up and use it chaos magic to end the villain? Guess the writers decided against that otherwise the movie be over in a second.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 02, 2018, 09:46:36 PMHis partner (I forget her name) has a similar but less intense problem.
Just call her "Harley Quinn".
Black panther early reviews are in... and it is slaying. I have tried so hard not to get hyped, but good God Damn it all I'm so hyped!
Quote from: Shiranu on February 06, 2018, 03:22:21 PM
Black panther early reviews are in... and it is slaying. I have tried so hard not to get hyped, but good God Damn it all I'm so hyped!
Me too. I've heard that Michonne is great in this movie.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 06, 2018, 03:22:21 PM
Black panther early reviews are in... and it is slaying. I have tried so hard not to get hyped, but good God Damn it all I'm so hyped!
Yeah, looks good. Black ... is beautiful.
Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2018, 07:55:29 PM
Sorry, can't say. DoD. I did have a Shuttle simulation that I ran on my Fat Mac ... could see that orbital mechanics was a bitch, particularly if you were on a space walk ;-(
I may have played one of the first "games" on a computer. A friend had a moon landing simulation in the 70s and in his "friendly version" you had to land softly (with a lot of allowance). Everyone crashed. I got to play it a few times. I crashed, too. But most made a crater. I got so I could "only" destroy the lander. The guy was impressed.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 06, 2018, 10:49:46 PM
I may have played one of the first "games" on a computer. A friend had a moon landing simulation in the 70s and in his "friendly version" you had to land softly (with a lot of allowance). Everyone crashed. I got to play it a few times. I crashed, too. But most made a crater. I got so I could "only" destroy the lander. The guy was impressed.
Heard about that one. Yes, took a real screw-up crazy like Armstrong to land that thing. Overly rational people don't do well with orbital mechanics or 1/6 G ... because it doesn't make sense relative to normal experience. I have a little quad-copter I got myself for Christmas. Can't fly straight at all.
Quote from: Baruch on February 06, 2018, 11:23:20 PM
Heard about that one. Yes, took a real screw-up crazy like Armstrong to land that thing. Overly rational people don't do well with orbital mechanics or 1/6 G ... because it doesn't make sense relative to normal experience. I have a little quad-copter I got myself for Christmas. Can't fly straight at all.
Oh drat, and I was thinking about buying one myself. I probably couldn't fly one at all (I can't type worth a damn, and things I'm not touching seem foreign). Just wanted to see my yard from above. Google Earth SUCKS, always from a low SW angle where the trees hide the yard, you know? Nothing but shadows...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 07, 2018, 04:21:02 AM
Oh drat, and I was thinking about buying one myself. I probably couldn't fly one at all (I can't type worth a damn, and things I'm not touching seem foreign). Just wanted to see my yard from above. Google Earth SUCKS, always from a low SW angle where the trees hide the yard, you know? Nothing but shadows...
Google Earth does have it limitations, and I don't like that uncontrollable low angle view when you get in close, and at some angles it creates box trees and box structures that are totally nuts: "Oh, I guess those are trees, or maybe tents?" I'd like to control the angle to view from. On the other hand, I've used Google Earth to do some long distance navigation before I go to places I've never been. It is especially helpful in Cities where I can use the actual street view to identify a specific building or parking lot visually. It does a lot of things very well, some well enough to serve a useful purpose, but overall, it feels kind of awkward as you start to close in on things. It feels like it could be designed better, and at one time, I would think, "Oh don't worry. Google will fix that," but they don't. Instead they adopt a kind of a ,"that's good enough for horseshoes," attitude and move on to their next enhancement.
Quote from: SGOS on February 07, 2018, 05:20:44 AM
Google Earth does have it limitations, and I don't like that uncontrollable low angle view when you get in close, and at some angles it creates box trees and box structures that are totally nuts: "Oh, I guess those are trees, or maybe tents?" I'd like to control the angle to view from. On the other hand, I've used Google Earth to do some long distance navigation before I go to places I've never been. It is especially helpful in Cities where I can use the actual street view to identify a specific building or parking lot visually. It does a lot of things very well, some well enough to serve a useful purpose, but overall, it feels kind of awkward as you start to close in on things. It feels like it could be designed better, and at one time, I would think, "Oh don't worry. Google will fix that," but they don't. Instead they adopt a kind of a ,"that's good enough for horseshoes," attitude and move on to their next enhancement.
Google Earth sure has its uses, and I have used it looking at houses and yards I considered buying. But it sure doesn't do anything for me seeing MY yard, LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on February 07, 2018, 05:23:02 AM
Google Earth sure has its uses, and I have used it looking at houses and yards I considered buying. But it sure doesn't do anything for me seeing MY yard, LOL!
Yeah, the street view can give you two or three angles of the front of the house. I suppose it's helpful for checking out the neighborhood, which would be important, but that's about it. Here's where you have to rely on realtor photos: "Lovely secluded house in amongst the trees," but when you get there, there's regular next door neighbors, some with hobbies like collecting junk cars stored on blocks of wood under the axles. You end up wondering how the realtor even managed to get that shot.
Quote from: SGOS on February 07, 2018, 06:06:35 AM
Yeah, the street view can give you two or three angles of the front of the house. I suppose it's helpful for checking out the neighborhood, which would be important, but that's about it. Here's where you have to rely on realtor photos: "Lovely secluded house in amongst the trees," but when you get there, there's regular next door neighbors, some with hobbies like collecting junk cars stored on blocks of wood under the axles. You end up wondering how the realtor even managed to get that shot.
Google Earth can show you the neighbors' cars. What it won't show me (even on street view) is my backyard.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 07, 2018, 06:28:45 AM
Google Earth can show you the neighbors' cars. What it won't show me (even on street view) is my backyard.
Earlier satellite view ... I could see my mother's chicken coop!
I think I've seen those Google cars. Last summer there were frequent sightings of minivans just driving around with this rotating thing on top the car. I assumed they were taking street views for Google. They were all similar an unmarked. Maybe they were working for Baruch's deep state Clintons, but I just figured they were Google, which is probably part of the Clinton conspiracy anyway.
Shape of Water 8/10
I think it may have been a bit over-hyped, but it's still a solid film for the genre. Quite entertaining and didn't try to take itself too seriously.
Quote from: SGOS on February 07, 2018, 01:17:15 PM
I think I've seen those Google cars. Last summer there were frequent sightings of minivans just driving around with this rotating thing on top the car. I assumed they were taking street views for Google. They were all similar an unmarked. Maybe they were working for Baruch's deep state Clintons, but I just figured they were Google, which is probably part of the Clinton conspiracy anyway.
Naw, Google is CIA. The cars you saw were Men in Black looking for Reptilians.
Complicated, like reality, like Cloud Atlas ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWnAqFyaQ5s
A thrilling indiana jones inspired adventure!
[spoiler](https://i1.wp.com/www.queermenow.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Dick-Danger-2-Return-Of-The-Dick-TitanMen-Gay-Porn-Liam-Knox.jpg?w=700)[/spoiler]
This looks to be interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3Bu2DOM66g
"Whatever you do, don't panic."
Quote from: SGOS on February 07, 2018, 07:28:57 PM
Shape of Water 8/10
I think it may have been a bit over-hyped, but it's still a solid film for the genre. Quite entertaining and didn't try to take itself too seriously.
I like the premise. I'll have to wait to see the movie on cable, though.
(https://i.imgur.com/AXDpuhU.jpg)
This shit drives me crazy. Blade had a whole trilogy! (Also, Catwoman...but perhaps it'd be wise to forget about that)
Celebrating diversity = okay
Celebrating diversity by forgetting the past = not okay
I can have sympathy. With violation of fictional canon, it is like alternative history ... you are freed from the oppressive past. We all want freedom (for ourselves, not for the other guy). I am divided on the past ... and the future. The present division induces that.
Black Pather Two negative reviews out of 90, and the movie isn't even out yet. Even then, the negatives are hardly scathing.
I got a kick out of this one:
Quote...this mega-budget Marvel marvel might be a misfire for anyone beyond the fan-base...
Beyond the fan-base? Given the success of Marvel films, just what part of the general movie population even exists beyond the fan-base?
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 10, 2018, 09:18:00 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/AXDpuhU.jpg)
This shit drives me crazy. Blade had a whole trilogy! (Also, Catwoman...but perhaps it'd be wise to forget about that)
Celebrating diversity = okay
Celebrating diversity by forgetting the past = not okay
It's millennials trying to get browny points
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 10, 2018, 09:18:00 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/AXDpuhU.jpg)
This shit drives me crazy. Blade had a whole trilogy! (Also, Catwoman...but perhaps it'd be wise to forget about that)
Celebrating diversity = okay
Celebrating diversity by forgetting the past = not okay
I don't know if I would consider Blade a blockbuster though; to say that Blade and a current MCU are even remotely on the same level of cultural relevance is an extreme stretch.
The simple fact is that Black Panther is the first African American superhero film that is getting cross-cultural and cross-generational appeal unlike any before it. Likewise, Blade was rated R and thus meant only for adult audiences, whereas Black Panther is arguably meant for children of all ages. Finally, Blade was a mixed-success film whereas Black Panther by it's very nature is going to be a masterpiece (and thankfully is being backed up by being a quality film as well).
I would say Black Panther is the first relevant African American-lead superhero film to ever be created. I would also point out that while Blade stared an African American actor, it was other wise a "white" film; Black Panther on the other hand is almost entirely cast with African Americans and Africans, and there are almost zero white characters relevant to the plot (at best, they serve minor roles between the protagonist/antagonist plotline).
All in all, I would say it is a questionable statement at worst (Blade could arguably be classified as a blockbuster, but it's not an argument I would inherently agree with, since Blade's budget was about 20 million less on average than the major films that came out in 1998). I will agree with people who say argue it's not the first African American superhero (it's not), but it is certainly the first one of any real cultural relevance.
I don't think that's trying to gain brownie points, I think that's pointing out a simple reality. Black Panther is a 200 million dollar film. It is simply in a different economic, cultural, generational, artistic league from Blade.
And unlike the Last Airbender movie, they aren't using an out of ethnic group actor in the prime role ;-)
For the Jewish among us the movie Hester Street is on YouTube, one of Carol Kane's best performances where there was none of her trademark zaniness, just a quiet immigrant woman playing the part of the traditional wife trying to fit in to a new life in NYC. Nice film of love and divorce around the turn of the 20th century.
In case anyone remembers Fiddler on the Roof Zvee Scooler is the rabi in both films.. it goes without saying you don't have to be Jewish to enjoy the film..
If you're a fan of Scandinavian crime fiction films the streaming service MHz Choice has a bunch and also plenty of other European crime fiction, mostly Scandinavian, but there's Polish, German, Italian, French, etc.
For about $8 month there's plenty of full series.
Strange watching Scandinavian crime fiction one might be lead to think the Scandinavian countries are the most crime ridden places on earth.. I kind of doubt they are..
www.mhzchoice.com worth the $8
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on February 12, 2018, 12:30:35 AM
For the Jewish among us the movie Hester Street is on YouTube, one of Carol Kane's best performances where there was none of her trademark zaniness, just a quiet immigrant woman playing the part of the traditional wife trying to fit in to a new life in NYC. Nice film of love and divorce around the turn of the 20th century.
In case anyone remembers Fiddler on the Roof Zvee Scooler is the rabi in both films.. it goes without saying you don't have to be Jewish to enjoy the film..
True. So you are defending Al Jolson then?
A little ethnic humor from that actual time period/place ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsd7jUNY4vk
Regarding Armstrong: He spend hours in trainers doing that the maneuver that allowed him to pick his landing spot. Conspiracy nuts say that because he nearly died in a trainer prior to the launch it proves this couldn't be done. However, the lander simulator was an older model and Armstrong had hours in the new ones. His maneuver on the Moon was equivalent to his 100th carrier landing.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 12, 2018, 08:28:27 AM
Regarding Armstrong: He spend hours in trainers doing that the maneuver that allowed him to pick his landing spot. Conspiracy nuts say that because he nearly died in a trainer prior to the launch it proves this couldn't be done. However, the lander simulator was an older model and Armstrong had hours in the new ones. His maneuver on the Moon was equivalent to his 100th carrier landing.
There are bigger problems with moon landing scepticism.
https://youtu.be/zhp-FTYSGe8
Dropping a hammer and a feather was enough to convince me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2018, 10:19:42 AM
I can have sympathy. With violation of fictional canon, it is like alternative history ... you are freed from the oppressive past. We all want freedom (for ourselves, not for the other guy). I am divided on the past ... and the future. The present division induces that.
I bet it thuds... I don't want it to, but I bet it will.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 12, 2018, 10:57:33 AM
There are bigger problems with moon landing scepticism.
https://youtu.be/zhp-FTYSGe8
Life's too short to watch unsummarized youtubes.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 13, 2018, 07:48:01 AM
Life's too short to watch unsummarized youtubes.
Ack! I LIKE Adam. Don't tell me he ruins the moon landing...
Actually, today, it could be very well faked. But not then. We have to remember the technology differences between 1969 and today.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2018, 09:28:31 AM
Ack! I LIKE Adam. Don't tell me he ruins the moon landing...
Actually, today, it could be very well faked. But not then. We have to remember the technology differences between 1969 and today.
Did not watch the video--but the title says he tells why the landing could not have been faked.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2018, 11:31:25 AM
Did not watch the video--but the title says he tells why the landing could not have been faked.
Actually, it was a better than average video, I thought.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2018, 09:28:31 AM
Ack! I LIKE Adam. Don't tell me he ruins the moon landing...
Actually, today, it could be very well faked. But not then. We have to remember the technology differences between 1969 and today.
Actually, the video tells all the reasons why faking the moon landing would have been impractical. It literally would have taken more effort and money to fake than to do it for real.
And for fuck sake, people. It's a less than five minute clip, and it's an entertaining show. Are you seriously that opposed to watching any video that is shared here?
Quote from: SGOS on February 13, 2018, 11:42:58 AM
Actually, it was a better than average video, I thought.
Well, I have not seen that episode, but based on his past history of successful "ruins", if he has a topic it means he is going to prove it is fake. Since I doubt he can in this case, it sets up a cognitive dissonance...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2018, 01:19:15 PM
Well, I have not seen that episode, but based on his past history of successful "ruins", if he has a topic it means he is going to prove it is fake. Since I doubt he can in this case, it sets up a cognitive dissonance...
In this case, he's ruining the arguments of people who want to believe that the moon landing was fake. For example, in order to simulate the appearance of distant sunlight, they would have had to create brand new white color laser technology, spend a ton of money stacking thousands of those lasers close together, and then keep that technology secret for decades. It would have literally cost them more money to do that than to build a rocket and go to the moon.
You know how, "The Dark Knight" trilogy transcended superhero movies and became their own works of art?
Yeah, "Black Panther" does that. It is a superhero movie in dress only; it's core is a story of the rise of a king and a celebration of African culture as well as recognition of the darkness that has surrounded it (and not always from "the white man" but from within as well).
It's just a great movie. Ranking it seems pointless, because it's not in the same genre as regular movies. The biggest criticism of it I have is that it could have been even better, but in terms of it doing anything poorly... cant say I have any.
Black Panther 9/10
When I create a list of the essential ingredients used by Hollywood to make an origin story for a superhero movie, Marvel has those covered in this one, but it still doesn't strike me as a typical origin story. Maybe the elements are a softer sell this time around, and IMO this is a good thing. With the volume of Superhero movies suddenly thrust on us, I have wondered when they would finally start to create a fatigue. The Black Panther premise adds a new dimension that results in a very entertaining story. And while the Panther leaps, springs, and pounces his way about the movie, his real talent, hidden from the public and the media, is an awesome and unsuspected power that will no doubt come to bear when he joins the rest of the Avengers.
I've noticed several user reviews that tried to bring race into the discussion, but honestly, I didn't think about race while watching. It's like you have to look for it if you want to make it an issue, except for a two minute speech where Marvel interrupts the final credits to foreshadow the next film, and that speech was much too subtle to be anything other than a heart warming optimism about mankind. Marvel just wants to make fun films that please audiences, and they nailed that yet again with an unusually charming and surprising well thought out story.
7/10
Black Panther
It felt it was missing something. Rotten tomatoes says its better than the Avenger witch is bull crap.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on February 16, 2018, 09:10:00 PM
7/10
Black Panther
It felt it was missing something. Rotten tomatoes says its better than the Avenger witch is bull crap.
It's hard to beat the Avengers the way the characters get to play off each other. But it can't be all about the Avengers or it would eventually tend to wear thin. Better than the Avengers? Perhaps just on the tomato meter. I wouldn't make that claim personally. But some will.
Quote from: SGOS on February 16, 2018, 09:40:24 PM
It's hard to beat the Avengers the way the characters get to play off each other. But it can't be all about the Avengers or it would eventually tend to wear thin. Better than the Avengers? Perhaps just on the tomato meter. I wouldn't make that claim personally. But some will.
Captain America as rated poorer than both which is odd because it was my favorite Marvel movie
Death Note - 7/10
I was entertained. Haven't watched any of the anime it's based on.
Quote from: Sal1981 on February 16, 2018, 10:03:05 PM
Death Note - 7/10
I was entertained. Haven't watched any of the anime it's based on.
The anime is 1000 times better. It becomes this great cat-and-mouse between killer and cops, with plenty of twists and complications. JUST AS PLANNED.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on February 16, 2018, 09:54:08 PM
Captain America as rated poorer than both which is odd because it was my favorite Marvel movie
At best, I only draw very general conclusions from those composite scores. It does do a good job at pointing out that even among top critics there is going to be differences in tastes. While 98% is unusually high for Panther, there is no guarantee that everyone is going to follow the critics lead and score it above 70%. I do get a kick out of watching myself disagree with the tomato meter from time to time. And when it comes to Star Wars, I have totally given up trying to understand what drives the tomato meter so high. I just don't get it.
Quote from: Sal1981 on February 16, 2018, 10:03:05 PM
Death Note - 7/10
I was entertained. Haven't watched any of the anime it's based on.
The anime was a lot more clever. The movie is an action film, while the anime is more of a battle of wits between two super intelligent people. I honestly think a lot of people would have liked the movie better if it were a sequel to the anime, rather than a retelling. Besides Ryuk, the characters are nothing like their original counterparts.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 16, 2018, 10:10:42 PM
The anime is 1000 times better. It becomes this great cat-and-mouse between killer and cops, with plenty of twists and complications. JUST AS PLANNED.
The great thing about the anime is that you can't tell which is the cat and which is the mouse. They both think they have the upper hand on the other. One of the things L acknowledges himself is that he and Light have a lot in common. They enjoy their competition, and they're both arrogantly confident they will win over the other.
Quote from: SGOS on February 16, 2018, 10:20:15 PM
At best, I only draw very general conclusions from those composite scores. It does do a good job at pointing out that even among top critics there is going to be differences in tastes. While 98% is unusually high for Panther, there is no guarantee that everyone is going to follow the critics lead and score it above 70%. I do get a kick out of watching myself disagree with the tomato meter from time to time. And when it comes to Star Wars, I have totally given up trying to understand what drives the tomato meter so high. I just don't get it.
Political Propaganda.
I cant find one damn okay review without people telling me its the best thing ever. Thats super shady.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/a9bf6ba0863c553ad322418d5545fde5/tumblr_p4aicqc4gK1s9c6nao1_540.jpg)
This to me is complete twoddle. In order to hype this one up they now need to downplay other black heroes to make black panther seem more relevant?
I enjoyed blade, Luke Cage us a great character and very relatable. I find them on the same level as the x-men or spiderman, grounded characters.
T'challa the prince of an extremely wealthy nation that ignores the rest of the world including the rest of africa with starvation and disease, oh yes, THATS a relatable character!
Has he ever dealt with racial inequality? nope, he's a prince in a closed off nation. Has he ever dealt with the hardships of being a mutant in the marvel universe? See first. Hell even Thor, the prince of Asgard, was more relatable because he was cast down from asgard and had to live like a mortal, the struggles of being powerless and growing up from a man-child to an adult.
I mean if we're at this stage we need to push aside other black figures, hey, fuck martin luther king, he's old news!
Edit - Not going to give a long response actually, because it doesn't need one.
Ultimately, the problem here is this; they have a world view that is different than yours, and have very different life experiences that cause him to be a relatable character for different reasons than you. That doesn't mean they are wrong just because they find more meaning in his character where you don't.
You have the luxury of viewing African Americans in media in a way they don't, because African Americans in media do not represent you like they do them. For African Americans, he represents something that they have never really had; a character who transcends the "good guy"/"criminal" black man archtype, and is instead is just a human character... and is presented on a scale that no African American has ever reached before. I know you keep on bringing up "Blade", but that movie is at best a B-film in comparison to the size and cultural relevance of Black Panther.
To go to your MLK hyperbole, Black Panther would be MLK and Blade would be Anna Arnold Hedgeman, or T'Challa Rosa Parks and Irene Morgan Kirklady.... both Anna Hedgeman and Ms. Kirklady were pioneers, but they are nowhere near as culturally relevant or who's actions spread so far as MLK and Parks. Same for BP and Blade.
Just saw it as well. While I enjoyed it, I was disappointed that I thought it would inspire more, but perhaps it did for black kids. My daughters boyfriend did not seem all that impressed with it, though I think maybe he intentionally downplayed any excitement for it for whatever reason he may have.
Quote from: aitm on February 18, 2018, 07:34:35 PM
Just saw it as well. While I enjoyed it, I was disappointed that I thought it would inspire more, but perhaps it did for black kids. My daughters boyfriend did not seem all that impressed with it, though I think maybe he intentionally downplayed any excitement for it for whatever reason he may have.
or, you know, maybe they managed to ignore the hype and just tried to watch the movie as it was intended, as a super hero movie and not some overt political piece people are making it out to be.
Quote from: Munch on February 18, 2018, 08:29:25 PM
or, you know, maybe they managed to ignore the hype and just tried to watch the view as it was intended, as a super hero movie and not some overt political piece people are making it out to be.
meh..potato potahto.
Wow, I really haven't been around much lately! Baruch is an Ubermensch and I don't even know who he/she is!
I generally watch the majority of superhero movies that come out, though I miss some. I generally think of them as short-term entertainment. Okay for a 2-hour diversion but ultimately usually very forgettable.
I get why a lot of people like Black Panther. It is different. Its use of African themes and a mostly black cast is certainly unusual in a big-budget superhero film. The villain is better than most, he has legitimate sympathetic motivations. But, how did I actually like the movie? Well, it was "just okay". At least to me.
But I also totally get that other people love it, and that's great.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on February 18, 2018, 09:13:59 PM
Wow, I really haven't been around much lately! Baruch is an Ubermensch and I don't even know who he/she is!
I generally watch the majority of superhero movies that come out, though I miss some. I generally think of them as short-term entertainment. Okay for a 2-hour diversion but ultimately usually very forgettable.
I get why a lot of people like Black Panther. It is different. Its use of African themes and a mostly black cast is certainly unusual in a big-budget superhero film. The villain is better than most, he has legitimate sympathetic motivations. But, how did I actually like the movie? Well, it was "just okay". At least to me.
But I also totally get that other people love it, and that's great.
Yes, as soon as I crossed 20,000 posts, the same day, Atheistforums.com crashed! That is some superpower! BTW ... you don't have to be a Jewish demigod to be an Ubermensch ... just a demigod. Shiranu is a demigod too.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on February 18, 2018, 09:13:59 PM
Wow, I really haven't been around much lately! Baruch is an Ubermensch and I don't even know who he/she is!
I generally watch the majority of superhero movies that come out, though I miss some. I generally think of them as short-term entertainment. Okay for a 2-hour diversion but ultimately usually very forgettable.
I get why a lot of people like Black Panther. It is different. Its use of African themes and a mostly black cast is certainly unusual in a big-budget superhero film. The villain is better than most, he has legitimate sympathetic motivations. But, how did I actually like the movie? Well, it was "just okay". At least to me.
But I also totally get that other people love it, and that's great.
First of, welcome back :).
Second of, I'll totally agree with all of that, even that the film wasn't, from a strictly cinematic viewpoint, the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Quote from: Munch on February 18, 2018, 03:12:56 PM
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/a9bf6ba0863c553ad322418d5545fde5/tumblr_p4aicqc4gK1s9c6nao1_540.jpg)
War Machine would take extreme exception to being called a sidekick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=643gjMMQXFo
Quote from: Shiranu on February 18, 2018, 09:56:40 PM
First of, welcome back :).
Thanks. I really haven't been motivated to participate heavily in forums of late. But, I do, from time to time, read or post movie reviews here. That is about all I have done on this forum for several years now.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 18, 2018, 10:26:30 PM
War Machine would take extreme exception to being called a sidekick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=643gjMMQXFo
Meh. He's Iron Man, but with different colors. He's basically to Iron Man what Robin is to Batman. Coincidentally, Iron Man also has a Batgirl in the form of Ironheart.
So I just realised Cage is an ex-convict...
I'm sorry, but your Cage being a badass comment is irrelevant... he is still a walking stereotype then, and has every reason to be considered one.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 18, 2018, 11:43:27 PMMeh. He's Iron Man, but with different colors. He's basically to Iron Man what Robin is to Batman.
Don't judge a book by its cover. Physically, they're just palette swaps. But personality-wise, Rodney is VERY different from Stark.
Rodney is a lot more interventionist, more militant (the name is a dead giveaway), less future-oriented and more now-oriented, more realistic and less idealistic, etc. War Machine's more likely to go in guns blazing, while Iron Man is more likely to initially taunt his opponent and put up a token fight while finding then exploiting a weakness to secure a win. Also, Rodney isn't a tech genius like Stark, but he has more of a warrior's bearing. The pair is the perfect red oni, blue oni (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Laconic/RedOniBlueOni). You could even say that their differences are pretty Stark, hehe.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 19, 2018, 12:08:20 AM
So I just realised Cage is an ex-convict...
I'm sorry, but your Cage being a badass comment is irrelevant... he is still a walking stereotype then, and has every reason to be considered one.
Back when the x-men were at their height, wolverine was one of the most popular characters, even having toys, games, soft toys and costumes of the character made for children.
(http://www.cutesense.com/cutesense/product/04089/enlarge/Marvel_Heroes_X-man_Wolverine_Plush_Doll_Figure_1.jpg)
Wanna know what he did a lot of?
(http://www.4thletter.net/gavok/wolverine/doofy.jpg)
Your excuses for why Luke cage wouldn't be a good role model is just reaching when a writer would simply rework the character origins like they do every interpretation of the characters
(https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1Jq5segnH8KJjSspcq6z3QFXaW/WM405-Classic-Luke-Cage-Single-Sale-Super-Hero-Power-Man-Jessica-Jones-Building-BlockFigures-Super-Heroes.jpg_640x640.jpg)
Know who else was an ex-criminal? Rogue, Storm, deadpool, gambit, black widow, Hawkeye, characters reform and turn good, its called giving them depth. Oh but 'A BLACK EX-CON, SUCH A STEREOTUPE' is apparently the bar for you.
Quote from: Munch on February 18, 2018, 03:12:56 PM
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/a9bf6ba0863c553ad322418d5545fde5/tumblr_p4aicqc4gK1s9c6nao1_540.jpg)
This to me is complete twoddle. In order to hype this one up they now need to downplay other black heroes to make black panther seem more relevant?
I enjoyed blade, Luke Cage us a great character and very relatable. I find them on the same level as the x-men or spiderman, grounded characters.
T'challa the prince of an extremely wealthy nation that ignores the rest of the world including the rest of africa with starvation and disease, oh yes, THATS a relatable character!
Wow. That makes a lot of sense. I used to read the Marvel comics and thought he seemed to just pop out of no where.
Has he ever dealt with racial inequality? nope, he's a prince in a closed off nation. Has he ever dealt with the hardships of being a mutant in the marvel universe? See first. Hell even Thor, the prince of Asgard, was more relatable because he was cast down from asgard and had to live like a mortal, the struggles of being powerless and growing up from a man-child to an adult.
I mean if we're at this stage we need to push aside other black figures, hey, fuck martin luther king, he's old news!
QuoteWanna know what he did a lot of?
Yeah... he is also white, who (spoiler alert) aren't portrayed as criminals or bad guys or ex-bad guys 95% of the time.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 19, 2018, 10:20:28 AM
Yeah... he is also white, who (spoiler alert) aren't portrayed as criminals or bad guys or ex-bad guys 95% of the time.
whats that, you assuming thats all black people are portrayed as in media? Sounds pretty racist to me.
Quote from: Munch on February 19, 2018, 11:40:52 AM
whats that, you assuming thats all black people are portrayed as in media? Sounds pretty racist to me.
Col. Rhodes was definitely a war criminal. I mean heck, he was US military, ipso facto.
;)
Quote from: Munch on February 19, 2018, 11:40:52 AM
whats that, you assuming thats all black people are portrayed as in media? Sounds pretty racist to me.
You shouldn't act like such an idiot, people might start mistaking you for one.
African Americans are portrayed a certain way in the media; Asian Americans are portrayed a certain way in the media. It's typecasting (you know, where an actor or actress is assigned similar roles and often struggles to get something different because they are considered the appropriate "look" for the role) on a racial level, and if you don't think that exists... then you clearly know about as close to literally nothing about the movie industry as you can get.
This is not a "new" problem, it's something African Americans and especially Asian Americans have been dealing with for decades. It's something that even the industry has admitted at times is a problem.
I mean honestly... it's one thing to not share an opinion on the cultural relevance of a movie, and another to start denying that racism within the movie industry exists (and if you point that out, you are somehow the racist).
You are just like the SJWs you criticise, though thankfully just like them, people like you are largely irrelevant in the real world when it comes to these issues.
Once all movies are in Chinese, played by Chinese actors, produced by Chinese producers, directed by Chinese directors ... you will love our Chinese overlords. Great Leap Forward with the Cultural Revolution!
Quote from: Shiranu on February 19, 2018, 10:20:28 AM
Yeah... he is also white, who (spoiler alert) aren't portrayed as criminals or bad guys or ex-bad guys 95% of the time.
But they should be. All humans are evil. Breaking Bad ... wasn't that a Chinese trans Mexican?
In the theme of the casino.
Who dealt with this sphere of earnings?
I've been sitting on this site about Link Removed
and I really like to do it, though earlier rejected this method.
Maybe someone can give me useful advice or a website?
Don't spam, @NicholasCatrow
The Florida Project 5/10 (96% at Rotten Tomatoes)
A depressing snap shot of American life on the other side of the tracks on a low budget. I think it's fairly accurate portrayal of poor parenting, kids out of control, and conning others, but I can't say it's my first choice in subject matter. I'm perplexed by Rotten Tomatoes once again. I've encountered these types of people on a few occasions in my life, and it's not about people I want to hang with or even watch. The acting was very good. The script seemed a bit cobbled together, and I admit, I couldn't stop watching it, but I have to wonder who really needs this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KB5QbOS4s4
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape2/images/e/e5/Milking_cow.gif/revision/latest?cb=20170728041454)
Annihilation 7/10
I enjoyed this, but I don't know what happened. I don't think the other people in the theater did either. It's one of those mystery themes that is designed to be illusive, but I don't think understanding is possible. This was the same director that made Ex Machina, but not near as good or thought provoking, I didn't think. Interesting visuals kept my attention.
Quote from: Munch on February 24, 2018, 11:13:51 AM
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape2/images/e/e5/Milking_cow.gif/revision/latest?cb=20170728041454)
Cuz the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate...
(https://media.giphy.com/media/XcSt9UmVLAVRm/giphy.gif)
Storks - 6/10
Entertaining & silly.
Quote from: SGOS on February 24, 2018, 11:24:11 AM
Annihilation 7/10
I enjoyed this, but I don't know what happened. I don't think the other people in the theater did either. It's one of those mystery themes that is designed to be illusive, but I don't think understanding is possible. This was the same director that made Ex Machina, but not near as good or thought provoking, I didn't think. Interesting visuals kept my attention.
When I saw the trailer for Annihilation, I loved the premise. There's some crazy anomaly - this shimmering field and everything inside the field is strange; physics don't physics, life is bizarre, etc. Nothing makes sense. The mystery of it all is incredibly fascinating.
Then, it's a straight up action film set 2 minutes to doomsday. I mean, why have a mystery when you can have When Animals Attack: Mutated Alligator edition, amirite? *overwhelming disappointment*
The movie reminds me of Sphere except even more poorly written. Maybe I'm wrong, but I had a pretty intensely negative first impression which is such a shame because I think that the mysterious anomaly premise (sans mutated alligator) has a lot of premise.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 24, 2018, 11:42:26 AM
Cuz the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate...
oh no I don't hate the movie, just over zealous hippies acting like this is the next citizen kane when its just a super hero movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdbbfkKmpT0&t=1227s
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 24, 2018, 12:28:48 PM
When I saw the trailer for Annihilation, I loved the premise. There's some crazy anomaly - this shimmering field and everything inside the field is strange; physics don't physics, life is bizarre, etc. Nothing makes sense. The mystery of it all is incredibly fascinating.
Then, it's a straight up action film set 2 minutes to doomsday. I mean, why have a mystery when you can have When Animals Attack: Mutated Alligator edition, amirite? *overwhelming disappointment*
The movie reminds me of Sphere except even more poorly written. Maybe I'm wrong, but I had a pretty intensely negative first impression which is such a shame because I think that the mysterious anomaly premise (sans mutated alligator) has a lot of premise.
Things happen during the action, but it's pretty generic stuff, just attacks that must be repelled. It seems like the shimmer part could have been developed into something more. It does give a quick clue at the end to ponder, but it wasn't very satisfying. It just left me with a, "Well, OK then," and I walked out.
Quote from: SGOS on February 24, 2018, 01:21:53 PM
Things happen during the action, but it's pretty generic stuff, just attacks that must be repelled. It seems like the shimmer part could have been developed into something more. It does give a quick clue at the end to ponder, but it wasn't very satisfying. It just left me with a, "Well, OK then," and I walked out.
A reviewer on radio said it was a rather well done movie, and liked the female cast as strong characters. I look forward to a day when that doesn't seem important. But until then, let's have more movies with strong characters of groups who have been ignored too long.
This might turn out to be a good Century...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 25, 2018, 11:25:58 AM
A reviewer on radio said it was a rather well done movie, and liked the female cast as strong characters. I look forward to a day when that doesn't seem important. But until then, let's have more movies with strong characters of groups who have been ignored too long.
This might turn out to be a good Century...
The gals were tough enough, to be sure, but part of the influence of being in the shimmer was that they start to lose their minds, as do the men, and if I remember right, there was only one survivor. Still they were strong women. I'm a little puzzled about the good reviews overall. I'm wondering what I missed.
Quote from: SGOS on February 25, 2018, 12:16:25 PM
The gals were tough enough, to be sure, but part of the influence of being in the shimmer was that they start to lose their minds, as do the men, and if I remember right, there was only one survivor. Still they were strong women. I'm a little puzzled about the good reviews overall. I'm wondering what I missed.
I haven't seen the movie yet. Going theoretical from the reviews...
Game Night 6/10
Compared to the usual Hollywood comedies, it's better than average. I actually laughed a few times, but not like the guy behind me. I wondered if he was laughing so loud because he thought he was expected to or because he actually thought it was funny. The audience would laugh at jokes, but over the din, there was always this guy, out-laughing everyone else. I had to resist the urge to turn around and look at him to see if he looked weird.
Quote from: SGOS on February 28, 2018, 05:33:23 AM
Game Night 6/10
Compared to the usual Hollywood comedies, it's better than average. I actually laughed a few times, but not like the guy behind me. I wondered if he was laughing so loud because he thought he was expected to or because he actually thought it was funny. The audience would laugh at jokes, but over the din, there was always this guy, out-laughing everyone else. I had to resist the urge to turn around and look at him to see if he looked weird.
There is always someone at any movie who manages to ruin the experience. That is one reason I stopped going. Another was teenagers running around . The theater owner apologized too many times. He was afraid to confront them. A 3rd reason was just general uncleanliness in the theater.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 28, 2018, 08:24:48 AM
There is always someone at any movie who manages to ruin the experience. That is one reason I stopped going. Another was teenagers running around . The theater owner apologized too many times. He was afraid to confront them. A 3rd reason was just general uncleanliness in the theater.
There are two clean and well run theaters about 40 miles from my house where I go. There are a couple dumps like you describe closer. I've been to each one once. They are depressing to me, and very poorly attended.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 28, 2018, 08:24:48 AM
There is always someone at any movie who manages to ruin the experience. That is one reason I stopped going. Another was teenagers running around . The theater owner apologized too many times. He was afraid to confront them. A 3rd reason was just general uncleanliness in the theater.
The only time I go to theaters anymore is to see Fritz the Nite Owl (http://niteowltv.wixsite.com/main) or The Mads Are Back (https://www.themadsareback.com/). If it's a movie by itself that I want to see, I'll wait until it's on DVD or Netflix. I don't do large groups of people if I can avoid it.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 28, 2018, 08:24:48 AM
There is always someone at any movie who manages to ruin the experience. That is one reason I stopped going. Another was teenagers running around . The theater owner apologized too many times. He was afraid to confront them. A 3rd reason was just general uncleanliness in the theater.
Teenagers are feral, there is a reason why they used to be "invited" to join the colonial armies/navies.
Quote from: SGOS on February 28, 2018, 10:34:44 AM
There are two clean and well run theaters about 40 miles from my house where I go. There are a couple dumps like you describe closer. I've been to each one once. They are depressing to me, and very poorly attended.
Not 40 miles from HERE, sadly. The one around here is trsh dump. And they can't figure out why no adults attend...
Quote from: Baruch on February 28, 2018, 02:18:08 PM
Teenagers are feral, there is a reason why they used to be "invited" to join the colonial armies/navies.
Well *I* remember what it was like to hormone-driven and non-pre-frontal brain-addled. I used to just wait until they wanted jobs. Now I don't even have to do THAT much. I just let them shovel my driveway of snow for what they consider ungodly amounts of money that I just laugh at.
Hey, I used to do that myself.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 24, 2018, 12:28:48 PM
When I saw the trailer for Annihilation, I loved the premise. There's some crazy anomaly - this shimmering field and everything inside the field is strange; physics don't physics, life is bizarre, etc. Nothing makes sense. The mystery of it all is incredibly fascinating.
Yep, "Stranger Things" Season One.
Quote
Then, it's a straight up action film set 2 minutes to doomsday.
Then everything that wasn't "Stranger Things" Season One.
Admittedly, I could really go for Stranger Things: The Movie
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 28, 2018, 06:26:18 PM
Admittedly, I could really go for Stranger Things: The Movie
Never saw it...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 28, 2018, 03:22:53 PM
Not 40 miles from HERE, sadly. The one around here is trsh dump. And they can't figure out why no adults attend...
You needn't go unless you have a skanky girlfriend ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on February 28, 2018, 06:37:54 PM
Never saw it...
Movies that don't (yet) exist tend to be like that.
So I saw Thor: Ragnarok. It was kinda meh. Pretty much what you'd expect from a Thor movie. It has its strengths, but it has its flaws.
First off, I love the splashes of color (https://www.cbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/thor-ragnarok-header.jpg). I liked the actors - particularly the scenes with Doctor Strange. The action scenes were well done. And it had a very good ending.
Its biggest flaw is that there's something seriously messed up with the humor here. It's so goofy and Buffyesque that it actually kind of hurts the tone of the film. This is Ragnarok - Twilight of the Gods - it's some seriously dark and somber stuff. Instead, most everybody acts in this slapstick, goofball way that doesn't match either the characters or the circumstances. It's really jarring. And a lot of the jokes were basically on this level (https://media.giphy.com/media/xT4Ap7ejI4dNM6ZA9a/source.gif). That probably hurt the film more than anything else.
Whoever compared this to Guardians of the Galaxy ought to be...I dunno...I challenge you to a dance off or something. The reason the humor worked in Guardians is that it's sarcasm used to cover deep emotional pain (Rocket), frivolity masking insecurity and loneliness (Quill), or naivety (Groot). The humor works because it informs you about the characters.
The humor in Thor is nothing like that. It doesn't reveal anything about anybody. It's like a writer sat down at the writers' room and said, "You know what'd be hilarious? If Thor saw Hulk's penis!" and everyone in the room thought it was stupid but no one had the guts to say that out loud so it went unchallenged. That's what the humor was in this movie. Let's try everything and no one can say no to anything. So there's some good jokes mixed in with mediocre and bad jokes.
[spoiler]That and Loki's rulership of Asgard was a pretty weak payoff. The trickster God achieves unrivaled power and the only mischief he gets up to was a self-praising play and a statue of himself. That's pretty tame, amateur hour stuff. I expected a lot more than that. Asgard on the brink of chaos, at the very least. Loki's reign is remarkably sedate.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Cavebear on February 28, 2018, 06:37:54 PM
Never saw it...
The series is on Netflix and is worth a watch.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 01, 2018, 10:14:33 PM
So I saw Thor: Ragnarok. It was kinda meh.
I think I may have mentioned that I've been wondering when the success of Marvel movies would start to fade. It's been such a wild and remarkable ride that Marvel has given us, but Hollywood trends come and go, and I don't think the momentum can be sustained. I often forget and think that superheroes began with the Marvel franchise, but then I remember watching Superman on TV and Michael Keaton's Batman in the last century, not that I would bother re-watching them now. Maybe there is only so much that can be done at each level of advancement. As it goes with sequels, the first scripts often seem inspirational. The next scripts start to feel stale, and then it seems as if writers run out of material. Is this the beginning of the end for Marvel? I hope not, but I think it will happen sometime.
Marvel might be losing it's luster. Maybe it's audience fatigue and/or maybe they have shot their creative wad, which can happen as writers and creators over extend themselves trying to make things new and different. For myself, when I have an inspirational idea, it usually turns out well, but when I try to do it again, it almost always falls flat. It seems like good ideas have a shelf life.
Quote from: SGOS on March 02, 2018, 08:16:42 AM
Marvel might be losing it's luster. Maybe it's audience fatigue and/or maybe they have shot their creative wad, which can happen as writers and creators over extend themselves trying to make things new and different.
Nah. It's just one movie that was a bit overhyped (the promotional posters are gorgeous, tho). And frankly, I've never been thrilled by any of the Thor films.
But I'm still pumped for Infinity War and Ms Marvel and Deadpool 2 and just about everything else in the works. Probably half the films I watch are Marvel movies. They've carved out one hell of a niche in the cinematic landscape.
If DC takes over or (more likely) no one wants to watch superhero movies anymore, then yes, they're in trouble. Until then, a mediocre Thor movie mostly just hurts future Thor movies, but Marvel as a whole.
And about running out of ideas, they have 50+ years of material to work with. I would kill to see Annihilation, Secret Invasion, Illuminati, Dark Reign, Annihilation Conquest, War of Kings, and Darkhawk. And that's just off the top of my head.
I'm just wondering what they're going to do after the blue skinned bad guy they've been teasing us with since the first Avengers has come and gone.
Speaking of stale, though, Spider-Man movies. Ugh. He's been rebooted so many times. If Homecoming were the first Spider-Man movie I'd ever seen, I probably would have liked it, but the comparisons I was making to the other movies just made it underwhelming to me. And weird, very weird. Now there's going to be a Venom movie that is separate from the MCU canon. Just...why?
And yet, no love for Green Lantern ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 02, 2018, 10:25:57 AM
I'm just wondering what they're going to do after the blue skinned bad guy they've been teasing us with since the first Avengers has come and gone.
Thanos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanos).
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 02, 2018, 10:25:57 AM
Speaking of stale, though, Spider-Man movies. Ugh. He's been rebooted so many times. If Homecoming were the first Spider-Man movie I'd ever seen, I probably would have liked it, but the comparisons I was making to the other movies just made it underwhelming to me. And weird, very weird. Now there's going to be a Venom movie that is separate from the MCU canon. Just...why?
Whollyweird is never, ever original.
Quote from: Baruch on March 02, 2018, 01:12:37 PM
And yet, no love for Green Lantern ;-)
(http://aaronmorrsigaming.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/ryan-reynolds-deadpool-green-lantern.jpg)
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 02, 2018, 03:06:59 PM
(http://aaronmorrsigaming.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/ryan-reynolds-deadpool-green-lantern.jpg)
"Please don't make the suit green. Or animated!"
DC is probably (finally) learning from Marvel. Characters matter more than costumes.
Hotarubi no Mori e (Into the Forest of Fireflies' Light) - Just a super cute, 40 minute animated film about a not-quite-spirit and a human that fall in love, but are incapable of touching one another. It is both light-hearted and emotionally heavy, and I think it's a nice shift from American film. I would recommend it, it feels much more like a story you would read than watch.
Darkest Hour 9/10
It was 2:04 hours long, but I could have watched another two hours.
Watched "Predators' last night. I figured out who would last pretty quickly, and that weird guy of no apparent skill bothered me from the start. Not the Most Wanted one, the quiet one. I don't quite understand the ending when stuff dropped out of the sky. Was that just more animals to hunt, or the start of a human army?
Quote from: SGOS on March 05, 2018, 02:24:42 PM
Darkest Hour 9/10
It was 2:04 hours long, but I could have watched another two hours.
There was three movies on this last year, Darkest Hour, Churchill and Dunkirk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVOzMZ4IrMA
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2018, 10:54:14 PM
There was three movies on this last year, Darkest Hour, Churchill and Dunkirk.
I missed Churchill. I guess I didn't know about it, although I can't explain how. It apparently adds the element of America's entry into the war, which are those extra two hours Darkest Hour left out that I could have easily sat through.
Quote from: SGOS on March 06, 2018, 12:34:49 AM
I missed Churchill. I guess I didn't know about it, although I can't explain how. It apparently adds the element of America's entry into the war, which are those extra two hours Darkest Hour left out that I could have easily sat through.
If you watched the clip ... it is about the decision to go/no-go on D-Day.
Quote from: Baruch on March 06, 2018, 07:13:51 AM
If you watched the clip ... it is about the decision to go/no-go on D-Day.
Yeah, I caught that.
The movie Churchill may not have played in theaters here. Reviews from Users at Amazon were dismal with 41% giving it one star. Lack of historical accuracy was a common criticism, but such a low score usually signals other flaws as well.
Red Sparrow 5/10
Brutally sadistic and sexually explicit, the movie is kind of a bore, and not easy to follow. I'd have to see it again to make sense out of the plot, but I don't really want to sit through it again. I didn't actually fall a sleep, I don't think, but I "rested my eyes" quite often and listened to the dialog. Then I would realize I wasn't even listening, and rouse myself back to rally mode, which I simply could not sustain for more than 5 minutes. Jennifer Lawrence and the male lead both did a good job, as did the rest of the supporting cast, but the whole thing was poorly written, dimly lit, slow moving, and monotonously morose.
Quote from: SGOS on March 05, 2018, 02:24:42 PM
Darkest Hour 9/10
It was 2:04 hours long, but I could have watched another two hours.
Seen it four times now. I had tears in my eyes during the final speech. Halifax was right, "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle."
What I didn't know going in was how convenient Lord Lothian's death was for WSC.
Quote from: SGOS on March 06, 2018, 07:46:09 AM
The movie Churchill may not have played in theaters here. Reviews from Users at Amazon were dismal with 41% giving it one star. Lack of historical accuracy was a common criticism, but such a low score usually signals other flaws as well.
"The Gathering Storm" and "Into the Storm" are on Amazon Prime. (Albert Finney and Brendan Frazier star in those.)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
Brendan Fraser
Brendan Gleeson. I think Brendan Fraser was abducted by aliens. I haven't seen him in a movie for 10 years.
I haven't seen either of the "... Storm" movies, but I put them on my order list.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 06, 2018, 06:51:02 PM
Seen it four times now. I had tears in my eyes during the final speech. Halifax was right, "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle."
What I didn't know going in was how convenient Lord Lothian's death was for WSC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Kerr,_11th_Marquess_of_Lothian
Mostly an appeaser, right on some things, wrong on others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wood,_1st_Earl_of_Halifax
Another appeaser ... conveniently exiled to the US. Promising to defend Poland, when the Brits had no means to do so, was stupid as well.
Quote from: SGOS on March 07, 2018, 05:44:36 AM
Brendan Gleeson. I think Brendan Fraser was abducted by aliens. I haven't seen him in a movie for 10 years.
I haven't seen either of the "... Storm" movies, but I put them on my order list.
Hey, I was working without a net there.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
"The Gathering Storm" and "Into the Storm" are on Amazon Prime. (Albert Finney and Brendan Frazier star in those.)
Saw most clips of the first one, has good music. Haven't seen the second one.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 06, 2018, 06:51:02 PM
What I didn't know going in was how convenient Lord Lothian's death was for WSC.
I didn't know who that was until I looked him up. I don't remember Darkest Hour talking about him, or showing him. I'll be looking for him on my second watching of the film.
In retrospect, it's hard to understand the majority party's appeasement policy toward Hitler. But then we now have the advantage of hindsight. I can understand that early on Hitler may have been viewed as just another noisy dictator, and Parliament eventually did have the presence of mind to throw the appeasers out, but it was none too soon.
Another mystery is how a devastated Germany after the WWI could have rebuilt such a massive cutting edge military in such a short time. Was this known to the Allies, or was Hitler able to hide the build up from Allied intelligence? OK, Germany had 20 years to do this, but it seems like someone would have known about it.
There was a note at the end of the film that Churchill was voted out of office just after the war, which surprises me a bit, but for the short time he was in power, he seems like he was the right man for the time. Maybe he was not the right man during peace time. Today, history seems to remember Chamberlain as a bumbler, while Churchill is regarded with reverence. I also wonder why it took the USA so long to get on board. I know there was strong sentiment to remain neutral, but Hitler was a global threat that would have eventually been a problem unless Germany was brought to its knees. Russia and Western Europe probably could not have stopped him on their own. What a different world it might have been.
Mom and Dad
Nickolas Cage
Rotten Tomatoes 76% Audiences 43%
Well, it's hard to stop watching. It should get some points for that, I suppose. But there is little or no attempt to fill the holes in the plot or explain the mysterious events. It's just a hodgepodge of implausible nonsense which you simply take at face value. I would call it a bad movie, but yet I watched it, where a lot of movies like this, I just turn off. I think the audiences who rated it are closer to the truth, yet probably still a bit generous.
Full Metal Alchemist 4/10
Pretty bland and the story makes no sense.
When Lord Lothian died there was a vacancy that WSC filled by sending Lord Halifax to America, removing him from the British political scene quite effectively.
As the vote, it's wasn't about Churchill, the people wanted bread and circuses after the war and the Liberals promised them they'd get all they wanted. I've inquired about this to various parties and they all agree that if Churchill could have remained in office while his party went off then the people would have approved him for future service. He did come back, IIRC, in the 50s or 60s.
Quote from: SGOS on March 07, 2018, 07:56:11 AMI also wonder why it took the USA so long to get on board. I know there was strong sentiment to remain neutral, but Hitler was a global threat that would have eventually been a problem unless Germany was brought to its knees. Russia and Western Europe probably could not have stopped him on their own. What a different world it might have been.
There was no strong isolationist sentiment by Dec. 1941. Twice that year FDR's cabinet had assured him that he could get a declaration of war through Congress if the Japanese attacked English or Dutch possessions in South East Asia. The isolationists were noisy but a sham, they never got a bill through Congress and they never stopped a bill they didn't like. The Committee to Defend America First had a total of ~800,000 registered members, out of 133,400,000 people in the US, or a bit over 1/2 of a percent.
Having studied this war since 1965 (including 14 years at Purdue) I'm confident that FDR would have gotten us into the European war before the end of the first quarter of 1942. His "short of war" policy was very short of war from the Germany viewpoint.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2018, 09:55:42 AM
The isolationists were noisy but a sham, they never got a bill through Congress and they never stopped a bill they didn't like. The Committee to Defend America First had a total of ~800,000 registered members, out of 133,400,000 people in the US, or a bit over 1/2 of a percent.
Thanks. One doesn't get that impression from much of the commentary we hear about the US entering into WWII, and I've questioned the popularity of the isolationist view, granted with the advantage of hindsight, but I was always skeptical about it's popularity.
Quote from: SGOS on March 07, 2018, 10:34:29 AM
Thanks. One doesn't get that impression from much of the commentary we hear about the US entering into WWII, and I've questioned the popularity of the isolationist view, granted with the advantage of hindsight, but I was always skeptical about it's popularity.
The "isolationism was the major view" comes from the antit-war activism of the 70s. I wrote a paper on the way that went once upon a time. My prof. didn't like it, but I got an A.
Quote from: Sal1981 on March 07, 2018, 09:47:58 AM
Full Metal Alchemist 4/10
Pretty bland and the story makes no sense.
I think they were getting to a point, but I never saw the ending. I understand there was one, Just not here.
Republicans and S Democrats were anti-Semitic and pro-German. A pretty impressive voting block. Before 1946, 50% of Americans were anti-Semitic ... greater than in Germany itself. Isolationism wasn't just about getting involved in another damn war, or in a really big war, but also the difficulty of siding with the side that had the greatest compatibility (Germany compatible with the US, Germany studied our eugenics program) and the worst press.
I am not sure that FDR ever really wanted to fight Germany ... Hitler made the mistake of keeping his word to the Japanese, stupid move on his part. If you are a genocidal maniac, why bother keeping your word to Asians who would never pass for Aryan ever. There was much more pre-war focus in the US on Japan and their invasion of China (Flying Tigers). And we applied an oil and steel embargo against Japan, not Germany.
Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2018, 08:22:42 PM
I am not sure that FDR ever really wanted to fight Germany ... Hitler made the mistake of keeping his word to the Japanese, stupid move on his part. If you are a genocidal maniac, why bother keeping your word to Asians who would never pass for Aryan ever. There was much more pre-war focus in the US on Japan and their invasion of China (Flying Tigers). And we applied an oil and steel embargo against Japan, not Germany.
There was no "word" to be kept. The provision in the Tripartite Pact applied to signatories who were
attacked, not to those who did the attacking.
The Gallup Polls show that the US public considered the Germans to be the greater threat.
We were embargoing steel and oil because the Japanese were waging an aggressive war in China. The American public wanted to know why we were helping that war by selling oil to Japan. We also had the Joint Chiefs demanding the National Reserve be built up, the British wanted every spare drop of oil, and the American motorist wanted to be able to get gas for their cars.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 09, 2018, 07:31:56 AM
There was no "word" to be kept. The provision in the Tripartite Pact applied to signatories who were attacked, not to those who did the attacking.
The Gallup Polls show that the US public considered the Germans to be the greater threat.
We were embargoing steel and oil because the Japanese were waging an aggressive war in China. The American public wanted to know why we were helping that war by selling oil to Japan. We also had the Joint Chiefs demanding the National Reserve be built up, the British wanted every spare drop of oil, and the American motorist wanted to be able to get gas for their cars.
Since when do Gallup polls prove anything, or are reflected in policy. All the people I know (German-Americans) were pro-German at that time, and anti-Japanese. Yes, Hitler was stupid ... lucky for us.
Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2018, 01:08:28 PM
Since when do Gallup polls prove anything, or are reflected in policy. All the people I know (German-Americans) were pro-German at that time, and anti-Japanese. Yes, Hitler was stupid ... lucky for us.
You knew a lot of people in 1941? And are we to be shocked that the German-Americans were pro-German?
The Public Opinion Quarterly did an examination of all the major polls and found them congruent.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 09, 2018, 08:16:14 PM
You knew a lot of people in 1941? And are we to be shocked that the German-Americans were pro-German?
The Public Opinion Quarterly did an examination of all the major polls and found them congruent.
I know people who were alive then, I wasn't .. didn't claim I was. And no, I am not surprised that German-Americans were pro-German. Most conservative Americans then were pro-German, because Hitler was the chosen way (per Catholicism not just politics) to destroy communism. After the golem of Hitler went awry, this policy was rebirthed by Winston at Independence Missouri. Winston hated communists. So do you think most Japanese-Americans were pro-Japanese as well? If so, the internment was the correct reaction. Oh, not true? Then maybe you are simply anti-German, and anti-German-American .. stereotype wise. All Italian Americans were Mafia too I bet. It was thought at one time in the 1920s that all Italian-Americans were anarchists (Sacco-Vanzetti trial). Most Americans and Germans thought all Jews were communists. Of course none of these prejudices were true, then nor now.
You are full of shit.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 10, 2018, 08:37:43 AM
You are full of shit.
People here don't always have something constructive to say. So they engage in ad hominem. I try not to do that myself, I tend to pour disdain on humanity as a whole, rather than prejudice against individuals or groups.
So "my prejudice" is virtue and "your prejudice" is vice. Isn't that how it always goes?
Personally, I don't have the hang ups of my parents or grandparents. I have never thought badly of other ethnic groups as such. But I understand the temptation. I merely report what I was told, by people who lived then and there, and reports written subsequently, that show that the Allies weren't paragons of virtue.
Annihilation 7/10 Aliens(?) come to Earth and want to change things. Do they or don't they?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 10, 2018, 10:29:49 AM
Annihilation 7/10 Aliens(?) come to Earth and want to change things. Do they or don't they?
That question was the one thing I liked about the movie. At the end, Natalie Portman speculates they had no evil intentions. For all the death and destruction, it was just something they did, like humans polluting the environment with carbon dioxide, lead, or fluorocarbons.
Did you pay attention when the loving couple hugged?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 10, 2018, 11:16:54 AM
Did you pay attention when the loving couple hugged?
I guess I missed that. Did the scene reveal something?
Quote from: SGOS on March 10, 2018, 11:13:16 AM
That question was the one thing I liked about the movie. At the end, Natalie Portman speculates they had no evil intentions. For all the death and destruction, it was just something they did, like humans polluting the environment with carbon dioxide, lead, or fluorocarbons.
That was the premise of the last Godzilla movie.
Quote from: SGOS on March 10, 2018, 11:19:50 AM
I guess I missed that. Did the scene reveal something?
We don't have a spoiler tag on this forum?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 10, 2018, 11:49:08 AM
We don't have a spoiler tag on this forum?
Sorry. I really apologize. I don't know why I didn't use a spoiler.
Quote from: SGOS on March 10, 2018, 12:59:14 PM
Sorry. I really apologize. I don't know why I didn't use a spoiler.
I mean I don't know what the spoiler tags are here. I don't see them.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 10, 2018, 01:11:42 PM
I mean I don't know what the spoiler tags are here. I don't see them.
[spoiler]I don't think spoiler tags work right now.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 10, 2018, 03:37:21 PM
[spoiler]I don't think spoiler tags work right now.[/spoiler]
Okay, then. Lay on, McDuff. When the loving couple were reunited at the end of the movie their eyes had an unearthly glow. Subtle, but there. Obviously the event was not over. And given that this is the first book of a trilogy it could hardly be.
And remember, "All great trilogies come in threes!"
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 10, 2018, 01:11:42 PM
I mean I don't know what the spoiler tags are here. I don't see them.
Nor do I, now that you mention it. Damn, I apologized for nothing.
Quote from: SGOS on March 10, 2018, 04:25:21 PM
Nor do I, now that you mention it. Damn, I apologized for nothing.
We'll credit your account. It may take 30-90 days for it to show in your records.
Roman J Isreal, Esquire.....Denzel as always, fine acting. The story line is old but true. Overall, the movie was hoping for a better outcome but then realizing the outcome was as to be expected given the circumstances. Not bad, but I would not recommend it....one of those movies that leaves you sullen and slightly annoyed you watched it. Good acting throughout, but afterward it is a movie you just wished you didn't spend the time to watch.
Has there been a discussion about Thor: Ragnarok? I've been watching the teasers on TV and sort of laughing. It's one thing to know the mythology, another thing to see Thor lose his hammer, the Hulk being involved. Is it a comedy/parody of the myth or a last-ditch effort to extend the Thor/Hulk series?
It was fun to watch.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 10, 2018, 10:29:49 AM
Annihilation 7/10 Aliens(?) come to Earth and want to change things. Do they or don't they?
Yeah, just saw it. It had more potential to go on the alien bend, but sorta aims low, IMO, although I give it an
8/10 just because of the unraveling story.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 10:43:10 AM
Has there been a discussion about Thor: Ragnarok? I've been watching the teasers on TV and sort of laughing. It's one thing to know the mythology, another thing to see Thor lose his hammer, the Hulk being involved. Is it a comedy/parody of the myth or a last-ditch effort to extend the Thor/Hulk series?
Yeah, it's a comedy/parody. I enjoyed it three times so far, but it probably depends on your taste in humor. Marvel makes an effort not to take Thor too seriously in the three stand alone movies, but not so much when he appears as an Avenger. He makes humanlike mistakes, falls down, gets hit by cars, and often acts like a dufus. The latest movie takes those qualities even further. He has a very brief encounter with Dr. Strange that I'm looking forward to seeing again. Dr. Strange treats him as kind of a clod, where Thor can't quite seem to hold his own, even though he tries. It's not some sort of competition between the two. I get the feeling they will always be friends, but with Dr. Strange playing a version of Abbot to Thor's Costello.
And I think I'm falling in love with Cate Blanchett.
I remember her (Cate) younger, she can be my Elvish Queen any day.
I watched the clips, and a review of In This Corner of the World, and it is wonderful anime.
I also ran across The Death Of Stalin ... a comedy about the de-Stalinization of the Soviet Union ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftXEqZnBo0
I think it is a good reminder for those of us who have a love of totalitarian systems ;-(
Just watched, "Darkest Hour".
Certainly see why Oldman won an Oscar for it, great film all around. I know hindsight is very strong, and certainly I understand following WW1 how they would not want to get involved, but the fact that anyone thought you could "appease" Hitler still seems incredibly naive.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 14, 2018, 05:07:04 AM
Just watched, "Darkest Hour".
Certainly see why Oldman won an Oscar for it, great film all around. I know hindsight is very strong, and certainly I understand following WW1 how they would not want to get involved, but the fact that anyone thought you could "appease" Hitler still seems incredibly naive.
Even though I understand the temptation of hindsight and how it fosters a sense of self-righteous superiority, every time I think about Chamberlain, and the "alleged" isolationism of the US, I think to myself, "How could you be so stupid?" At the same time, when I think about Hitler occupying Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece, while still invading the rest of Europe to the west and Russia to the east, I think to myself, "How could you be so stupid?" Granted a lot of those countries were easy walkovers, but the manpower to occupy that much area while actively invading more seems daunting. Were there even enough men in Germany to pull that off for more than a couple years? Hitler was a powerful military force, but I'm convinced he was also a delusional nincompoop. How could he rise to power? On the other hand, we have Donald Trump, also a delusional nincompoop. Sanity and good judgment are not required to gain power. But it takes more than that. Citizens are responsible for the messes they make, and I want to say, "We should all remember that," but I also know that we won't.
It is a convenient Nato fiction, that the German people had no responsibility for what happened, only the evil Nazis did. Same with collaborators in the countries they occupied (Petain in France). Similarly it is a convenient fiction that Emperor Hirohito was a passive captive of the Japanese MIC. The US needed that fiction to keep up our defense relationship with Japan.
And Americans (GM in general and IBM in particular) assisted the Nazis all they way up until early 1942 (as multinational corporations). The part that the Walker-Bush family played was minor compared to IBM (automating the German end of the Holocaust). German efficiency and technology made it possible for them to kill more opponents, with fewer resources, than anyone else could have.
The trailer for the second Fantastic Beasts movie is out. The movie shows Nov. 16.
Quote from: SGOS on March 12, 2018, 06:21:25 PM
Yeah, it's a comedy/parody. I enjoyed it three times so far, but it probably depends on your taste in humor. Marvel makes an effort not to take Thor too seriously in the three stand alone movies, but not so much when he appears as an Avenger. He makes humanlike mistakes, falls down, gets hit by cars, and often acts like a dufus. The latest movie takes those qualities even further. He has a very brief encounter with Dr. Strange that I'm looking forward to seeing again. Dr. Strange treats him as kind of a clod, where Thor can't quite seem to hold his own, even though he tries. It's not some sort of competition between the two. I get the feeling they will always be friends, but with Dr. Strange playing a version of Abbot to Thor's Costello.
And I think I'm falling in love with Cate Blanchett.
I think I may break an old rule about waiting for movies to show up free on cable. I really want to watch Dr Strange, and then Thor: Ragnarok. Not on the same day of course. But if the University of Maryland women's basketball team loses early in NCAA, I might give them a day each.
I'm thinking Nachos Belle Grande and some good pepperoni pizza with Red Zinfandel to totally kill me for the weekend. How does that sound?
Any one want to join me?
Quote from: Cavebear on March 15, 2018, 03:39:18 PM
I think I may break an old rule about waiting for movies to show up free on cable. I really want to watch Dr Strange, and then Thor: Ragnarok. Not on the same day of course. But if the University of Maryland women's basketball team loses early in NCAA, I might give them a day each.
I'm thinking Nachos Belle Grande and some good pepperoni pizza with Red Zinfandel to totally kill me for the weekend. How does that sound?
Any one want to join me?
My University of Montana is playing Michigan as I write this, but I don't have TV and I won't have to watch them get trounced. I will check the score later this evening, or maybe it's better if I don't know. That's really odd about Dr. Strange the way it never got streamed.
Edit: I had the wrong time for the game. It's not until later tonight.
Quote from: SGOS on March 15, 2018, 05:04:02 PM
My University of Montana is playing Michigan as I write this, but I don't have TV and I won't have to watch them get trounced. I will check the score later this evening, or maybe it's better if I don't know. That's really odd about Dr. Strange the way it never got streamed.
Edit: I had the wrong time for the game. It's not until later tonight.
Good luck in the game. The Univ of MD men really fell apart this year after a few starter injuries and they aren't even in it. I'll be watching the U of MD womens team anyway. They lost a couple starters but at 5th seed might cause trouble for the top teams.
just gonna say, Thanos' design in avengers infinity is bloody awful.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/MvU4dwg-5UJTGoyrsrvEuRM-_f8=/0x0:850x352/1200x800/filters:focal(303x68:439x204)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/57817977/Screen_Shot_2017_11_29_at_8.29.28_AM.0.png)
He looks like a 90s remark of the California raisins.
When I think Thanos, this is what I imagine.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/4/4f/Avengers_Assemble_Vol_2_7_Textless.jpg)
Theres a level of intimidation to his design I've always liked, power lust and a small degree of insanity and determination. its something about the face and makeup with this live action version that doesn't do it for me.
I think its just because he looks to human, like they just took a big guy and painted him and gave him a chin brace. Thanos in the comics is most certainly alien in design, his maniacal grin, size and personality all match together well, i just don't have that sense of intimidation with this take.
Quote from: Munch on March 16, 2018, 10:23:08 PMTheres a level of intimidation to his design I've always liked, power lust and a small degree of insanity and determination. its something about the face and makeup with this live action version that doesn't do it for me.
I think its just because he looks to human, like they just took a big guy and painted him and gave him a chin brace. Thanos in the comics is most certainly alien in design, his maniacal grin, size and personality all match together well, i just don't have that sense of intimidation with this take.
I agree, but at the same time, I understand the limitations of live action. A live actor has got to play that role, and Eternity knows how much time the makeup alone takes. Remember how terrible Apocalypse was? That's why the costome's a bit toned down.
Also, let's not rush to conclusions from a single trailer. I'm still holding out for his signature eye/fist glowing with energy combined with bared teeth.
Guess I'm just disappointed there's no sign of mistress death anywhere, who was integral to the reasons why he did what he did in the comics
Quote from: Munch on March 16, 2018, 11:17:44 PM
Guess I'm just disappointed there's no sign of mistress death anywhere, who was integral to the reasons why he did what he did in the comics
I'm holding out for that, too. That and the space castle. Daddy needs his space castle.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRswB4zWsAIDOml.jpg)
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/jDbrd.jpg)
I just saw "Annihilation" and thought it was an effective sci-fi thriller with some deep psychological themes. The visual effects were immersive and I liked how the use of different mediums to distort the light (the glass of water, the Shimmer, the quarantine curtains) added to the scenes. The music and sound amplified the sense of disorientation and dread. I particularly liked the cancer parallels and how the inherent self-destructive behavior of human beings, both psychological and biological, was incorporated by the alien.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 17, 2018, 02:59:07 AM
I just saw "Annihilation" and thought it was an effective sci-fi thriller with some deep psychological themes. The visual effects were immersive and I liked how the use of different mediums to distort the light (the glass of water, the Shimmer, the quarantine curtains) added to the scenes. The music and sound amplified the sense of disorientation and dread. I particularly liked the cancer parallels and how the inherent self-destructive behavior of human beings, both psychological and biological, was incorporated by the alien.
I think I may have to download some movies on cable. I don't like to do that because I hate sitting for 3 hours. But I am falling behind the cultural references...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 17, 2018, 03:34:00 AM
I think I may have to download some movies on cable. I don't like to do that because I hate sitting for 3 hours. But I am falling behind the cultural references...
You and me both. The tendency for old people is ... to become obsolete. Let the young folks be bleeding edge.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 17, 2018, 02:59:07 AM
I just saw "Annihilation" and thought it was an effective sci-fi thriller with some deep psychological themes. The visual effects were immersive and I liked how the use of different mediums to distort the light (the glass of water, the Shimmer, the quarantine curtains) added to the scenes. The music and sound amplified the sense of disorientation and dread. I particularly liked the cancer parallels and how the inherent self-destructive behavior of human beings, both psychological and biological, was incorporated by the alien.
I just saw Wrinkle in Time. It bored me so much that I got up and left somewhere around the middle, but that is irrelevant. There was one special effect that reminded me of the Annihilation shimmer for some reason. It was a visual representation of the actual wrinkle in time that you can pass through. Since it's visual, it can really only be represented spatially, but since it's "space-time" that works for me:
You are looking at the back yard or the trees and the image starts to get wavy, then more and more wavy until a wrinkle appears. You can still see the yard and the trees just fine, but you can watch a person walk through the wrinkle and disappear. I thought that part was very cool, as were the alien landscapes, but not enough to get me through what passes for the plot, but I can see the interest in it for children, however.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 17, 2018, 02:59:07 AM
I just saw "Annihilation" and thought it was an effective sci-fi thriller with some deep psychological themes. The visual effects were immersive and I liked how the use of different mediums to distort the light (the glass of water, the Shimmer, the quarantine curtains) added to the scenes. The music and sound amplified the sense of disorientation and dread. I particularly liked the cancer parallels and how the inherent self-destructive behavior of human beings, both psychological and biological, was incorporated by the alien.
Did you get the message behind the hug?
Quote from: SGOS on March 17, 2018, 07:18:54 AM
I just saw Wrinkle in Time. It bored me so much that I got up and left somewhere around the middle, but that is irrelevant. There was one special effect that reminded me of the Annihilation shimmer for some reason. It was a visual representation of the actual wrinkle in time that you can pass through. Since it's visual, it can really only be represented spatially, but since it's "space-time" that works for me:
You are looking at the back yard or the trees and the image starts to get wavy, then more and more wavy until a wrinkle appears. You can still see the yard and the trees just fine, but you can watch a person walk through the wrinkle and disappear. I thought that part was very cool, as were the alien landscapes, but not enough to get me through what passes for the plot, but I can see the interest in it for children, however.
Yeah, but twas brillig?
Quote from: SGOS on March 17, 2018, 07:32:43 AM
More like 1:00 PM.
Ah, you got the one with left-handed threads. We were looking for it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 17, 2018, 07:40:43 AM
Ah, you got the one with left-handed threads. We were looking for it.
I thought I was keeping up with you, but now I'm lost.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 17, 2018, 07:23:11 AM
Did you get the message behind the hug?
SPOILERS!!!We may not have got the same message because I think the ending is intentionally ambiguous. The way I interpreted the ending is in the lighthouse the alien takes a drop of Lena's blood and duplicates her. When she is fighting the doppelganger she is fighting herself, both psychologically (by blocking the door Lena
literally gets in her own way) and physically, just like cancer is one's own cells. I don't think the alien even has a consciousness of its own, it's like an agent of chaos. When the doppelganger crushes her against the door there became two Lenas, neither the same person who went into the Shimmer. One survives and returns to the world, driven by the desire to return to her husband, and one, after touching Kane who killed himself, crawls back down into the hole and similarly annihilates itself in fire. The woman being interrogated at the end isn't the original Lena, which is made apparent by Anya's infinity tattoo now on her arm and the shimmer in her eyes. Lena and Kane's marriage was annihilated by Lena's infidelity and even though they are reunited at the end, which would normally be the "happy ending" of an action film, they are literally not the same people, Kane destroyed and Lena transformed, which makes the conclusion tragic and ominous.
I'm looking forward to the DVD, because I totally missed the hug part. But I'm pretty sure the ending was intentionally ambiguous.
Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs 2 - 7/10
A good story about facing idolism and alive food.
Quote from: SGOS on March 17, 2018, 07:18:54 AM
I just saw Wrinkle in Time. It bored me so much that I got up and left somewhere around the middle, but that is irrelevant. There was one special effect that reminded me of the Annihilation shimmer for some reason. It was a visual representation of the actual wrinkle in time that you can pass through. Since it's visual, it can really only be represented spatially, but since it's "space-time" that works for me:
You are looking at the back yard or the trees and the image starts to get wavy, then more and more wavy until a wrinkle appears. You can still see the yard and the trees just fine, but you can watch a person walk through the wrinkle and disappear. I thought that part was very cool, as were the alien landscapes, but not enough to get me through what passes for the plot, but I can see the interest in it for children, however.
I was planning on seeing "A Wrinkle in Time" because I loved the book as a child but having read some feedback similar to yours I'm going to pass.
Even though it looked somewhat lame...
Even though it looked somewhat tame...
Even though it looked a little boring.......
Even though it looked I might be snoring.....
Even though the plot looked a mite thin....
Even though the idea couldn't win...
I watched "Downsizing"...
I was right.......
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 17, 2018, 01:48:05 PM
I was planning on seeing "A Wrinkle in Time" because I loved the book as a child but having read some feedback similar to yours I'm going to pass.
It might be a case where the book was better. I never read it, but it was very popular among young kids.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 17, 2018, 12:22:53 PM
SPOILERS!!!
We may not have got the same message because I think the ending is intentionally ambiguous. The way I interpreted the ending is in the lighthouse the alien takes a drop of Lena's blood and duplicates her. When she is fighting the doppelganger she is fighting herself, both psychologically (by blocking the door Lena literally gets in her own way) and physically, just like cancer is one's own cells. I don't think the alien even has a consciousness of its own, it's like an agent of chaos. When the doppelganger crushes her against the door there became two Lenas, neither the same person who went into the Shimmer. One survives and returns to the world, driven by the desire to return to her husband, and one, after touching Kane who killed himself, crawls back down into the hole and similarly annihilates itself in fire. The woman being interrogated at the end isn't the original Lena, which is made apparent by Anya's infinity tattoo now on her arm and the shimmer in her eyes. Lena and Kane's marriage was annihilated by Lena's infidelity and even though they are reunited at the end, which would normally be the "happy ending" of an action film, they are literally not the same people, Kane destroyed and Lena transformed, which makes the conclusion tragic and ominous.
I'm told the point of the hug was to remind us that this is a trilogy. And we know all great trilogies come in threes.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 17, 2018, 07:40:43 AM
Ah, you got the one with left-handed threads. We were looking for it.
Are you, by any chance, talking about something like a left handed smoke shifter or a left-handed monkey wrench?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 17, 2018, 07:24:11 AM
Yeah, but twas brillig?
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son". In high school, I wrote a paper analyzing the word structure of Lewis Carroll's word there. In spite of the linguistic nonsense (and I argued "because of it"), he could not escape the noun and verb structures that we recognize.
THAT got me an additional 20 page assignment to explore the subject more deeply for extra credit. And I was very work and deadline-averse at the time (and typing was a painful experience), so I declined. But I wrote it for my own satisfaction later.
I saw "The Greatest Showman" last night. S'okay. I am not much for musicals...not many can keep the pace of the film and offer the same amount of intensity as say, "West Side Story". This was like wiping a quarter of the windshield as you drive through the Grand Canyon,,,,one wonders what the life of PT Barnum was really like, for just the snippets was inspiring for what he did.
Quote from: aitm on March 18, 2018, 08:02:30 PM
one wonders what the life of PT Barnum was really like, for just the snippets was inspiring for what he did.
The logistics of putting together a circus of PT Barnum size and quality seem like they would be much more daunting than producing the Ed Sullivan Show. I went to it as a kid. We went to Soldiers Field in Chicago as they were setting up the equipment early in the day. Elephants took peanuts from my hand by snorkeling them up their trunk. They actually touched my hand and the peanuts disappeared up their noses like they went up a vacuum cleaner. We returned later for the performance. I was very little, and it's a very early memory. There was too much going on for me to keep track of it all. A couple years later, another circus outfit came to Chicago, but it was performed on a stage indoors. By comparison, that one seemed like a gyp.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 17, 2018, 10:29:34 PM
Are you, by any chance, talking about something like a left handed smoke shifter or a left-handed monkey wrench?
Consider acetylene.
Quote from: aitm on March 18, 2018, 08:02:30 PM
I saw "The Greatest Showman" last night. S'okay. I am not much for musicals...not many can keep the pace of the film and offer the same amount of intensity as say, "West Side Story". This was like wiping a quarter of the windshield as you drive through the Grand Canyon,,,,one wonders what the life of PT Barnum was really like, for just the snippets was inspiring for what he did.
Saw a good dramatic biography of him. He invented a lot of media we enjoy today, including the press conference. But he was a great con artist too ... just like Buffalo Bill.
Got to see Barnum & Bailey twice. Once as a 9 year old with my grandfather, and once with my wife and 3 year old daughter. Great times. History buries everything it seems. Both were performed in big arenas with roofs ... the big tent was from an earlier generation, when the circus came to town by train.
https://www.ringling.com/timeline.html
Notice, it died as soon as a woman ringmaster appeared? Why?
Quote from: Baruch on March 18, 2018, 10:20:34 PM
Notice, it died as soon as a woman ringmaster appeared? Why?
I doubt that ringmaster gender had anything to do with it. Circuses were on the way out. Half the animals they used were endangered, and toward the end, they didn't even have elephants. Americans were seeking out new entertainment like monster truck rallies, NCAA, and Disneyland, and NASCAR. Your kid is not going to pester you to take him to the circus while he's playing his X Box. All good ideas end sometime. The circus just went the way of Kodak film, an even better idea than the circus itself. A woman ringmaster was more probably a last ditch effort to save a dying industry whose time was coming to an end.
Quote from: SGOS on March 19, 2018, 07:49:45 AM
I doubt that ringmaster gender had anything to do with it. Circuses were on the way out. Half the animals they used were endangered, and toward the end, they didn't even have elephants. Americans were seeking out new entertainment like monster truck rallies, NCAA, and Disneyland, and NASCAR. Your kid is not going to pester you to take him to the circus while he's playing his X Box. All good ideas end sometime. The circus just went the way of Kodak film, an even better idea than the circus itself. A woman ringmaster was more probably a last ditch effort to save a dying industry whose time was coming to an end.
Yes, republics and democracies ... ideas of yesteryear, past their due date. Well they should have put a Black Hispanic Tranie in there ;-)
My daughter was too young for video games, when we took her to the circus. Same as when we took her to Barnie the Dinosaur on Ice. We aren't talking 12 year olds here.
Quote from: SGOS on March 19, 2018, 07:49:45 AM
I doubt that ringmaster gender had anything to do with it. Circuses were on the way out. Half the animals they used were endangered, and toward the end, they didn't even have elephants. Americans were seeking out new entertainment like monster truck rallies, NCAA, and Disneyland, and NASCAR. Your kid is not going to pester you to take him to the circus while he's playing his X Box. All good ideas end sometime. The circus just went the way of Kodak film, an even better idea than the circus itself. A woman ringmaster was more probably a last ditch effort to save a dying industry whose time was coming to an end.
Baruch doesn't actually think that a female ringmaster had anything to do with it. He just finds side-stuff to throw into the argument. He just plays with you.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 20, 2018, 07:59:16 AM
Baruch doesn't actually think that a female ringmaster had anything to do with it. He just finds side-stuff to throw into the argument. He just plays with you.
I know, I know, and I know that he knows. But some things are just too absurd not to deserve a comment, even when it's obvious that he's just trolling the forum.
Quote from: SGOS on March 20, 2018, 08:58:57 AM
I know, I know, and I know that he knows. But some things are just too absurd not to deserve a comment, even when it's obvious that he's just trolling the forum.
I finally got him on "ignore" (thank you wolf) and choose to look at only a few comments (when I see a quote) and choose to reply to fewer, things are seeming better here the less I see of him.
Ah, but I can still see you, not seeing me ...
So no more Baruch v Cavebear? That kinda sucks.
Quote from: Munch on March 20, 2018, 01:09:43 PM
So no more Baruch v Cavebear? That kinda sucks.
Well, maybe you should have told me you liked it before! But know, for right now, I don't feel like wasting my time on his meaningless jokes that never apply to a topic being discussed.
I liked to imagine Baruch in a Victorian suit with ruffles and you as just a bear in hot air balloons fencing over the edge.
Quote from: Munch on March 20, 2018, 03:51:30 PM
I liked to imagine Baruch in a Victorian suit with ruffles and you as just a bear in hot air balloons fencing over the edge.
Cavebear is in a tutu, on a unicycle, with a flat tire. I will still comment on him, if he ever deserves any notice beyond his endless ego grooming.
I rather like the sartorial splendor of Oscar Wilde.
The Importance of Being Earnest ... is a meta-commentary on the Internet digerati, a century early.
The verdict against Count Dankula also comes to mind. Offensive speech laws, indeed! England's present Queen made a Nazi salute in her childhood.
But really, John Pertwee was my favorite Dr Who, and favorite car. Tom Baker had Victorian charm too.
Quote from: Baruch on March 20, 2018, 07:06:04 PM
Cavebear is in a tutu, on a unicycle, with a flat tire. I will still comment on him, if he ever deserves any notice beyond his endless ego grooming.
I rather like the sartorial splendor of Oscar Wilde.
The Importance of Being Earnest ... is a meta-commentary on the Internet digerati, a century early.
The verdict against Count Dankula also comes to mind. Offensive speech laws, indeed! England's present Queen made a Nazi salute in her childhood.
But really, John Pertwee was my favorite Dr Who, and favorite car. Tom Baker had Victorian charm too.
you know in context to that this does make this whole thing all the more hilarious, in a 'what the fuck is happening to this land' kind of funny. Back then nobody knew the full implications of the salute, it wasn't just her doing it either.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/20/queens-nazi-salute-a-sign-of-ignorance-shared-by-many-in-scary-times
No one knew the full extent of evil forming there, but now everyone knows the symbol of the gesture. This is why it can be used in such method as offense, to get a reaction, the same as folding up a middle finger.
That said, I dunno who would seek to arrest someone for holding up a middle finger.
Quote from: Munch on March 20, 2018, 03:51:30 PM
I liked to imagine Baruch in a Victorian suit with ruffles and you as just a bear in hot air balloons fencing over the edge.
Cavebear and Baruch are the Statler and Waldorf to our Muppet Show.
(https://midwestswing.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/statler_waldorf.jpg)
Certainly before 1939, fascist Brits were edgy, but not treasonous. For all I know, given that the royal family are of German descent, they may have just thought it a funny joke at the time. Winston wouldn't have, but then he had his own problems to contend with.
Context is everything, with humor anyway. I see lots of annoying connections all the time, and usually share them ;-)
If Cavebear and I are the two elderly guys in the balcony seats, who is Kermit, Miss Piggy, etc ... you all get to play Muppets with us too.
I stayed in the Statler Hotel, Durango Colorado, once, when I was in HS. My honeymoon was in the hotel that inspired The Shining.
Quote from: Munch on March 20, 2018, 03:51:30 PM
I liked to imagine Baruch in a Victorian suit with ruffles and you as just a bear in hot air balloons fencing over the edge.
So Baruch is in the past Victorian times and I am sort of in technology. Sounds about right, LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on March 21, 2018, 01:47:14 AM
So Baruch is in the past Victorian times and I am sort of in technology. Sounds about right, LOL!
You won't take my buggy-whip except from my cold dead immigrant worker
Tomb Raider 3/10
Great cast but misses the nonstop chaos of the game play. It was like watching two hour long cut-scene.
Quote from: Baruch on March 20, 2018, 11:34:05 PM
If Cavebear and I are the two elderly guys in the balcony seats, who is Kermit, Miss Piggy, etc ... you all get to play Muppets with us too.
Hydra is clearly Kermit, the most liked member of the forum. I'm not going to identify Miss Piggy for fear of being karate chopped.
(https://nypdecider.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/misspiggy-karatechop2.gif)
I take dibs on swedish chef!
(https://media.tenor.co/images/429ea14e1638514bd5d7f2d65b939dfb/tenor.gif)
ANIMAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Downsizing 6/10
I liked it, but with such a clever premise it could have been so much more. Instead of focusing on what it means to be downsized, it seems to wander off in different directions and at times is just an ordinary drama.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 21, 2018, 09:58:25 AM
Hydra is clearly Kermit, the most liked member of the forum.
Gonzo is a way more accurate characterization.
And how'd I get most liked?! On my best days, I'm a guy who's passionate about a bunch of stuff and says interesting or at least entertaining stuff. At worst, I'm a world-weary misanthrope who hates nearly everything.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 21, 2018, 12:59:09 PM
Gonzo is a way more accurate characterization.
And how'd I get most liked?! On my best days, I'm a guy whose passionate about a bunch of stuff and says interesting or at least entertaining stuff. At worst, I'm a world-weary misanthrope who hates nearly everything.
Clicked the "Like stats" menu at the top and then "Most liked member."
I dibs Floyd!
I was invited by a friend to the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood to see the 1947 film "Black Narcissus" in its original 35mm nitrate print. I saw "Black Narcissus" in a college class "Subversive film as art" but figured I wouldn't mind seeing it again with a group. My friend had purchased tickets online far in advance and when we arrived there was a HUGE line of people trying to get tickets for this sold-out show. A film historian explained the history and properties of nitrate film to a very enthusiastic audience. The historian said, "For some of you tonight's viewing will be a spiritual experience" and she was completely serious. I realized I was in an audience of serious film geeks and felt a bit guilty that I had taken a seat when there were people outside who were probably more excited by this special event. The film itself was very good, especially considering the time it was made but I enjoyed discussing the film as much as viewing the nitrate print.
https://youtu.be/CZRzcLK1Ar0
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 21, 2018, 12:59:09 PM
Gonzo is a way more accurate characterization.
And how'd I get most liked?! On my best days, I'm a guy who's passionate about a bunch of stuff and says interesting or at least entertaining stuff. At worst, I'm a world-weary misanthrope who hates nearly everything.
That's exactly why I like you.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 21, 2018, 12:59:09 PM
And how'd I get most liked?!
Enjoy it while it lasts. The mob can turn on you at any time.
Justice League 8/10
According to Wiki, It was one of most expensive films ever made. It got poor reviews by RT (40%). There was a good turnout at the box office, but because the film was so expensive, it actually lost money. That it came on the heels of Suicide Squad, probably didn't help either, as the movie was a major turn off for super hero fans, and it put DC on everyone's shit list. I either didn't bother to see it at the theater, probably because of the bad reviews, or I fell asleep early on. But it's actually a pretty good movie.
Wiki says Warner Bros hired Joss Whedon to direct his own re-write segments during shooting, a brilliant move IMO, and then hired him to take over the direction full time when the director had to leave, another brilliant move, but the original director got the full credit, while Whedon got credit for scripting. Whedon is a genius in my book. While watching the DVD, I kept thinking, "This isn't as bad as I remember a lot of DC films. It's got some good humor mixed in with the action," and later when reading about it, I realized it must have been the Whedon touch that I liked. But the lighter touch, also got mixed reviews. Apparently some critics like the usually darker DC format, but from what I read that's about a 50-50 split.
I had trouble with "BvS: Dawn of Justice". That fight was never, ever, going to be equal.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 22, 2018, 11:28:53 AM
I had trouble with "BvS: Dawn of Justice". That fight was never, ever, going to be equal.
Yeah, that was a head scratcher.
Quote from: SGOS on March 22, 2018, 11:41:43 AM
Yeah, that was a head scratcher.
1. Superman grabs Batman and zooms to the top of Mt. Everest. Dr. Strange isn't there any more, Brucie freezes to death.
2. Superman grabs Batman and ties him to a benthic black smoker. Scientists centuries later are puzzled by the bones.
3. Superman stomps Brucie like a bug.
None of these scenarios work out well for the petulant billionaire.
Batman Vs Superman as a title, implies more than is actually there. I think the title was put there to get people to the theater so see what DC Comics had up their sleeve by scripting such an unequal main event.
SpoilerQuote
It was actually a rivalry between the two orchestrated by Lex Luthor Jr.. In the end, they stood side by side to defeat the alien brought back to life by Lex, and Superman died from a self-sacrifice by self inflicted kryptonite exposure needed to kill the alien boss. He was not killed by Batman, although the two did duke it out before they understood that they were being manipulated.
I watched it again because there were things I needed to make sense out of to understand better The Justice League. I liked it much more the second time because I could understand how Dawn of Justice was setting things up for the next film.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 22, 2018, 11:53:29 AM
1. Superman grabs Batman and zooms to the top of Mt. Everest. Dr. Strange isn't there any more, Brucie freezes to death.
2. Superman grabs Batman and ties him to a benthic black smoker. Scientists centuries later are puzzled by the bones.
3. Superman stomps Brucie like a bug.
None of these scenarios work out well for the petulant billionaire.
Since Superman doesn't kill, none of those happen. Also, since Bruce has Kryptonite, they can't happen. The only way Superman can realistically beat Batman is by killing him, but then he is no longer Superman.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 23, 2018, 07:47:42 PM
Since Superman doesn't kill, none of those happen. Also, since Bruce has Kryptonite, they can't happen. The only way Superman can realistically beat Batman is by killing him, but then he is no longer Superman.
can tell what side you were on in that who vs who trend when it came out. But superman has one means to beat batman.
(https://desmondscheerlinckwrites.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/batman-v-superman-photo-martha-954017.jpg)
Quote from: Shiranu on March 23, 2018, 07:47:42 PM
Since Superman doesn't kill, none of those happen. Also, since Bruce has Kryptonite, they can't happen. The only way Superman can realistically beat Batman is by killing him, but then he is no longer Superman.
He could take Batman back in time and then accuse him of witchcraft, thus sentencing him to death.
(http://www.the-isb.com/images/BatWitch2-02.jpg)
The 60s was a strange time for everyone.
Quote from: Munch on March 23, 2018, 08:28:04 PM
can tell what side you were on in that who vs who trend when it came out. But superman has one means to beat batman.
(https://desmondscheerlinckwrites.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/batman-v-superman-photo-martha-954017.jpg)
I've never liked superman, he is basically one punch man but not self aware of it, so it was pretty easy to pick sides.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 23, 2018, 07:47:42 PM
Since Superman doesn't kill, none of those happen. Also, since Bruce has Kryptonite, they can't happen. The only way Superman can realistically beat Batman is by killing him, but then he is no longer Superman.
Superman has killed.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 23, 2018, 08:48:44 PM
Superman has killed.
And subsequently is rebooted.
Superman's "thing" is he doesn't kill. Once he kills, he is no longer "Superman", and has to be refreshed not far down the line. It's like saying you are a virgin, but you had sex a few times. Once you stick it in, you ain't no virgin anymore and once you kill you ain't no Superman.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 23, 2018, 11:33:37 PM
And subsequently is rebooted.
Superman's "thing" is he doesn't kill. Once he kills, he is no longer "Superman", and has to be refreshed not far down the line. It's like saying you are a virgin, but you had sex a few times. Once you stick it in, you ain't no virgin anymore and once you kill you ain't no Superman.
I'm talking about his battle with Zod in a recent movie, not a comic book.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 24, 2018, 09:01:37 AM
I'm talking about his battle with Zod in a recent movie, not a comic book.
Great, an argument about what is "canon" in comics and comic movies!
"... but the world is a better place, measurably, because Star Wars exists in it."
<3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVZGUV77aRg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVZGUV77aRg)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 24, 2018, 09:01:37 AM
I'm talking about his battle with Zod in a recent movie, not a comic book.
Fair play, I would say the Superman in the movies is not the same character as older movie and comic Superman. However Zod was also, undeniably, a villain. There is wiggle room there verses killing a recognized hero. That goes from slip-of-character to outright 180 character reversal.
I just don't buy the Superman killing Batman idea because it is, even by comic book standards, completely unbelievable.
Finally watching Resident Evil: The Final One Or Whatever
There's a road sign that says "Raccoon City: 418 miles" WAT. I don't even see signs for Cary until I'm like 15 miles away. (This is like me getting on I-95 in NC and immediately seeing a sign for NYC)
Suspension of disbelief has been broken. Literally unwatchable.
Verbatim copy of my review of "Resident Evil: The Final Chapter": "It wasn't."
Quote from: SGOS on March 21, 2018, 08:02:51 PM
Enjoy it while it lasts. The mob can turn on you at any time.
Hmm I got so involved I forgot to eat dinner... For a week. I went from 170 to 164. This is doing me some good. So should I just stay online to 160. Or quit while I'm ahead and order a pizza and eat the while thing? Or I could just suck up 3oz steak and keep going.
Today I watched Maze Runner: The Death Cure. It was actually really good.
Given the confusing and somewhat bad nature of the first two films, I didn't expect much. But this one was relatively straightforward with good pacing, had good action scenes, decent (albeit flat) characters, most of the strangeness got explained, and the ending wrapped up everything in a pretty little bow. I'm surprised, impressed even, by what they managed to accomplish with what they had to work with.
Still, I wouldn't watch it unless you've seen the other two already. And if you didn't care for either of those, you probably won't like this one.
P.S. - when I saw this movie, I noticed that a couple of parents brought their kids. Apparently, multiple parents thought a post-apocalyptic film where people get their faces bitten off by zombies is age-appropriate for little Timmy. You guys know I'm not some moral guardian who goes into hysterics when there's a little blood or skin on the screen, but there's a time and a place for everything. Please don't take 10ish-year-olds to violent as fuck movies. It's PG-13 for a reason.
Who would have thought a comedy with Morgan Freeman and Tommy Lee Jones could possibly make the worse movie ever? Just getting started? Lord i hope not.
Quote from: aitm on March 31, 2018, 08:50:02 AM
Who would have thought a comedy with Morgan Freeman and Tommy Lee Jones could possibly make the worse movie ever? Just getting started? Lord i hope not.
the name of the movie is ... Just Getting Started ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo5YcAYSVac
If you like the actors, you can get past anything else, right?
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 31, 2018, 12:08:29 AM
Today I watched Maze Runner: The Death Cure. It was actually really good.
Given the confusing and somewhat bad nature of the first two films, I didn't expect much. But this one was relatively straightforward with good pacing, had good action scenes, decent (albeit flat) characters, most of the strangeness got explained, and the ending wrapped up everything in a pretty little bow. I'm surprised, impressed even, by what they managed to accomplish with what they had to work with.
Still, I wouldn't watch it unless you've seen the other two already. And if you didn't care for either of those, you probably won't like this one.
P.S. - when I saw this movie, I noticed that a couple of parents brought their kids. Apparently, multiple parents thought a post-apocalyptic film where people get their faces bitten off by zombies is age-appropriate for little Timmy. You guys know I'm not some moral guardian who goes into hysterics when there's a little blood or skin on the screen, but there's a time and a place for everything. Please don't take 10ish-year-olds to violent as fuck movies. It's PG-13 for a reason.
Little Timmie probably sees worse in his video games.
Scott Pilgrim vs the World: 15/10. Seriously, this movie is just... amazing. Haven't watched it in years, so it's almost like watching it for the first time all over again...
*le sighs*
This video, as well as many others, explain what is so magical about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jEEk41W3DY
I really need to see Baby Driver, which is by the same director. And go back and rewatch Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.
Saw Star War Episode VII last night. LOVED IT! Possibly one of the best.
But how did they get Hillary Clinton to play the part of Princess Leia?
Quote from: Shiranu on April 04, 2018, 10:06:00 PM
Scott Pilgrim vs the World: 15/10.
That seems a bit over enthusiastic. Were you on something when you watched it? That's how I reacted to Dr. Strange after I had a shot of Dexamethasone. I thought the concept in Pilgrim was interesting, and I've seen the odd graphic visuals used later in other movies to good effect. I'll give it a 7 for that, but the plot didn't excite me. About the same time, a competing studio put out another low budget high school rock film, Bandslam, that was also embarrassingly cheesy, but a bit less artsy and more down to earth. They both did equally well among the critics, but I'd give Bandslam a 9, even though it's embarrassing to admit that I actually liked it that much, even without the steroids.
Quote from: SGOS on April 05, 2018, 03:04:37 AM
That seems a bit over enthusiastic. Were you on something when you watched it? That's how I reacted to Dr. Strange after I had a shot of Dexamethasone. I thought the concept in Pilgrim was interesting, and I've seen the odd graphic visuals used later in other movies to good effect. I'll give it a 7 for that, but the plot didn't excite me. About the same time, a competing studio put out another low budget high school rock film, Bandslam, that was also embarrassingly cheesy, but a bit less artsy and more down to earth. They both did equally well among the critics, but I'd give Bandslam a 9, even though it's embarrassing to admit that I actually liked it that much, even without the steroids.
No, I just thought the movie was very well done in the series. Compared to other recent ones at least.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 05, 2018, 05:28:31 AM
No, I just thought the movie was very well done in the series. Compared to other recent ones at least.
He wasn't quoting you.
A Quiet Place 7/10 97% at RT
It's creepy, and well done, but not creepy enough for a 9. I tend to disregard how well done a creepy movie is, and judge it only on how much it creeps me out. As a side note, it stars Emily Blunt and John Krasinski (Jim from the Office), who also directed Quite Place. I always liked that guy and wondered why he didn't do more in Hollywood. Mostly he just picked up bit parts. Maybe directing is his calling. As an actor, he played a convincing role here, however.
A Quiet Place. 7.5/10
I did enjoy it very much. Yet, I do feel it is a bit overrated. It's good, but, it's not THAT good. Some things about the story don't seem to hold up to scrutiny. But, it is good for some thrills and tension. At least to me, I see it as a cross between Alien and Jurassic Park. With what I would say is similar levels of tension to those films. Given how scary it is purported to be, I was expecting it to be scarier than those. I don't think it is scarier. But, not less scary than those either, about the same level.
Last Flag Flying.
I liked it. A very realistic type of story whose characters are very relatable and their interaction is just uncomfortable enough to make it real. Bryan Cranston does a great job of annoying the hell out of you but his "place" in life is quite believable. Fishburne does a nice job of being the minister with the old soldier simmering in the background. Steve Carroll, is okay. He does a nice job of being the despondent father and doesn't overact. He is simply too beat up to have assume any more than kind of asking for help and following but stands up when he needs too.
The correlations between Vietnam and Iraq are pointed out with all the obvious points so little is lost on the governments bull-shit. Not a movie if your in a light hearted mood or want to kill some time before you go off for the evening. Its a nice movie for a weekend afternoon on a cloudy day and you feel a little miserable. You will get a little lift out of it. But if your in a good mood it'll be a downer. I give it a 8.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on April 10, 2018, 08:29:22 PM
A Quiet Place. 7.5/10
Some things about the story don't seem to hold up to scrutiny.
That's the feeling I had. Maybe I blanked out for a few seconds, but all of a sudden the house started to flood. OK, it was raining outside, but houses are built for that. Now the basement is filling up, and people might be drowned or forced out to face the monsters. Where was that much water coming from? Outside, nothing was flooding. It was just raining. I said to myself, "Don't dwell on it. It's a horror story. Just go with it." LOL
Quote from: SGOS on April 11, 2018, 05:35:15 AM
That's the feeling I had. Maybe I blanked out for a few seconds, but all of a sudden the house started to flood. OK, it was raining outside, but houses are built for that. Now the basement is filling up, and people might be drowned or forced out to face the monsters. Where was that much water coming from? Outside, nothing was flooding. It was just raining. I said to myself, "Don't dwell on it. It's a horror story. Just go with it." LOL
In the original Sumerian version of the Flood, waters come up from below, as we all as down from above.
Quote from: SGOS on April 05, 2018, 03:04:37 AM
That seems a bit over enthusiastic. Were you on something when you watched it? That's how I reacted to Dr. Strange after I had a shot of Dexamethasone.
Oh do I wish, LOL! But I've stayed off of everything but wine and cigs since college. And lest you think I disapprove of other stuff, if cannabis comes to MD legally, I will be there in line. for the brownies. I am just habitually legal in my old age... LOL!
@Cavebear
You mentioned once that you could not find anyplace to rent Dr. Strange and hadn't seen it. This week it finally showed up at Redbox. It might be available at other sources now, since I doubt that Redbox has any special exclusive rights.
Isle of Dogs. Bad movie, bad. *rolls up newspaper* 1 milk bone out of 17.
I liked the art style. That's literally the only good thing I can say about this movie.
First off, there's this really annoying, bombastic drumbeat all throughout the movie. And while that worked in Dunkirk, it doesn't work for a boy-and-his-dog story. This artificial tension utterly smothers the mood of otherwise touching scenes.
Secondly, everyone either whispers or screams their lines. Given the bombastic drumline, the sound in this movie is deeply unpleasant. Oh, and I hope you're fluent in Japanese, because a lot of it is untranslated.
The characters are either forgettable or unlikable. And the plot is more anvilicious and black-and-white than the old Captain Planet cartoons. The writing was absolutely dreadful. Put it this way, it looks like something that Jerry from Rick and Morty would write.
The pacing was off, too. It was simultaneously rushed and boring. You don't get a chance to take everything in. After the movie, I remarked, "It's like they're afraid of silence."
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 17, 2018, 10:58:42 AM
Secondly, everyone either whispers or screams their lines. Given the bombastic drumline, the sound in this movie is deeply unpleasant. Oh, and I hope you're fluent in Japanese, because a lot of it is untranslated.
The characters are flat and unlikable. And the plot is more anvilicious and black-and-white than the old Captain Planet cartoons. The writing was absolutely dreadful. Put it this way, it looks like something that Jerry from Rick and Morty would write.
The pacing was off, too. It was simultaneously rushed and boring. You don't get a chance to take everything in. After the movie, I remarked, "It's like they're afraid of silence."
These observations could apply to Wes Anderson's recent movies, Moonrise Kingdom and Grand Budapest Hotel as well. I have seen some of his other movies, but they weren't important enough for me to remember. I'm pretty sure delivery of actors lines, flat and stilted characters, and odd pacing, are intentional. You really have to go out of your way to direct an actor to portray such flaccid characters. So I'm pretty sure the other qualities were intentional too.
I started noticing Anderson with Moonrise Kingdom. I take an interest in offbeat movies that are weird, but the characters have to be totally harmless weird, not dangerous or perverted. Evil is OK as long as it laughable. I liked Moonrise, Budapest, and Dogs because of that, along with rest of Anderson's cinematic shenanigans. Anderson is an odd duck with strange goals, and I find myself wondering what he's doing half the time, and I have no answers. I think he's just being weird. Another thing I wondered over when I've watched these three movies, is, "What on Earth appeals to me here to keep me coming back?" I can't answer that either. I'd give the three movies, a collective 7/10, just based on the movie experience for myself. If I had to score content, character development, and script, it would be a 3 or 4. If I had to explain the purpose of the movie, I would abstain. I don't know if there is purpose.
Anderson isn't going to appeal to everyone. Saying he's an acquired taste would sound snobbish. If he is an acquired taste, no one would be better off for acquiring such a taste. It's not like I believe there is anything profound under all the gibberish. I don't think there is. I don't think any of it means anything when it comes right down to it. It's just a strange and unreal experience.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 10, 2013, 01:37:48 AM
NOOOO!!!
I wanted to like the new Oz film. Don't tell me it's crappy! <!-- s:( -->:(<!-- s:( -->
Well, I will watch the original "The Wiz"...
The Commuter 7/10
I would have scored it higher, but I've seen a lot of similar train movies, so the concept seemed a bit worn. It will keep most people's interest, I think. There's a lot of guessing and tension and surprises. One scene near the end is especially well done, but I think a hint would spoil it.
Bridge of Spies - 9.7/10. Really great film, made more interesting by the fact it's based on a true story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3P1ejh9pGs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3P1ejh9pGs)
Avengers Infinity War 7/10
Worth seeing. There were some good funny lines between the action. And the introduction to the characters happens throughout the film in unexpected ways. The plot was a bit thin, basically, "Kill Thanos," and not much more. The 3D was especially well done (Marvel is good at this). There were several objects that came zipping out, and made me blink. One scene had swirly snow with tiny flakes that seemed right in front of my face. There was too much action for me, and the boss fight at the end took forever, as all the stars had to get into the fight, sometimes one at a time, sometimes in small groups. The action reminded me of one of the later Transformers movies, with excessive use of bash and crunch.
My 7/10 was influenced partly because I couldn't wait to see it and broke my rule about waiting for the midweek matinee. The theater was crowded but polite. However, a guy with horribly sour body odor was sitting some place around me, making me wish the movie would end. I didn't wait for the teaser during the end of the credits. I was the first one out, and the lights were still dimmed. That may influence my rating, but I tried to factor that out. I'll be looking forward to the DVD and watching it a home.
Quote from: SGOS on April 17, 2018, 08:28:44 AM
@Cavebear
You mentioned once that you could not find anyplace to rent Dr. Strange and hadn't seen it. This week it finally showed up at Redbox. It might be available at other sources now, since I doubt that Redbox has any special exclusive rights.
I actually had to check the date on that post, we've had a copy of Dr. Strange for months now.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 22, 2018, 01:13:40 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3P1ejh9pGs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3P1ejh9pGs)
The badass at the Red Circle should have killed him during the balcony fight.
Infinity War was awesome. It's incredibly dark (might as well have called it Everybody Dies: The Movie), yet it was also hilarious and full of badass moments. It's funny. Everyone was saying, "They won't have the balls to do the comics justice." But nope. They took a ton of risks. I'm not sure it's the kind of movie I'd recommend taking a young kid too, though. They might leave the theater crying.
[Spoiler=SGOS]Three interesting things happened in the credits. Instead of saying "The Avengers will return" like they usually do, they had the message "Thanos will return."
The first time it gets quiet, the title "Avengers: Infinity War" appears and turns to ash. There was a massive groan followed by laughter in the audience. It seemed like a joke because everyone was expecting an after credits scene there.
There is an actual after credits scene later, though. Nick Fury is driving in the city when a van nearly crashes into him. He steps out and finds no one in the vehicle. There's a helicopter flying by, and you can see the ashes of the pilot float away, and the helicopter crashes into a building. The other Shield agent Nick is with turns to ash, and Nick hurries to the back of his car to find what looks like a digital beeper. Then Nick turns to ash as he says, "Mother fu--." The beeper falls to the ground, indicates that it's sending a message, then it gives Captain Marvel's logo.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 28, 2018, 09:38:32 AM
I'm not sure it's the kind of movie I'd recommend taking a young kid too, though. They might leave the theater crying.
[Spoiler=Blackleaf]Three interesting things happened in the credits. Instead of saying "The Avengers will return" like they usually do, they had the message "Thanos will return."
[/spoiler]
Spoiler to your spoiler:
[spoiler=SGOS ]Those dirty Marvel buggers! Well there still could be another Dr. Strange or Ironman film before the Marvel Universe collapses altogether, and the last after credits teaser is nothing but an announcement from Stan Lee laughing, "Kiss off, Suckers!"[/spoiler]
The people who finance successful movies, laugh all the way to the bank. While the politicians exploit the successfully injected memes "The Resistance".
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 28, 2018, 05:52:33 AM
I actually had to check the date on that post, we've had a copy of Dr. Strange for months now.
Well, I checked the Verizon Fios list of available movies and (with great effort) and finally found Dr Strange available. And (with some stored points) it was free! So I watched it.
They did a good job matching the real origin. Steven Strange was a superb surgeon whose career was ruined. He sought healing.and received it through great effort. Granted, in the comic origin, he was a alcoholic in an alley when the oriental male Ancient One found him, but I can live with the slight change.
Strange's entry into the Female Celtic Ancient One's study area was a bit of a surprise, but again, a minor change. I enjoyed his struggle to understand the magic. And that he broke some rules learning the magic was a positive; the top students don't always follow the rules.
I thought the graphics of the spells were a bit weak. In the comics, there were usually multiple levels of competing spells; in the movie they seemed mostly weapons or transport spells. A few layers broken but one that held.
I expected Domammu, but with the human-sized body and flaming head. What would have been wrong with that? Sometimes changes make little sense and fans get annoyed. They made him too much like Galactus. I think that was an error/change they didn't need to make. Dormammu would have been fine at normal size.
And I was disappointed they didn't use the opening music I sent Marvel years ago:
To the tune of 'Frère Jacques', sung by children voices...
Dr Strange, Doctor Strange,
Where are you, Where are you,
Mindless Ones are coming,
Mindless Ones are coming,
Dormammu, Dormammu!
LOL!
OK, I liked that ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 02, 2018, 12:54:12 AM
OK, I liked that ;-)
Are you familiar with The Mindless Ones?
Quote from: Cavebear on May 02, 2018, 02:04:12 AM
Are you familiar with The Mindless Ones?
They control Congress and the Executive Branch here.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 02, 2018, 05:47:06 AM
They control Congress and the Executive Branch here.
Of course, but "The Mindless Ones" in Dormammu's universe?
Quote from: Cavebear on May 02, 2018, 02:04:12 AM
Are you familiar with The Mindless Ones?
Haven't read it, just saw the movie. So not really.
Mindless ones
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/0/0f/Mindless_Ones_from_Nextwave_Vol_1_7.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160126152846)
Quote from: SGOS on May 02, 2018, 08:16:27 AM
Mindless ones
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/0/0f/Mindless_Ones_from_Nextwave_Vol_1_7.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160126152846)
Yes, Brits who are opposed to Brexit? Isn't Brexit a slang term for the "English breakfast"?
Avengers Infinity War ∞/∞
My favorite Marvel movie.
First off, every character acted true to character. No one did anything out of character. Considering the sheer number of characters, that's pretty amazing.
Second, I love the interplay between the characters.
Third, I LOVE what they did with Thanos. They didn't dig too deeply into his motivations or backstory, but the nailed his grit, determination, and cold-hearted cruelty. He has a somewhat kind side to him, but he's NOT a jerk with a heart of gold. He's a magnificent bastard with a heart of gold until you zoom out and see that the gold is actually an infinity stone powering an anti-puppy death beam.
The movie starts out okay, and it just ramps up and up. Maybe a bit too much action and not enough foreshadowing or intrigue? I remember being blown away by the Thanos Quest and Infinity War comic books, and I had much the same reaction today. My only regret is that the audience didn't see more the chessmaster side of Thanos - the master tactician who's always one step ahead of everyone else. Well, almost everyone else.
Personally, I didn't care that much for Avengers Infinity War. I just felt bludgeoned by CGI battles. I stupidly read a spoiler about the basic ending. Maybe I would have had a different reaction if I didn't know the basic ending. As it was, I didn't really feel anything.
I don't know if I would have felt differently if I didn't know it was coming. But, I think I would have suspected it even if I didn't know it. And I know it will be undone, at least to some degree in the next movie. Though I understand that what happens before the ending isn't undone and stays done.
Compare to, say Spiderman Homecoming where I felt engaged by the story. Here, I just didn't. At least for the most part. There were some funny lines I enjoyed. And we did see Thanos doing stuff besides CGI battles, which helped. So, I'm not saying I totally hated it. But I am saying that compared to the rest of the movies in the Marvel Universe, I would say this was, for me, the worst one. Not even close.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 02, 2018, 10:50:45 PM
I don't know if I would have felt differently if I didn't know it was coming. But, I think I would have suspected it even if I didn't know it. And I know it will be undone, at least to some degree in the next movie. Though I understand that what happens before the ending isn't undone and stays done.
Serious spoiler ahead. If you haven't seen the movie, stop reading. Although, I read an article yesterday that shamelessly admitted it was spoiling everything on the grounds that everyone who was interested in seeing Infinity Wars, would have seen it by now. This is obviously not true. Plenty of people would never go to a theater, but won't miss Infinity Wars when it comes out on Netflicks.
[spoiler]When everyone was disintegrating, I started keeping track, and then I lost track, but it seems to me that Dr. Strange may have been the last man standing or one of a few. He has that pendant around his neck that controls time. I've already decided he's going to turn back time like he did with Dormammu, and give everyone a second chance to get things straight. But that almost seems a bit too obvious and simple.[/spoiler]
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 02, 2018, 10:50:45 PM
Personally, I didn't care that much for Avengers Infinity War. I just felt bludgeoned by CGI battles.
It's seems like Hollywood gravitates toward battles, and it seems like some sales rep in a Hollywood computer lab did a good job of pitching their product to Marvel. But I believe Marvel dominated the box office because it had some of the best consistently creative writers in the last 20 years, not because they take the easier path used by lesser studios. For me, Marvel storylines and dialog have been endearing and refreshingly unorthodox. Even when Marvel offers some over used Hollywood trope, they exaggerate it so it comes off as a clever parody.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 02, 2018, 10:50:45 PM
I stupidly read a spoiler about the basic ending. Maybe I would have had a different reaction if I didn't know the basic ending. As it was, I didn't really feel anything.
I didn't know the ending, and I didn't feel much either. It was a surprise to be sure, but I just found myself watching unemotionally. I was thinking to myself, "Oh! A cliff hanger," but I had no sense of, "OMG, How can I stand to wait for 2019 to see how this washes out?"
I just want Marvel to keep making Tens, rather than Sevens, and to capitalize on its strengths that set it apart from the more mundane Hollywood formulas.
Quote from: SGOS on May 03, 2018, 04:04:19 AM
Serious spoiler ahead. If you haven't seen the movie, stop reading. Although, I read an article yesterday that shamelessly admitted it was spoiling everything on the grounds that everyone who was interested in seeing Infinity Wars, would have seen it by now. This is obviously not true. Plenty of people would never go to a theater, but won't miss Infinity Wars when it comes out on Netflicks.
[spoiler]When everyone was disintegrating, I started keeping track, and then I lost track, but it seems to me that Dr. Strange may have been the last man standing or one of a few. He has that pendant around his neck that controls time. I've already decided he's going to turn back time like he did with Dormammu, and give everyone a second chance to get things straight. But that almost seems a bit too obvious and simple.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Dr. Strange died, and he can't control time without the time stone, which Thanos has. Prior to losing the stone, however, he looked at over six million possible futures and found one where they won. Before turning to ash, he says to Iron Man, "It was the only way." So somehow this bleak timeline leads to the best result.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 03, 2018, 09:40:05 AM
[spoiler]Dr. Strange died, and he can't control time without the time stone, which Thanos has. Prior to losing the stone, however, he looked at over six million possible futures and found one where they won. Before turning to ash, he says to Iron Man, "It was the only way." So somehow this bleak timeline leads to the best result.[/spoiler]
I must have been enthralled by the knowledge that I could flee from that guy in the theater next to me with the body odor, so my attention was refocused at the end of the movie.
[spoiler]Yes, Dr. Strange dying presents a bigger problem than losing the time stone. He would simply steal it back like he swiped books from the library in Kamar-Taj. I felt emotional when Thanos yanked it off of Strange's neck, and I remember thinking with that one small gesture, "This is important," because him carrying that thing around seemed far less powerful than making and using portals creatively. I actually forgot he was wearing it, and I wondered why Thanos took it from him. I'll bet you two dollars, it's going to be part of the sequel.
Of course, coming back to life can be done in many ways. If I were writing the script, I would consider a cameo with Daniel Jackson having the ancients put Dr. Strange in an Egyptian sarcophagus. No, that's to corny, but Dr. Strange is going to fix this. Since he first appeared and saved the universe, all he's done has been to perform amusing magic tricks in small cameo roles. Marvel has yet to exploit his strengths in the Avengers.
[/spoiler]
Two dollars??? Come on. It'll be fun.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 02, 2018, 10:50:45 PM
I just felt bludgeoned by CGI battles.
You just summed up why I simply don't bother with superhero movies. I have no opinion on the merits or demerits of any of the Marvel or DC offerings, only that they're complete sensory overload for me and I have no desire to watch them.
Quote from: SGOS on April 28, 2018, 09:57:48 AM
Spoiler to your spoiler:
[spoiler=SGOS ]Those dirty Marvel buggers! Well there still could be another Dr. Strange or Ironman film before the Marvel Universe collapses altogether, and the last after credits teaser is nothing but an announcement from Stan Lee laughing, "Kiss off, Suckers!"[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Not to mention like half the heroes die as well, including the beloved young Groot. I think it was a spoiler discussion with Screen Junkies of the movie where they touched upon the comics as as well. In the movie you see a lot from the perspective of Thanos, and his brief conversation with Tony Stark where he explains his reasons as to why he wants to murder half the universe's population. Still a psychotic measure.
I liked the movie a lot -
9.5/10[/spoiler]
Some people watch anime and complain about CG. That's so weird.
I saw Avengers: Infinity War Tuesday night at 10:30 pm and thought the theater would be fairly empty but it was 75% full. I was very entertained and impressed. With the number of heroes and villains involved I wasn't sure if this was going to work, it could have been a huge train wreck. The heroes interactions were authentic to their personalities and abilities, the action scenes were exciting, the humor didn't seem forced or out of context... everything worked.
[spoiler]I am the only one who was thinking during the movie that limiting every creature's ability to reproduce would be a more effective, enduring and humane solution to Thanos' population and resource concerns?[/spoiler]
We saw it on Sunday at 3 PM, the best choice for us out of the FORTY-ONE SCREENINGS that theater had that day. Nearly full theater.
I wonder if it's making any money.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on May 03, 2018, 04:58:50 PM
[spoiler]I am the only one who was thinking during the movie that limiting every creature's ability to reproduce would be a more effective, enduring and humane solution to Thanos' population and resource concerns?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Not at all. I thought so, too.
It's a poorly-conceived plan. And it seems unbelievable for someone like Thanos to be motivated by concern for others. Besides, if he truly wants to ensure their "gratitude", he would set himself up as their ruler and enforce population-limiting policy, rather than kicking the anthill every now and then.
The obvious explaination is that he's lying. He doesn't care about how many live, he cares about how many die. His true motivation is to impress Lady Death with increasingly enormous mass cullings.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 03, 2018, 06:34:53 PM
[spoiler]Not at all. I thought so, too.
It's a poorly-conceived plan. And it seems unbelievable for someone like Thanos to be motivated by concern for others. Besides, if he truly wants to ensure their "gratitude", he would set himself up as their ruler and enforce population-limiting policy, rather than kicking the anthill every now and then.
The obvious explaination is that he's lying. He doesn't care about how many live, he cares about how many die. His true motivation is to impress Lady Death with increasingly enormous mass cullings.[/spoiler]
I got confused at that point. I remember thinking, "That doesn't make sense to me," but then I just passed it off as something in the comics. Personally, I think Thanos is just a weird guy, like people that post weird things on the internet. Except that he's got a lot of power and he's the ultimate power monger. I might even consider re-evaluating my lavish praise for Marvel writers. It would still be high, but maybe take it down a notch.
Quote from: SGOS on May 03, 2018, 09:54:11 PM
I got confused at that point. I remember thinking, "That doesn't make sense to me," but then I just passed it off as something in the comics. Personally, I think Thanos is just a weird guy, like people that post weird things on the internet. Except that he's got a lot of power and he's the ultimate power monger. I might even consider re-evaluating my lavish praise for Marvel writers. It would still be high, but maybe take it down a notch.
When you go deep into his backstory and philosophy, his actions make more sense. He's one screwed up little cookie. (check out Thanos Rising if you're interested)
And while he's driven to achieve power, he's not into power for its own sake - he doesn't want to rule over people like Loki would have, he doesn't crave their adoration or loyalty or anything else. For Thanos, power is a means to an end - primarily to court his true love, sometimes to change the universe to "fix" something he considers undesirable. And when that ends is fulfilled, he's (almost) perfectly content to live a humble life of seclusion.
Another thing I liked about Infinity War:
[spoiler]If you notice, Thanos shows an awful lot of restraint in his attacks. More restraint than one might expect from a "mad" Titan whose name is nearly synonymous with death.
With the power gem alone, Thanos could've been killing people left and right. But he didn't. And he often gives people the option to hand over their gems without a fight, like he did with Doctor Strange and Iron Man. He could've lied and killed Tony Stark anyway, but he didn't. He kept his word, and teleports out the instant he has what he wants when he could tie up loose ends.
He fights only when he's forced to, and even then, he mostly just knocks people out of the way. One might say that's because of character shields, and you're not wrong about that. But there's also another reason: Thanos' focus on acquiring the infinity gems and enacting his plan is so all-consuming that he doesn't care about anything else.
That's a strength, but it's also a weakness...[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 03, 2018, 10:14:06 PM
When you go deep into his backstory and philosophy, his actions make more sense. He's one screwed up little cookie. (check out Thanos Rising if you're interested)
This might be the only situation where I felt following the comics would improve my understanding of Marvel films. Until now, Marvel Studios didn't seem to require any information outside of the films themselves to feel complete. Although, what you just explained may be revealed in subsequent films.
My first encounter with Thanos was in Guardians of the Galaxy, where he appeared to need death and destruction for it's own sake. Now his actions are confusing. Perhaps this is part of the evolution that Marvel is unfolding in film, as it may have previously done in comics. I'll guess that most theater fans of Marvel, never paid attention to the comics.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 03, 2018, 10:14:06 PM
When you go deep into his backstory and philosophy, his actions make more sense. He's one screwed up little cookie. (check out Thanos Rising if you're interested)
And while he's driven to achieve power, he's not into power for its own sake - he doesn't want to rule over people like Loki would have, he doesn't crave their adoration or loyalty or anything else. For Thanos, power is a means to an end - primarily to court his true love, sometimes to change the universe to "fix" something he considers undesirable. And when that ends is fulfilled, he's (almost) perfectly content to live a humble life of seclusion.
... "fix" something he considers undesirable ... like any other intolerant being. Sulla (Roman dictator) was humble in retirement, after the Proscriptions.
Quote from: SGOS on May 04, 2018, 06:47:06 AM
This might be the only situation where I felt following the comics would improve my understanding of Marvel films. Until now, Marvel Studios didn't seem to require any information outside of the films themselves to feel complete. Although, what you just explained may be revealed in subsequent films.
My first encounter with Thanos was in Guardians of the Galaxy, where he appeared to need death and destruction for it's own sake. Now his actions are confusing. Perhaps this is part of the evolution that Marvel is unfolding in film, as it may have previously done in comics. I'll guess that most theater fans of Marvel, never paid attention to the comics.
Perhaps poor misunderstood anti-hero ... per Euripides.
Quote from: SGOS on May 04, 2018, 06:47:06 AM
This might be the only situation where I felt following the comics would improve my understanding of Marvel films. Until now, Marvel Studios didn't seem to require any information outside of the films themselves to feel complete.
Spiderman Homecoming assumed you know Spidey's backstory. Given that his origin story is done to death, that's a safe assumption. With Thanos, fans are less familiar, but the various Thanos-centric crossovers have been so popular that I'd say that
*edited to avoid a deeply unfortunate choice of words* a sizeable proportion of Marvel fans know about him.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 03, 2018, 09:40:05 AM
[spoiler]Dr. Strange died, and he can't control time without the time stone, which Thanos has. Prior to losing the stone, however, he looked at over six million possible futures and found one where they won. Before turning to ash, he says to Iron Man, "It was the only way." So somehow this bleak timeline leads to the best result.[/spoiler]
No one ever dies forever in the Marvel Universe...
If Thanos had been in control of the Great Dying, ALL of the Avengers would have been smoked.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 05, 2018, 07:27:08 AM
If Thanos had been in control of the Great Dying, ALL of the Avengers would have been smoked.
I look forward to seeing that movie. I MIGHT even go to a theater during school hours. Or rent it like I did Dr Strange last week. Apparently, I have accumulated bonus points that apply to rentals. Dr Strange wasn't "free" in the sense of anyone downloading it, but it was for me.
A fun little companion website all for Infinity War:
Everyone needs to go here immediately after they watch the movie and share your results!
[spoiler]Did Thanos kill me? (http://www.didthanoskill.me)
I lived![/spoiler]
Quote from: Cavebear on May 05, 2018, 03:35:40 AM
No one ever dies forever in the Marvel Universe...
Except Petey's Uncle Ben.
Unless they brought him back since I quit reading Marvel 25 years ago. And if they did, they probably wrapped him in the Venom costume and welded knives to him somewhere... *sigh*
Quote from: trdsf on May 05, 2018, 08:37:52 PM
Except Petey's Uncle Ben.
Unless they brought him back since I quit reading Marvel 25 years ago. And if they did, they probably wrapped him in the Venom costume and welded knives to him somewhere... *sigh*
(https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/40/4339443-bunkergasp.jpg)
Alternate universe uncle Ben
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 05, 2018, 08:42:19 PM
(https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/40/4339443-bunkergasp.jpg)
Alternate universe uncle Ben
Simple... There is a multiverse where Peter's Uncle Ben didn't die (an infinite number of them actually - and an equally infinite number where he did). And The Fantastic Four enter there chasing Dr Doom, and Uncle Ben helps them, so he gets caught in the vortex as they return to their Earth "Prime" (and actually, how would they know for sure)...
Watched guardians of the galaxy vol. 2
I liked it. 1 was better though.
But baby groot was adorable as hell.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 07, 2018, 06:23:21 AM
Watched guardians of the galaxy vol. 2
I liked it. 1 was better though.
It's a tough call, although all of this amounts personal opinion and a few other factors. Right after I saw vol. 2, my immediate reaction, like you, was "1 was better," but after I watched 2 a couple of times, and understanding it better, I liked it more. I liked it more still, after I watched 1 again, because the two dovetail so well, and while both stand alone well enough, they are both better from the additional understanding gained from the other.
I've taken to watching Marvel movies at the theater in 3D, because Marvel seems to know how to build films around the technology, and does it fairly well. The end of Guardians 2 when all the ravagers show up to honor Yondu was quite a spectacle in 3D, one of the best 3D scenes I've seen, and OK, I was already in tears over losing a poor misunderstood addition to the team. Of course, I can't experience the 3D at home, and probably never will since 3D seems to be hanging on by a thread, and few studios in Hollywood don't know what to do with it, anyway.
For me, which is better is now a toss up. I can't decide at this time.
GotG:2 had a kickass opening scene, better than 1 by a long shot.
Quote from: SGOS on May 07, 2018, 07:48:31 AM
It's a tough call, although all of this amounts personal opinion and a few other factors. Right after I saw vol. 2, my immediate reaction, like you, was "1 was better," but after I watched 2 a couple of times, and understanding it better, I liked it more. I liked it more still, after I watched 1 again, because the two dovetail so well, and while both stand alone well enough, they are both better from the additional understanding gained from the other.
I think 2 is way better. More and better action, funnier humor, much better villain, even better music and shenanigans during the end credits (Dancing Groot was good but we see several funny/interesting scenes in #2 and both songs hit just the right tone imo). Plus, Ben Browder.
I also really liked the movie's overall theme of family - juxtaposing Quill's biological family with his non-biological family. Very touching.
Watched Avengers Infinity war gave it a 7.3/10
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 07, 2018, 08:29:59 AM
I think 2 is way better. More and better action, funnier humor, much better villain, even better music and shenanigans during the end credits (Dancing Groot was good but we see several funny/interesting scenes in #2 and both songs hit just the right tone imo). Plus, Ben Browder.
I also really liked the movie's overall theme of family - juxtaposing Quill's biological family with his non-biological family. Very touching.
There are elements in each that aren't in the other, and many of them are wonderfully special and almost but not quite seemed missing in the opposing film. [spoiler] I loved the way the gold people used the remote fighter crafts that made computer sounds like Donkey Kong. And player pilots would huddle around the last player still at it after their own fighters were shot down and cheer him on. What a screwy bunch of advanced aliens.[/spoiler]
I have to admit, I can't really remember anything about the villain from the first, other than the vaguest details. nearly everything about the second was as good or better, imo.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 07, 2018, 01:16:14 PM
I have to admit, I can't really remember anything about the villain from the first, other than the vaguest details.
Well, don't worry, he's coming back.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 07, 2018, 01:16:14 PM
I have to admit, I can't really remember anything about the villain from the first, other than the vaguest details. nearly everything about the second was as good or better, imo.
They don't have much screen time, and there's the big villain and the lesser. The lesser does some villain stuff at the end and also gives Drax a dunking in a pool of toxic crap mid film, so he seems like the big one, but I remember mostly scenes where they just seem to be plotting and threatening each other and sending off minions who get most of the screen time.
Quote from: SGOS on May 07, 2018, 01:04:53 PM
There are elements in each that aren't in the other, and many of them are wonderfully special and almost but not quite seemed missing in the opposing film. [spoiler] I loved the way the gold people used the remote fighter crafts that made computer sounds like Donkey Kong. And player pilots would huddle around the last player still at it after their own fighters were shot down and cheer him on. What a screwy bunch of advanced aliens.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]It's the smart way to do things. What kind of idiot would risk death in combat?? The drones aren't quite as good as manned spacecraft, but quantity has a quality all its own. Plus, when you lose a battle, all you have to replace are the ships.
That sort of thinking is exactly why they needed the Guardians to guard the harbulary batteries.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 07, 2018, 05:33:07 PM
[spoiler]It's the smart way to do things. What kind of idiot would risk death in combat?? The drones aren't quite as good as manned spacecraft, but quantity has a quality all its own. Plus, when you lose a battle, all you have to replace are the ships.
That sort of thinking is exactly why they needed the Guardians to guard the harbulary batteries.[/spoiler]
That's not what they are called!
:p
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2018, 10:56:53 AM
That's not what they are called!
:p
Yeah, but it's more fun to call them that.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 07, 2018, 06:23:21 AM
Watched guardians of the galaxy vol. 2
I liked it. 1 was better though.
But baby groot was adorable as hell.
Please forgive me, but I hated Groot in the original and more as a baby. It's just that "I am Groot" got really old really fast in the first movie, and I can't imagine it much better in the 2nd. Groot almost makes me think well of Jar Jar Bing.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 02:43:19 AM
Please forgive me, but I hated Groot in the original and more as a baby. It's just that "I am Groot" got really old really fast in the first movie, and I can't imagine it much better in the 2nd. Groot almost makes me think well of Jar Jar Bing.
You make me think well of Jar Jar Bing ;-)) Actually I never disliked Jar Jar. Most movies are aimed at a younger audience. With baby Groot, maybe a very young age. I am beginning to suspect that Teletubbies are scifi.
Saw Avengers infinity war:
[spoiler]Spoilers from here on. Wow.. just wow. This was something. This felt like the perfect combo of so many dishes all together, making a perfect meal in the end, but also leaving you hankering for more.
Josh Brolin as Thanos just stole the movie, he really is one of marvels best villains, and they captured him here so well. I mean he is slightly different to his comic book version, its like he actually had some emotion to him, even if what he was doing was insane and tyrannical. Infact his motivation based on a concept in his mind more then appeasing the embodiment of death, it was different, but they made it work here.
I was wondering, since they didn't establish mistress death in the cinematic universe, how they would pull this off, but while I would have liked seeing her as part of this, they still pulled this off, not with him trying to appease death itself, but doing what he did based on his own philosophy, that the universe is finite, and the only way to save it, is to cull the universe by half.
This itself made him a lot more compelling and grounded, because when you consider the nature of human beings, how when an animal species get to over populated, we as human being cull an animal species to protect others, this is exactly what Thanos did, he wasn't doing what he did based on some worship of death, but rather on his philosophy of how to protect the universe.
The movie was so good all though, from the beginning, when he kills Loki, it kind of made me laugh, in a dark way, since Tom Hiddleston as loki always steals the show, so him being killed in the opening scene so Thanos could be established was such a dark yet entertaining move by the writers.
And the ending, this being one of those movies when you come out saying 'oh yes, they went there', and now i'm looking at a lot of reviews about it, I can see the impact and surprise it had with people, fans of the movies, characters they've loved and watched, just being snuffed out. At the end, rocket is the only guardian of the galaxy left, the orignal avengers is all pretty much intact, Cap, Thor, Hulk, Ironman, Black Widow, though we don't know about hawkeye yet.
Spiderman and black panther dying, that was a daring move, given they just were presented to the MCU and now dead.
But, and this is where unlike fans of the movies who know nothing about the comics, as fans of the comics will know full well, the infinity war storyline from the comics, we've got a pretty good idea how this is going to play out.
In the comics, while Thanos was, like say, working to appease mistress death, and killing off half the known universe with a snap of his finger, so many elements in the original story play in this movie, and one key element that as in the comics became Thanos' downfall, was his underestimation of one person.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/UatFLD8FBekaH9KjfPw_M8ZO98E=/0x0:1806x1601/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1806x1601):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10758335/IMG_0178.jpg)
(https://www.quirkybyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Nebula-steals-the-Infinity-Gauntlet-from-Thanos.jpg)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/GNypg4Pg-FLlZ2EP7tSBHXnvBz4=/0x0:1807x1037/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1807x1037):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10758571/IMG_677EC67B96C2_1.jpeg)
This is why in the end of the movie, Nebula survived, since as in the comics, her hatred for Thanos is so great, it became his downfall.
(https://cdn.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Guardians-Of-The-Galaxy-Nebula-Wallpapers-600x400-600x400.jpg)
I think when the second part of this story comes about, she's going to be the one to undo and reverse everything Thanos has done, because killing it wouldn't be enough, she would use the infinity stones to reverse everything he did, shatter his dreams, before she either tried to kill him or does kill him.
The only question is, just who will survive this. Will it just be the ones who died when he snapped his fingers and they turned to dust, or will it be all the rest, like Loki, heimdall, the other asgardians, Gamora?
But yes, all in all, give this one a 9/10, guess my only real disappointments was knowing we won't get to see mistress death represented in the marvel universe, since this was the story that was meant to establish her. Oh well, maybe in the next one, we're see Adam Warlock made an appearance as the one to set in motion how the remaining characters set to undo what he did, or take revenge against Thanos.
also, the ending with nick fury, the beeper showing the captain marvel symbol, looks like she'd going to play a role, I think the next film will be the chance to give screen time to characters like this that just couldn't have with so many in the cast[/spoiler]
Quote from: Munch on May 10, 2018, 02:45:19 PM
Saw Avengers infinity war:
[spoiler]Spoilers from here on. Wow.. just wow. This was something. This felt like the perfect combo of so many dishes all together, making a perfect meal in the end, but also leaving you hankering for more.
Josh Brolin as Thanos just stole the movie, he really is one of marvels best villains, and they captured him here so well. I mean he is slightly different to his comic book version, its like he actually had some emotion to him, even if what he was doing was insane and tyrannical. Infact his motivation based on a concept in his mind more then appeasing the embodiment of death, it was different, but they made it work here.
I was wondering, since they didn't establish mistress death in the cinematic universe, how they would pull this off, but while I would have liked seeing her as part of this, they still pulled this off, not with him trying to appease death itself, but doing what he did based on his own philosophy, that the universe is finite, and the only way to save it, is to cull the universe by half.
This itself made him a lot more compelling and grounded, because when you consider the nature of human beings, how when an animal species get to over populated, we as human being cull an animal species to protect others, this is exactly what Thanos did, he wasn't doing what he did based on some worship of death, but rather on his philosophy of how to protect the universe.
The movie was so good all though, from the beginning, when he kills Loki, it kind of made me laugh, in a dark way, since Tom Hiddleston as loki always steals the show, so him being killed in the opening scene so Thanos could be established was such a dark yet entertaining move by the writers.
And the ending, this being one of those movies when you come out saying 'oh yes, they went there', and now i'm looking at a lot of reviews about it, I can see the impact and surprise it had with people, fans of the movies, characters they've loved and watched, just being snuffed out. At the end, rocket is the only guardian of the galaxy left, the orignal avengers is all pretty much intact, Cap, Thor, Hulk, Ironman, Black Widow, though we don't know about hawkeye yet.
Spiderman and black panther dying, that was a daring move, given they just were presented to the MCU and now dead.
But, and this is where unlike fans of the movies who know nothing about the comics, as fans of the comics will know full well, the infinity war storyline from the comics, we've got a pretty good idea how this is going to play out.
In the comics, while Thanos was, like say, working to appease mistress death, and killing off half the known universe with a snap of his finger, so many elements in the original story play in this movie, and one key element that as in the comics became Thanos' downfall, was his underestimation of one person.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/UatFLD8FBekaH9KjfPw_M8ZO98E=/0x0:1806x1601/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1806x1601):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10758335/IMG_0178.jpg)
(https://www.quirkybyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Nebula-steals-the-Infinity-Gauntlet-from-Thanos.jpg)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/GNypg4Pg-FLlZ2EP7tSBHXnvBz4=/0x0:1807x1037/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1807x1037):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10758571/IMG_677EC67B96C2_1.jpeg)
This is why in the end of the movie, Nebula survived, since as in the comics, her hatred for Thanos is so great, it became his downfall.
(https://cdn.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Guardians-Of-The-Galaxy-Nebula-Wallpapers-600x400-600x400.jpg)
I think when the second part of this story comes about, she's going to be the one to undo and reverse everything Thanos has done, because killing it wouldn't be enough, she would use the infinity stones to reverse everything he did, shatter his dreams, before she either tried to kill him or does kill him.
The only question is, just who will survive this. Will it just be the ones who died when he snapped his fingers and they turned to dust, or will it be all the rest, like Loki, heimdall, the other asgardians, Gamora?
But yes, all in all, give this one a 9/10, guess my only real disappointments was knowing we won't get to see mistress death represented in the marvel universe, since this was the story that was meant to establish her. Oh well, maybe in the next one, we're see Adam Warlock made an appearance as the one to set in motion how the remaining characters set to undo what he did, or take revenge against Thanos.
also, the ending with nick fury, the beeper showing the captain marvel symbol, looks like she'd going to play a role, I think the next film will be the chance to give screen time to characters like this that just couldn't have with so many in the cast[/spoiler]
[spoiler]1) I will eat half my hat if Mistress Death doesn't make an appearance in part 2. I also practically guarantee Captain Marvel and Adam Warlock will make an appearance as well.
2) I don't get why so many people take Thanos's word as gospel. That's just what he told Tony Stark and company. Sure, Thanos is normally a pretty straight shooter, but he most definitely can (and does) lie from time to time. If he revealed his death worship, no one would be on his side. But by portraying himself as a sorrowful reaper in a sea of weeds, he earns sympathy points and perhaps a slight amount of hesitation - albeit more from the fandom than the characters in the movie. You'd be surprised by the number of people who bought into into this BS hook, line, and sinker. Genocide on a scale that surpasses Hitler is apparently okay to these people.
3) Yep, Rocket is the sole surviving Guardians of the Galaxy. RIP. I struggled to not cry when Groot went to the mulch pit in the sky.
4) Yes, Nebula will reverse their fortunes, but not before Cap, Iron Man, and the Hulk have epic moments confronting the mad titan and failing.
5) Who will stay dead? Heimdall. Loki as played by Hiddleston (someone else will play him from here on out). And the original avengers will sacrifice themselves to reset the clock. Iron Man, Cap, Thor, Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye will die permanently to revive those who have been dusted. Think of it as them passing on the torch to the next generation.
So sayeth the bey.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]
1: I kinda doubt mistress death will show up, it seems marvels intent on not showing her, since they had every chance to so far, and with deadpool. Just have to accept the awesome love triangle between death, deadpool and thanos won't occur in the MCU. Also I think they've now said Adam Warlock won't be appearing in the sequal, so he won't play any role in what comes next, if at all.
2: There is this weird gospel floating around of people making out like thanos is the hero of this story. I'll give it, he is an exceptionally well developed character in the MCU and is up there with me on the same level as Magneto, but just like magneto, just because their intentions can make sense, doesn't make them good guys or their plans anything less then insane and tyrannical.
3: Yeah, that and spideys death. Though I did kind of laugh to, since we know their not just gonna perma off tom holland as spiderman after 1 movie. And you can't have a guardians of the galaxy 3 with just rocket.
4: That might be the outcome, yeah. Some people have theorizing why dr strange made sure tony lived by giving up the time stone for his life, is because he saw a future where him living is what ensures their victory, and that tony will be the one to wield the gauntlet... I seriously don't want this to happen, since they've already built up ironman as the godfather already, we don't need him also wielding the infinity stones.
5: If the next generation would turn out to be sjw marvel generation, I'm out.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Munch on May 10, 2018, 09:10:41 PM
[spoiler]4: That might be the outcome, yeah. Some people have theorizing why dr strange made sure tony lived by giving up the time stone for his life, is because he saw a future where him living is what ensures their victory, and that tony will be the one to wield the gauntlet... I seriously don't want this to happen, since they've already built up ironman as the godfather already, we don't need him also wielding the infinity stones.
5: If the next generation would turn out to be sjw marvel generation, I'm out.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]4) Iron Man isn't going to wield the gauntlet, but he is going to figure out how to outplay Thanos. Plus, he's going to set up the Illuminati to hide the gems after Thanos' defeat.
5) It just means the original avengers cast won't have any more movies for a while and instead we'll see more of Captain Marvel, Doctor Strange, Spider-Man, Black Panther, etc. It makes sense for Marvel to take a few pots off their already overcrowded stove. Plus, the actors are looking to peace out of their roles. We might see them again in cameos or flashbacks, but they've effectively ended their run.[/spoiler]
know whats weird about Avengers -
[spoiler]They killed off so many in the end I forgot some of the ones who were killed. Gonna try a list them without looking online.
Loki, heimdall, Vision, Scarlet Witch, Draks, Gamora, Groot, Spiderman, Nick Fury, Dr Strange, Falcon, winter soldier, I think black panther, urm.. thats all I can think.
I know cap, ironman, hulk, Rocket survived.. I think black window? Did she? And think hawkeye but he wasn't around.
Thats what happenes when you kill so many characters at once, it becomes novelty if you can remember all the ones who did die. [/spoiler]
Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 02:43:19 AM
Please forgive me, but I hated Groot in the original and more as a baby. It's just that "I am Groot" got really old really fast in the first movie, and I can't imagine it much better in the 2nd. Groot almost makes me think well of Jar Jar Bing.
Boss Lady loves him.
Seems like everybody could speak Tree by the second movie.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 22, 2018, 01:57:07 PM
Boss Lady loves him.
Seems like everybody could speak Tree by the second movie.
It's like Chewbacca. The longer you're around him, the more what he's saying becomes intelligible to you. Groot doesn't say different words, you just pick up on the inflection for meaning. Also, telepaths and mad geniuses know what he's saying right away.
Deadpool 2 8/10
Is it better than the original? Imo, close but not quite. The original had such great lines and had a great sense of novelty - I came into that with no idea what to expect and I was blown away. The sequel was kinda predictable (there's a lot of callbacks and retreads of previous stuff) but it was pretty funny - one of the few times I've guffawed out loud in theaters.
Also, if you haven't seen it already, you might want to see Logan before going to see Deadpool 2. Huge spoilers for Logan!
There's a mid-credits scene but no post-credits scene, so there's no need to stick around till the very end. Between this and Infinity War, Marvel's been holding out on me. Daddy needs his fix!
Quote from: Munch on May 22, 2018, 01:42:01 PM
know whats weird about Avengers -
[spoiler]They killed off so many in the end I forgot some of the ones who were killed. Gonna try a list them without looking online.
Loki, heimdall, Vision, Scarlet Witch, Draks, Gamora, Groot, Spiderman, Nick Fury, Dr Strange, Falcon, winter soldier, I think black panther, urm.. thats all I can think.
I know cap, ironman, hulk, Rocket survived.. I think black window? Did she? And think hawkeye but he wasn't around.
Thats what happenes when you kill so many characters at once, it becomes novelty if you can remember all the ones who did die. [/spoiler]
It will all a bad dream in another universe. Unless DC bought Marvel... LOL!
But by any definition, those deaths can't last.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 02:57:20 PM
It will all a bad dream in another universe. Unless DC bought Marvel... LOL!
But by any definition, those deaths can't last.
Well no not when there's a cash cow to be made
Solo: I enjoyed it. It's fine. I pretty much forgot it already. It is strange for a Star Wars movie to have virtually no Force, Jedi, lightsabers. But maybe not quite completely none....
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 27, 2018, 11:33:33 AM
Solo: I enjoyed it. It's fine. I pretty much forgot it already. It is strange for a Star Wars movie to have virtually no Force, Jedi, lightsabers. But maybe not quite completely none....
Yeah, preview looks good. They finally got the soy boys out of the galaxy. Plenty of gun fights.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 27, 2018, 11:33:33 AM
Solo: I enjoyed it. It's fine. I pretty much forgot it already. It is strange for a Star Wars movie to have virtually no Force, Jedi, lightsabers. But maybe not quite completely none....
I might be one of the few people who could actually really enjoy that.
You could have a criminal on the run from bounty hunters stumble across an ancient alien relic of immense power. You could have a hyperspace scout from a megacorporation try to chart a new hyperspace lane only to go far off course and end up in some strange new alien system. Or could tell the story of Republic commandos. Or stormtroopers finding a ship with a mysterious pathogen that turns people into zombies. Hell, you could just do a Thrawn movie.
*edit - and a Mandalore (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalore_the_Ultimate) movie would be the most epic Star Wars movie ever! It'll probably never happen, but a guy can dream.
Quote from: Munch on May 25, 2018, 04:29:29 PM
Well no not when there's a cash cow to be made
I read the list of the Marvel superheroes who died. I don't believe any of it. My assumption is that they will all return in the next movie. Marvel never kills anyone. Well, not "permanently". LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 03:01:48 PM
I read the list of the Marvel superheroes who died. I don't believe any of it. My assumption is that they will all return in the next movie. Marvel never kills anyone. Well, not "permanently". LOL!
Remember that at least one of them is a Time Lord.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 29, 2018, 06:32:54 PM
Remember that at least one of them is a Time Lord.
OK, that's a surprise to me. Who? (and that isn't a pun).
Quote from: Cavebear on June 01, 2018, 02:41:40 AM
OK, that's a surprise to me. Who? (and that isn't a pun).
Dr. Strange. ("Time Lord" being someone who can manipulate time.)
The Darkest Hour.
8/10
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 02, 2018, 03:41:29 AM
The Darkest Hour.
8/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htHKbsUKDDw&list=PLZbXA4lyCtqocsNf6xeGDWjRePi7xU1oH
Many scenes from the 2017 movie.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 02, 2018, 03:41:29 AM
The Darkest Hour.
8/10
I was impressed with the film also. I ended up buying two more films about that time period from Amazon, one about Eisenhower and the planning for D Day, and other similar biography about Churchill. They were all interesting. I'm sure somewhat Hollywooded up, but what are you gonna do?
Years ago, I watched a documentary about the end of WWII. There was the footage of the Axis and Allied leaders coming together to sign the official surrender document. It was on a naval ship if I remember it right. So I'm sitting their wondering if it's going to be like Microsoft signing a cooperative agreement with the Trump Administration where the combined efforts of the two agencies come together with a new plan for fucking the public, all finalized with a shaking of hands and smiling for the media.
What is the proper protocol for treating a fallen foe? Do you treat him with respect and dignity praising his valor in battle and then welcome into something like a new alliance for peace? Do you do this when he has slaughtered millions of innocents in gas chambers, and tried to violently take over the world?
Apparently you don't. The Axis leaders were dressed in their best pressed uniforms and gave Eisenhower a formal unified military salute. I remember them crisply clicking their heels together as a show of military decorum, but I may just be adding that, because it wouldn't have surprised me. How did Eisenhower respond? He just ignored them and proceeded to the next step with an air of "Go fuck yourself, Jerk Offs." And then they led the Axis signers of this important document off to their pre-trail holding cells at Nuremburg. Well, I guess that's what happened next.
We don't seem to end wars like that anymore. We just kind of run out of steam and go home. But still declare some sort of victory none-the-less.
We have been at war (the Anglo-American Empire) since 1939. The US was already fighting indirectly in Europe and China before 1941. The war never ended ... nor did the Deep State created to fight it ... the Cold War was WW II 2.0. Post-Soviet times are WW II 3.0. The OSS became the CIA etc.
WW I never ended, there was only an armistice with Germany ...
Specifically, on the battleship USS Missouri, that is Gen McArthur accepting the Japanese surrender.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EqRTWMVqMY
Gen McArthur became ViceRoy of a sovereign nation until the Korean War. Something no other American has ever done, though Gen Patton had temporary power like that at the end of WW II.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4O3RKOVFMQ
The US still occupies Japan and the Korean War never ended (armistice) ... Trump is trying to end it ...
Both Japan and Germany committed war crimes (as did the Soviets, the US and GB). Gen Eisenhower and Gen Patton toured the death camps in Germany after their liberation (March 1945), before the surrender of Germany in May 1945. Eisenhower was disgusted by it, as McArthur was disgusted by the breakdown of Japanese Army discipline in Manila when it was about to fall the the US. Both considered senior military leadership responsible for the discipline of their troops.
German soldiers in general were always well dressed ... their uniforms are tailored, not just government issue one size fits all. McArthur was famous for his informal dress, but Patton was the opposite ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv9XNFpRdhg
Here is the actual films on the German surrender ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvwU2ni1NGw
Part of the rhetoric is that until it was apparent that it couldn't happen, both Axis governments expected negotiations ... not unconditional surrender as FDR had insisted on imposing on Churchill and Stalin.
Deadpool 2
I thought it was good. If you like the first one, you'll probably like this one too. It does repeat some of the same gags, though. While the repeated jokes do work as a callback to the first film, they also make the film feel a bit less original. The first film was pretty daring with for a comic book movie, so when the sequel starts to feel formulaic, that kinda makes it less impactful than the first one. There are plenty of good moments to make up for that, though. No spoilers, but one of the things the trailer hypes up just completely falls flat in the film, and you just know they did that on purpose. lol. There is one end-credits scene this time, so when it feels done, it's done. Don't bother waiting through all the credits this time.
Quote from: SGOS on June 02, 2018, 09:37:58 AM
I was impressed with the film also. I ended up buying two more films about that time period from Amazon, one about Eisenhower and the planning for D Day, and other similar biography about Churchill. They were all interesting. I'm sure somewhat Hollywooded up, but what are you gonna do?
You should check out "The Gathering Storm" and "Into the Storm", both available at Amazon. I got them for my birthday this year.
Quote from: SGOS on June 02, 2018, 10:02:26 AM
Years ago, I watched a documentary about the end of WWII. There was the footage of the Axis and Allied leaders coming together to sign the official surrender document. It was on a naval ship if I remember it right. So I'm sitting their wondering if it's going to be like Microsoft signing a cooperative agreement with the Trump Administration where the combined efforts of the two agencies come together with a new plan for fucking the public, all finalized with a shaking of hands and smiling for the media.
What is the proper protocol for treating a fallen foe? Do you treat him with respect and dignity praising his valor in battle and then welcome into something like a new alliance for peace? Do you do this when he has slaughtered millions of innocents in gas chambers, and tried to violently take over the world?
Apparently you don't. The Axis leaders were dressed in their best pressed uniforms and gave Eisenhower a formal unified military salute. I remember them crisply clicking their heels together as a show of military decorum, but I may just be adding that, because it wouldn't have surprised me. How did Eisenhower respond? He just ignored them and proceeded to the next step with an air of "Go fuck yourself, Jerk Offs." And then they led the Axis signers of this important document off to their pre-trail holding cells at Nuremburg. Well, I guess that's what happened next.
We don't seem to end wars like that anymore. We just kind of run out of steam and go home. But still declare some sort of victory none-the-less.
The Japanese surrendered on board USS Missouri, the Germans met senior Allied leaders on land. Sounds like the video was sexed-up a bit.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 02, 2018, 12:09:17 PM
You should check out "The Gathering Storm" and "Into the Storm", both available at Amazon. I got them for my birthday this year.
Churchill's Secret 2016 ... later life of Churchill included. Stroke, senility the second time he was PM ...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 02, 2018, 12:09:17 PM
You should check out "The Gathering Storm" and "Into the Storm", both available at Amazon. I got them for my birthday this year.
I have those plus a third, Countdown to D Day. I guess I got all three after watching Darkest Hour.
Men in Black - 7/10
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 29, 2018, 06:32:54 PM
Remember that at least one of them is a Time Lord.
I am not a comics "fan" and no slight is intended....but if "one" is a "time lord" does that not, in reality render the rest pretty much "at the whim" of the "time lord"? Can't a time lord just go back and whack the fucker what fucked the fuckee and therefore no fucking whoever?
Quote from: aitm on June 02, 2018, 10:00:44 PM
I am not a comics "fan" and no slight is intended....but if "one" is a "time lord" does that not, in reality render the rest pretty much "at the whim" of the "time lord"? Can't a time lord just go back and whack the fucker what fucked the fuckee and therefore no fucking whoever?
Ah, you've seen Part 2?
Quote from: aitm on June 02, 2018, 10:00:44 PM
I am not a comics "fan" and no slight is intended....but if "one" is a "time lord" does that not, in reality render the rest pretty much "at the whim" of the "time lord"? Can't a time lord just go back and whack the fucker what fucked the fuckee and therefore no fucking whoever?
Things up for discussion:
The Time Lord is no longer in possession of the time stone, so it would seem it's of no help.
Strange implies to Stark that he had to let Thanos take it, because after looking at the future, it was the only way. What the Hell does that mean?
Marvel seems to point out the importance of the time stone in bringing the Avengers back, and at the same time, it destroys its value by taking it out of the Time Lord's hands.
Will Thanos, experiment with it and accidentally create a paradox that alters his own future?
Jesus, I've got to stop thinking about how Marvel fixes this.
The Time Lord was in possession of the Time Stone and therefore potentially always will be in possession of the Time Stone.
This brought to by the Department of Loopholes.
Quote from: SGOS on June 03, 2018, 08:02:01 AMThe Time Lord is no longer in possession of the time stone, so it would seem it's of no help.
It's helpful (he uses it to see into future possibilities) but it seems the problem is that the Time Stone may actually too powerful to be very practical.
Mordo warns Strange against using the stone because it can create looped time, paradoxes, etc - "the bill comes due".
Strange could've used it to stop Thanos, but that would likely shatter the universe as we know it. If you notice, even Thanos used the time stone extremely sparingly, going back only a couple seconds and only when there was no other way. And Thanos is far less cautious with their use than Strange.
Using the time stone in battle is like using nuclear bombs in rugby. It's insane and reckless.
QuoteStrange implies to Stark that he had to let Thanos take it, because after looking at the future, it was the only way. What the Hell does that mean?
Exactly what it says. Unless and until Thanos get what he wants, he'll kill anyone who stands in his way. He'll eventually get it anyway, just with a much larger body count the longer you resist.
If you give him what he wants, he'll mess up the universe, but he'll become overconfident, giving you an opening to stop him and undo *most* of his destructive acts.
QuoteWill Thanos, experiment with it and accidentally create a paradox that alters his own future?
No. Even the Mad Titan's not that crazy. He uses it to debilitate opponents by rapidly aging them - turning them elderly or infantile. He sometimes also ages the surroundings, like aging a bridge until it collapses or aging vegetation so that it engulfs someone. This is the bare minimum that the Time Stone is capable of.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 03, 2018, 10:50:48 AM
It's helpful (he uses it to see into future possibilities) but it seems the problem is that the Time Stone may actually too powerful to be very practical.
Mordo warns Strange against using the stone because it can create looped time, paradoxes, etc - "the bill comes due".
I remember both Mordo and Wong warning him about breaking time and looping time. I don't read the comics so I might be missing something, but my interpretation was that Dr. Strange was unusually gifted. He became the next Sorcerer Supreme. He used the time stone and spells to defeat Dormamu. His knowledge and abilities eventually surpassed the all the others who weren't advanced enough to control the magic, but Strange had the intellect to master them. Granted he may have taken risks, he always seemed capable of eventual mastery.
As far as Mordo's, "The bill comes due," I just took that as Mordo not having what it takes, and not realizing how far ahead of him Dr. Strange was.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 03, 2018, 10:50:48 AM
Strange could've used it to stop Thanos, but that would likely shatter the universe as we know it. If you notice, even Thanos used the time stone extremely sparingly, going back only a couple seconds and only when there was no other way. And Thanos is far less cautious with their use than Strange.
But Dr. Strange is my hero. No really, I'm enthralled with that character. He makes Tony Stark look like a putz. I think Dr. Strange has things under control, even as we speak. I know he can do it. I just know it!
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 03, 2018, 10:50:48 AM
Using the time stone in battle is like using nuclear bombs in rugby.
Not for Dr. Strange. He's my hero... I think.
Quote from: SGOS on June 03, 2018, 11:46:04 AM
I remember both Mordo and Wong warning him about breaking time and looping time. I don't read the comics so I might be missing something, but my interpretation was that Dr. Strange was unusually gifted. He became the next Sorcerer Supreme. He used the time stone and spells to defeat Dormamu.
Not so much defeat as "frustrate until he caves and goes away". And you'd better believe that Dormamu noticed the Time Stone's change of ownership. Deal's off.
QuoteHis knowledge and abilities eventually surpassed the all the others who weren't advanced enough to control the magic, but Strange had the intellect to master them. Granted he may have taken risks, he always seemed capable of eventual mastery.
You don't really "control" magic, exactly. That was why Strange couldn't get basic magic working correctly at first.
QuoteAs far as Mordo's, "The bill comes due," I just took that as Mordo not having what it takes, and not realizing how far ahead of him Dr. Strange was.
Nope. He might also be a tad jealous and daunted by the circumstances, but he's right to be cautious and not seek to reach beyond his grasp.
A sorcerer drawing power from the dark dimension is like a paladin practicing necromancy. It's so hypocritical and perverse. And using the Time Stone offensively is pure hubris.
And this from a guy who spars using The Staff of the Living Tribunal (basically, God's gavel). That says a lot.
QuoteBut Dr. Strange is my hero. No really, I'm enthralled with that character. He makes Tony Stark look like a putz. I think Dr. Strange has things under control, even as we speak. I know he can do it. I just know it!
Eh...Tony is a self-made hero. He literally had a gun to his head and rather than use his knowledge do evil, he pulled off one hell of a prisoner escape.
Strange was a douche who crashed his car, got real sad that his hands don't work, then stumbled on Hogwarts after going through a lot of frauds first. He studied really hard and went through a couple school of hard knocks-style trials, but he basically stumbled across his sentient cape. And how'd he get the Time Gem? He saw it on a pedestal, wanted to use it, grabbed it, and used it! It's just there for the taking, apparently. Granted he went through some stuff, but a lot of his power was basically just gifted to him.
The fact that he was able to manipulate the Eye of Agamoto on the first try indicates a level of connection that very few would have. It was there "on display" because the vast majority of people couldn't get a peep out of it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 03, 2018, 12:41:29 PM
Strange was a douche who crashed his car, got real sad that his hands don't work, then stumbled on Hogwarts after going through a lot of frauds first. He studied really hard and went through a couple school of hard knocks-style trials, but he basically stumbled across his sentient cape. And how'd he get the Time Gem? He saw it on a pedestal, wanted to use it, grabbed it, and used it! It's just there for the taking, apparently. Granted he went through some stuff, but a lot of his power was basically just gifted to him.
I've heard a couple of people say they didn't like Dr. Strange, because he was an arrogant walking ego, and that's true. He was. But the origin stories of Superheroes like to play on the theme of growth. Wimpy high school kid becomes Spiderman. Captain America couldn't lift a bowling ball at one time. Antman was a ex-con. The stories play upon becoming something, often from hardly anything. Dr. Strange, like many of the others, outgrew his old self, and in Infinity Wars he doesn't come across as cocksure as he once was, but more like a team player, with his focus on the greater good.
Yeah, he grabbed forbidden things, but he wasn't trying to misbehave. He was obsessed with learning and determined to learn about things. He broke some rules, but eventually gained the Ancient One's approval for doing so.
He didn't really stumble onto the cloak of levitation. Long before, he asked Mordo, "How do you choose a relic?" Mordo replied, "You don't. The relic chooses you... When you are ready." Presumably all of his relic gagets were earned "because he became ready" and stopped fighting the river's current. The exception being the time stone, which he just took, and for reason's I don't understand, everyone looked the other way, almost like they knew it had been destined for him.
Good points.
And come to think if it, most superheroes in the MCU aren't self-made like Iron Man is. Most of them were either born with powers (all the X-Men), got it through accident/luck (Spider-Man, the Hulk), or were gifted with it (Black Panther, Ant Man, Captain America)
And Doctor Strange does go through a character arc where he learns to be less selfish. Personally, I think Tony is the better character because he starts out as a jerkface like Strange, but Tony is charismatic and likable despite his jerkiness, unlike Strange. And Tony had to go through a humble pie buffet to change his course in life (and atone for his company's misdeeds) while Strange just had to knock on the right door, study some books (and steal some of them), and rein in his jerkface nature just a little bit to get off-the-charts power. It kinda struck me as somewhat unearned. But hey, he did die over and over again to save the world, and that's pretty impressive. Kinda Jesus-like. Though it seems like Dormamu was about a minute away from destroying the whole world, including him, so he kinda had no choice but to sacrifice himself to save himself. Hmmm...
No question that Tony Stark has been a charismatic character with a presence in the Marvel Universe that never seems to stale. I saw the first Iron Man in Chicago, because my Brother-in-law insisted. I didn't know anything about it, or that they had even made such a movie. But I remember half way through thinking, "This certainly sets a new bar for the Superhero genre," and it did. The origin story, where he is forced to figure out how to save his ass with that clunky suit of armor, had all the right components, and from there he goes on from the rusty prototype to build the ultra improved long distance almost indestructible unit.
There's an obvious similarity between all the Marvel heroes and their back stories, but each one is tweaked to create a new character and personality, and Marvel always seems to include the right components. Dr. Strange's back story is weaker than Stark's, and it drags out a bit. It's just watching him in a long period of angst, while Stark is actively engaged in problem solving right from the start. But when Strange learns magic, even though he is intellectually unwilling to accept it, I become fascinated. There is nothing high tech in it, just ancient spells and the waving of hands. It's not what I would expect to be so unexplainably enchanted with, but I am.
I loved the original Ironman suit. The crotch was about one foot, 30cm, wide. Tony's pelvis would have been dislocated in an interesting manner.
Now if Strange could get me one of those Ever-filled beer steins... (http://rationalia.com/z/partychogger.gif)
Speaking of the MCU, there is a problem I've had with it in regards to what they did with a certain character.
I've been a marvel comics fan for years, since the late 80s and 90s, when I became an x-men fan, which I still am today. It wasn't until the early 2000s I got into other marvel titles like the avengers, and my favorite avenger, who I brought loads of comics for, was Thor.
I liked the other avengers, including cap, marvels hercules, hawkeye, hulk (sometimes), but my favorite avenger was Thor. To me the concept of him being an actual god with the kind of power he wielded it, while living among mortals, was such a great concept. I just loved the way he spoke and interacted with other characters, and how he was just such a powerhouse when fighting.
(https://www.alltimelines.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/thor8.jpg)
So of course when they announced a Thor movie coming, I was excited. and seeing the promos of it, I was sold, Chris Hemsworth was perfect looking for the role, and I could see they worked on delivering the aesthetic of Thor, the godly world he came from.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4027c63d471c7b78aae0ac515a05d64f-c)
So the movie came out, and it had mixed reactions to it, but to me, I was just happy to see Thor having his own movie, even if there were some flaws, I forgave it for the fact it gave us a cinematic version of Thor, and a character arch for him.
However this and more so the sequal Thor the dark world wasn't given any real praise, looked over as mediocre by people, but it did setup having Thor in the Avengers movie, which nailed him really well. Its true his dialogue wasn't as grandiose as in the comics, but I forgave that fact for everything else.
(http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/6/1/000117/resources/images/walsh_2012_figure27.jpg)
But when Thor Ragnarok came around, and seeing that, seeing the changes made to Thor, this really just broke for me my fav character in the MCU. And I realized how this was because of more then just this movie.
The Thor Ragnarok, they essentially broke Thor down, they changed him, instead of making the idea of the fall of asgard into a serious thing, it played the movie light hearted and goofy, like they did with the oh so popular guardians of the galaxy. I just took it because of how successful guardians was, and how unpopular the first two thor movies were, they decided to completely revamp Thor for the marvel cinematic universe.
And that is my major problem with this. Seeing Thor in Ragnarok and Avengers infinity war, it just doesn't seem like the same character. Its true in the first and second Thor movies he wasn't exactly like he was in the comics, but the tone of Hemsworth voice and the way he spoke, who he acted, it felt like he was TRYING to convey the Thor from the comics.
Come Ragnarok and infinity war, he's just seemed to abandon that, to become his easy to crowd please character that fits more in the guardians of the galaxy movies then he does in anything related to the Thor storyline.
And I think that comes back to the Thor movies, and how in the first two, they didn't do a good enough job in conveying Thor as the character he was lived in the comics. In the comics, Thor is seen as this powerhouse, this larger then life character, who when he arrived in battle, would often be a win button for the avengers because of his power, and this gave him a presence.
A great example of what I'm talking about is here:
(bit of a read but worth it)
[spoiler](https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman1.jpg?w=768&h=735)
(https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman2.jpg?w=768&h=1201)
(https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman3.jpg?w=768&h=1230)
(https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman4.jpg?w=768&h=1204)
(https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman5.jpg?w=768&h=1201)
(https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman6.jpg?w=768&h=1184)
(https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman111.jpg)
(https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman7.jpg?w=768&h=1210)
(https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman8.jpg?w=768&h=1207)
(https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman9.jpg?w=768&h=1151)
(https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman10.jpg?w=768&h=644)
(https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman121.jpg?w=768&h=706)
(https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thorman131.jpg?w=768&h=711)[/spoiler]
To summarize, in the Civil war comic, in which the superheroes of marvel comics were split, one against the superhero registration act that would force heroes to conform to the government, and those against it. It had ironman on the pro side of the registration fact, Captain America against it, leading to a civil war between both sides.
In that series, Thor was dead at the time, but came back to life later. During the event, Tony Stack decided to clone Thor, with all the powers he held, but make the clone completely subservient to Tonys side. This lead to the Thor clone killing one of the heroes on the opposing side, Goliath.
When Thor came back to life, as seen here, he was royally pissed at Tony.
This to me is Thor, he's this commanding powerhouse who has a strong sense of honor, and having him interacting with morals despite that position he's in is whats made him a beloved character for years.
But in the MCU, its like they tried to convey that in the first two movies, but didn't really hit the nail for what made Thor this character. This I blame on the directors.
So instead of trying to work this out, they just went 'fuck it, lets make his story silly and goofy, make him a space pirate and goth him out and shave his head and break him down so he's as grounded as everyone else'. But that isn't Thor to me. And its why I can't really enjoy Thor Ragnarok and him in Infinity War, because they just Gave up trying to convey this Thor.
I went And saw solo and i was pleasantly surprised. I honeslty Didn’t expect much after episode 8, which I womt Get into but can easily say was the worst Star Wars movie. But it was a fun movie. No it wasn’t perfect but it went into the deeper gangster lines in Star Wars, you had ham the scoundrel/scrapper. His mentor the gunslinger and the criminal forces set against and aside them.
Don Glover, Lima him or hate him, was a great Lando and seemed to channel the energies of the original Lando Calrissian perfectly. And the side characters like L3 and Qira were great, and the villain was terrific albeit not super deep like most people want their villains to be. Just a bad crazy guy serving another bad crazy guy.
I wasnt Super thrilled about he cameo of the big bad towards the end of the movie. But still was a solid 8/10 of a film, almost a 9/10. Proving that any movie not in the main 7-9 trilogy is fantastic.
Unfortunately it’s getting it by all the blowback from purists not wanting anyone beyond Harrison ford being Han Solo, and everyone pissed off from last Jedi.
Worth seeing and worth owning and set up a good story for a sequel but unfortunately it will be abandoned I believe.
Some notable cameos without spoilers
-Aurra Sing mentioned
-Bossk mentioned
-Mandalorian battle armor
-The imperial March
-Correlian Shipyards
Quote from: Munch on June 04, 2018, 08:42:05 AM
And that is my major problem with this. Seeing Thor in Ragnarok and Avengers infinity war, it just doesn't seem like the same character. Its true in the first and second Thor movies he wasn't exactly like he was in the comics, but the tone of Hemsworth voice and the way he spoke, who he acted, it felt like he was TRYING to convey the Thor from the comics.
Come Ragnarok and infinity war, he's just seemed to abandon that, to become his easy to crowd please character that fits more in the guardians of the galaxy movies then he does in anything related to the Thor storyline.
Yeah, his character was pretty goofy in Ragnarok. I think he was okay in Infinity War, though he was nothing like the Thor depicted in the comics - regal, proud, somewhat intimidating. Thor in Infinity War was godlike in his actions, but the dialogue had a very mortal bearing. Given what he has lost, that makes sense. And come to think of it, MCU Odin and Loki don't really have the demeanor of Gods, either.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 04, 2018, 10:18:27 AM
Yeah, his character was pretty goofy in Ragnarok. I think he was okay in Infinity War, though he was nothing like the Thor depicted in the comics - regal, proud, somewhat intimidating. Thor in Infinity War was godlike in his actions, but the dialogue had a very mortal bearing. Given what he has lost, that makes sense. And come to think of it, MCU Odin and Loki don't really have the demeanor of Gods, either.
yeah, you saying that. Although I still like Tom Hiddleston as Loki, when you think in the comics he seems more sneaky and deceptive, while in the MCU he has a more of a grandeur at times, like the scene in the first avengers movie when he orders the public to kneel before him, or when he tries to berate Hulk about his status as a god. I'd say he was more consistent a character in these films then Hemsworth as Thor has been.
I watched some of Halloween 2007 last night. It was harder to watch than the originals. Just brutal. But it did a really good job of showing/explaining the younger Michael Myers at the beginning.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 05, 2018, 04:56:03 AM
I watched some of Halloween 2007 last night. It was harder to watch than the originals. Just brutal. But it did a really good job of showing/explaining the younger Michael Myers at the beginning.
And really, who doesn't have a slutty sister that deserves to be slaughtered?
Quote from: Cavebear on June 05, 2018, 04:56:03 AM
I watched some of Halloween 2007 last night. It was harder to watch than the originals. Just brutal. But it did a really good job of showing/explaining the younger Michael Myers at the beginning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p_sqF928kc
10 Cloverfield Lane - 8/10
Albeit with slow progression, still makes for an interesting movie around the Cloverfield concept.
Well, actually I liked the sequels of the original a lot more. VERY creative ways of him killing people. Don't worry, I don't tend in that direction myself. But one can admire the movie-maker trade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwPwJFIwD80&t=2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwPwJFIwD80&t=2s)
Besides just going over what made this movie one of the greatest movies of... well, movie history..., he also says something incredible relevant; it's so easy for white people to be confused at best, or dismissive and hateful at worse, about African Americans making a deal out of their skin colour... but you have to realise that their entire culture was stolen from them and, for several hundred years more, denied any agency. Their skin colour is about the only link to their heritage as they have... and that is something we simply cannot ever fully grasp.
It's not just the past, either; even to this day, the colour of their skin is justification enough for them to face increased persecution and prejudice... but it's not enough for them to take pride in or rally around? Really?
So when African Americans are accused of playing "identity politics", or rebutted with, "ALL lives matter!", it is spoken from a place purely of ignorance... which should be rather self evident anyways, since ignorance is generally what breeds hatefulness.
You know, maybe instead of looking for identity politics in a movie to satisfy your social narrative, how about, oh i dunno, look at the movie as a fucking movie and judge it on that instead of forcing the message of 'WHITE PEOPLE DON'T GET IT, THIS IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVAH, RREEEEEEE!!"
I like Idris Elba, i think he's an incredibly charming and charismatic actor with a lot of acting skill to him. Do I increase his acting prowess because he's black? Is that going to effect how good an actor he is, or how well his performance comes off? No, I like him because of his acting ability, I don't look at the color of his skin as anything meaningful.
That in itself shows just having a good actor performing his role and people not caring the color of his skin means the world has moved on. Its also why people like you blowing up black panther like its the greatest movie ever is just ridiculous, because we love in a time now that we don't need such messages forced hammered in peoples faces.
And its not hatred and ignorance, its forced identity politics that just pisses everyone else off. I've seen the same shit happen with gay people in media, like then sjw marvel decided for no reason to change Icemans sexuality to gay, just because, even though he's been straight for years. That isn't a natural progression of character, thats forcing gender politics.
Also maybe you want to look at actual audience reviews of the movie and gain some perspective.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/black_panther_2018/reviews/?type=user
i think this says it best
Quote"I wanted this to be awesome, I thought Black Panther in Civil War stole the show! and once you brush off the hype and identity politics this movie is mediocre at best."
I can accept it being a good movie, with the kind of standards i'd coming to expect from a good marvel movie. But calling it the greatest movie of all time is frankly an insult to cinema.
Also one guys message from the video you linked.
QuoteThe thing is, the second I say I didn't really enjoy BP as much as others did, everybody is like "YOU HATE IT BECAUSE THERE ARE BLACK PEOPLE! YOURE RACIST!" and honestly, that's probably why I burried this movie under the ground. It's a good movie, but it's not worth all the fighting. Still liked Thor: Ragnarok or even Spiderman: Homecoming better. I do love the badass women in this movie though. Okoye is the badass woman we deserved, unlike Wanda, or the MCU's fucked up version of Black Widow.
Says it all. If its something where unless you agree 100% its the greatest movie of all time, your seen as a racist white guy. And all that does it create a vacuum, where people just can't be bothered with the movie. they'd sooner avoid it then deal with the screaming social justice banshees reeeeing if you don't agree with them and their need for validated opinions.
Maybe I'm needing a better angle to get this across, okay here we go. Heres a black dudes reaction to the movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMpVumNTiKA
Actually due to all this, I started looking at more of this guys videos, and now subbed to him, so there you go, pro points, you made an evil white guy un-racist.
QuoteYou know, maybe instead of looking for identity politics in a movie to satisfy your social narrative, how about, oh i dunno, look at the movie as a fucking movie and judge it on that instead of forcing the message of 'WHITE PEOPLE DON'T GET IT, THIS IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVAH, RREEEEEEE!!"
Never said it was the greatest movie ever (though it's certainly up there with the greats, which is what I said), however what you essentially are arguing is that art should only be art and not have any depth to it.
That's fine if you want to interpret that way, I for one love art for arts sake, but that doesn't somehow discredit that this movie also has a narrative that it itself pushes. You are free to interpret it however you want, or refuse to interpret it, but that doesn't somehow mean everyone else is wrong because they choose to look at it another way. I have no problem with you viewing it purely as art for arts sake, so I would expect the same respect back.
QuoteIts also why people like you blowing up black panther like its the greatest movie ever is just ridiculous, because we love in a time now that we don't need such messages forced hammered in peoples faces.
I'm sorry, but what? We live in a time that we don't need these messages "forced" into people's faces?
First off, it's a movie... no one forced you or anyone else to watch it. Second off, when is the right time to talk about social issues, or really any issue? We shouldn't talk about issues when they are a problem is absolutely ridiculous, ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away... and the problem is the problem has been ignored for generations. If they stay silent no one pays attention and if they talk about it you have segments of society that think they shouldn't... it's a lose/lose situation.
But again... seriously, it's a movie. No one is forcing you to watch it, nor is anyone forcing you to get that message out of it. You are 110% free to simply watch it as a movie and take absolutely nothing away from you, and no one is going to shoot you in the head if you do that. Shit, no one is even going to care. It's only when you are obnoxious about it that anyone says something.
QuoteAnd its not hatred and ignorance, its forced identity politics that just pisses everyone else off.
No, i'm pretty sure it's hatred and ignorance, since it's the people who hated gays, blacks, women or whoever anyways who are now shrieking and screaming that they are forced to hear about gays, blacks, women or whoever.
The ones screaming the loudest now that they are "forced" to hear about minorities are the exact same people who were screaming about how terrible those minorities were before. So I don't buy that victim blaming shit for a second.
QuoteAlso maybe you want to look at actual audience reviews of the movie and gain some perspective.
Sorry, who do you think I associate with? Professional movie critics?
I saw the movie with two friends, talked about it at work with several coworkers and plenty of customers, and linked a video from a semi-professional at best critic. Even excluding CinemaWins I have yet to meet a person in the "real world" who thought Black Panther was anything other than amazing or really, really good. That doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means that, from my personal experiences, I have yet to meet anyone who didn't like the movie. But there is something really troubling about this implication you make that I am somehow being brainwashed because my life experience is different... that is what get's really obnoxious and makes it hard to agree with you. The fact that I view the world differently than you MUST mean that somehow insidious forces have infiltrated my brain and make me think the way I do as part of some grand conspiracy to destroy the West... do you not see how people could get really annoyed with that?
Quote from: Munch on June 09, 2018, 09:41:03 PM
Maybe I'm needing a better angle to get this across, okay here we go. Heres a black dudes reaction to the movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMpVumNTiKA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMpVumNTiKA)
Actually due to all this, I started looking at more of these guys videos, and now subbed to him, so there you go, pro points, you made an evil white guy un-racist.
And that's perfectly fine for him to have that opinion... like, I don't get what is so complicated to grasp about this. The fact that one person didn't take something away from a movie that I, or alot of people did, is perfectly okay.
My only problem is that you and other's on your side of the isle insist that everyone is so fucking stupid for interpreting a message from art because it's "just art"... even he slightly eludes to it with the Wonder Woman bit... okay, that is perfectly fine that you didn't get anything from it, but that doesn't somehow invalidate that many women, or men who support women gaining social relevance, did.
It's a lack of empathy as far as I can tell, and an inability to view the world from other people's perspective.
Tell me, have you ever watched the movie the color purple, starring Whoopi Goldberg?
I saw this movie as a child and didn't understand back then the messages and implications of it, but I remember my mum watching this movie and crying.
I watched it again like 15 years later, and got why she did. Its the historical context, the depth of the characters, and her performance that made this movie a piece of cinematic history.
Don't sit at your computer screen telling me I have a lack of empathy, because I'll prove you so wrong on every count.
QuoteDon't sit at your computer screen telling me I have a lack of empathy, because I'll prove you so wrong on every count.
I'm not saying you have a lack of empathy, I'm saying you refuse to show it towards people you have been told not to.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 04, 2018, 10:18:27 AM
Yeah, his character was pretty goofy in Ragnarok. I think he was okay in Infinity War, though he was nothing like the Thor depicted in the comics - regal, proud, somewhat intimidating. Thor in Infinity War was godlike in his actions, but the dialogue had a very mortal bearing. Given what he has lost, that makes sense. And come to think of it, MCU Odin and Loki don't really have the demeanor of Gods, either.
I can't speak to the comics, but in the movies Thor has always delighted me with his simpleton like caricature of a God. He's always been goofy, acting like an immigrant suffering from jet lag, rather than the protector of Midguard. Ragnarock may have overused it, because it went over so well in the previous movies. I was still OK with it, but it did kind of stretch the image.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 09, 2018, 10:09:23 PM
I'm not saying you have a lack of empathy, I'm saying you refuse to show it towards people you have been told not to.
And who might these people be who tell me to think that?
Quote from: Munch on June 09, 2018, 10:01:15 PM
Tell me, have you ever watched the movie the color purple, starring Whoopi Goldberg?
I saw this movie as a child and didn't understand back then the messages and implications of it, but I remember my mum watching this movie and crying.
I watched it again like 15 years later, and got why she did. Its the historical context, the depth of the characters, and her performance that made this movie a piece of cinematic history.
Don't sit at your computer screen telling me I have a lack of empathy, because I'll prove you so wrong on every count.
That was a great movie. But it was feminist (in a good way) about misogyny and racism. I didn't cry, I wanted to go baseball bat on some people. See, tragedy is like that. It engages the deeper emotions, to purge them (says Aristotle).
I enjoyed the clips I saw from Black Panther ... but then I like movies that come from an alternative cultural context, even sci-fi. White folk are so vanilla ... give me some chocolate or strawberry please.
The real Wakanda ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9BVPfYdzWY
Quote from: SGOS on June 09, 2018, 10:10:00 PM
I can't speak to the comics, but in the movies Thor has always delighted me with his simpleton like caricature of a God. He's always been goofy, acting like an immigrant suffering from jet lag, rather than the protector of Midguard. Ragnarock may have overused it, because it went over so well in the previous movies. I was still OK with it, but it did kind of stretch the image.
Well I did always enjoy the way Hulk treated the Norse Gods. In that one movie, he just grabbed Loki by the feet and beat him around on the floor like a lady beating down rats with a broom, LOL! On the other hand, Loki was just worn out, not dead, like any mortal human would have been. And at the end, he just punches Thor right out of the ship and didn't actually hurt him. So the Asgardians might have a claim to a general immortality. They do seem to be pretty indestructible. And I do know my Norse lore.
And in the Marvel Comics of yore, Thor was a pretty grim conservative fellow (all thunder and lightening) only slightly modified by his experiences among humans (whom he came to admire). I suppose that could explain his slightly different outlook in the movies.
Paganism was not only older than monotheism, it is more rational and more humorous. Monotheism started with the mad puritan, Pharaoh Akhenaten.
The Mummy (2017) - 4/10
Not even all the cgi could make this movie any better, and stupid story as well.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 12, 2018, 04:55:00 AM
The Mummy (2017) - 4/10
Not even all the cgi could make this movie any better, and stupid story as well.
One of my first horror interests were the old black and white Mummy originals. I was at an age where the whole concept of mummies was unique, plus they got up and walked around when disturbed. There's still lots of Mummy lore that could be developed. Who knew the real scoop on what vampires are really capable of, until Hollywood showed us what they really could and couldn't do. I'm not going to bother with this one. Tom Cruise is capable, but now type cast. It's always Tom Cruise, and never a new personality that I can develop an interest in. They're always about, well... Tom Cruise. Plus the ratings on this one were near bottom. I've seen worse reviews, but not very often.
Hard to beat Boris Karloff ... bring torches and pitchforks ;-)
The original movie of course was inspired by the "curse of king Tut" back in the 1920s.
Well, not so much a movie as 90 movie clips in 18 categories... oh boy.
See, there's this thing called the Smithee Awards (http://smitheeawards.com). And what they do is take really awful movies and put five clips up in each of 18 (formerly 19) categories, ranging from Most Ludicrous Premise and "Let's Up The Rating To R" to Crummiest Ending and Worst Picture.
Every five years, they take the last five "winners" and put them up against each other in the MegaMeta Smithees. Last year we chose the fifth set of MegaMeta Smithee "winners".
This year for the first time they held the UltraMegaMeta Smithees, pitting the last five MegaMeta "winners" against each other.
To quote the immortal Doctor Zachary Smith, "Oh the pain... the pain!"
Quote from: trdsf on June 15, 2018, 03:26:51 AM
Well, not so much a movie as 90 movie clips in 18 categories... oh boy.
See, there's this thing called the Smithee Awards (http://smitheeawards.com). And what they do is take really awful movies and put five clips up in each of 18 (formerly 19) categories, ranging from Most Ludicrous Premise and "Let's Up The Rating To R" to Crummiest Ending and Worst Picture.
Every five years, they take the last five "winners" and put them up against each other in the MegaMeta Smithees. Last year we chose the fifth set of MegaMeta Smithee "winners".
This year for the first time they held the UltraMegaMeta Smithees, pitting the last five MegaMeta "winners" against each other.
To quote the immortal Doctor Zachary Smith, "Oh the pain... the pain!"
Art is unforgiving. Even popularity fades. Becoming a classic is almost impossible. And there is ... "if you can't be a positive example you can always be a negative example".
Quote from: Baruch on June 15, 2018, 06:54:39 AM
Art is unforgiving. Even popularity fades. Becoming a classic is almost impossible. And there is ... "if you can't be a positive example you can always be a negative example".
I thought I should rent Gone With the Wind, being as it's such a classic, but I was really disappointed.
Quote from: SGOS on June 15, 2018, 10:33:55 AM
I thought I should rent Gone With the Wind, being as it's such a classic, but I was really disappointed.
Needs a big screen, and that was very long ago. The two super classics are Vertigo and Citizen Kane. Have you seen those?
Quote from: Baruch on June 15, 2018, 12:31:41 PM
Needs a big screen, and that was very long ago. The two super classics are Vertigo and Citizen Kane. Have you seen those?
Yes. I watched Vertigo several times on the old 1960's black and white TV, but haven't seen it for a long time.
Quote from: SGOS on June 15, 2018, 02:03:03 PM
Yes. I watched Vertigo several times on the old 1960's black and white TV, but haven't seen it for a long time.
Much better in color ... and it is now rated higher than Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane of course was filmed in B&W deliberately.
Dunno if I talked about this one before, but I remembered seeing it last year.
It Follows 6/10
Spoilers:
[spoiler]This is a strange movie. It has a lot of good scenes and moments in it, I even jumped at one moment, but what really ruins this movie for me was the ridiculous story and 'world building', that people are saying made it unique and fresh.
It had moments in it like we're meant to be guessing what time period this was set in, like one girl having a 1990s crabshell shone, but its got this future like technology in it, stuff like that just felt distracting and yet it only happened a few times, so they just didn't add anything to the movie.
The acting was okayish, some of the actors were pretty average, none of them really gave any stand out performances.
The biggest problems I had with it was how inconsistent the 'monster' in it was, so anyone with the curse is followed by this creature that takes on the form of random strangers, as it slowly walks towards you, and will kill you once it catches up to you. But if you have sex with someone, the curse passes onto them, until the thing kill them and then comes right back to following you after. This on paper had the possibility of being interesting, but the execution was just off.
It also seemed to suggest the monster was a metaphor for sexuality transmuted disease, but that was more head scratching then innovative.
Also the creature itself like say was so inconsistent, nobody else except those effected by the curse can see it, so its invisible to anyone not, and yet its shown to have a physical presence when you fire a gun at it, and how it can lift objects and throw them around. It also seemed to change it walking speed whenever its convenient for the story.
I laughed out loud at one moment when their meant to be heading to the school to track the thing there and try and kill it, and theres a shot outside the school with incredibly fake looking rain that was just hilarious to me.
The only good scenes in the movie were when the creature appears out from behind one of them from a doorway and its this huge guy playing it in that moment. Also the final scene when the two main characters are walking down the sidewalk holding hands, and we're not sure if what we're seeing in the distance is the thing still, if its dead or not, but we're never told.
Like say, on paper, it had an interesting idea going for it, but all the little needless details and inconsistent problems just ruin the movie for me. How this got given a 97% on rotten tomatoes is weird. [/spoiler]
Quote from: SGOS on June 15, 2018, 10:33:55 AM
I thought I should rent Gone With the Wind, being as it's such a classic, but I was really disappointed.
It has strong moments, but it IS dated... And I always do like where Rhett DOESN'T say "Frankly my fear, I don't give a damn".
Arrival (2016) ... just read yesterday that Stephen Wolfram (mathematical physicist) and his son, developed the alien language for this movie ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFMo3UJ4B4g
It stemmed from their actual work in Wolfram Language ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_Language
Quote from: Cavebear on June 16, 2018, 05:51:02 AM
It has strong moments, but it IS dated... And I always do like where Rhett DOESN'T say "Frankly my fear, I don't give a damn".
That's much why I wasn't impressed. The film is dated. The story is about as subtle as a hammer. The acting is dated, and the script is dated, with lines like "Frankly my dear." It came on the heels of the silent films, and Scarlet was still using visual body language to convey ideas an emotion. I keep picturing her with the back of her hand to her brow feigning the deep anxiety supposedly inherent in the weaker sex of that era. It really is not a good film by today's standards, and it should be destroyed. Or only shown in the venue format of Mystery Science Theater.
Quote from: Baruch on June 16, 2018, 06:07:37 AM
Arrival (2016) ... just read yesterday that Stephen Wolfram (mathematical physicist) and his son, developed the alien language for this movie ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFMo3UJ4B4g
This movie was one of the best in recent years. It's approach to alien communication is truly unique and highly convincing. It conveys the idea that communication can be based on things humans have never considered, that could go beyond Wolfram's conception. And it deals with non-linier time, which may or may not be real, but is currently an interesting thought.
Now compare this to a classic forerunner, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, another film that should be destroyed: Where would aliens that wanted to communicate with humans go? Why to the top of Devil's Tower in Wyoming of course, where it could only be reached by rock climbers or helicopter pilots. And how would they communicate? By 4 musical organ notes played on the noise maker of a broken Children's game. And their purpose? To see if some idiot could be enticed to leave with them because they liked music, and signified that the aliens were harmless. To me that film was dated the year it came out, but others love it. I gave it a face palm.
Quote from: SGOS on June 16, 2018, 06:43:32 AM
That's much why I wasn't impressed. The film is dated. The story is about as subtle as a hammer. The acting is dated, and the script is dated, with lines like "Frankly my dear." It came on the heels of the silent films, and Scarlet was still using visual body language to convey ideas an emotion. I keep picturing her with the back of her hand to her brow feigning the deep anxiety supposedly inherent in the weaker sex of that era. It really is not a good film by today's standards, and it should be destroyed. Or only shown in the venue format of Mystery Science Theater.
Well, I'll give it a little more credit than that. It was impressive for its time. But I get your point and fully agree. Its why we don't see 'Birth Of A Nation' today either.
Quote from: SGOS on June 16, 2018, 06:43:32 AM
That's much why I wasn't impressed. The film is dated. The story is about as subtle as a hammer. The acting is dated, and the script is dated, with lines like "Frankly my dear." It came on the heels of the silent films, and Scarlet was still using visual body language to convey ideas an emotion. I keep picturing her with the back of her hand to her brow feigning the deep anxiety supposedly inherent in the weaker sex of that era. It really is not a good film by today's standards, and it should be destroyed. Or only shown in the venue format of Mystery Science Theater.
Not done burning books, now you burn old films?
Quote from: Cavebear on June 16, 2018, 07:43:48 AM
Well, I'll give it a little more credit than that. It was impressive for its time. But I get your point and fully agree. Its why we don't see 'Birth Of A Nation' today either.
Don't know how good 'Birth Of A Nation' either, but I would pay to see a fictional film of New England in flames ... reverse General Sherman.
Quote from: Baruch on June 16, 2018, 08:47:19 AM
Not done burning books, now you burn old films?
The book may have been better, but I'd burn it just to be on the safe side.
As I understood it, they didn't go to the top of Devil's Tower, the "reception" was on the other side.
I like to watch "old" movies of the 50-60's the so called"golden age of television".....by god there were truly awful actors....even those I loved when I watch today...whew.....pretty lousy acting. Musta been a whole lot of "me too's " back then.
Quote from: aitm on June 16, 2018, 09:21:06 PM
I like to watch "old" movies of the 50-60's the so called"golden age of television".....by god there were truly awful actors....even those I loved when I watch today...whew.....pretty lousy acting. Musta been a whole lot of "me too's " back then.
You had single screen theaters and three channels of TV.
There was some good stuff back then, but most of it was meant to sell cigarettes and beer.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 17, 2018, 06:59:57 AM
You had single screen theaters and three channels of TV.
There was some good stuff back then, but most of it was meant to sell cigarettes and beer.
We watched it because, well, there wasn't anything else to watch, but it was enjoyable at the time. By today's standards, the old stuff seems (and was) primitive. I suppose classics are classics because they were notable at the time. Today, the acting, scripts, and productions values of those classics are almost always substandard. When I watch one of these old films, and I do from time to time, I find myself doing a lot of forgiving of the quality, while I watch with kind of embarrassed nostalgic curiosity.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 17, 2018, 06:59:57 AM
You had single screen theaters and three channels of TV.
There was some good stuff back then, but most of it was meant to sell cigarettes and beer.
Everything went thru the ratings board, composed solely of Catholics (here in the US, believe it or not). But then, today, our SCOTUS is only Catholic and Jewish.
Quote from: SGOS on June 17, 2018, 07:42:41 AM
We watched it because, well, there wasn't anything else to watch, but it was enjoyable at the time. By today's standards, the old stuff seems (and was) primitive. I suppose classics are classics because they were notable at the time. Today, the acting, scripts, and productions values of those classics are almost always substandard. When I watch one of these old films, and I do from time to time, I find myself doing a lot of forgiving of the quality, while I watch with kind of embarrassed nostalgic curiosity.
I read a lot of books.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 17, 2018, 09:35:17 AM
I read a lot of books.
They can be dated too, but seldom as glaringly as films. I recently read For Whom the Bell Tolls, as I thought it was high time I become familiar with Hemmingway. I guess he's classic American literature. Maybe it was just his style, but he seemed terrified of profanity where it was entirely appropriate, although I know the censors were watching with a perverted sense of righteousness. Maybe he could not have been published with actual battle language. His romantic episodes were laced with almost embarrassing pet names for his love, on the order of "my little puddin' dumpling", although I can't remember his exact wording. I just remember it didn't sound real, and in my opinion, they were inappropriate for the character. Yet, Hemmingway is worshiped.
But most writing holds up surprisingly well over the years, and even writing from other countries, where you would expect some unusual phrases or word usages that sound unfamiliar.
I had a library near me, so three channels seemed ridiculously limiting.
Quote from: SGOS on June 17, 2018, 10:07:21 AM
They can be dated too, but seldom as glaringly as films. I recently read For Whom the Bell Tolls, as I thought it was high time I become familiar with Hemmingway. I guess he's classic American literature. Maybe it was just his style, but he seemed terrified of profanity where it was entirely appropriate, although I know the censors were watching with a perverted sense of righteousness. Maybe he could not have been published with actual battle language. His romantic episodes were laced with almost embarrassing pet names for his love, on the order of "my little puddin' dumpling", although I can't remember his exact wording. I just remember it didn't sound real, and in my opinion, they were inappropriate for the character. Yet, Hemmingway is worshiped.
But most writing holds up surprisingly well over the years, and even writing from other countries, where you would expect some unusual phrases or word usages that sound unfamiliar.
Everyone knew Hemingway was gay ... so he had to be particularly careful ;-) Also being a writer, he was trying to be popular, not edgy.
Actual battle is still pretty much censored ... by the combatants (PTSD) and by the censors. But as an ambulance driver on the Italian front in WW I, Hemingway had seen some bad stuff. How can one understand a period film/book without knowing the context? Have you ever read about the Spanish Civil War? And Hemingway was part of the post WW I Lost Generation. I think "what was popular" is the part that is dated ... we won't even get the temporary cultural references unless we are students of history or film. Gone With The Wind only makes sense from within post-Civil War Southern culture ... it isn't about Yankees at all. I do think that with The Naked And The Dead we get the first realistic American war novel since Red Badge of Courage. All Quiet On The Western Front was the most true WW I novel, and in German. The Entente experience was different. The Russian experience was way different. Seven Pillars of Wisdom by Lawrence of Arabia ... is the most romantic of war memoirs, not fiction though. Lots of memoirs were put out after WW II, but most are cover-ups or propaganda, even Churchill's work (no Ultra mentioned). Another view of best American novels:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10605407/15-best-North-American-novels-of-all-time.html
Hemingway is an also-ran. Not all of these were made into great movies, though The Color Purple was made into a great mini-series.
Those in the extended list made into movies that are favorites for me:
Grapes of Wrath, The Great Gatsby, The Color Purple ... all very American stories.
Gatsby didn't interest me, at least the movie. Back in the 1960s, Grapes of Wrath sent me on a quest to read everything written by Steinbeck, but while his other stuff was very good, nothing that he wrote was as gripping or epic as Grapes of Wrath. Of course, I had to eventually watch the movie, which did not have the visceral impact on me that the book did. The movie felt like I was just watching people, but the book made me feel like I was living their lives.
I was in some little grocery deli looking at paperbacks in one of those rotating wire racks by the counter, when I saw Grapes of Wrath. I was mildly curious about it, so I bought it, and immediately got interested. It was hunting season, and I was on my way to Eastern Montana to hunt antelope and mule deer on the open prairie. I was camping out, reading Grapes of Wrath at night, and when I got home, I couldn't find the book, half of which I hadn't finished.
I went to the local small town library, run by the iron fist of an elderly eccentric lady, but the book was not on the shelf. I looked in the card catalog, and the book was listed as part of the Library contents. After a couple weeks, the book still wasn't showing up on the shelf, so I asked the librarian's second in command about it. She said, "Oh yes, we have the book. We just don't keep it on the shelves, or check it out because," and then she lowered her voice and finished, "because it's..., well, you know. But you can read it here in the Library."
I was fine with that. In fact, I enjoyed checking in every day to read for a couple of hours, and then one day, the second in command said, "I talked to the Librarian, and she said it would be OK to check the book out to you," but I was enjoying the Library atmosphere, and told her I liked our current arrangement.
I finished the book and a couple of weeks later, I noticed they had decided to put it out on the shelf. I had wondered if they had actually read the book or not, because I could see no reason to keep it hidden under the checkout counter. It was a lovely book.
Had to read Grapes of Wrath in HS, as well as Lord Of The Rings. I enjoyed the movie much better having read the books involved.
Quote from: aitm on June 16, 2018, 09:21:06 PM
I like to watch "old" movies of the 50-60's the so called"golden age of television".....by god there were truly awful actors....even those I loved when I watch today...whew.....pretty lousy acting. Musta been a whole lot of "me too's " back then.
I love the sci-fi movies of the 50s -- monster suits that make some of my old Halloween costumes look classy, acting so wooden you could build a bookcase out of it, props that made my Cape Canaveral Playset ("by MARX!") look like accurate scale models.
Our local CBS outlet, back when local programming was more than the news and TV stations actually signed off at night, had the best afternoon moviesâ€"and they showed damn near everything, from unquestioned classics to the bottom of the grade-Zs (https://vintagetoledotv.squarespace.com/wtoltv-11-movies-on-the-big-show). I couldn't have asked for a better introduction to cinema… although of course my favorite theme weeks were when they were doing sci-fi, either the good ones like War of the Worlds and The Day The Earth Stood Still, or the barrel-bottom scrapers like From Hell It Came and Bela Lugosi meets a Brooklyn Gorilla.
And, of course, the anticipation of being called on 'Dialing for Dollars'. :D
Quote from: trdsf on June 17, 2018, 04:07:35 PM
I love the sci-fi movies of the 50s -- monster suits that make some of my old Halloween costumes look classy, acting so wooden you could build a bookcase out of it, props that made my Cape Canaveral Playset ("by MARX!") look like accurate scale models.
Do you remember Captain Video and His Video Rangers? I do, but I was less than 10. Little did I know that I was experiencing the cutting edge of TV's first science fiction series. Yes, apparently I was there to see the beginning of it all. I used to talk about it with my friends. It seemed important, but I can't remember what actually happened.
So I looked it up on Wiki. I certainly don't remember it being as "wonky" as Wiki describes it: Futuristic space explorers traveling about the galaxy, but interspersed with old totally irrelevant cowboy movies, which were explained away as "Captain Video's secret agents on Earth." WTF?? Apparently the cowboy films were just thrown in because of a tight budget and they needed to fill the half hour. So they called them secret agents! The last couple of years the nightly installments were cut to 15 minute shows.
Entire Wiki Article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Video_and_His_Video_Rangers
Excerpts:
Quote
Captain Video and His Video Rangers was an American science fiction television series aired on the DuMont Television Network, and was the first series of its genre on American television.
The series aired between June 27, 1949, and April 1, 1955, originally on Monday through Saturday at 7 p.m. ET, and then Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. ET. A separate 30-minute spinoff series called The Secret Files of Captain Video, aired Saturday mornings, alternating with Tom Corbett, Space Cadet, from September 5, 1953, to May 29, 1954, a total of 20 episodes.
Researcher Alan Morton estimates there was a total of 1,537 episodes (counting the 20 Saturday morning episodes), although few of them exist after the destruction of the original broadcasts, which was commonplace at that time. Sponsors included Post Cereals, Skippy Peanut Butter, DuMont-brand television sets and Power House candy bars. Premiums sold via the show included a flying saucer ring, a "secret seal" ring, cast photos, electronic goggles, a "secret ray gun," a rocket ship key chain, decoders, membership cards, and a set of 12 plastic spacemen.
QuoteThe long-running series, set in Earth's distant future, tracked the adventures of a group of fighters for truth and justice, known as The Video Rangers. They were led by Captain Video (no first name ever was mentioned). The Video Rangers operated from a secret base on a mountaintop whose location was unspecified. Their uniforms resembled U.S. Army surplus with lightning bolts sewn on. Captain Video had a teenage companion known only as The Video Ranger. The Captain received his orders from "The Commissioner of Public Safety," (surname Carey) whose responsibilities took in the entire solar system as well as human colonies on planets around other stars.
Quote"Captain Video" was broadcast live five to six days a week, and was popular with children and adults. It even earned a special mention in the very first episode, TV or Not TV, of the phenomenally popular Jackie Gleason sitcom series "The Honeymooners" in which the character Ed Norton wore a space helmet while watching the show.[1]
Because of the large adult audience, the usual network broadcast time of the daily "Captain Video" series was 7 to 7:30 p.m. EST, leading off the "prime evening" time block and giving parents a chance to get home from work before the show began. For its last two seasons the show still aired at 7 p.m. ET, but was reduced to 15-minute segments.
Despite its popularity, throughout its run the production was hampered by a very low budget. Until 1953, Captain Video's live adventures occupied only 20 minutes of each day's 30-minute program time. To fill out the rest and save money, about 10 minutes into each episode a "Video Ranger communications officer" popped in to show about seven minutes of old cowboy movies described by the otherwise-extraneous officer "Ranger Rogers" as the adventures of Captain Video's "undercover agents" on Earth. No explanation ever was offered to viewers as to why these paddings were used.
Johnny Quest in original B&W. And Top Cat. But no Captain Video. Captain Kangaroo however we did get. Missed Howdy Doody, and the original Soupy Sales show. And saw the Mouseketeers in reruns.
Quote from: SGOS on June 17, 2018, 05:15:36 PM
Do you remember Captain Video and His Video Rangers? I do, but I was less than 10. Little did I know that I was experiencing the cutting edge of TV's first science fiction series. Yes, apparently I was there to see the beginning of it all. I used to talk about it with my friends. It seemed important, but I can't remember what actually happened.
So I looked it up on Wiki. I certainly don't remember it being as "wonky" as Wiki describes it: Futuristic space explorers traveling about the galaxy, but interspersed with old totally irrelevant cowboy movies, which were explained away as "Captain Video's secret agents on Earth." WTF?? Apparently the cowboy films were just thrown in because of a tight budget and they needed to fill the half hour. So they called them secret agents! The last couple of years the nightly installments were cut to 15 minute shows.
Captain Video was a little early for me, and no one in our market was syndicating or rerunning it, so far as I know -- I was born in '63. I
do remember sitting in my dad's lap watching Star Trek in its first run.
Quote from: trdsf on June 18, 2018, 02:41:58 AM
Captain Video was a little early for me, and no one in our market was syndicating or rerunning it, so far as I know -- I was born in '63. I do remember sitting in my dad's lap watching Star Trek in its first run.
Pretty young to be up that late ;-) Yes, watched the premier of Star Trek, an Time Tunnel, with my Dad.
I missed the original runs of Star Trek completely. Years later, I was hanging out with a buddy in grad school, and we started this daily ritual of grilling hamburgers at his apartment while watching 5:00 pm reruns of Star Trek. That was my introduction. And years after that, I rented the series from Netflix. The first one I watched was the pilot. While the production values of the original were about par for the time, the pilot was poorly done. One scene has Spock walking down an Enterprise corridor, and you can see another actor standing in a side corridor, who promptly starts walking briskly through the scene as if he's going somewhere. At that point, you can also see that there is no actual side corridor. He was just hiding behind some fake superstructure of the set.
Yeah, the official pilot was the second studio pilot. The original studio pilot was incorporated into a two part special episode later.
We watched Star Trek reruns 4pm weekday afternoons at the fraternity when I was an under-grad. Had buttered cinnamon toast. Our most advanced fraternity brother had his own terminal in his room connected to the campus computer network. He later went to work for Sun.
Ready Player One - 7/10
Good overall, but pretty much overhyped.
Black Panther: Old enough to nitpick. When T'Challa sees T'Chaka in the ancestral plane T'Chaka's left eye is noticeably lower than the right and shifted outward. Rather freaky when you notice it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 19, 2018, 05:51:48 AM
Black Panther: Old enough to nitpick. When T'Challa sees T'Chaka in the ancestral plane T'Chaka's left eye is noticeably lower than the right and shifted outward. Rather freaky when you notice it.
Now that's nitpicking! I could expect this to describe Forest Whitaker maybe, but T'Chaka? I'll be watching for this.
Quote from: SGOS on June 19, 2018, 06:24:56 AM
Now that's nitpicking! I could expect this to describe Forest Whitaker maybe, but T'Chaka? I'll be watching for this.
How about having an important character spout epithets?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 19, 2018, 06:43:33 AM
How about having an important character spout epithets?
Did someone do that?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 19, 2018, 06:43:33 AM
How about having an important character spout epithets?
That's his entire plot line that he doesn't like white people, what would you expect him to say?
Quote from: Shiranu on June 19, 2018, 10:00:31 AM
That's his entire plot line that he doesn't like white people, what would you expect him to say?
And did you notice that "he" was T'Challa's sister?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 19, 2018, 10:43:58 AM
And did you notice that "he" was T'Challa's sister?
I lost track of the lines of consanguinity. It was like living in Utah.
Quote from: SGOS on June 19, 2018, 10:50:54 AM
I lost track of the lines of consanguinity. I was like living in Utah.
No problem. I wouldn't have blinked if Killmonger was saying things like that. I've been to Oakland.
Saw The Incredibles 2. The first Incredibles is probably my favorite superhero movie and this one was almost as good. Loved it!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 19, 2018, 10:43:58 AM
And did you notice that "he" was T'Challa's sister?
Derp. Jadaka and and Chaka are kinda similar?
Still doesn't particularly surprise me though. It's not like the people of Wakanda were unaware of what Colonial Europe did.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 19, 2018, 07:58:41 PM
Derp. Jadaka and and Chaka are kinda similar?
Still doesn't particularly surprise me though. It's not like the people of Wakanda were unaware of what Colonial Europe did.
nope, they just did nothing to stop it when it was happening.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 19, 2018, 07:40:18 PM
Saw The Incredibles 2. The first Incredibles is probably my favorite superhero movie and this one was almost as good. Loved it!
I loved 'The Incredibles'. I have probaly watched that one on TV move than any other movie. I might (MIGHT) actually go to a movie theater to watch 'The Incredibles 2' and I haven't been in a theater since 'AntZ".
Well, the snacks are cheaper and I do love my refrigerator... But, for once, I don't feel like waiting 2 years to see it on TV.
Knowing nothing about the Incredibles, I'm quite surprised by the adult reaction. I do enjoy the occasional cartoon or Pixar, but... I guess I'll have to go see for myself.
Quote from: SGOS on June 20, 2018, 04:22:57 AM
Knowing nothing about the Incredibles, I'm quite surprised by the adult reaction. I do enjoy the occasional cartoon or Pixar, but... I guess I'll have to go see for myself.
Go to Cinemawins on Youtube and find "Everything Great About The Incredibles". It's not Disney.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 20, 2018, 04:47:22 AM
Go to Cinemawins on Youtube and find "Everything Great About The Incredibles". It's not Disney.
Not a princess in sight ;-))
Quote from: Munch on June 19, 2018, 09:09:56 PM
nope, they just did nothing to stop it when it was happening.
Which is what makes Killmonger such a good villain... he wasn't particularly wrong about Wakanda. He was just wrong in how far he wanted to take them in the opposite direction.
Pre-T'Challa, Wakanda were at best the "neutral" guys... they certainly weren't the good guys, and I love that that issue is essentially the central plot of the film; the heir to the throne struggling between his tradition and what is right, and managing to find a way to uphold both.
Ugggggh, this is reminding me just how fucking good of movie it was.
Saw Coco online it was good.
Quote from: SGOS on June 20, 2018, 04:22:57 AM
Knowing nothing about the Incredibles, I'm quite surprised by the adult reaction. I do enjoy the occasional cartoon or Pixar, but... I guess I'll have to go see for myself.
The original movie came out in 2004, so this sequel took 14 years to come. It's nostalgic at this point.
The Incredibles 8/10
It's not Marvel, but it's got loads of good humor. It reminds me of the "Spoof" series Movies
Quote from: Shiranu on June 20, 2018, 07:16:11 AM
Which is what makes Killmonger such a good villain... he wasn't particularly wrong about Wakanda. He was just wrong in how far he wanted to take them in the opposite direction.
Pre-T'Challa, Wakanda were at best the "neutral" guys... they certainly weren't the good guys, and I love that that issue is essentially the central plot of the film; the heir to the throne struggling between his tradition and what is right, and managing to find a way to uphold both.
Ugggggh, this is reminding me just how fucking good of movie it was.
"You were wrong! You were all wrong!" Fuck tradition.
Quote from: SGOS on June 20, 2018, 02:25:51 PM
The Incredibles 8/10
It's not Marvel, but it's got loads of good humor. It reminds me of the "Spoof" series Movies
"Combustion imminent?"
The Death of Stalin
This movie got a 96% at Rotten Tomatoes. I don't know how to rate it, because I only watched it for 30 minutes and then turned it off as I started to go numb. I could not see anything in it worthy of a positive comment. I don't know how I could be so far off from the critics. Usually I'm in the ball park, maybe varying by 30%, but this time, I'm off by 80%. Different strokes, I guess.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on May 27, 2018, 11:33:33 AM
Solo: I enjoyed it. It's fine. I pretty much forgot it already. It is strange for a Star Wars movie to have virtually no Force, Jedi, lightsabers. But maybe not quite completely none....
I enjoyed it. It's nice to see other aspects of the SW universe without Jedi. I liked seeing instances of how the Empire directly affects people's lives, rather than having it be an abstract evil. I also liked seeing events in Han's early life that had been only mentioned in passing, as well as certain other links to the other SW movies and the Expanded Universe.
Not a movie, but started watching Broad City. It's pretty damn hilarious, following two stoner girls through their kinda average, fuck-up life.
Quote from: SGOS on June 22, 2018, 07:11:40 PM
The Death of Stalin
This movie got a 96% at Rotten Tomatoes. I don't know how to rate it, because I only watched it for 30 minutes and then turned it off as I started to go numb. I could not see anything in it worthy of a positive comment. I don't know how I could be so far off from the critics. Usually I'm in the ball park, maybe varying by 30%, but this time, I'm off by 80%. Different strokes, I guess.
The Death of Hitler got better reviews, from SJWs ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOZKLtIIUZE
So I finally watched the Incredible Hulk movie. It was okay, but I really need to know something. Is it still canon, or is the MCU pretending it never happened? If the latter, then it's really ironic that they chose THAT movie to tease the idea of a connected universe. The ONE MOVIE that they'd erase from canon.
I've been reflecting on Logan lately, and to me, this really is one of the best things marvel have done, in terms of a movie.
It isn't big and flashy like avengers, or politically fueled like black panther, or surreal like dr strange, or over the top goofy and fun entertainment like guardians of the galaxy. But it does do something that we're likely not see again in the same light.
I fell in love with the x-men franchise when it was first released, I was so excited since at the time I'd become a huge fan of x-men, so getting a movie made of them live action on the big screen got me so excited. I'd also at the time started to become a fan of wolverine, but not as much as other marvel characters. Yet it was hugh jackmans performance that pushed me over, and i became a solid wolverine fan.
he's pretty much been the heart and soul of the x-men movies since, also Patrick Stewart as Xavier, they were always the best parts of these movies, and even in things like first class having someone else playing xavier already had that gravitas due to Stewarts role.
I was reading recently how Chris Hemsworth, who's captured Thor for us all in the movies, both good and bad, had said he's ready to quit playing Thor now, how he doesn't want to return to the role. This strikes me as just him giving up and wanting to move on, and thats fine, but given who much he was loved in the role and even more so now with recent changes, its kind of jumping off and abandoning ship while things are starting to get good.
And this is why Logan is such a great moment for comic book movies. We've followed the characters for nearly 20 years, we've grown to accept the actors in their roles as these characters, and for some its hard to imagine someone else taking that role on again. But any time an actor is associated with a role everyone loves, we have to accept the fact that actor will grow old and die one day.
So instead of just giving up on the role everyones known and loved you for nearly 20 years, Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart gave finality to their characters stories, grounded it, instead of just walking away from it and expecting someone else to take over the role for them, they made sure these characters they played as had finality to them, their stories could end, and the actors playing them could walk away from the roles with some emotional connection instead of just giving up like the characters they played meant nothing. They invested everything in their roles, and made sure to send them off in a decent way.
I believe others will come in later on to play xavier and logan/wolverine down the line, but the send off Jackman and Stewart gave the characters they played really deserves the highest praise.
Of favorite comic book spectaculars, we seldom hear about what is near the top of my personal list, and it never made it to a franchise. Only one film was made in 2005 before the franchise packaging became the standard for comic book heroes. V for Vendetta captured my imagination. One of it's strengths, which stopped any franchising in it's tracks, was that the story was complete and came to a definite end. Not that writers couldn't work around that, but I'm afraid that would result in sequels of lesser quality and tarnish what I consider a stand-alone masterpiece.
I don't think the movie was hyped much, although I'm not sure how much hype adds to the actual quality of the movie. I had no idea of what I was going to see that blustery night in Victoria British Columbia when I walked through a mixture of sleet and snow to the theater. I just felt like going to a movie, and I chose that movie randomly from of an assortment of posters outside the ticket office.
When I am taken by surprise by what turns out to be a notable film, it enhances its stature in my mind. Maybe it came too soon. People weren't talking about blockbuster fantasy movies 13 years ago like they are today, and Hollywood had no guarantee that films taken from the comics were going to fill theaters whether they were exceptional or just average. But I'd love to see an attempt at a sequel.
There was a whole genre of adult comics into movies ... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V For Vendetta, 300, and 300-Rise of an Empire. I had gone and peaked at the graphic novels of the first three, and saw those in the theater. The last, I have only watched clips (wasn't fond of 300 anyway).
Yes, V For Vendetta, a reworking of 1984, is a compelling story of the "revenge" category. What did you think of the idea and styling of the graphic-novel-to-live-action-CGI format?
Someone gave me an unopened DVD of 300. I think it was a freebee thrown in with some hardware package deal. He didn't want it and didn't even open it. I didn't find it interesting. I can't remember if there was anything clever in it. I just remember warrior gladiator types hacking and slicing their way about the landscapes. It reminded me of the movies that dominated the Saturday afternoons of my childhood. I've rewatched a few of those Roman vs. barbarian movies in my later years, and basically saw them as boring. I didn't know 300 was based on anything. I wonder if the source material was as dull.
Quote from: SGOS on June 24, 2018, 06:43:25 AM
Someone gave me an unopened DVD of 300. I think it was a freebee thrown in with some hardware package deal. He didn't want it and didn't even open it. I didn't find it interesting. I can't remember if there was anything clever in it. I just remember warrior gladiator types hacking and slicing their way about the landscapes. It reminded me of the movies that dominated the Saturday afternoons of my childhood. I've rewatched a few of those Roman vs. barbarian movies in my later years, and basically saw them as boring. I didn't know 300 was based on anything. I wonder if the source material was as dull.
Typical comic book movie, light on plot, heavy on thud and blunder. The sequel has Eva Green.
The watchmen was put out by the same guy that did 300. I don't remember being impressed by that one either. I just remember that giant walking around with his wang hanging out.
Quote from: SGOS on June 24, 2018, 06:43:25 AM
Someone gave me an unopened DVD of 300. I think it was a freebee thrown in with some hardware package deal. He didn't want it and didn't even open it. I didn't find it interesting. I can't remember if there was anything clever in it. I just remember warrior gladiator types hacking and slicing their way about the landscapes. It reminded me of the movies that dominated the Saturday afternoons of my childhood. I've rewatched a few of those Roman vs. barbarian movies in my later years, and basically saw them as boring. I didn't know 300 was based on anything. I wonder if the source material was as dull.
The people who are fans of the 300 movies ... are gay. But not as burlesque. Kevin Sorbo starred in a gay burlesque of 300 which at least was funny .... Meet The Spartans.
That was a riot.
I saw Jurassic World - Fallen Kingdom yesterday. It was pretty good...I'd give it 7/10. I can see it leading to another movie...
Quote from: Deidre32 on June 24, 2018, 01:40:33 PM
I saw Jurassic World - Fallen Kingdom yesterday. It was pretty good...I'd give it 7/10. I can see it leading to another movie...
I'm going for what my nearest theater calls "Tightwad Tuesday: Popcorn and the show for under 9 dollars." None of the sequels have been as good as the original, but I still think they are pretty good. One critic claims the CGI isn't anything special anymore and said, "The premise, a theme park so out of control that thousands of people get killed every day it opens warrants getting shut down. Close the Park already!" That would be true if it wasn't a fantasy franchise.
Quote from: SGOS on June 24, 2018, 02:34:06 PM
I'm going for what my nearest theater calls "Tightwad Tuesday: Popcorn and the show for under 9 dollars." None of the sequels have been as good as the original, but I still think they are pretty good. One critic claims the CGI isn't anything special anymore and said, "The premise, a theme park so out of control that thousands of people get killed every day it opens warrants getting shut down. Close the Park already!" That would be true if it wasn't a fantasy franchise.
Too bad we don't see that metaphorically true of our own world, Close the Humanity already! But human history goes on, because it is based on political fantasy.
Quote from: Deidre32 on June 24, 2018, 01:40:33 PM
I saw Jurassic World - Fallen Kingdom yesterday. It was pretty good...I'd give it 7/10. I can see it leading to another movie...
I keep reading reviews that say the movie is terrible. Can't wait to see it to decide for myself.
Saw Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom today. It had some dumb moments in it, but I thought it was an overall good movie. Don't understand all the hate its getting. Also, just to curb your enthusiasm if you haven't seen it yet, if you've seen the trailers, you've seen all of Jeff Goldblum's parts. He was basically only there to be put in the trailer and make people go, "Oh, yeah! I remember that guy!" There was one thing I thought was weird, though. Didn't Jurassic Park have a site B? And what about all those free flying dinosaurs from 1, 3, and World? They were acting like the volcano killing all the dinosaurs on this one island would cause them all to go extinct again, so... I don't get that part.
There was Isla Sorna and Isla Nublar. But the chain was "los Cincos Muertes", "the Five Deaths", meaning there are three islands that are open at this point.
Bryce Dallas Howard, Ron Howard's daughter is a beautiful woman. So there's that, even if the rest of the movie stinks.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 25, 2018, 12:54:01 AM
It had some dumb moments in it, but I thought it was an overall good movie.
Does Claire still run around in the jungle in her high heels, or has she bought a pair of heavy duty shit kickers from LL Bean?
Quote from: SGOS on June 25, 2018, 08:23:56 AM
Does Claire still run around in the jungle in her high heels, or has she bought a pair of heavy duty shit kickers from LL Bean?
One person noted that Claire had told Owen that she could do anything he could do while wearing those heels. I would add that Fred Astaire was not the one wearing heels when that famous duo danced. And finally, she didn't have far to go when she drew the T.rex into the fight, the big gal doesn't get up to speed in the distance involved.
Do Ursula and Stella still stay in step?
Quote from: SGOS on June 25, 2018, 08:23:56 AM
Does Claire still run around in the jungle in her high heels, or has she bought a pair of heavy duty shit kickers from LL Bean?
I don't think she was wearing high heels in this movie, but I didn't really take a mental note of that. I think she came prepared for the jungle this time, unlike before when the day started off as a normal day at work.
Farenhight 451 had a fw parts missing and or not existence but pretty much was a good movie.
8/10
Funny thing is it got alot of negative reviews yet the movie gave off such a better message and the move itself is has alot of Irony in itself.
Also it could be th lin where the captain said "When the feminists got offend thy burned the books".
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 27, 2018, 12:20:51 AM
Farenhight 451 had a fw parts missing and or not existence but pretty much was a good movie.
8/10
Funny thing is it got alot of negative reviews yet the movie gave off such a better message and the move itself is has alot of Irony in itself.
That's a movie now?! Can you watch it at an IMAX theater projected onto three of the room's four walls simultaneously?
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 27, 2018, 01:15:48 AM
That's a movie now?! Can you watch it at an IMAX theater projected onto three of the room's four walls simultaneously?
Perhaps not as good as the original. The original made me think of the EU.
Original?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 27, 2018, 04:27:17 PM
1966
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060390/
I vaguely remember seeing that. I just remember the story's description of the book burners as the firemen. Good premise for a story.
Quote from: SGOS on June 27, 2018, 04:37:47 PM
I vaguely remember seeing that. I just remember the story's description of the book burners as the firemen. Good premise for a story.
We had just moved to a residence that was close enough to town that I could get to a library, three years earlier. Before that I read anything and everything I could find. Knowing there was a whole building full of books that were open to me was an indescribable thrill. Then I saw that movie. I was furious, to say the least. Fifteen years old and mad enough to kill.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 27, 2018, 04:42:13 PM
We had just moved to a residence that was close enough to town that I could get to a library, three years earlier. Before that I read anything and everything I could find. Knowing there was a whole building full of books that were open to me was an indescribable thrill. Then I saw that movie. I was furious, to say the least. Fifteen years old and mad enough to kill.
The characters in the first movie are vaguely German, but it applied to Stalinists too.
Kill Switch - 2/10
stupid FPS scifi, was only watching it at the side after 20 minutes, because how stupid it was. Great concept, abysmal execution.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 27, 2018, 08:50:41 PM
Kill Switch - 2/10
stupid FPS scifi, was only watching it at the side after 20 minutes, because how stupid it was. Great concept, abysmal execution.
That happens.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 27, 2018, 12:20:51 AM
Farenhight 451 had a fw parts missing and or not existence but pretty much was a good movie.
8/10
Funny thing is it got alot of negative reviews yet the movie gave off such a better message and the move itself is has alot of Irony in itself.
Also it could be th lin where the captain said "When the feminists got offend thy burned the books".
All good books made into movies have a few parts missing. For example, what happened to the barrow-wights and Tom Bombadil in LOTR?
Quote from: Cavebear on June 28, 2018, 05:18:02 AM
All good books made into movies have a few parts missing. For example, what happened to the barrow-wights and Tom Bombadil in LOTR?
The movie was already too long. But I think they included it in the extended cuts edition.
saw Solo: A Star Wars Story
It was alright. I'm not the biggest starwars fan but like some of the movies. This one had some of the elements I'd associate with it, good action scenes, interesting locations, interesting alien races, though it didn't really play much to those much like most starwars movies.
The cgi wasn't as heavily used in this, but when it was I found it distracting, like one character being fully cgi when others weren't, just detracted it for me.
Also liberator fem bot while having some funny moments did get a little cringe worthy in places.
The best parts for me was seeing the friendship of Han and Chewy grow from here. Alden Ehrenreich as Han was alright, felt like he was missing something that Harrison Ford had, like he was trying to hard in some scenes to be like Ford, but other times he did the role pretty good. Donald Glover as Lando Calrissian is a lot of fun and he's great in any scene hes's in.
Can't really say much about the other characters, didn't really gel with me like Han, Chewy and Lando did.
Overall it was a nice little addition to the starwars universe, not a bad idea to expand on it outside the starwars films.
7/10
And "The Last Jedi" is on Netflix.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy92AGLIygU
I like good criticism, heres some pointers I agree with.
- Theres been plenty of black leading roles with hero characters in main roles in the past, its only made out black panther is a major landmark in this because of the current social doctine rather then it actually being so, hence why 10-15 years ago nobody claimed movies like independence day or blade were revolutionary movies because its main leads were black, the just enjoyed the movies back then.
- Wakanda's rule class is held by a deeply toxic masculine approach to it, it just gets ignored because of the color of their skin. If it were white guys doing it, it would be barked down as being the most overt display of toxic masculinity.
- Slavery existed in africa long before white people showed up, so calling every white people in the movie colonizers is just there to satisfy people hate on for white people. Also today there are more slaves in predominantly black countrys today then their are in any predominantly white country besides russia.
Theres a bunch of other stuff as well, but yeah, I feel that if black panther hadn't relied so heavily on political messages giving to todays social justice crowds and just focused on telling the same fictional world building I'd find in the comics, it would have felt like i movie I'd enjoy more.
Now to just wait for the floods of tears why this is all incorrect and just something made up by haters to slander the best black themed movie of all time.
The Catcher Was a Spy....It is a based on a true story and the story is nice enough, but,,,no real substance to the movie. It felt like it was more of a long TV show. Just not enough to scare you or make you proud or ....anything... just meh. Nice enough story again, but I felt like I didn't watch a movie at all afterward....don't really have a good phrase for it.
Quote from: Munch on July 09, 2018, 06:11:35 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy92AGLIygU
I like good criticism, heres some pointers I agree with.
- Theres been plenty of black leading roles with hero characters in main roles in the past, its only made out black panther is a major landmark in this because of the current social doctine rather then it actually being so, hence why 10-15 years ago nobody claimed movies like independence day or blade were revolutionary movies because its main leads were black, the just enjoyed the movies back then.
- Wakanda's rule class is held by a deeply toxic masculine approach to it, it just gets ignored because of the color of their skin. If it were white guys doing it, it would be barked down as being the most overt display of toxic masculinity.
- Slavery existed in africa long before white people showed up, so calling every white people in the movie colonizers is just there to satisfy people hate on for white people. Also today there are more slaves in predominantly black countrys today then their are in any predominantly white country besides russia.
Theres a bunch of other stuff as well, but yeah, I feel that if black panther hadn't relied so heavily on political messages giving to todays social justice crowds and just focused on telling the same fictional world building I'd find in the comics, it would have felt like i movie I'd enjoy more.
Now to just wait for the floods of tears why this is all incorrect and just something made up by haters to slander the best black themed movie of all time.
The factors bought slaves from other Africans. They kept them until a slave ship showed up. Most of the African slavers were muslim.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 09, 2018, 06:51:23 PM
The factors bought slaves from other Africans. They kept them until a slave ship showed up. Most of the African slavers were muslim.
The alternative to selling prisoners from W African tribal warfare, was to simply kill them.
Dirty Dancing 1987 The original
Two more flops were made since then. But critics gave the original a 72%, and movie goers give it a 90%. I'm embarrassed to say I like this movie because there is so much about it that reeks of "cheesy." The moral message was probably cheesy in 1987, and would have been 20 years before that. The characters are fabricated stereotypes. The plot was dated. The acting was actually good, but the lines the actors were given and the way the director called for them to be delivered made talented actors often times seem like fumblers. I should have written down the worst of the lines, because they were abundant. My favorites were, "I like the way the wind blows through your hair," and "I'm sorry you had to see that, Baby." I have to wonder if the actors were thinking about how much they hated their lines were when they were doing their job. Still with so many shortcomings, the movie is fun, and the dancing is quite good.
I think you have to watch it keeping in mind the state of the art in older movies. And the plot is just there to furnish a matrix for the dancing. It reminds me of a video game. A better plot may have been a distraction from the basic pleasures which are offered as the centerpiece of the film. The music will appeal to your sense of nostalgia, and I remember the sountrack like it was yesterday.
Got "Murder by Death" in the mail last night. Boss Lady's a big mystery fan, she can estimate the number of deaths in Midsomer County at the beginning of a season. ;)
There doesn't seem to be anything coming from Marvel in 2018 after Ant Man. We may have to turn to religion to make life meaningful again.
Quote from: SGOS on July 10, 2018, 09:45:24 AM
There doesn't seem to be anything coming from Marvel in 2018 after Ant Man. We may have to turn to religion to make life meaningful again.
nope, wrong.
http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/marvel/237462/marvel-movies-release-date-schedule-calendar
Quote from: Munch on July 10, 2018, 10:53:19 AM
nope, wrong.
http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/marvel/237462/marvel-movies-release-date-schedule-calendar
I think SGOS meant MCU. Venom and Into the Spider-verse aren't in the same canon. I believe the next MCU film will be Captain Marvel in 2019.
Well he said from marvel so anything goes in that department, even if its owned by another company like sony.
Quote from: Munch on July 10, 2018, 12:22:57 PM
Well he said from marvel so anything goes in that department, even if its owned by another company like sony.
I knew about Spiderman, but I didn't count it, because it's an animation. I'd heard of Venom, but I'm not familiar enough with Marvel characters to know if it is part of the thing that has been taking the theaters by storm, and even the article said they included it to be on the safe side, because they don't really know when it's coming out.
And, in the end, is any of it really important?
It's just fun to carry the importance of Marvel to an extreme, and 6 months without a Marvel movie is a record of sorts. But stoic that I am, I will weather the absence with or without finding a god.
Quote from: SGOS on July 10, 2018, 07:39:10 PM
It's just fun to carry the importance of Marvel to an extreme, and 6 months without a Marvel movie is a record of sorts. But stoic that I am, I will weather the absence with or without finding a god.
I just rewatch the old releases during the off-season. I must've seen Guardians of the Galaxy 2 about a dozen times and thoroughly enjoyed it every time. It's my favorite movie.
I don't find myself to addicted to them that I sit waiting for the next one, i just find other stuff to get into.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 10, 2018, 07:43:09 PM
I just rewatch the old releases during the off-season. I must've seen Guardians of the Galaxy 2 about a dozen times and thoroughly enjoyed it every time. It's my favorite movie.
I'm right in the middle of Guardians 2 as we speak. I'm at the point where the Ravagers are holding Yondu and Rocket prisoners during their rebellion, and I needed a break because I find that part (essential as it is) to be a bit depressing.
Quote from: SGOS on July 10, 2018, 07:56:41 PM
I'm right in the middle of Guardians 2 as we speak. I'm at the point where the Ravagers are holding Yondu and Rocket prisoners during their rebellion, and I needed a break because I find that part (essential as it is) to be a bit depressing.
It's even more depressing knowing that they partied for the last time at Contraxia.
X-Men: Dark Phoenix is scheduled to open November 2. I'm looking forward to it but worried they will get the Phoenix story wrong again. The people who created X-Men: Last Stand didn't understand what made the Dark Phoenix saga a good story.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 10, 2018, 06:36:42 AM
Got "Murder by Death" in the mail last night. Boss Lady's a big mystery fan, she can estimate the number of deaths in Midsomer County at the beginning of a season. ;)
Murder by Death -- I actually saw it in the theater -- wasn't a great movie, but it was a great deal of fun. Lots of individually charming performances, or at least performances that were in turn charming. Nancy Walker and Alec Guinness made a surprisingly effective comic duo.
And I am forever stuck with the sound of Truman Capote protesting "THE moose! THE moose! Say your god-damn pronouns!" (especially since what he meant was 'articles' not 'pronouns') :)
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 10, 2018, 09:44:37 PM
X-Men: Dark Phoenix is scheduled to open November 2.
There is a ray of hope then.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 10, 2018, 09:44:37 PM
I'm looking forward to it but worried they will get the Phoenix story wrong again. The people who created X-Men: Last Stand didn't understand what made the Dark Phoenix saga a good story.
I'm not sure what the Dark Phoenix is, but I'll be looking forward to another X-Men film. And your right about the importance of a good story. Directors can't just parade good talent around in front of the camera and think they've made a blockbuster. Sometimes it does seem like they miss the essence of the storyline, or think they can innovate a better one, but that seldom happens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdbbfkKmpT0&t=1521s
best review for this movie ever.
I like this guy, he tells it like it is and will beat something down if it needs breaking down. He mentions the good points of movies he sees but doesn't hold back on the bullshit in and around movies.
Let me know when a perfect movie comes along. I need the sleep.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 12, 2018, 02:17:56 PM
Let me know when a perfect movie comes along. I need the sleep.
There is no such thing as perfection or utopia, because everyone jerks off to different things
Quote from: Munch on July 12, 2018, 03:06:46 PM
There is no such thing as perfection or utopia, because everyone jerks off to different things
And yet so very many people complain about movies while purportedly knowing that everyone has different tastes.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 12, 2018, 04:02:59 PM
And yet so very many people complain about movies while purportedly knowing that everyone has different tastes.
Wait a sec...just because people have different tastes doesn't mean that there aren't bad movies or that legitimate criticisms can't be levied at movies. Subjectivity exists to some degree, but it's not the end all be all. It's not like one man's Suicide Squad is another man's Infinity War. They might appeal to different people to differing degrees, but there's a bunch of stuff they did correctly (or incorrectly) that's the main reason they got well-deserved acclaim or disdain.
And vice versa, of course.
Thats why criticism can be given to anything, even something you love should be open to criticism, and if you do love something you should listen to criticism about it, help gain some perspective on it. I've seen much loved movies and shows given the same treatment and it doesn't poison the well, because if you like something enough that even when you recognize the flaws in it and can still like it, then its not going t matter what people say about it.
Constructive criticism vs. plain old sniping. There lies the rub.
I doubt there is any of my favorite top ten movies that I couldn't file a complaint about something.
Quote from: SGOS on July 12, 2018, 09:28:09 PM
I doubt there is any of my favorite top ten movies that I couldn't file a complaint about something.
Yeah. Many of my favorites have serious flaws. I still like them, but I have to acknowledge that the things I like aren't perfect and have plenty of room for improvement.
The Tingler, a William Castle film starring Vincent Price. One of the more enjoyable cheapies from the late '50s, and Vincent Price is always fun to watch... and this showing was hosted live in person by Trace Beaulieu and Frank Conniff of MST3K, and riffed mightily and mercilessly... and hilariously. Seriously, if The Mads Are Back (http://themadsareback.com) comes through your area and you're an old MSTie, run, don't walk, to the box office for your tickets.
Tomorrow night - more Trace and Frank, and the movie The Choppers with Arch Hall Jr.
Quote from: SGOS on July 12, 2018, 09:28:09 PM
I doubt there is any of my favorite top ten movies that I couldn't file a complaint about something.
But why would you want to?
For all intents and purposes, the entertainment I love is perfect the way it is. There is no need to nitpick art I enjoy.
Quote from: trdsf on July 13, 2018, 01:05:14 AM
The Tingler, a William Castle film starring Vincent Price. One of the more enjoyable cheapies from the late '50s, and Vincent Price is always fun to watch... and this showing was hosted live in person by Trace Beaulieu and Frank Conniff of MST3K, and riffed mightily and mercilessly... and hilariously. Seriously, if The Mads Are Back (http://themadsareback.com) comes through your area and you're an old MSTie, run, don't walk, to the box office for your tickets.
Tomorrow night - more Trace and Frank, and the movie The Choppers with Arch Hall Jr.
The House of Wax staring Vincent Price was probably not a movie I should have watched at a young age. It kept me awake at nights for a couple of months. I rented it a few years ago, and it wasn't as disturbing as I remembered it, but at the age of 9 or 10, I had a profound psychological reaction. I think it was temporary, but it was so disturbing at the time, that I have wondered if it made a change in my subconscious that might have affected me in later years. I don't think it did, but I don't know how one would know.
Quote from: Munch on June 28, 2018, 07:55:40 AM
saw Solo: A Star Wars Story
The best parts for me was seeing the friendship of Han and Chewy grow from here. Alden Ehrenreich as Han was alright, felt like he was missing something that Harrison Ford had, like he was trying to hard in some scenes to be like Ford, but other times he did the role pretty good. Donald Glover as Lando Calrissian is a lot of fun and he's great in any scene hes's in.
Can't really say much about the other characters, didn't really gel with me like Han, Chewy and Lando did.
Same here about the redos of Star Trek. The new characters weren't the originals, but they did a pretty good job. And I accepted them quickly.
Redos are tricky. You could probably redo 'The Alamo' easily. It wouldn't have to have John Wayne in it. But could you do 'Gone With The Wind' as easily?
They tried to redo psycho, with Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. The movie had none of the Hitchcock feel to it and Vaughn captured nothing of the chilling performance Antony Perkins had
Quote from: Munch on July 13, 2018, 04:51:28 AM
They tried to redo psycho, with Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. The movie had none of the Hitchcock feel to it and Vaughn captured nothing of the chilling performance Antony Perkins had
There's also Bates Motel as another interpretation of the same story. Haven't seen it, but I heard it's pretty good.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 13, 2018, 09:30:58 AM
There's also Bates Motel as another interpretation of the same story. Haven't seen it, but I heard it's pretty good.
yeah heard about that but never saw it. I just felt the premise of making psycho into a series was just weird, since the original movies story was a stand alone masterpiece.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 13, 2018, 01:32:19 AM
But why would you want to?
For all intents and purposes, the entertainment I love is perfect the way it is. There is no need to nitpick art I enjoy.
Same reason I like modding. I like taking things apart and seeing what makes them tick. Seeing what works and what doesn't work. Imagining what improvements could be made.
I also tend to notice more details about stuff I've seen more often and therefore more likely to pick up on small things that don't really make sense.
People tend to (wrongly I think) conflate criticism with dislike or contempt. It's not unlike the idea that blasphemy literally wounds god. It's an absurd idea of course, and driven by the misapprehension that one's love of something is somehow threatened by someone else's criticism of it.
That, or endless niggling is tedious.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 13, 2018, 12:54:38 PM
That, or endless niggling is tedious.
Yeah, catching eels is a real boring activity.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 13, 2018, 12:37:07 PM
Same reason I like modding. I like taking things apart and seeing what makes them tick. Seeing what works and what doesn't work. Imagining what improvements could be made.
I also tend to notice more details about stuff I've seen more often and therefore more likely to pick up on small things that don't really make sense.
People tend to (wrongly I think) conflate criticism with dislike or contempt. It's not unlike the idea that blasphemy literally wounds god. It's an absurd idea of course, and driven by the misapprehension that one's love of something is somehow threatened by someone else's criticism of it.
well said. Picking apart something even something you love can like say give you a new look at it. When you deconstruct something, and yet you still enjoy it, then your know its a winner in your eyes. I've seen people pick apart some of my favorite movies and tv shows and games and comics, give their criticism of these things and its never tainted my view of the thing.
I do feel that if your feelings towards something is so fragile that any slight push making you thinking its anything but perfect, then maybe you need to look again at your own resolve or what you like about it. We don't live in a perfect world, but you can still find things in it that make it enjoyable.
And just because your thoughts on something down the line changes to something you once lived, doesn't mean you can't find something new to enjoy. I've fallen out of favor with certain movies due to things coming out about actors I use to enjoy but don't anymore. But so what, shit happens, you move on.
Quote from: Munch on July 13, 2018, 01:00:39 PM
well said. Picking apart something even something you love can like say give you a new look at it. When you deconstruct something, and yet you still enjoy it, then your know its a winner in your eyes. I've seen people pick apart some of my favorite movies and tv shows and games and comics, give their criticism of these things and its never tainted my view of the thing.
I do feel that if your feelings towards something is so fragile that any slight push making you thinking its anything but perfect, then maybe you need to look again at your own resolve or what you like about it. We don't live in a perfect world, but you can still find things in it that make it enjoyable.
And just because your thoughts on something down the line changes to something you once lived, doesn't mean you can't find something new to enjoy. I've fallen out of favor with certain movies due to things coming out about actors I use to enjoy but don't anymore. But so what, shit happens, you move on.
I actually enjoy poking fun at things that I like. Those imperfections don't ruin the experience for me. The acknowledgement of those flaws just makes them more entertaining, like after I learned that you could see the hand of a puppeteer controlling a raptor in Jurassic Park's kitchen scene. I can't unsee it, but it just makes me laugh when I watch that scene now. lol
Quote from: Munch on July 13, 2018, 01:00:39 PM
well said. Picking apart something even something you love can like say give you a new look at it. When you deconstruct something, and yet you still enjoy it, then your know its a winner in your eyes. I've seen people pick apart some of my favorite movies and tv shows and games and comics, give their criticism of these things and its never tainted my view of the thing.
Yeah. I love to watch movie reviews and it's a blast to watch a review about why movie X is the WORST THING EVER before or after a review about why movie X is the BEST THING EVER. I don't necessarily agree with either review, but it's interesting to try to understand where they're coming from and how that colors how they saw the exact same thing, leading to wildly different conclusions.
Like you and Shiranu on Black Panther. Or me and Shiranu on The Last Jedi. Or me and almost anybody else on Mortal Kombat Annihilation, lol.
A lot of it boils down to what people expected from the movie. People often want different, mutually-exclusive things. And sometimes a movie is not as good as it could have been because crucial scenes were cut, character motivations are off, events progress in unexpected and implausible ways, etc. There are nearly infinite ways a movie can go wrong, and few ways a movie can go right. That's what makes the analyzing them so interesting.
Remastered "Yellow Submarine" -- wonderful! The remastered music brought out things I never noticed before in the original recordings, and my only regret was not sitting a little closer so the screen could have filled my vision and I could've just let myself be completely absorbed into the movie.
Recommended.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 13, 2018, 10:04:15 PM
I actually enjoy poking fun at things that I like. Those imperfections don't ruin the experience for me. The acknowledgement of those flaws just makes them more entertaining, like after I learned that you could see the hand of a puppeteer controlling a raptor in Jurassic Park's kitchen scene. I can't unsee it, but it just makes me laugh when I watch that scene now. lol
That's among the reasons I love MST3K -- because I also
love the movies they do. Half the thrill of last year's "The Mads Are Back" was being able to see
Glen or Glenda? on a big screen for the first time. I would pay for a screening of a remastered
Plan Nine from Outer Space long before I would pay to see any Marvel Universe movie you name. I
will probably cry when Roger Corman dies. When you say Notorious B.I.G. that means Bert I. Gordon to me, not some rapper.
Ant Man II
It was entertaining, but didn't affect me on at a level that most Marvel movies do. It's in it's second week and people haven't commented on it here.
Quote from: SGOS on July 15, 2018, 07:40:43 PM
Ant Man II
It was entertaining, but didn't affect me on at a level that most Marvel movies do. It's in it's second week and people haven't commented on it here.
I've fallen hopelessly behind in Marvel movies.
Quote from: SGOS on July 15, 2018, 07:40:43 PM
Ant Man II
It was entertaining, but didn't affect me on at a level that most Marvel movies do. It's in it's second week and people haven't commented on it here.
This is "Ant Man and Wasp", yes?
I've one question about antman and wasp, since there was a lot of controversy around it in the comics. In the comics, Hank Pym slaps wasp across the face and knocks her over, opening up the controversy of domestic abuse that hasn't ever really gone away with the character.
I know in the MCU Scott Lang is ant man while hank pym is an old version of himself, so doesn't quite have the same dynamic. I just wondered if they decided to stay away from that kind of controversy in this now she's in the story.
-
Quote from: SGOS on July 15, 2018, 07:40:43 PMIt's in it's second week and people haven't commented on it here.
I'm probably going to rent it. I blew all my movie money on Deadpool 2 and Infinity War. Totally worth it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 16, 2018, 03:51:16 PM
I'm probably going to rent it. I blew all my movie money on Deadpool 2 and Infinity War. Totally worth it.
It's worth a rent. Some Marvel movies are better than others, but none of them fail.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/8e207c2c39d8ea3e22f849bfa58178c3/tumblr_pbyvodjkaY1vsd1kxo1_1280.jpg)
justice league was horrible. batman vs superman was horrible. wonder woman was okay but not that special.
I want to believe this could work, and it would be so ironic if it was the one that did. Aquaman is the justice league member considered the lamest, but there have been irritations of him that writers actually gave a shit enough about to make work, like in the justice league unlimited series.
I saw someone reviewing justice league and regarded, all jason momoa did in that was just act like jason momoa, no real acting, yet we know he can act like in game of thrones. So maybe, with a decent director, like James Wan, it could happen.
I like James Wan, he's directed some of my fav horror movies recently, like the conjuring and insidious.
Having Zack Snyder's funk away from this could be what makes it work.
I watched Avengers Civil War. I was confused. I thought Captain America would be on the side of Government. But then I decided Iron Man had to run a business with Government. But then Spiderman, who had been involved with SHIELD before seemed to be new to the hero game. It was all a bad mess.
The fights were fun. I always loved the older Marvel comics when various characters fought each other for seemingly good reasons.
But this movie was logical crap.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 17, 2018, 04:22:23 AM
I watched Avengers Civil War. I was confused. I thought Captain America would be on the side of Government. But then I decided Iron Man had to run a business with Government. But then Spiderman, who had been involved with SHIELD before seemed to be new to the hero game. It was all a bad mess.
The fights were fun. I always loved the older Marvel comics when various characters fought each other for seemingly good reasons.
But this movie was logical crap.
You read old comics but knew nothing about the new ones? Captain America civil war comes from the comics where the same thing happened, but the story was structured differently. In the comics they pushed for the superhero registration act that all superheroes must conform to governmental control after an event that killed many innocent civilians.
Cap opposed it because having superheroes following government control put all power in their hands and he saw it as going against their civil liberties, while Tony .. well he's just a dick and sided with the government because reasons.
Spiderman first sided with Tony and followed the act, who would order all superheroes to reveal their secret identity, by unmasking himself in public, which lead to the kingpin trying to assassinate Spidey, just to shoot aunt may instead, leading to one of the worst marvel comics ever printed, One More Day (shudder)
They based the movie very loosely on these events
Image
A belgian movie about the quartiers in Brussels.
Lot of poverty, criminal activity etcetera. Kind of like the banlieus. Lots of prejudice against the majority of inhabitants from foreign origin as well.
I get the feeling the movie tried to look behind the aspect of blame and and Original fault, coming more to the conclusion that such prejudice is selfsustaining. It didn't try to say: this is wrong, this is right. It just said: this is it.
Interesting movie, was definitely worth the watch. Spoken in French and Dutch, though. So maybe not as accesible to most.
Only the female lead was a bit of a downer to me. I feel like she hardly acted at all, and Always sounded like a whiny, young, spoiled brat.
(Also felt like the movie was trying to point out that she was very attractive. And of course that's personal preference, but... she was higher on the hotness scale than myself, I have no problem of admitting. By far. But I don't think she's a knock-out beauty or anything. And to then have so many men wanting to 'be with her' and it being pointed out again and again, was a bit strange.)
But the story was good, and the male lead as well.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 17, 2018, 06:58:25 AM
(Also felt like the movie was trying to point out that she was very attractive. And of course that's personal preference, but... she was higher on the hotness scale than myself, I have no problem of admitting. By far. But I don't think she's a knock-out beauty or anything. And to then have so many men wanting to 'be with her' and it being pointed out again and again, was a bit strange.)
But the story was good, and the male lead as well.
On a related front: The Red Sparrow
A selection of short scenes and scenarios showcasing Jennifer Lawrence acting extraordinarily hot and sexy held together with a video game type plot that fails to create a meaningful premise.
A twist in the similarity to your film is that I've seen Lawrence doing scenes acting hot and sexy, and she can do it well when it's part of the plot, rather than just being "the plot." It's not as titillating when the movie screams at the audience, "See Jennifer Lawrence be a deadly sexy undercover spy, who beats up guys that get in her way."
Like a female James Bond, she moves about the world. You are never sure why she went to this or that country or place other than to be hot and sexy in a slightly different environment. It's like someone showing you pictures of their trip to Europe: "Here's my wife June in front of the British Parliament. Here's June at Stonehenge. Here she is in Poland. Here she is buying sausage from a street vendor. Here she is at Mount Rushmore. Oops, I'll have to remember to put that one back with our pictures from when we went to the American West. Here she is standing in front of a river. I can't remember what river. Oh wait, that's also from our trip out west."
I saw half of Red Sparrow at the theater. I was so bored I walked out. I felt funny about walking out. I was sure people were thinking, "He must be some old Puritan freaked out by sex and violence," when really, I just got bored and thought I would rather have some French fries and a coke at Burger King if I could find one.
Sometimes sex just doesn't work in a movie if the elements don't come together in ways that make sense.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 17, 2018, 04:22:23 AM
I watched Avengers Civil War. I was confused. I thought Captain America would be on the side of Government. But then I decided Iron Man had to run a business with Government. But then Spiderman, who had been involved with SHIELD before seemed to be new to the hero game. It was all a bad mess.
The fights were fun. I always loved the older Marvel comics when various characters fought each other for seemingly good reasons.
But this movie was logical crap.
I agree sort of. I've watched this movie maybe 4 or 5 times, there are some interesting things in it. The acting, character development and interactions between characters. I would hesitate to call it logical crap. Logic should not be the issue, because it's based on a child's fantasy and appeals to that side of us. But some leaps over logic test my ability to suspend my sense of reality. And that brings us to the logical absurdity of a civil war between the team members. Between the team and the government, I could accept, but not the team.
The Avengers are everything the government is not. They are superheroes, and not just because the fly and climb walls. They have an ultimate grasp of right and wrong. They are without corruption, and they stand up for the people, even Tony Stark. They can't fight amongst themselves because they all have the same goals. Unlike the government, they are pure, working for us, and do the right thing. They are all that saves us from the tyranny of politicians, who are divided in the comics as well as reality, because they (the government) only looks out for itself, wile its component members only care about themselves and their special friends, and don't give a shit about the world or even their country.
The government being a group of incompetent assholes doesn't require a suspension of my belief, but it doesn't work for the Avengers, which will always be above the bullshit and corruption. And even when they do something that is bad or just a mistake, we only see it that way because we cannot think and behave at their super hero level which only works for the greater good.
The whole premise of Civil War is absurd. The Avengers stopped an interstellar invasion of Earth while NOT nuking New York. They stopped an ELE. Etc. And they're considered dangerous because of this. It was a committee that decided to nuke New York. Now they want to put another committee in direct charge of the "enhanced individuals". 'Cause that always works out so well.
Quote from: Munch on July 17, 2018, 05:43:31 AM
You read old comics but knew nothing about the new ones?
I'm in the same boat. I haven't read mainstream titles in over 25 years; comics to me still mean Kirby doing Fantastic Four, Legion of Super-Heroes in the 70s, or Adams and O'Neil's Green Lantern/Green Arrow -- or, for that matter, MAD Magazine when it was almost all Berg and Martin and Prohias and Aragones and Davis and Coker and Jaffee and Drucker.
I got tired of DC rebooting the reboots and retconning the retcons, and Marvel deciding everyone needs to be an angstbeast carrying lots of sharp pointy things.
Quote from: SGOS on July 17, 2018, 07:52:33 AM
On a related front: The Red Sparrow
A selection of short scenes and scenarios showcasing Jennifer Lawrence acting extraordinarily hot and sexy held together with a video game type plot that fails to create a meaningful premise.
A twist in the similarity to your film is that I've seen Lawrence doing scenes acting hot and sexy, and she can do it well when it's part of the plot, rather than just being "the plot." It's not as titillating when the movie screams at the audience, "See Jennifer Lawrence be a deadly sexy undercover spy, who beats up guys that get in her way."
Like a female James Bond, she moves about the world. You are never sure why she went to this or that country or place other than to be hot and sexy in a slightly different environment. It's like someone showing you pictures of their trip to Europe: "Here's my wife June in front of the British Parliament. Here's June at Stonehenge. Here she is in Poland. Here she is buying sausage from a street vendor. Here she is at Mount Rushmore. Oops, I'll have to remember to put that one back with our pictures from when we went to the American West. Here she is standing in front of a river. I can't remember what river. Oh wait, that's also from our trip out west."
I saw half of Red Sparrow at the theater. I was so bored I walked out. I felt funny about walking out. I was sure people were thinking, "He must be some old Puritan freaked out by sex and violence," when really, I just got bored and thought I would rather have some French fries and a coke at Burger King if I could find one.
Sometimes sex just doesn't work in a movie if the elements don't come together in ways that make sense.
Never heard of Mata Hari?
Quote from: Munch on July 17, 2018, 05:43:31 AM
You read old comics but knew nothing about the new ones? Captain America civil war comes from the comics where the same thing happened, but the story was structured differently. In the comics they pushed for the superhero registration act that all superheroes must conform to governmental control after an event that killed many innocent civilians.
Cap opposed it because having superheroes following government control put all power in their hands and he saw it as going against their civil liberties, while Tony .. well he's just a dick and sided with the government because reasons.
Spiderman first sided with Tony and followed the act, who would order all superheroes to reveal their secret identity, by unmasking himself in public, which lead to the kingpin trying to assassinate Spidey, just to shoot aunt may instead, leading to one of the worst marvel comics ever printed, One More Day (shudder)
They based the movie very loosely on these events
Yes Munch, I read the old comics until the cost went nuts in the 90s. My Marvel universe is basically there. I accept that my understanding of them pretty much stopped there. But that is what they were and everything different is not following the canon, so to speak.
I could accept Captain America and Iron Man being on different sides of a fight, though I was surprised that Captain America wasn't on the government side until I thought about it. Iron Man HAD to be governmental , as he had a business with government.
But some of the characters really bothered me in that movie (which I DID enjoy). Spiderman especially. He has always been my favorite character. Other characters were either kids powered up to adults or adults.
I read the orginal Spiderman comics (Amazing Stories, I think, and then Spiderman #1. Yes, I had them in my hands as I did Fantistic Four #1 and others when I could afford the 10 or 12 cents).
One of the things I notice in movies is the logical continuation of the dress or background. So when a movie remake changes that on me, I notice and register that in my mind. When a movie breaks the origins or characters, that bothers me too.
They screwed up Spiderman in The Civil War. I really hated that. Marvel also screwed up Iron Man in #3 with all those suits.
I try to accept and adjust and move on. But sometimes they make it hard.
GROK?
Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 07:40:31 AM
Marvel also screwed up Iron Man in #3 with all those suits.
#2 and #3 should have never been made. Both cast a deadening anticlimactical pallor over what might be one of Marvel's top 5 movies. For me, Iron Man marked Marvel's entrance into the world of film and defined a leap forward in the genre. They had been there before, but not with as a dominating force. I think #2 and #3 were critical stumbles that could have killed Marvel and turned it into another short lived curiosity. But someone in the head office decided that sequels, although profitable must not ride solely on a previous success, but have something to offer in their own right.
Quote from: SGOS on July 21, 2018, 07:59:29 AM
#2 and #3 should have never been made. Both cast a deadening anticlimactical pallor over what might be one of Marvel's top 5 movies. For me, Iron Man marked Marvel's entrance into the world of film and defined a leap forward in the genre. They had been there before, but not with as a dominating force. I think #2 and #3 were critical stumbles that could have killed Marvel and turned it into another short lived curiosity. But someone in the head office decided that sequels, although profitable must not ride solely on a previous success, but have something to offer in their own right.
I thought #2 was good. He needed a character competing on his own turf. And I loved (and I'm going to get this wrong slightly) "how did you solve the frammistat chill problem"? line.
There is much to dislike about the character of Tony Stark. He is basically a self-centered jerk. But one thing I admire is that he will risk everything to death in pursuit of trying to succeed. When he guided the atomic bomb to the other world ship and fell, I did actually cry.
Hurrah for the Hulk...
And I noticed in 'Civil War' that Thor and Hulk were not involved. They would have lopsided either side or (if on opposite sides - as if the Hulk could take a side) it would have been too much about them.
I guess that's enough for now.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 07:40:31 AM
Yes Munch, I read the old comics until the cost went nuts in the 90s. My Marvel universe is basically there. I accept that my understanding of them pretty much stopped there. But that is what they were and everything different is not following the canon, so to speak.
I could accept Captain America and Iron Man being on different sides of a fight, though I was surprised that Captain America wasn't on the government side until I thought about it. Iron Man HAD to be governmental , as he had a business with government.
But some of the characters really bothered me in that movie (which I DID enjoy). Spiderman especially. He has always been my favorite character. Other characters were either kids powered up to adults or adults.
I read the orginal Spiderman comics (Amazing Stories, I think, and then Spiderman #1. Yes, I had them in my hands as I did Fantistic Four #1 and others when I could afford the 10 or 12 cents).
One of the things I notice in movies is the logical continuation of the dress or background. So when a movie remake changes that on me, I notice and register that in my mind. When a movie breaks the origins or characters, that bothers me too.
They screwed up Spiderman in The Civil War. I really hated that. Marvel also screwed up Iron Man in #3 with all those suits.
I try to accept and adjust and move on. But sometimes they make it hard.
GROK?
being honest I'm the same, I've been a marvel fan since the late 80s and buying a lot of comics since then and though the 90s to the early 2000s, and I today I just can't pick up a modern day marvel comic with some of the stuff they've pulled in the last 10-15 years.
I get what you mean about spiderman too, infact I looked into it thanks to guys like Linkara on his channel about it, and the travesty that was One More Day, but even before that the comics civil war story just pissed me off looking into it, characters were just out of character, infact they were complete dicks, especially iron man.
The biggest cringe for me however, since in the comics civil war event, which had a longer and more developed reason for their being two sides, iron mans pro registration side, which forced super heroes to become slaves to the government and give up their secret identities (which spiderman did on to the media resulting in the kingpin shooting aunt may and leading to One More Day), what the biggest cringefest for me in that entire series, was how the marvel editors concluded, that the pro registration.. was the 'right side', the correct side to be on.
its reasons like this I gave up reading marvel, even before it turned into the social justice clusterfuck its become recently.
Cavebear - "I went nuts in the 90s ..."
Quote from: Baruch on July 21, 2018, 10:37:41 AM
Cavebear - "I went nuts in the 90s ..."
You suck...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 11:48:29 AM
You suck...
Just quoting you out of context, like a "cub" reporter ;-)
Quote from: Munch on July 21, 2018, 08:43:55 AM
being honest I'm the same, I've been a marvel fan since the late 80s and buying a lot of comics since then and though the 90s to the early 2000s, and I today I just can't pick up a modern day marvel comic with some of the stuff they've pulled in the last 10-15 years.
I get what you mean about spiderman too, infact I looked into it thanks to guys like Linkara on his channel about it, and the travesty that was One More Day, but even before that the comics civil war story just pissed me off looking into it, characters were just out of character, infact they were complete dicks, especially iron man.
The biggest cringe for me however, since in the comics civil war event, which had a longer and more developed reason for their being two sides, iron mans pro registration side, which forced super heroes to become slaves to the government and give up their secret identities (which spiderman did on to the media resulting in the kingpin shooting aunt may and leading to One More Day), what the biggest cringefest for me in that entire series, was how the marvel editors concluded, that the pro registration.. was the 'right side', the correct side to be on.
its reasons like this I gave up reading marvel, even before it turned into the social justice clusterfuck its become recently.
Thank you Munch. That was a very reasoned and thoughtful reply. It is very difficult to explain to those who know only the movies how different the comic world was and how important "continuity" is to those like me who grew up on just those.
To those of you who never read the "comic books" of the characters you are watching the movies of, I used to struggle about which 2 12 cent monthly ones to spend my quarter on. I once held FF#1 and Spiderman #1 in my hands not dreaming they would become valuable. Mom threw them out later as "trash" like the Sunday newspaper "funnies".
My younger brother and I used to sit of the floor and copy characters like The Thing and Galactus and Sandman onto paper (my brother was MUCH better). They were our world before the got onto the movies decades later...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 12:07:56 PM
Thank you Munch. That was a very reasoned and thoughtful reply. It is very difficult to explain to those who know only the movies how different the comic world was and how important "continuity" is to those like me who grew up on just those.
To those of you who never read the "comic books" of the characters you are watching the movies of, I used to struggle about which 2 12 cent monthly ones to spend my quarter on. I once held FF#1 and Spiderman #1 in my hands not dreaming they would become valuable. Mom threw them out later as "trash" like the Sunday newspaper "funnies".
My younger brother and I used to sit of the floor and copy characters like The Thing and Galactus and Sandman onto paper (my brother was MUCH better). They were our world before the got onto the movies decades later...
I.. was kinda lucky, though looking back I could have been even luckier if I had the sense back then to hold myself off. I went to a comics fair in the mid 90s and by some stroke of luck, I found a copy of amazing spiderman#1 with a random bundle I brought. I had it checked at a local comic book store and he confirmed it was genuine (plus the thing had pages a little faded over years). I sold it on ebay for £400, and brought myself a pc with the money.
I kinda think how much more it might have been worth if I had the thing checked and valued and sealed with a certificate.
I learned to draw thanks to marvel, a book I was given 'how to draw the x-men' I think by stan lee. I learned about the marvel technique him and jack kirby used to draw and really loved making up my own characters after learning how to do so.
Quote from: Munch on July 21, 2018, 12:48:27 PM
I.. was kinda lucky, though looking back I could have been even luckier if I had the sense back then to hold myself off. I went to a comics fair in the mid 90s and by some stroke of luck, I found a copy of amazing spiderman#1 with a random bundle I brought. I had it checked at a local comic book store and he confirmed it was genuine (plus the thing had pages a little faded over years). I sold it on ebay for £400, and brought myself a pc with the money.
I kinda think how much more it might have been worth if I had the thing checked and valued and sealed with a certificate.
I learned to draw thanks to marvel, a book I was given 'how to draw the x-men' I think by stan lee. I learned about the marvel technique him and jack kirby used to draw and really loved making up my own characters after learning how to do so.
See? Now this is what I love about this site. All sorts of interesting people after you get them to admit it! Here we each held and read Spiderman #1, drew some of the Marvel characters, and ah, Stan (the man) Lee and Jack (the king) Kirby.
I tried to sell my collection of Marvel comics (a steamer trunk load) at a bad time. I showed the dealer my FF#1 (a bit beat up) and he showed me 5 in perfect condition. Dang...
I finally had to sell my trunkload to a guy trying to start his on comic shop for $100. It was rent money. I wish I had kept them though.
I still got about three large boxes of comics in my spare room I've been meaning to sell. I tried back in the late 2000s butnever found a buyer, since that many it be pick up only.
I did keep some of my favorite comics though, some wolverine issues, some ka-zar ones, x-men, alpha flight, some 90s aquaman, batman issues, but if I thought certain individual ones would be worth something with the collection I'd add it to them.
What years are they? You might have luck on ebay.
Like say they are mostly from the 80s and 90s, mostly marvel, I always brought the newest releases of certain comics each month plus a couple one shots
The new Shazam trailer looks really fun :D
Quote from: Shiranu on July 21, 2018, 03:49:46 PM
The new Shazam trailer looks really fun :D
I have mixed feelings about it. It seems like the kinda cheesy superhero movie we'd get in the 90s, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I could easily see this kinda movie airing next to Terminator 2. On the other hand, I've kinda gotten used to the modern super hero flicks that take themselves more seriously, so this feels kinda weird.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDkg3h8PCVU
uuurm... eeeeehh... Hmmmm.
I'm still skeptical based on all the other recent DC movies, Dc movies just always come off so dark and gritty compared to marvels.
But I like James Wan, so maybe he can make it work?
Quote from: Munch on July 21, 2018, 08:36:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDkg3h8PCVU
uuurm... eeeeehh... Hmmmm.
I'm still skeptical based on all the other recent DC movies, Dc movies just always come off so dark and gritty compared to marvels.
But I like James Wan, so maybe he can make it work?
"She doesn't have a parachute!"
Yes. A super hero jumped out of a plane without a parachute. How shocking and original. I've never seen anyone do that bef--
(https://media.wired.com/photos/59326ab12a990b06268aa58d/master/pass/captain-parachute-ft.jpg)
The trailer looks kinda meh. I think I'll pass.
Yeah its not doing it any favours, but to me it felt that having a great guy like Jason Momoa as aquaman was one of the better casting choices in this whole DC setup, and would like to see them at least do something with it.
(http://actionfigureking.com/media/reviews/photos/original/4b/fe/bd/Mattel-Die-Cast-Aquaman-Figure1-23-1406610818.jpg)
I did like him in the JLU series and in the 90s comics, since he got a pretty good redesign, which these film makers seemed to realise was the better look.
Especially looking at the Atlantis part... it's a movie I know I'm going to be at least stoned out of my mind for, so I look forward to those scenes already. But in terms of a sober film... meh? Nothing about it got me hyped.
Also, Dr. Strange and hallucinogens? MMMMMMMMGHHH
Quote from: Munch on July 21, 2018, 08:43:55 AMThe biggest cringe for me however, since in the comics civil war event, which had a longer and more developed reason for their being two sides, iron mans pro registration side, which forced super heroes to become slaves to the government and give up their secret identities (which spiderman did on to the media resulting in the kingpin shooting aunt may and leading to One More Day), what the biggest cringefest for me in that entire series, was how the marvel editors concluded, that the pro registration.. was the 'right side', the correct side to be on.
To be honest, it definitely was the right side to be on. Some D-list supers got in a fight, gigantic explosion, bunch of dead kids.
Just think for a second about random supers fighting near your house, near your kid's school, etc. People get caught in the crossfire. Now did the "good" super have a perfectly valid, perhaps even noble reason to fight? Probably, maybe. Maybe he was trying to save the world. Maybe he was trying to protect someone else. Maybe it was one of those horrible misunderstandings that tragically leads to a good VS good fight. Maybe it's a Deadpool-type fight and there is no real reason. Who knows? All you really know is that some guy in a speedo with wings on his feet just threw a trident through the car next to you and some green beefcake tangling with a military convoy is the reason I-95 has 6 hour delay while you're frantically trying to take your dad to the hospital for a heart attack.
There comes a point in which people stop giving a shit about why these fights are happening and simply want them to stop. War weariness. Super weariness. Almost end of the world every week weariness.
Point is, some whackjob puts on a bandana and goes full auto down 4th and Main for maybe justifiable reasons. Why shouldn't people want to rein in this sort of vigilantism? Why shouldn't these people be accountable to some higher authority? Why should people be allowed to take the law into their own hands?
Obviously, neither the pro and the anti-registration sides conducted themselves well (putting it mildly) and perhaps there should have been some sort of compromise with supers who want to keep a secret identity out of fear of retribution against their families and to protect people's civil liberties, etc. We can nitpick the particulars all day but the general idea of the pro-registration side was very clearly in the right.
I mean FFS, this is a world with The Punisher. 'Nuff said.
Sorry giant robots and superheroes don't get me exited anymore ...
Musicals do ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM4Ou4T3s_I
Loved it like I loved the first one. With a surprise ending ... and surprise cameo appearances .. including the one old man who is actually handsomer than I am ;-)
I grew up on musicals, Oliver (1968), Mary Poppins, Meet Me in St. Louis, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, The Sound of Music, The Wizard of Oz, Singing in the Rain, plus all disney classic musicals. Been to see several play adaptations of them, plus the classic les mis in london.
Kinda feels like a dying art form when even disney doesn't prioritize musicals like they use to in their movies,
That is because mass-philistinism is on the rise. New Socialist Man (redo of New Communist Man) is on the rise. Hating all self expression not endorsed by Big Brother.
Quote from: SGOS on July 17, 2018, 07:52:33 AM
On a related front: The Red Sparrow
Yeah, I lasted about 25 minutes......meh.
Quote from: aitm on July 24, 2018, 07:51:46 PM
Yeah, I lasted about 25 minutes......meh.
Most guys can't keep it up that long <sarc>
Quote from: Munch on July 24, 2018, 02:46:43 PM
I grew up on musicals, Oliver (1968), Mary Poppins, Meet Me in St. Louis, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, The Sound of Music, The Wizard of Oz, Singing in the Rain, plus all disney classic musicals. Been to see several play adaptations of them, plus the classic les mis in london.
Kinda feels like a dying art form when even disney doesn't prioritize musicals like they use to in their movies,
Ooo, I remember seeing Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory in the theater in its original theatrical run...
still one of my favorite movies!
Quote from: trdsf on July 24, 2018, 10:21:49 PM
Ooo, I remember seeing Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory in the theater in its original theatrical run... still one of my favorite movies!
No one can do bizarre like Gene Wilder.
Quote from: trdsf on July 24, 2018, 10:21:49 PM
Ooo, I remember seeing Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory in the theater in its original theatrical run... still one of my favorite movies!
There is no life I know
To compare with pure imagination
Living there you'll be free
If you truly wish to be
Pan's labyrinth
Been wanting to see this one for a while.
Was not dissapointed.
Color me impressed.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 25, 2018, 04:47:50 AM
Pan's labyrinth
Been wanting to see this one for a while.
Was not dissapointed.
Color me impressed.
Trump agrees ... "Sad".
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 25, 2018, 04:47:50 AM
Pan's labyrinth
Been wanting to see this one for a while.
Was not dissapointed.
Color me impressed.
Brilliant movie, so imaginative and dark.
Quote from: Munch on July 25, 2018, 04:20:12 AM
There is no life I know
To compare with pure imagination
Living there you'll be free
If you truly wish to be
I don't know if you've ever seen it on the big screen -- imagine seeing the paddleboat sequence at full scale at the age of 8.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB401RfGMlM
Round the world and home again
That's the sailor's way
Faster faster, faster faster
There's no earthly way of knowing
Which direction we are going
There's no knowing where we're rowing
Or which way the river's flowing
Is it raining, is it snowing
Is a hurricane aâ€"blowing
Not a speck of light is showing
So the danger must be growing
Are the fires of Hell aâ€"glowing
Is the grisly reaper mowing
Yes, the danger must be growing
For the rowers keep on rowing
And they're certainly not showing
Any signs that they are slowing.
Quote from: Munch on July 21, 2018, 10:26:58 PM
Yeah its not doing it any favours, but to me it felt that having a great guy like Jason Momoa as aquaman was one of the better casting choices in this whole DC setup, and would like to see them at least do something with it.
(http://actionfigureking.com/media/reviews/photos/original/4b/fe/bd/Mattel-Die-Cast-Aquaman-Figure1-23-1406610818.jpg)
I did like him in the JLU series and in the 90s comics, since he got a pretty good redesign, which these film makers seemed to realise was the better look.
OMG, Munch, you're an action figure! He looks just like you present yourself!
QuoteI don't know if you've ever seen it on the big screen -- imagine seeing the paddleboat sequence at full scale at the age of 8.
you know it took me years to realize I was watching a chickens head being cut off. Ah the wonder of childhood innocence.
Quote from: Munch on July 25, 2018, 03:02:36 PM
you know it took me years to realize I was watching a chickens head being cut off. Ah the wonder of childhood innocence.
Well, eat the thighs and breasts.
Ready Player One 5/10
I keep thinking I've missed something. Movies based on specific computer games seldom do well, although I've enjoyed some of them. This one is based on gaming in general, I see what they are trying to do. They weave some real gaming culture stuff into the plot, and there are those, "Oh so true," moments when you recognize some cultural idiosyncrasy, but the movie leaves me unimpressed over all. I think it had good reviews too.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 25, 2018, 04:47:50 AM
Pan's labyrinth
Been wanting to see this one for a while.
Was not dissapointed.
Color me impressed.
I was uncertain right up to the end.
Le fils (2002 Franco-belgian movie)
I don't know.
I really don't.
Believable portrayals. Heartwrenching, be it somewhat slow plot. A 'show, don't tell' way of telling The story, which I appreciate. But The camerawork, though obviously deliberate and while creative, is not an added value for me. 99% of The movie is shot over The shoulder, third person close up to The main character. We see little else in a lots of shots, making it that we miss a lot of actions gOing on, only being able to react after he does so. I think it is to show how lost The main character is. And that we as an audiences don't know what's comiÅ,,, nor where he is trying to go. Because he doesn't either. But it becomes draining after a while.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 27, 2018, 02:46:21 AM
Le fils (2002 Franco-belgian movie)
I don't know.
I really don't.
Believable portrayals. Heartwrenching, be it somewhat slow plot. A 'show, don't tell' way of telling The story, which I appreciate. But The camerawork, though obviously deliberate and while creative, is not an added value for me. 99% of The movie is shot over The shoulder, third person close up to The main character. We see little else in a lots of shots, making it that we miss a lot of actions gOing on, only being able to react after he does so. I think it is to show how lost The main character is. And that we as an audiences don't know what's comiÅ,,, nor where he is trying to go. Because he doesn't either. But it becomes draining after a while.
Shaky cam helps to add to chaos, and can be useful, but when the entire movie is shot that way, it's a major distraction. The Bourne Identity was one of my favorite books, but the movies failed for me wrecked in part by shaky cam. I turned off one of the films immediately when the director started bouncing the camera all over the place at the very beginning. I remember thinking, "I'm not going watch this cheap attempt at being artsy fartsy." It may have been a year later before I forced myself to watch the entire film, and I can say that I grew to hate the Bourne series in spite of the first rate cast.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 27, 2018, 02:46:21 AM
Le fils (2002 Franco-belgian movie)
I don't know.
I really don't.
Believable portrayals. Heartwrenching, be it somewhat slow plot. A 'show, don't tell' way of telling The story, which I appreciate. But The camerawork, though obviously deliberate and while creative, is not an added value for me. 99% of The movie is shot over The shoulder, third person close up to The main character. We see little else in a lots of shots, making it that we miss a lot of actions gOing on, only being able to react after he does so. I think it is to show how lost The main character is. And that we as an audiences don't know what's comiÅ,,, nor where he is trying to go. Because he doesn't either. But it becomes draining after a while.
Ingmar Bergman strikes again?
"I'm not going watch this cheap attempt at being artsy fartsy." - ROFL
Quote from: trdsf on July 25, 2018, 01:19:39 PM
I don't know if you've ever seen it on the big screen -- imagine seeing the paddleboat sequence at full scale at the age of 8.
I did. It scared the crap out of me.
Quote from: SGOS on July 27, 2018, 04:02:53 AMShaky cam helps to add to chaos, and can be useful, but when the entire movie is shot that way, it's a major distraction.
Agreed. It think it's best used in small doses. My favorite use of it was with the reimagined battlestar galactica space battle sequences. But if the whole show was shot that way, it'd probably end up shooting the tv.
Le Fils 2002 or Le Fils de Jean 2016?
The Dark Tower - 7/10
Idris Elba pretty much carried this movie as well as the villian played by Matthew McConaughey. Without their performance this movie would strike me as quite bland.
Quote from: Baruch on July 27, 2018, 01:05:37 PM
Le Fils 2002 or Le Fils de Jean 2016?
Haven't seen Le fils de Jean.
Is it good?
Saw 'De Behandeling' yesterday. Flemish film. Based on the Brittish Mo Hayder's
The Treatment.
The dutch name is a translation of that title. I haven't read the original. But if you're not into foreign films, I'd recommend the book. I assume it's good, as this story was good.
Great film. An engaging and disturbing thriller.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 28, 2018, 04:59:29 AM
Haven't seen Le fils de Jean.
Is it good?
Saw 'De Behandeling' yesterday. Flemish film. Based on the Brittish Mo Hayder's The Treatment.
The dutch name is a translation of that title. I haven't read the original. But if you're not into foreign films, I'd recommend the book. I assume it's good, as this story was good.
Great film. An engaging and disturbing thriller.
I saw the previews to both. I sometimes watch French movies. Le fils didn't seem like fun. Le fils de Jean .. is about family and inheritance. Something relevant to me.
I enjoyed the latest Mission Impossible. Though I don't think it was AS great as the reviews say. A lot of the plot twists were obvious. But, sure, it's fun. 7/10
In the recent debacle with James Gunn being fired by disney from the guardians of the galaxy 3 production, for some 'offensive' tweets he said 10 year ago, this was the response the cast and crew of GOTG gave.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/64728e833d8e2cf772b55baaa8d3994f/tumblr_pcpa5kKpuU1ty99rh_540.jpg)
A little thing called forgiveness, its not just a religious thing.
Quote from: Munch on July 30, 2018, 07:51:42 PM
In the recent debacle with James Gunn being fired by disney from the guardians of the galaxy 3 production, for some 'offensive' tweets he said 10 year ago, this was the response the cast and crew of GOTG gave.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/64728e833d8e2cf772b55baaa8d3994f/tumblr_pcpa5kKpuU1ty99rh_540.jpg)
A little thing called forgiveness, its not just a religious thing.
I hope this doesn't fuck up the Guardians movies. A lot depends on the director, who can make or break the success of the franchise. I don't know what he said 10 years ago, so I can't comment from that perspective.
Death to anyone who isn't Mahatma Gandhi or MLK!
The puritans can start with their own executions.
Quote from: Munch on July 30, 2018, 07:51:42 PM
In the recent debacle with James Gunn being fired by disney from the guardians of the galaxy 3 production, for some 'offensive' tweets he said 10 year ago, this was the response the cast and crew of GOTG gave.
But how much clout do the actors really have on the studio? I couldn't say, but hopefully this changes things the court of public opinion, which Disney apparently seems beholden to despite its massive power. The best case scenario is that Disney sees which way the wind is blowing and reverses its decision. The worst case scenario, our universe is resting in a false vacuum and near-instantly annihilates itself tomorrow.
Quote from: Munch on July 30, 2018, 07:51:42 PM
In the recent debacle with James Gunn being fired by disney from the guardians of the galaxy 3 production, for some 'offensive' tweets he said 10 year ago, this was the response the cast and crew of GOTG gave.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/64728e833d8e2cf772b55baaa8d3994f/tumblr_pcpa5kKpuU1ty99rh_540.jpg)
A little thing called forgiveness, its not just a religious thing.
Who the fuck dug ten years into his Twitter account just to find something to be offended by? You know how much can change in ten years? Ten years ago, I was a Conservative Christian who put the Bible over human rights. Does anyone here care what I posted on Facebook back then?
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 31, 2018, 01:50:30 AM
Who the fuck dug ten years into his Twitter account just to find something to be offended by? You know how much can change in ten years? Ten years ago, I was a Conservative Christian who put the Bible over human rights. Does anyone here care what I posted on Facebook back then?
Death to everyone, for the non PC crayon drawings from first grade ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 31, 2018, 01:50:30 AM
Who the fuck dug ten years into his Twitter account just to find something to be offended by? You know how much can change in ten years? Ten years ago, I was a Conservative Christian who put the Bible over human rights. Does anyone here care what I posted on Facebook back then?
Exactly, people change, they grow up and mature. Hell you could make a fucking Disney movie with that theme. But Disney won't adhere to their own sentiment.
This is what happens when you let corporate monoliths like this take over.
Quote from: SGOS on July 30, 2018, 08:00:28 PM
I don't know what he said 10 years ago, so I can't comment from that perspective.
I sometimes don't know what I said ten minutes ago.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 31, 2018, 06:19:42 AM
I sometimes don't know what I said ten minutes ago.
We all get that way, eventually ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 31, 2018, 01:50:30 AM
Who the fuck dug ten years into his Twitter account just to find something to be offended by? You know how much can change in ten years? Ten years ago, I was a Conservative Christian who put the Bible over human rights. Does anyone here care what I posted on Facebook back then?
Well, I did look up some of the information, and read some of (possibly most of) the tweets under fire. They fall under the column of inappropriate. But I agree that people change overtime. There are things in my past I deeply regret, even today while understanding that what really counts is what I do from here on.
I understand this came out of FOX News. Aside from being ultra conservative, they are still the media, and they love this kind of shit because it gets attention. And they love to talk about how awful other people are, while glorifying themselves as models of righteousness. Do I dare say the words? Virtue signaling.
My interest is more petty. I don't want to miss out what creative things he might produce in the future. He's a unique and interesting story teller. And I think he should continue. He spoke inappropriate words, but at least he hasn't been accused of grabbing the cunt of a woman who happens to be sitting next to him on a plane, or barging into women's dressing rooms, because he owns the hotel.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 31, 2018, 01:50:30 AM
Who the fuck dug ten years into his Twitter account just to find something to be offended by?
Right wing snowflakes. The OG crybullies. This op was done by Daily Caller culture warriors because they got triggered when Sean Gunn maligned God-Emperor Trump online.
I care more about the rampaging hypocrisy -- getting more worked up over what a movie director tweeted ten years ago rather than what a sociopathic wanna-be dictator tweeted ten minutes ago. Which one is more likely to really ruin real people's lives?
Quote from: trdsf on July 31, 2018, 10:31:30 AM
I care more about the rampaging hypocrisy -- getting more worked up over what a movie director tweeted ten years ago rather than what a sociopathic wanna-be dictator tweeted ten minutes ago. Which one is more likely to really ruin real people's lives?
Its how the media twists it and gunn was honest about what he said back then. This worked in the ones who spread the info now's favor, and Disney cared more about social public image then real integrity
ah the world of apologies. 60 year old me can apologize for 20 year old me,,but 20 year old me would never consider it....so it is a real apology from "you"?
Quote from: aitm on July 31, 2018, 07:20:13 PM
ah the world of apologies. 60 year old me can apologize for 20 year old me,,but 20 year old me would never consider it....so it is a real apology from "you"?
isn't that like saying nobody ever can grow and learn and change? Pretty certain theres plenty of people on this site who grew out of what they believed like religion or politics.
I think past statements on any platform depend on whether the person still thinks that way. People do change. But you can't ignore that they said either. There has to be some acknowledgement of the past and a statement that it isn't what the person thinks today. And a little evidence of a change from before the apology would be great evidence. After-the-fact apologies don't mean a lot.
Bee season.
Worthless.
W o r t h l e s s
Worthless.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 01, 2018, 07:57:47 AM
Bee season.
Worthless.
W o r t h l e s s
Worthless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPDgEUAowPA
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 05:32:13 AM
I think past statements on any platform depend on whether the person still thinks that way. People do change. But you can't ignore that they said either. There has to be some acknowledgement of the past and a statement that it isn't what the person thinks today. And a little evidence of a change from before the apology would be great evidence. After-the-fact apologies don't mean a lot.
If a person thinks and behaves the same way they did ten years ago, then digging ten years into their past wouldn't be necessary. You should be able to find contemporary evidence of those things. A ten year old scientific article isn't acceptable as a citation, so why should I care about a ten year old Tweet?
Speaking of 10 years, rewatched Superbad last night which I think is turning/turned 11 this year.
Also speaking of 10s, 10/10 from me, it is one of the quintessential teen/high school comedy films. It hasn't aged a day, and could have been made in 1950 or 2050 with how well the humour stands on it's own instead of being pop references.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 31, 2018, 01:50:30 AM
Who the fuck dug ten years into his Twitter account just to find something to be offended by? You know how much can change in ten years? Ten years ago, I was a Conservative Christian who put the Bible over human rights. Does anyone here care what I posted on Facebook back then?
Well, to quote the first lady's jacket: "I don't really care, do U?"
;-)
My only problem is that the dude was in his very late 30s-early 40s when he said those things... like, you're a grown ass adult, you should know saying that type of stuff (particularly online) is going to comeback and bite you in the ass, particularly as a public figure.
I think he should apologize for them, maybe donate to some womens abuse cause, and that should be that; no sacking, no controversy, just a guy saying some really stupid shit, realising he was wrong and everyone moving on with their lives if it seems like he has grown up since then.
There are consequences for things you say, even if they are just jokes in poor taste, but I don't really buy that these consequences fit the crime.
Also, the more I research it... yeah, all it is is right-wing assholes, the exact same mother fuckers who complain about the left being sensitive and whining about everything, just looking to stir up shit and cause controversy. Nothing new there.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 01, 2018, 03:10:08 PM
My only problem is that the dude was in his very late 30s-early 40s when he said those things... like, you're a grown ass adult, you should know saying that type of stuff (particularly online) is going to comeback and bite you in the ass, particularly as a public figure.
I think he should apologize for them, maybe donate to some womens abuse cause, and that should be that; no sacking, no controversy, just a guy saying some really stupid shit, realising he was wrong and everyone moving on with their lives if it seems like he has grown up since then.
There are consequences for things you say, even if they are just jokes in poor taste, but I don't really buy that these consequences fit the crime.
he did apologize for it.
funny how you 'did research' but didn't see that fact.
Quote from: Munch on July 31, 2018, 07:58:25 PM
isn't that like saying nobody ever can grow and learn and change? Pretty certain theres plenty of people on this site who grew out of what they believed like religion or politics.
That is exactly the point. I don't get the question, if there was one.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 05:32:13 AM
I think past statements on any platform depend on whether the person still thinks that way. People do change. But you can't ignore that they said either. There has to be some acknowledgement of the past and a statement that it isn't what the person thinks today. And a little evidence of a change from before the apology would be great evidence. After-the-fact apologies don't mean a lot.
Futurists are always running from their past. This is why they hate history, it doesn't show them and their kind in a favorable light. That much about Leftists is pure psychology. Reactionaries are always running from the future. This is why they hate change. They are well invested in the status quo. That much about Rightists is pure psychology too.
Quote from: Munch on July 31, 2018, 07:58:25 PM
isn't that like saying nobody ever can grow and learn and change? Pretty certain theres plenty of people on this site who grew out of what they believed like religion or politics.
Last two years has caused me to return to a prior condition, of dissing politics entirely. But this site isn't responsible. This site has helped me develop my theism though ... ironic, ain't it?
Quote from: Shiranu on August 01, 2018, 03:10:08 PM
My only problem is that the dude was in his very late 30s-early 40s when he said those things... like, you're a grown ass adult, you should know saying that type of stuff (particularly online) is going to comeback and bite you in the ass, particularly as a public figure.
I think he should apologize for them, maybe donate to some womens abuse cause, and that should be that; no sacking, no controversy, just a guy saying some really stupid shit, realising he was wrong and everyone moving on with their lives if it seems like he has grown up since then.
There are consequences for things you say, even if they are just jokes in poor taste, but I don't really buy that these consequences fit the crime.
No ... public execution, to whet the blood lust of the proletariat.
Overboard
Critics............. 26%
Theater Goers.. 61%
Me................. 80%
Seldom do I get this far off consensus. But I've always had a thing for Anna Ferris. I cannot remember her in a movie where she played anything other than an overacted crazy woman, like a female Jim Carey. She was still a little nuts in this movie too, but loveable nuts. And like most romantic comedies, this one has it's share of cheesy. So the 80% is a ranking for its place in the genre. I wouldn't want to rank it against a Marvel blockbuster.
I rented it with some reluctance, but I was interested in seeing how Ferris would be in a traditional romantic comedy, which at one time, was my second favorite genre after Sci Fi. And even though, true to form, you could figure out about everything that was going to happen, I fully enjoyed the 90 minutes.
I read someplace a couple months ago that romantic comedy is so out of favor, that actors avoid the roles, and view them as professional suicide, but to be honest, I've been missing them.
But 26% from the critics? There's a vendetta at work or something going on there.
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2018, 09:13:59 PM
Overboard
Critics............. 26%
Theater Goers.. 61%
Me................. 80%
Seldom do I get this far off consensus. But I've always had a thing for Anna Ferris. I cannot remember her in a movie where she played anything other than an overacted crazy woman, like a female Jim Carey. She was still a little nuts in this movie too, but loveable nuts. And like most romantic comedies, this one has it's share of cheesy. So the 80% is a ranking for its place in the genre. I wouldn't want to rank it against a Marvel blockbuster.
I rented it with some reluctance, but I was interested in seeing how Ferris would be in a traditional romantic comedy, which at one time, was my second favorite genre after Sci Fi. And even though, true to form, you could figure out about everything that was going to happen, I fully enjoyed the 90 minutes.
I read someplace a couple months ago that romantic comedy is so out of favor, that actors avoid the roles, and view them as professional suicide, but to be honest, I've been missing them.
But 26% from the critics? There's a vendetta at work or something going on there.
Liked the preview. Like Eva Longoria.
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2018, 09:13:59 PM
Overboard
Critics............. 26%
Theater Goers.. 61%
Me................. 80%
Seldom do I get this far off consensus. But I've always had a thing for Anna Ferris. I cannot remember her in a movie where she played anything other than an overacted crazy woman, like a female Jim Carey. She was still a little nuts in this movie too, but loveable nuts. And like most romantic comedies, this one has it's share of cheesy. So the 80% is a ranking for its place in the genre. I wouldn't want to rank it against a Marvel blockbuster.
I rented it with some reluctance, but I was interested in seeing how Ferris would be in a traditional romantic comedy, which at one time, was my second favorite genre after Sci Fi. And even though, true to form, you could figure out about everything that was going to happen, I fully enjoyed the 90 minutes.
I read someplace a couple months ago that romantic comedy is so out of favor, that actors avoid the roles, and view them as professional suicide, but to be honest, I've been missing them.
But 26% from the critics? There's a vendetta at work or something going on there.
Critics watch movies for a living, so they see them a little bit differently. They're more easily turned off by overused cliches, for instance.
Quote from: Munch on August 01, 2018, 06:29:08 PM
he did apologize for it.
funny how you 'did research' but didn't see that fact.
I never said he didn't, so...
Whenever I see a remake being touted I think "So, nobody in your camp had an original idea?"
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 02, 2018, 06:05:31 AM
Whenever I see a remake being touted I think "So, nobody in your camp had an original idea?"
I never saw the original Overboard, which didn't go over very well the first time either, although audiences liked it. So I just looked it up. Same story but instead of an underhanded male, this time it's an underhanded female. Yep, it's a flat out remake, and while I assume some of the details are new, the plot sounds identical. But it was new to me.
The seven movie plots:
"Those seven plots are: 1.Overcoming the Monster, 2.Rags to Riches, 3.The Quest, 4.Voyage and Return, 5.Rebirth, 6.Comedy and 7.Tragedy.Apr 15, 2005"
The Plot Thins, or Are No Stories New? - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/books/the-plot-thins-or-are-no-stories-new.html
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 02, 2018, 07:43:46 AM
The seven movie plots:
"Those seven plots are: 1.Overcoming the Monster, 2.Rags to Riches, 3.The Quest, 4.Voyage and Return, 5.Rebirth, 6.Comedy and 7.Tragedy.Apr 15, 2005"
The Plot Thins, or Are No Stories New? - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/books/the-plot-thins-or-are-no-stories-new.html
If this is true, it might help to explain the argument, "Every conceivable plot has already been written by Shakespeare," although I'm not going to spend any time trying to prove or disprove it. And I understand that Earnest Hemmingway said something to the effect that, "All modern literature stems from Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. I won't spend a lot of time on that either.
But there sure are a lot of stories out there for only 7 plots. There seems to be a awful lot of diversity in literature, which appears to cover just about every aspect of human experience. Perhaps we humans don't live the varied lives we think we do.
But if I don't think about it, I can accept the premise, especially when I consider the diversity of all living things, all of which are built on only 4 molecules in the DNA alphabet.
It's the difference between "Overarching plot" and "plot details."
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 02, 2018, 07:43:46 AM
The seven movie plots:
"Those seven plots are: 1.Overcoming the Monster, 2.Rags to Riches, 3.The Quest, 4.Voyage and Return, 5.Rebirth, 6.Comedy and 7.Tragedy.Apr 15, 2005"
The Plot Thins, or Are No Stories New? - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/books/the-plot-thins-or-are-no-stories-new.html
Hero With A Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rArBJ2fOJMU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1qd0KGOv9Y
Giant robots are just fulfilling the myth of Talos in new armor.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 02, 2018, 01:42:50 AM
Critics watch movies for a living, so they see them a little bit differently. They're more easily turned off by overused cliches, for instance.
Yeah. There are big differences in perception since critics routinely watch movies while most people do not. Plots and genres that critics find overused and tiresome might still be fairly novel and exciting to someone who hasn't watched many movies.
Also, critics tend to be more negative overall because they're seeing the movie out of obligation, not out of interest. So they might trash a movie for not being their cup of tea without realizing that for a different demographic (particularly someone more familiar with the source material), it's much more enjoyable.
And of course, there's also the opposite problem; critics rating a movie much more highly than it deserves. Sharknado has a 82% rating from critics and a 33% rating from viewers on Rotten Tomatoes. Also on Rotten Tomatoes, Avengers Infinity War has a 83% rating from critics and a 91% rating from views. I'm just saying that maybe it's not a good idea to trust the judgment of people who are apparently unsure if Infinity War is better than Sharknado.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2018, 11:12:41 AM
Yeah. There are big differences in perception since critics routinely watch movies while most people do not. Plots and genres that critics find overused and tiresome might still be fairly novel and exciting to someone who hasn't watched many movies.
Also, critics tend to be more negative overall because they're seeing the movie out of obligation, not out of interest. So they might trash a movie for not being their cup of tea without realizing that for a different demographic (particularly someone more familiar with the source material), it's much more enjoyable.
And of course, there's also the opposite problem; critics rating a movie much more highly than it deserves. Sharknado has a 82% rating from critics and a 33% rating from viewers on Rotten Tomatoes. Also on Rotten Tomatoes, Avengers Infinity War has a 83% rating from critics and a 91% rating from views. I'm just saying that maybe it's not a good idea to trust the judgment of people who are apparently unsure if Infinity War is better than Sharknado.
I just ignore the critics. Besides, by the time movies show up on my cable, I haven't the slightest idea what any critic said. AND I'm kind toward the sci-fi and animated movies I enjoy.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2018, 11:12:41 AM
And of course, there's also the opposite problem; critics rating a movie much more highly than it deserves. Sharknado has a 82% rating from critics and a 33% rating from viewers on Rotten Tomatoes. Also on Rotten Tomatoes, Avengers Infinity War has a 83% rating from critics and a 91% rating from views. I'm just saying that maybe it's not a good idea to trust the judgment of people who are apparently unsure if Infinity War is better than Sharknado.
They seem to rate art house movies high, especially if they are foreign with subtitles and never show up at local theaters. I have in the past traveled 70 miles to one of those funky establishments that specialize in those films to see an especially well rated film of that nature, and I am usually (but not always) disappointed. I have this unproven personal theory that critics rate these films high out of fear that they might not be seen as high brows. Or maybe that just makes me a low brow. I do like movies that puzzle me, those where my understanding often feels just out of reach, and I've noticed that in general, most audiences don't agree with me. But too often I puzzle over why someone even bothered to make the film in the first place, and then I am disappointed.
I am vindicated by the crazy experience of playing Grand Theft Audio, which contains these little experiences that create an atmosphere of the big cities. These experiences have nothing to do with the game play. They just add atmosphere. The one I'm talking about is the movie theater experience, where you can buy a ticket, take time-out from the game play and go to a movie downtown. All the movies are satires of those art house films. No sound; Just visual images of people in angst walking aimlessly about the street holding their heads with both hands in an attempt to squash away the nothingness of their lives. I can't sit through one of those either, but the satirical take on such films does ring true. I go to the movies in GTA, just to relive the bad movie experience. I even leave the theater before the end with a feeling of shame that I'm just not intellectual enough to understand one of those depressing and pointless films, even while I know that GTA is only making fun of the situation. If I am still not ready to continue the game play, I might head over to a strip joint and buy myself a lap dance, which after the 10th time is also a bit disappointing, but still tolerable enough to make it through and leave the joint ready to beat up some hapless pedestrian.
Just for Laughs, I linked my way to this. It's just the usual Rotten Tomatoes compilation of reviews for Death of a Nation. I linked to it from an article that headlined: "Dinesh D'Souza Phones in the Worst Reviewed Movie of the Summer"
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/death_of_a_nation/
Only 11 critics bothered to review it, but collectively it gets 0%. The audience (and you know which audience I'm talking about) give it a 90%
"Biggest hit since Chuck Norris's 'Thousand Years of Darkness' blockbuster!"
Quote from: SGOS on August 09, 2018, 11:33:18 AMThe audience (and you know which audience I'm talking about) give it a 90%
And here we have the perfect example of a misleading audience score. Combined with my earlier assertion that critics aren't always to be trusted, we have quite the conundrum. Critics can't be trusted, the audience can't be trusted, who does that leave?
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 09, 2018, 11:54:00 AM
And here we have the perfect example of a misleading audience score. Combined with my earlier assertion that critics aren't always to be trusted, we have quite the conundrum. Critics can't be trusted, the audience can't be trusted, who does that leave?
Rosebud
Quote from: SGOS on August 09, 2018, 11:33:18 AM
Just for Laughs, I linked my way to this. It's just the usual Rotten Tomatoes compilation of reviews for Death of a Nation. I linked to it from an article that headlined: "Dinesh D'Souza Phones in the Worst Reviewed Movie of the Summer"
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/death_of_a_nation/
Only 11 critics bothered to review it, but collectively it gets 0%. The audience (and you know which audience I'm talking about) give it a 90%
You know this is a deliberate ironic homage to Birth Of A Nation, the infamous KKK B&W movie of early years?
Yes, people don't accept the results of elections. They shouldn't. They should simply fire on Ft Sumter, or maybe on British troops on Lexington Green.
Infinity War spoiler: [spoiler](https://i.redditmedia.com/xl8_xktvzrcGpFwjWMlcxan8vq-pnPDKJWsqzM8E4Do.jpg?fit=crop&crop=faces%2Centropy&arh=2&w=640&s=989b09681500935f6962ea55ba19889c)
This would explain why the gauntlet got fried immediately after the snap. Simply killing people shouldn't be very taxing (the power gem by itself can do that, albeit on a planetary scale), but creating a brand new universe and transporting half of the people of our universe there - now that would take some serious juice.[/spoiler]
I've been seeing this phrase pushed around in fictional fanbases a lot lately 'so and so did nothing wrong', which is only ever pushed around by fanboys of a particular character because said fans can't accept their fav character of doing wrong or at fault or being evil.
It's basically denial through cognitive dissonance in the same way religious followers can't accept when their God or prophet or similar were just terrible people or characters
I think the bottom was hit when one guy said "Hitler was the only one taking the long view in WWII!"
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 10, 2018, 05:56:01 AM
I think the bottom was hit when one guy said "Hitler was the only one taking the long view in WWII!"
Technically Hitler ... did nothing wrong ;-) He never killed anyone, other than himself ... as far as we know. And his actions were legal under German law. And he was initially elected, only choosing temporary dictatorship in order to protect the State from domestic and foreign enemies.
Hitler typically followed economic strategy, something his generals, who were great tacticians, did not.
It's a crime to order people killed, even if you dodge around using that exact verbiage. Operation Hummingbird was Hitler's baby.
Quote from: Munch on August 10, 2018, 05:37:25 AM
I've been seeing this phrase pushed around in fictional fanbases a lot lately 'so and so did nothing wrong', which is only ever pushed around by fanboys of a particular character because said fans can't accept their fav character of doing wrong or at fault or being evil.
Definitely. But I think it's tongue-in-cheek in this case. It's obvious that he has done a lot wrong and his character is evil with a capital E. Imo, they're poking fun at his "sympathetic" portrayal, taking it to absurd lengths.
That said, I do think the theory has merit.
(http://www.mbird.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/mistakes_were_made.jpg)
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 10, 2018, 10:05:50 AM
Definitely. But I think it's tongue-in-cheek in this case. It's obvious that he has done a lot wrong and his character is evil with a capital E. Imo, they're poking fun at his "sympathetic" portrayal, taking it to absurd lengths.
That said, I do think the theory has merit.
I see a lot of theory crafting in popular shows and films and games that sometimes has some weight to them. The problem is some theories become so popular, that when the actual writers of these things do something that doesn't come anywhere near to the theories, the fans bitch and complain about it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 10, 2018, 07:46:54 AM
It's a crime to order people killed, even if you dodge around using that exact verbiage. Operation Hummingbird was Hitler's baby.
]]
But, but ... on that basis most world leaders are killers.
I ended up near my favorite theater yesterday while on other business, but thought I would take advantage of a movie since it was such a long drive. I hadn't planned this, so I didn't know what movies were playing when. I stood outside the ticket booth studying the board and finally with some regret bought a ticket for Mamma Mia, as it was the next movie to be shown, with an hour's wait for something else.
But once in the Cineplex, I discovered that Christopher Robin which supposedly started 35 minutes earlier, was only in it's beginning credits Those first 35 minutes include coming attractions and ads for local businesses, so I ducked into that theater with my Mama Mia ticket. No problem that I could see, as a girl that worked at a theater told me the theater makes it's money on concessions, not on the movies, since the ticket revenues are almost all taken by Hollywood. So I justified sneaking into the wrong movie, because Hollywood is such a greedy bastard and doesn't let the theater have any of the money for showing the films.
Actually it turns out, Christopher Robin was a delightful movie. I won't rate it, because you know what it's about and whether it's a genre you would bother with. I had fun though, and when the lights came on at the end, I was surprised to see that the back of the theater was packed with little kids and their mothers who had been sitting back there quiet as mice and behaving like angels. There may have been 60 to 70 of them in all.
China hates "Christopher Robin" because people remark that their current Emperor Xi looks a lot like Poo Bear. Is Trump like Tigger?
Go see the Mamma Mia prequel too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxgSXM8NUls
(https://i.giphy.com/media/3o6gE8ckqfTuPL3i5a/giphy.webp)
Just.. whhhhhhhyyyy....
I remember when slenderman first appeared online as an internet ghost story, just a couple of student made shorts and some creepy photos.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/creepypasta/images/f/fa/Slender_playground.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100817180404)
It wasn't exactly high art, but it had the same feel to it when the blair witch first came out in cinemas, and people were talking about it back then, it was subtle in its eerie approach.
But like all things that start off subtle and becoming popular, more and more people jump on the bandwagon, making games, more short movies, comics, him guest starring in things, before they make a movie of it.
There are some things, they should not be made into a movie. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
I am more afraid of The Fat Man ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td3aTQXfR9o
While focusing primarily on BP & Ryan Coogler's films (Frutivale Station, Creed & Black Panther, all smash hits), it addresses something that covers the entirety of the movie (and media) industry, which is representation of minorities on the screen, of portraying them as human beings (and a pitbull?) rather than stereotypes. It addresses how he creates "iconic" characters who are black (whom are extremely rare).
And it's perfectly fine to not appreciate the movie for these things, but not appreciating something is not a reason to disrespect it or the people it effects, and this is the core viewpoint the video comes from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjFpQTT7aSg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjFpQTT7aSg)
And on a less serious note, here is his take on Avatar: The Last Airbender, and is entirely philosophical rather than a statement on the current world (minus referencing that there are still actual Nazis)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlJcfYwxMig (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlJcfYwxMig)
I didn't know the lip plate was worn by men, especially non-Ubangi men.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 11, 2018, 06:57:42 PM
I didn't know the lip plate was worn by men, especially non-Ubangi men.
See, he even teaches small things like that which are just interesting.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 11, 2018, 06:59:35 PM
See, he even teaches small things like that which are just interesting.
Who he? And do the men really wear the plates? I've never heard of a male doing that, but it's not my area.
You guys probably prefer Kayan women (ethnic group in Myanmar):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayan_people_(Myanmar)
Women who grow used to the neck rings, they can't support their atrophied necks if they take the neck rings off ;-(
Lip plate use depends on the tribe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip_plate
A Brazilian Native American chief wears one. The Aztecs and Mayas were also into large piercings.
Quote from: Munch on August 11, 2018, 02:17:43 PMJust.. whhhhhhhyyyy....
I remember when slenderman first appeared online as an internet ghost story, just a couple of student made shorts and some creepy photos.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/creepypasta/images/f/fa/Slender_playground.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100817180404)
It wasn't exactly high art, but it had the same feel to it when the blair witch first came out in cinemas, and people were talking about it back then, it was subtle in its eerie approach.
But like all things that start off subtle and becoming popular, more and more people jump on the bandwagon, making games, more short movies, comics, him guest starring in things, before they make a movie of it.
There are some things, they should not be made into a movie. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
That looks waaay overproduced. You don't need to throw money at the project, you just need to put some kids in the woods with a guy in a suit and roll camera. Decent writing and pareidolia will take care of the rest.
I liked the original photoshopped images and Marble Hornets videos. And yeah, it had a great Blair Witch vibe to it. This trailer does too. Looks like it could be Blair Witch 3, lol.
*edit - I could totally get behind this if it were a Found Footage, Shaky Cam sort of movie. The characters are doing something else, Slenderman makes his appearance, everyone gets away safely, but then they start having mental problems and exhibiting odd behaviors. They slowly start unraveling and getting more and more obsessed with Slenderman. Then they I dunno, murder their friend in the woods or something. Bonus points for audio/visual distortions when Slender is close by.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 11, 2018, 09:47:09 PM
That looks waaay overproduced. You don't need to throw money at the project, you just need to put some kids in the woods with a guy in a suit and roll camera. Decent writing and pareidolia will take care of the rest.
I liked the original photoshopped images and Marble Hornets videos. And yeah, it had a great Blair Witch vibe to it. This trailer does too. Looks like it could be Blair Witch 3, lol.
*edit - I could totally get behind this if it were a Found Footage, Shaky Cam sort of movie. The characters are doing something else, Slenderman makes his appearance, everyone gets away safely, but then they start having mental problems and exhibiting odd behaviors. They slowly start unraveling and getting more and more obsessed with Slenderman. Then they I dunno, murder their friend in the woods or something. Bonus points for audio/visual distortions when Slender is close by.
Fake movies to not excite me. Heck, most real movies don't much excite me. Good ones though, yeah.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2018, 07:06:48 AM
Fake movies to not excite me. Heck, most real movies don't much excite me. Good ones though, yeah.
Urm, I get the impression the only movies you watch are history based ones then, because genres of movies lend themselves to fictional worlds and fantasy.
That must really limit your fav movie list.
Quote from: Munch on August 12, 2018, 08:32:10 AM
Urm, I get the impression the only movies you watch are history based ones then, because genres of movies lend themselves to fictional worlds and fantasy.
That must really limit your fav movie list.
The movies I watch are generally sci-fi. I've loved Marvel characters since 1961 and LOTR. It's the willing suspension of disbelief. And I love cartoons. Kim Possible is a favorite. So is Rick & Morty and Robot Chicken. The DVDs I watch are mostly science and history though.
Surprise!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2018, 09:07:04 AM
The movies I watch are generally sci-fi. I've loved Marvel characters since 1961 and LOTR. It's the willing suspension of disbelief. And I love cartoons. Kim Possible is a favorite. So is Rick & Morty and Robot Chicken. The DVDs I watch are mostly science and history though.
Surprise!
Two degrees of separation, thru Rick & Morty (I like it too).
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2018, 09:07:04 AM
The movies I watch are generally sci-fi. I've loved Marvel characters since 1961 and LOTR. It's the willing suspension of disbelief. And I love cartoons. Kim Possible is a favorite. So is Rick & Morty and Robot Chicken. The DVDs I watch are mostly science and history though.
Surprise!
That's good then, I began to think you didn't like fantasy and fiction for some reason
Long story short, is Deckard a replicant? The real question is why does that matter?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IcLnerkEZo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IcLnerkEZo)
On a completely unrelated note, Movies with Mikey has the dopest intro clip.
The Deckard is a replicant has a few problems. First off, remember that a pleasure model nearly killed him. Then another pleasure model nearly killed him.
But the premise of 2049 is that Deckard was a daddy, and had a child by a replicant mother. That would require TWO replicants to have suddenly become fertile.
Currently watching "Godzilla: Clown King of Monsters". If you haven't seen "Gojira" you probably won't be insulted by this Americanized version of a classic monster movie. If you have seen it then G:KoM is just ugly, clumsy, and painful to watch.
Good news is the next Godzilla movie will reclaim that movie title.
Just watched a couple movies on Nexflix.
'Calibre' is excellent. A hunting trip gone awry, without giving too much away.
'Ex Machina' is a really good thriller. Tense drama.
Bad Samaritan 10/10
Realize this is a 10 for the psycho killer genre. I just finished it a few minutes ago. I'm giving it a 10 because I should probably check my blood pressure ASAP, or get emergency professional help for psychological trauma. Is there a 24 hour hot line? That was one tense movie. I was wondering what ever possessed me to rent the thing while I was holding onto my chair. If you are a fan of psycho thrillers, you don't want to miss this. If you don't like psycho thrillers avoid it like the plague. I'm more of a romance and light comedy kind of guy, and I should promise myself I'll never watch another one of these just because I'm hard up for a movie.
I don't get why Children of Men is such a dystopia. Sure people can't have kids, but dogs/puppies are fine, so I don't get why people go bonkers and society breaks down. Sure, humankind will go extinct, but that's decades and decades later. Smh at these whiners and drama queens.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 14, 2018, 11:01:03 AM
I don't get why Children of Men is such a dystopia. Sure people can't have kids, but dogs/puppies are fine, so I don't get why people go bonkers and society breaks down. Sure, humankind will go extinct, but that's decades and decades later. Smh at these whiners and drama queens.
makes me think of an erotic comic book series I've read, about a kind of conan the barbarian setting there overnight all the women just mysteriously disappeared, and only leaving men. This resulted in some going crazy, but most just resorting to turning gay and having a lot of sex.
(http://www.classcomics.com/ccn/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/p-10450-zahn1page11.jpg)
they should make a movie of that.
Quote from: Munch on August 14, 2018, 11:46:17 AM
makes me think of an erotic comic book series I've read, about a kind of conan the barbarian setting there overnight all the women just mysteriously disappeared, and only leaving men. This resulted in some going crazy, but most just resorting to turning gay and having a lot of sex.
(http://www.classcomics.com/ccn/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/p-10450-zahn1page11.jpg)
they should make a movie of that.
What is the name of the comic?
There is a comic with the opposite scenerio called Y: The Last Man where all living mammals with a Y chromosome simultaneously die except for a guy and his male monkey. It isn't an erotic story though.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 14, 2018, 04:34:18 PM
What is the name of the comic?
There is a comic with the opposite scenerio called Y: The Last Man where all living mammals with a Y chromosome simultaneously die except for a guy and his male monkey. It isn't an erotic story though.
Zahn by class comics.
https://www.classcomics.com/ccn/comic-titles/zahn/
wouldn't advise anyone who isn't into guys with big dicks and gay sex to click that link.
We are all enslaved to our own endorphins, yet count ourselves free ;-)
Black Klansman 9/10
Entertaining mostly. I guess it has a loose connection to actual events, but mostly it's just interesting. It also gets very high reviews from critics, so I scanned the reviews for the rare green splats on Rotten Tomatoes. One dissed the movie for displaying the KKK as a bunch of idiots. But that's exactly one of things the movie attempted to accomplish. In addition to having creepy and tense moments, there were some funny things happening, often at the expense of the Klan. Topher Grace makes a fun David Duke, and the Afro Hair style of the 60s is prominent throughout the film, much more so than I even remember in real life. But it's not a comedy. It's much more serious than that.
I haven't paid any attention to Spike Lee before, but I'll be looking forward to his next film.
The Y-donor was a Kluxer. Other than being a racist cocksucker he wasn't stupid. He was woefully ignorant, but not dumb. His "friends" varied as much as any other random selection of white Hoosiers.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 15, 2018, 09:29:14 AM
His "friends" varied as much as any other random selection of white Hoosiers.
I noticed this too. The movie captured that typical spectrum of humanity that you find in all groups; The organizers, followers, gorillas, and the addlebrained were all there.
Quote from: SGOS on August 15, 2018, 09:36:15 AM
I noticed this too. The movie captured that typical spectrum of humanity that you find in all groups; The organizers, followers, gorillas, and the addlebrained were all there.
With one serious difference, the KKK required violence. BSA, not so much. Brownies, very, very little.
I had the Y-donor's shotgun for a while, before turning it over to people who could use it properly. The butt plate covered a small plaque.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 15, 2018, 09:50:55 AM
With one serious difference, the KKK required violence. BSA, not so much. Brownies, very, very little.
I had the Y-donor's shotgun for a while, before turning it over to people who could use it properly. The butt plate covered a small plaque.
I confess, I don't know what you are talking about. I looked up Y-donor KKK and just got a lot of general information. Do I remember "Y-donor" coming up in the movie? It seems like I recall the expression, but disregarded it not knowing what it was about.
Quote from: SGOS on August 15, 2018, 10:04:24 AM
I confess, I don't know what you are talking about. I looked up Y-donor KKK and just got a lot of general information. Do I remember "Y-donor" coming up in the movie? It seems like I recall the expression, but disregarded it not knowing what it was about.
The human requires two genes to become. Y-chromosome and X-chromosome or two X-chromosomes. If that isn't clear I'll expand more.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 15, 2018, 10:32:55 AM
The human requires two genes to become. Y-chromosome and X-chromosome or two X-chromosomes. If that isn't clear I'll expand more.
I know all about that. I just thought it was some insider reference to KKK, racism, or something else, and I was struggling to make the connection.
Quote from: SGOS on August 15, 2018, 11:10:51 AM
I know all about that. I just thought it was some insider reference to KKK, racism, or something else, and I was struggling to make the connection.
It's my own private reference so I am never surprised clarification is needed.
I cannot wait to see "Crazy Rich Asians" next Tuesday, I hear it's really good. Constance Wu is amazing, so I definitely have high hopes.
That, and Asian American representation in film really does hinge on this one movie Adams could pave the way for more star roles for AsAm actors but alsov directors. Here's to hoping it's brilliant.
It's great to see the Asian American communities' reaction to this, and it's amazing to see African Americans get a major boost to representation with BP and AA getting a major boost to representation with this... all extremely close together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZyn-PFzips (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZyn-PFzips)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G2n0sJvsLI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G2n0sJvsLI)
But have you ever watched Monsoon Wedding? There are more movies produced in India, than anywhere else. I demand that India do more movies with English characters, portrayed in a positive way ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjQjw-UyAX0
And there are no E Asian movies at all ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhCHw0Ovqf4
Serious generational conflict. No drama without conflict ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8svNN8saeU
Hollywood or Bollywood, it is all fantasy.
QuoteSerious generational conflict. No drama without conflict ...
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was not an American film.
Also, the sample size shouldn't be so small that we have to look to a previous generation to find an example of it happening.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 16, 2018, 09:45:56 AM
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was not an American film.
Also, the sample size shouldn't be so small that we have to look to a previous generation to find an example of it happening.
Or to fantasy films.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 16, 2018, 09:45:56 AM
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was not an American film.
Also, the sample size shouldn't be so small that we have to look to a previous generation to find an example of it happening.
Only America exists, the other countries are fictions ... their movies don't count
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E51-2B8gHtk
Tie down all the White males and make them watch an endless list of the best speeches of Maxine Waters? Oh the inhumanity!
I have a coworker who's going to see Slenderman (11% critics, 27% audience on RT). She watches movies regularly (about three a week), and she's basically going into this one blind. She has no idea what she's in for.
I can't wait to hear her review. It's going to be priceless.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 16, 2018, 03:20:48 PM
I have a coworker who's going to see Slenderman (11% critics, 27% audience on RT). She watches movies regularly (about three a week), and she's basically going into this one blind. She has no idea what she's in for.
I can't wait to hear her review. It's going to be priceless.
Just don't open any unexpected packages you find on your stoop, m'kay?
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2018, 01:03:03 PM
Only America exists, the other countries are fictions ... their movies don't count.
I like a lot of British movies and television series.
I hadn't really thought of it much, but when looking over all the details, its really awful what happened to Brendan Fraser.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/7ae31da829d90ab4275e2c13b34de845/tumblr_mz3fpb56NA1qcqqpjo1_r1_500.jpg)(https://78.media.tumblr.com/fe9ad81fc86887d582be92eba8b8b940/tumblr_mz3fpb56NA1qcqqpjo2_500.jpg)
From being one of the growing main stars of hollywood back in the late 90s/early2000s, to just disappearing from cinema more or less, I use to think it was down to him just not getting roles or deciding not to accept offers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5mqkL4lgjw
Mummy 3 destroyed him, he was groped and made to feel so awful that he gave up on hollywood, and his wife divorced him leaving him a shattered man. This is bloody tragic. I really liked the first 2 mummy movies, and even enjoyed George of the jungle just purely for his performance.
hope he's getting back on track since he made a new movie recently.
Holy shit, that sucks.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 16, 2018, 05:32:31 PM
I like a lot of British movies and television series.
J.K. wanted only British actors in the Harry Potter movies. I guess that's fair.
Didn't work so well for Fantastic Beasts.
Quote from: Munch on August 16, 2018, 07:40:40 PM
From being one of the growing main stars of hollywood back in the late 90s/early2000s, to just disappearing from cinema more or less, I use to think it was down to him just not getting roles or deciding not to accept offers.
Blast From the Past is a favorite comedy of mine.
Edit: He was rather critical of his employer, which never helps you in the long run, even if you are correct in your criticism. I'm a little surprised they dumped him over it, as he was a very interesting personality on screen. The Mummy failed, but I don't think you can hold Frazier responsible for that. At best, he might be a useful scapegoat for the failure, but not the real cause.
Honestly, forget ALL the social aspects of this movie... just the effort that went into making it the most commercially successful hero origin story until Black Panther, all while being hampered with having to exist within the DCCU's artistic and thematic style, is insane to watch.
Or consider that this movie covered the topic of PTSD more than essentially any other war film released in a very long time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vds6IGWtVFg&list=PLdGl5mi0XeW2iK2sVp2ni_VDRKrmfF_-Z&index=15 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vds6IGWtVFg&list=PLdGl5mi0XeW2iK2sVp2ni_VDRKrmfF_-Z&index=15)
Team Spirit
Belgian comedic flick from 2000, a remake from a Dutch film called 'All Stars'. I remember vaguely seeing this one when I was a kid. Just rewatched it with my girlfriend. It still holds up.
Another film in Dutch, so, you know...
It centers around 6 friends who are in their early to mid twenties and have been playing football (soccer) for 15 years in their team. (A low-class hobby-team that never achieves much, but they don't do it for the glory, rather for the camaradery and one-another.) With their 500th match coming up, the team has to decide if they still have the luxury of each one of them giving up a sunday for football, or if it is time to move on and let their football-days fade into pleasant memories.
In the meanwhile each of the 6 friends has some troubles they have to go through themselves. Erik has not yet told his friends that he is gay and has a crush on Stef, Stef is going to get married and have a child but doesn't feel ready yet, Frank's dad and former trainer for the team is bound to a wheelchair and is not doing well, Jean-Mark is a cop but is letting two jerks from an opposing team push him around, Vic has to decide if he wants to work for his father or not and falls for a co-worker who is in love with someone else. And Jos finds little support from his wife and feels trapped in his obligations as a family man and a small-business owner.
It was good. Never seen the original All Stars, but I've heard it's a tad different.
This was good.
Shock and Awe 10/10 Critics 30% Audiences 33%
As so frequently happens, I'm out in left field with my movie tastes and as usual, I can't explain it. I enjoyed this one because I learned that not every major newspaper and wire service accepted the WMD narrative without question, at least publicly. Knight Ridder actually researched and fact checked and knew that the Bush Administration had no solid evidence that Iraq was involved with 9-11, and that the government had no solid evidence for WMD, but they were ignored by the media and the public who thought the threat of Iraq was a better story. It also nailed reason after reason why the government's narrative was suspect, reasons that as far as I can tell, still remain outside of the public consciousness.
Of course, there were also other sources of the same narrative from less well established agencies, outlets, and officials, but none had the power of CNN or the voice of James Earl Jones announcing coverage of the daily bombing events.
The movie also addressed the logical subtlety of absence of evidence, which doesn't mean Bush and the public were wrong or that Knight-Ridder was right. The truth could have been the exact opposite. Absence of evidence simply means that there were no grounds to assume Iraq was a threat. This is kind of important when you are about to invest trillions of dollars and countless loss of lives in pursuit of a whim. This is when the public vitally needs evidence for extraordinary claims.
And when the government makes claims, but offers no real evidence, there is good reason to suspect they are making things up. Even if a person believes this is not reason enough to doubt the president, one undeniable fact remains: There is no reason to believe him either. Especially when lives are at stake.
Rolling Stone was one of many sources that trashed the film. The critic claimed he "wanted to like it. Really wanted to like it," and went on to applaud the actors and the director, but concluded that it was not as good as Spotlight or The Post. And when push comes to shove, I might even agree about Spotlight, but it's a close call for me. As for The Post, I just didn't care much about that film. Rolling Stone also dissed the film because Shock and Awe was not a good title. The movie did not shock and did not awe, and I might agree because we already know the story and must watch the film while enduring the nagging embarrassment of realizing America had been duped by its own government, and we were the marks in a grand confidence scheme.
But imagine hearing the story cold as an outsider who never played a role in the deception, who never unsuspectingly played the role of the mark. From that outsider perspective it would be shocking, would it not? One would think, "How could 70% of a whole nation be so easily played for fools?"
Oddly, 70 seems to also be the percent of viewers who didn't like the film very much. But that might be simple coincidence.
I like Tommy Lee Jones ... so thumbs up for that. Recent history is too close for perspective. We are still in Iraq.
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2018, 07:24:45 AM
I like Tommy Lee Jones ... so thumbs up for that. Recent history is too close for perspective. We are still in Iraq.
Yes, while the hand writing is on the wall, the final story, and how the US role shapes whatever the outcome is still to be determined. Many watchers might still be wondering when those WMDs will finally show up. Ahh, the sweet savor of vindication might pluck us all from despair for a short while. I suspect years from now, Iraq will be remembered as just another waste of taxpayer money. Nothing to see here folks. Just the government wasting money again. Business as usual.
Well, we've run out of wars to examine, so another one coming down the History Dept. pike would be fine.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 17, 2018, 07:45:40 AM
Well, we've run out of wars to examine, so another one coming down the History Dept. pike would be fine.
Sarc? Or speak for yourself!
I watched all five Twilight movies because they were free with Amazon Prime and I usually like stories with supernatural characters. I haven't read the books so I didn't realize it was 80% teen melodrama. I found the most unbelievable aspect of the story was that a 100-year-old worldly vampire and a hot werewolf were fighting over such a milquetoast girl. I'm all for adolescent angst (I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer) but when the main character has zero insight, humor or charm it leaves a dead zone in the middle of the story. I can only assume the point of the main character being so unremarkable was so adolescent girls could easily imagine themselves as the object of desire.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 19, 2018, 04:52:50 PM
I watched all five Twilight movies because they were free with Amazon Prime and I usually like stories with supernatural characters. I haven't read the books so I didn't realize it was 80% teen melodrama. I found the most unbelievable aspect of the story was that a 100-year-old worldly vampire and a hot werewolf were fighting over such a milquetoast girl. I'm all for adolescent angst (I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer) but when the main character has zero insight, humor or charm it leaves a dead zone in the middle of the story. I can only assume the point of the main character being so unremarkable was so adolescent girls could easily imagine themselves as the object of desire.
I did enjoy the first one. I still do. In the second one I was taken off guard by the appearance of the werewolves, and that was a fun surprise. After that, the whole thing just seemed to drag on and on until I felt like I wanted to vomit.
Quote from: SGOS on August 19, 2018, 06:40:21 PM
I did enjoy the first one. I still do. In the second one I was taken off guard by the appearance of the werewolves, and that was a fun surprise. After that, the whole thing just seemed to drag on and on until I felt like I wanted to vomit.
One element of the first movie I thought was a missed opportunity was when Edward explains to Bella that vampires have evolved to be apex predators, that their appearance, scent, voice, and demeanor all are optimized to attract humans. An insightful person would be conflicted as to whether their attraction was anything more than manipulation but Bella doesn't appear to even consider this. Given the average human would succumb to a vampire's glamour, Bella's response makes her typical, not exceptional, and doesn't explain why he treats her differently than all the other women who find him attractive. I think it would have been more interesting if Bella was constantly questioning whether she was being deceived.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 19, 2018, 07:30:08 PM
I think it would have been more interesting if Bella was constantly questioning whether she was being deceived.
I think it's the soap opera appeal of blind love, and I would think that format would be especially appealing to young girls. I'm not sure about teen boys. When the first one hit the theaters, I was totally unaware of the movie. I was standing at the box office window buying a ticket for something else, when a bunch of high school girls came up behind me tittering and giggling with delight. I heard one say to the others, "I'm so excited." I turned around to check out the group and some of them were doing that little bouncy thing they do when they have to pee really bad.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 19, 2018, 04:52:50 PM
I watched all five Twilight movies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkIDXYoQV-g
When the two finally got around to having sex, Roger Ebert described it as, "The most highly anticipated and long awaited love scene in movie history." But by that time, I was totally disgusted with the series and was ready for it to be over with.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 19, 2018, 04:52:50 PM
I watched all five Twilight movies because they were free with Amazon Prime and I usually like stories with supernatural characters. I haven't read the books so I didn't realize it was 80% teen melodrama. I found the most unbelievable aspect of the story was that a 100-year-old worldly vampire and a hot werewolf were fighting over such a milquetoast girl. I'm all for adolescent angst (I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer) but when the main character has zero insight, humor or charm it leaves a dead zone in the middle of the story. I can only assume the point of the main character being so unremarkable was so adolescent girls could easily imagine themselves as the object of desire.
thats pretty much twilight in a nutshell.
I had to ensure hearing from my mother how great the movies where just because she liked Robert Pattinson. It was only years later when he like of him died down she admitted the movies were terrible and she'd never revisit them.
God's not Dead: A Light in the Darkness
Yet another highly acclaimed edition to the franchize.
No critic consensus yet, because it only has 8 or 10 reviews, all except one being a green splat, so I'm assuming this one never made it to the theaters, but it's now on DVD and ready to dazzle us with some more Christian logic. The one ripe tomato was a qualified endorsement that was not entirely glowing.
Here's one that was very typical of the others, including the one that got the endorsement.
QuoteThese movies are fundamentalist propaganda aimed at people who are convinced their religion is under attack in this country just because it doesn't exempt them from the Constitution.
Quote from: SGOS on August 19, 2018, 09:21:13 PM
God's not Dead: A Light in the Darkness
Yet another highly acclaimed edition to the franchize.
No critic consensus yet, because it only has 8 or 10 reviews, all except one being a green splat, so I'm assuming this one never made it to the theaters, but it's now on DVD and ready to dazzle us with some more Christian logic. The one ripe tomato was a qualified endorsement that was not entirely glowing.
Here's one that was very typical of the others, including the one that got the endorsement.
So the third movie was straight to DVD, huh? How pathetic. lol
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2018, 12:54:18 AM
So the third movie was straight to DVD, huh? How pathetic. lol
"I
am big. It's the
pictures that got small."
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2Ks_Im1Ni8c/TC68aeOoUfI/AAAAAAAABlk/QMzSxFN0e4Y/s1600/Jesus_Christ.jpg)
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2018, 12:54:18 AM
So the third movie was straight to DVD, huh? How pathetic. lol
What's more pathetic is how certain actors in them thought this would boost their movie career status back into the limelight, when all it did was show just how desperate they were to take whatever role was going.
Kevin sorbo and Melissa Joan Hart could have retired still loved by the roles they did in the 90s, now their just be remembered for defending crap like this.
Quote from: Munch on August 20, 2018, 05:55:55 AM
What's more pathetic is how certain actors in them thought this would boost their movie career status back into the limelight, when all it did was show just how desperate they were to take whatever role was going.
Kevin sorbo and Melissa Joan Hart could have retired still loved by the roles they did in the 90s, now their just be remembered for defending crap like this.
Yeah... If I see either of them in any other role, I won't be able to take them seriously at all. Sabrina the Teenage Witch, I am disappoint.
If I Stay
5.5 out of ten
Not the worst flick I've watched because my gf wanted to see it. But not the best either.
She liked it though, so that's something.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/guardians_of_the_galaxy/vol_3/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-has-been-put-on-hold-in-the-wake-of-james-gunns-firing-a163136
QuoteGUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 3 Has Been Put On Hold In The Wake Of James Gunn's Firing
As many figured they would, Marvel Studios has put the third installment of the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise on hold in the wake of original director James Gunn's firing. Find out more after the jump.
In the aftermath of James Gunn's firing, Marvel has put Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 on hold.
THR reports that the studio has decided to delay production on the third installment of the sci-fi superhero franchise while they figure out their next move. This comes in the wake of original directer James Gunn being removed from the project because of a series of highly offensive Tweets that resurfaced recently.
Apparently, crew members that had assembled in Atlanta to begin pre-production are now being dismissed and are free to look for other work, which indicates that we could potentially be looking at quite a lengthy delay. No official release date for GOTG Vol. 3 had been announced, but whatever tentative plans were in place have now been scrapped as the studio regroups and searches for a filmmaker to replace Gunn.
The report mentions that Thor: Ragnarok director Taika Waititi recently took a meeting, but it's unclear which project was discussed.
well there you go, we can't have nice things.
Maybe Waititi can follow though, the way he directed thor ragnarok was more in style to guardians movies, but honestly I feel like this is an example of one person's direction giving weight to a product.
Wouldn't be the first time a questionable director pulled off a fantastic series despite their background, and their replacements bombed the production (Brian singer/Brett Ratner)
Quote from: Munch on August 24, 2018, 07:29:14 PM
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/guardians_of_the_galaxy/vol_3/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-has-been-put-on-hold-in-the-wake-of-james-gunns-firing-a163136
(https://i2.wp.com/superheronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AIW2-e1512158212445.png?resize=696%2C391&quality=80&strip=info&ssl=1)
I'm gonna need a while to process this development.
Better have it done before I die. (Five decades tops.)
Puzzle 6/10
Very quiet story about a woman who finds out she is a whiz at jigsaw puzzles. As one critic put it, "...if you want to take a break from blockbusters." Not that most people want to take such a break.
Alpha 7/10
The simplest of plots playing upon all the clichés used in dog as man's best friend scenarios.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72QQsWm7yFk
Marvel has daddy issues.
TL;DW: Many Marvel superheroes start out unheroic, but become more like their fathers (or father figures) and thereby become self-actualized adults. This new maturity is threatened by Thanos, who acts like a tyrannical father figure, threatening to push the heroes back in subservient child roles and reverse their progress.
TL;DR for the above summary: Daddy Thanos is going to put you in the corner.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 31, 2018, 09:33:48 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72QQsWm7yFk
Marvel has daddy issues.
TL;DW: Many Marvel superheroes start out unheroic, but become more like their fathers (or father figures) and thereby become self-actualized adults. This new maturity is threatened by Thanos, who acts like a tyrannical father figure, threatening to push the heroes back in subservient child roles and reverse their progress.
TL;DR for the above summary: Daddy Thanos is going to put you in the corner.
So marvel has daddy issues, who has been brought out by disney who has mommy issues.
Quote from: Munch on August 31, 2018, 09:56:47 PM
So marvel has daddy issues, who has been brought out by disney who has mommy issues.
(https://i.imgur.com/fZwW1Rd.jpg)
Pretty much, yes.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 31, 2018, 09:33:48 PM
Marvel has daddy issues.
TL;DW: Many Marvel superheroes start out unheroic, but become more like their fathers (or father figures) and thereby become self-actualized adults. This new maturity is threatened by Thanos, who acts like a tyrannical father figure, threatening to push the heroes back in subservient child roles and reverse their progress.
I've noticed several redundant themes in the Marvel Universe, although I haven't thought about the father similarities. While this and other themes may be redundant, I expect them to be there, and I think the whole superhero genre would suffer without them. I'm always in a state of rapt anticipation waiting for the common themes to appear, especially the origin themes that explain how the hero came to be. The Marvel creators seem to have an unusually good grasp of what themes are the most important to a superhero movie, the themes that continually strike a chord. Yes, it's done with a formula, and while I get tired of film formulas, Marvel still holds my attention and I always look forward to the next movie.
As for Thanos, I still don't understand him, but then I'm not a follower of the comics. I always assumed he was a god, although the analysis in the video says he is not. But what is he? He sure doesn't look like a human. He has human foibles, but that's all I see. I've also been thrown by your (Hydra's) defense of his actions in a previous post somewhere. He seems like a power mongering psychopath to me, but again I'm not familiar with his background, and have a hard time imagining him turning into something with good intentions. I just want Marvel to kill him, and let the superheroes get back to work and go on about their usual activities.
Yes, demi-gode getting back to what they do best ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW6SiquXjTk
QuoteI always assumed he was a god, although the analysis in the video says he is not. But what is he? He sure doesn't look like a human.
I think that is one thing that Marvel has done absolutely expertly; blur the line of what is divine and what is just so much more advance and powerful that it appears to be a god. Look at Thor and the Asgardians... they are by all means gods, and yet we don't necessarily think of Thor as a god but instead a hero.
But that is only because of how relatable he is; we have followed his life and seen the down bits as well as the up bits, and we see he is just as "human" as anyone else... he just has insane strength and powers. If he did not fight for the Avengers or we only saw glimpses of him, we would think he is a god because he would still be mysterious.
I was mentioning in the funny picture thread that comic books seem to me to be the modern equivalent of the heros of mythology and ancient religion, and I think Marvel has really managed to capture that in their film. They are the modern equivalent of Achilles or Hercules, Sun Wu Kong or Rama... we've just replaced mysticism and awe with escapism and enjoyment.
Elite entertainment (which is why the Iliad exists) and plebeian entertainment (starting with the Theater of Dionysus in Athens).
We are the elite, so it makes sense.
Quote from: SGOS on August 31, 2018, 10:27:59 PM
I've noticed several redundant themes in the Marvel Universe, although I haven't thought about the father similarities.
It crops up in Iron Man, Thor, Black Panther, Ant Man, and Spider-Man Homecoming.
QuoteAs for Thanos, I still don't understand him, but then I'm not a follower of the comics. I always assumed he was a god, although the analysis in the video says he is not. But what is he?
Correct, he's not a god. He's a Deviant. Or more specifically, an Eternal with the deviant gene. My understanding of Eternals is limited, but Eternals are immortal superhumans with the capability of tapping into the power cosmic. Think Asgardians but even more powerful. Deviants are like that just disfigured instead of beautiful and with a unique mutation - a twisted reflection in both the figurative and literal sense. Eternals and Deviants also wage war against each other. They're like water and cesium.
QuoteI've also been thrown by your (Hydra's) defense of his actions in a previous post somewhere.
Yeah, I might've goofed that one. I noticed that Thanos seemed to intentionally avoid killing his enemies (which I thought was interesting and is kinda sorta true), but then again, he did slaughter the asgardians offscreen. Didn't take that into account. Oops.
I suppose I could modify it. Once Thanos gets the second gem, he single-mindedly goes straight for the other gems without wasting a second to paint the town red even though that's absolutely within his power. Just thought that was interesting.
QuoteHe seems like a power mongering psychopath to me, but again I'm not familiar with his background, and have a hard time imagining him turning into something with good intentions. I just want Marvel to kill him, and let the superheroes get back to work and go on about their usual activities.
Without a doubt he craves power. But he doesn't want to bask in it like Loki would. Instead, he sees power as a means to an end. He wants to turn the cosmic order on its head, at least in the comics.
I think he's an absolutely fantastic villain. He reminds me of Dagoth Ur. He has to be stopped of course, but he's somewhat sympathetic and while I wouldn't call them good intentions exactly, he does have valid reasons for believing what he believes. I'm talking about the comic Thanos here, the movie version (universe's most dangerous Utilitarian) doesn't make much sense.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 31, 2018, 11:14:47 PM
We are the elite, so it makes sense.
Back in the day, if you can read and write ... yes, that is Elitist! Bring back illiteracy now! More lumps in the lumpen proletariat!
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 01, 2018, 01:05:54 AM
Without a doubt he craves power. But he doesn't want to bask in it like Loki would. Instead, he sees power as a means to an end. He wants to turn the cosmic order on its head, at least in the comics.
That's a good example of how Marvel uses redundant themes, but can still keep it interesting. In this case, by changing the motive of the villain, and presto! You have an entirely new storyline.
Loki is interesting to me, because in real life I've heard about him, but no actual stories that I can remember. So my image was not of an unlikeable god. I always pictured him as a little fellow, and a prankster entertaining guests at royal feasts, but with fun type pranks that might even please the one he plays the prank on. Marvel's Loki is disturbing, with motives that serve no other purpose than to satisfy a perverse lust to be worshiped by being pointlessly cruel. Thor often saves him because he's his brother. Then I want to smack Thor. Family or not, Loki's personality is more disgusting than that of a common reprobate.
Quote from: SGOS on September 01, 2018, 08:16:22 AM
Loki is interesting to me, because in real life I've heard about him, but no actual stories that I can remember.
I've read a few of his stories. He has a great one where he transforms into a horse to trick a giant. Just don't let him hear you talking about it!
QuoteMarvel's Loki is disturbing, with motives that serve no other purpose than to satisfy a perverse lust to be worshiped by being pointlessly cruel. Thor often saves him because he's his brother. Then I want to smack Thor. Family or not, Loki's personality is more disgusting than that of a common reprobate.
My memory of the Thor movies is hazy, but didn't Loki get kinda sorta rehabilitated?
I can relate to Thor, since I've had close people in my life who weren't always super nice and I've had to look past that. Let bygones be bygones and all that.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 01, 2018, 07:48:28 PM
My memory of the Thor movies is hazy, but didn't Loki get kinda sorta rehabilitated?
I believe he showed some kindness at times, but then he would relapse into his old self, or it would turn out that the kindness was just a deception. Toward the end, I think he did something good, but I can't remember what it was, and knowing his past, I was not convinced that it was going to stick. I did wonder if he would ever get his act together at times. Maybe it was just hope or maybe I sensed something good. I did sense a vulnerability in him at times, like he at least had some sadness about him, not just all anger and hate.
His entire life was a lie, his family, his heritage... even if the people who raised him raised him well... that's going to fuck with you.
He redeems himself either way in the last Avenger movie... though it may have been more arrogance and a realization there was no winning rather than "pure" self-sacrifice.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 01, 2018, 09:04:09 PMHe redeems himself either way in the last Avenger movie... though it may have been more arrogance and a realization there was no winning rather than "pure" self-sacrifice.
I took it as going out swinging rather than waiting around to die. Definitely not self-sacrifice.
I've heard a lot of people say that it was a deception or illusion, but I doubt it. He got dealt a crappy hand, tried to bluff, got called, and lost. No-win scenario.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 01, 2018, 09:25:11 PM
I took it as going out swinging rather than waiting around to die. Definitely not self-sacrifice.
I've heard a lot of people say that it was a deception or illusion, but I doubt it. He got dealt a crappy hand, tried to bluff, got called, and lost. No-win scenario.
I'll have to watch that again.
Like it matters, the comics had nebula take the infinity gems and used it to undo everything thanos did, before coming a power mad titan herself. Pretty certain that's how their resolve it in the sequel
Quote from: Munch on September 02, 2018, 07:36:42 AM
Like it matters, the comics had nebula take the infinity gems and used it to undo everything thanos did, before coming a power mad titan herself. Pretty certain that's how their resolve it in the sequel
Nah, they'll just kill off half their cash cows and go on to teach English to illegal immigrants in France.
Quote from: Munch on September 02, 2018, 07:36:42 AM
Like it matters, the comics had nebula take the infinity gems and used it to undo everything thanos did, before coming a power mad titan herself. Pretty certain that's how their resolve it in the sequel
Ah Ha! Maybe that's a spoiler. We don't know for sure, but I was thinking the other day about how the avengers might resolve their current non existence, and it occurred to me that maybe Nebula would play a part. Frankly, I don't know why I had this thought, because she's mostly a secondary character. At first I thought it would be Dr. Strange, but he no longer has the time stone, to say nothing of the fact that he no longer exists along with everyone else.
Hmmmmm. Interesting.
Quote from: SGOS on September 02, 2018, 08:06:54 AM
Ah Ha! Maybe that's a spoiler. We don't know for sure, but I was thinking the other day about how the avengers might resolve their current non existence, and it occurred to me that maybe Nebula would play a part. Frankly, I don't know why I had this thought, because she's mostly a secondary character. At first I thought it would be Dr. Strange, but he no longer has the time stone, to say nothing of the fact that he no longer exists along with everyone else.
Hmmmmm. Interesting.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/EhZZHnNIp6pyLYoa6_UTSo9GyDY=/0x0:1226x744/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x744)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10753723/IMG_0177.jpg)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4X6Ku6UaQjY/WNZZeWC2UGI/AAAAAAAA4f0/8TKhoOGrdsogOoFli5yN_dLmxJwg5cUSACLcB/s1600/ig5_28.gif)
In the comics, he raised nebula as a shambling husk as proof of his power to mistress death and a token of his love to her, which she despised, after all she is death, and undeath is a mockery to her. Its this mistake he made and forgot about that let her take the gauntlet and gems from him.
In the movie we see her being tortured by being pulled apart, but she isn't one of the dead by the end of it. If anything, they have setup the perfect opportunity here, she already hates him, and is alive, so her taking the gems and undoing him is both a satisfying act of vengeance, but also setting up a conflict for the avengers to overcome at the end. How much more satisfying would it be for her to not just undo what he did, but create more life in the universe to shit all over his philosophy
Quote from: Munch on September 02, 2018, 09:06:13 AM
In the comics, he raised nebula as a shambling husk as proof of his power to mistress death and a token of his love to her, which she despised, after all she is death, and undeath is a mockery to her. Its this mistake he made and forgot about that let her take the gauntlet and gems from him.
In the movie we see her being tortured by being pulled apart, but she isn't one of the dead by the end of it.
Maybe that's why I was wondering about Nebula the other day. I do have to watch this again, and pay special attention to that part, but your analysis is making sense to me. The end of the film is important, not just as an unsettling cliff hanger, but I always thought the clues were hidden there in that last 5 minutes. I remember that Gamora too was thrown off a cliff, but I can't remember if she was also vaporized. The two descendants of Thanos still unvaporized?
Now I'm thinking the last scene might be some kind of transition between past and future, but not quite the present. People started to disappear too quickly after Thanos got the stones. Something seemed wrong that he could get the stones and complete his diabolical plan that fast. I always thought the execution of the plan would take a little thought and consideration, with at least a period of learning and testing. I'm thinking there was a much longer period of time after he collected the stones, and what seemed like vaporization in the present was being orchestrated by Thanos at some future date. This would give Nebula some time to fix herself as she always seemed to do, and somehow influence the effects. If a point in time can be altered from the future, that point in time can also be undone from any point in the future. And I'm pretty sure Thanos won't be the one to do it because he had second thoughts.
I see a thundering herd of feral deus ex machina charging over the hill shouting "DEATH!" They're all wearing Rohirrim uniforms.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 02, 2018, 10:39:58 AM
I see a thundering herd of feral deus ex machina charging over the hill shouting "DEATH!" They're all wearing Rohirrim uniforms.
Perhaps I should just wait for the next move, but with obsessive nature, that may be easier said than done.
Quote from: SGOS on September 02, 2018, 11:16:04 AM
Perhaps I should just wait for the next move, but with obsessive nature, that may be easier said than done.
You won't die from watching this one now. Lots of fun things going on. Thor makes a new friend, for one.
Quote from: SGOS on September 02, 2018, 08:06:54 AM
Ah Ha! Maybe that's a spoiler. We don't know for sure, but I was thinking the other day about how the avengers might resolve their current non existence, and it occurred to me that maybe Nebula would play a part. Frankly, I don't know why I had this thought, because she's mostly a secondary character. At first I thought it would be Dr. Strange, but he no longer has the time stone, to say nothing of the fact that he no longer exists along with everyone else.
Hmmmmm. Interesting.
I have a theory about that. The Soul gem stands alone as the strangest and most strangely acquired gem. The trial to claim it was almost too convenient and easy. It may be some sort of deception. (I mean, a stranger coming to you and telling you to throw your loved one off a cliff...what are the odds that's not a trick?) So instead of the snap killing 50% of the universe, it may just have shunted them to a different dimension or sent them to another time or something similar.
So I sat down while round my brother house babysitting my nephews, where had gone to bed at the time, and we sat with black panther on, finally watching it.
This is a movie that demands a lot from its audience, basically it demands you to shut off your brain for a couple of hours in order to watch it.
Getting past the political commentary of the movie, this thing is really stupid in many places. This film suffers from the same problems that movies like Get Out had, it suffers from the same problems I find in a lot of horror movies have in that they are not clever or thought provoking, and i often try new horror movies in the hope of finding a better one.
If a movie expects me to turn my brain off in order to enjoy it, I get that, there are plenty of fun brain dead movies out there that I could recommend. And maybe black panther would be part of that. Except it seems to want have a modern day political commentary with it that makes you scratch your head a lot of the time.
Questions like 'if wakanda is so super advanced in technology why is the rest of africa so poor?' or 'how did he survive so long at the end of the movie with a dagger in his chest and only died when it was pulled out" or "if the magic flowers and super advanced tech can give the king such powers, why haven't this advanced society figured out how to weaponize these things and make the rest of africa into a powerhouse with super soldier armies?" or "How can the lead of such advanced technology be a 16 year old?" or "if this culture is so advanced in its social order and technology, why is it governed by whoever wins in a primitive knife fight?".
The villains motivations are shallow and anyone regarding him as the best marvel villain to date is being so dishonest about his motivations and the plot.
Infact that goes for the entire movie. Its really fucking stupid when it gets down to it. It expects you to forgo any thought or questioning of the story or characters. At least with movies like deadpool or guardians of the galaxy they know where they stand in terms of dumb shlock action movies with clever comedy. At least the first avengers movies knew how to play to the audience with action and comedy.
This movie expects you to turn off your brain, which is probably why it was able to push such a load of political messages to the audience, because if your brains already closed off to let this kind of thing entertain you, then your already open to having a load of political bullshit feed in, despite the contradictions to it being easy to read.
I'm just glad I'm not the only one to see this movie for what it is, a really dumb action movie with political commendatory in it that contradicts itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT2D50_pgUU&t=2102s
3/10, only for the acting and action pieces.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 02, 2018, 11:58:14 AM
I have a theory about that. The Soul gem stands alone as the strangest and most strangely acquired gem. The trial to claim it was almost too convenient and easy. It may be some sort of deception. (I mean, a stranger coming to you and telling you to throw your loved one off a cliff...what are the odds that's not a trick?) So instead of the snap killing 50% of the universe, it may just have stunted them to a different dimension or sent them to another time or something similar.
I hope someone at Marvel is reading this and contacts us all about writing their scripts.
Quote from: Munch on September 02, 2018, 12:05:17 PMQuestions like 'if wakanda is so super advanced in technology why is the rest of africa so poor?'
Isolation.
Quote'how did he survive so long at the end of the movie with a dagger in his chest and only died when it was pulled out"
Rapid blood loss. IRL you're not supposed to pull out something you've been impaled by for that exact reason.
Quote"if the magic flowers and super advanced tech can give the king such powers, why haven't this advanced society figured out how to weaponize these things and make the rest of africa into a powerhouse with super soldier armies?" or "How can the lead of such advanced technology be a 16 year old?"
Or why only one guy can harness these powers. Personally, I'd have a praetorian guard of dozens if not hundreds of panthers.
Quote"if this culture is so advanced in its social order and technology, why is it governed by whoever wins in a primitive knife fight?"
That's a good point lol. When Wakanda ends its isolation and makes its speech at the UN, I kept thinking about some diplomat asking how Wakanda selects their leader and being horrified by the response.
QuoteThe villains motivations are shallow and anyone regarding him as the best marvel villain to date is being so dishonest about his motivations and the plot.
Yeah, I don't get that, either. He's interesting in that he has somewhat altruistic motivations, but other than that, he's not a very compelling villain. The museum scene was pretty cool, though.
In hindsight, please for the love of god Disney bring James Gunn back for GotG. This is absolutely ridiculous.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 02, 2018, 12:26:35 PM
In hindsight, please for the love of god Disney bring James Gunn back for GotG. This is absolutely ridiculous.
I agree, but we'd need a cosmic cube for that at this point.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 02, 2018, 12:18:08 PM
Yeah, I don't get that, either. He's interesting in that he has somewhat altruistic motivations, but other than that, he's not a very compelling villain. The museum scene was pretty cool, though.
thats all you can really say about this movie, the actions scenes were cool.
this is the 'rule of cool' I've so often seen in things these days where the writing doesn't have to be clever, it just needs to appeal to someones 'oh cool' factor. I play world of warcraft, and that games story is thick with that way of writing and aesthetic, so I know that kind of dumb setup when I see it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 02, 2018, 12:29:07 PM
I agree, but we'd need a cosmic cube for that at this point.
There is a chance for GotG to survive since Anthony and Joe Russo did a pretty good job of them in infinity war, and maybe they might work out something with james gunn away from disney just to share ideas in order to give us another movie.
Quote from: Munch on September 02, 2018, 12:05:17 PM
Getting past the political commentary of the movie, this thing is really stupid in many places. This film suffers from the same problems that movies like Get Out had, it suffers from the same problems I find in a lot of horror movies have in that they are not clever or thought provoking, and i often try new horror movies in the hope of finding a better one.
"How can the lead of such advanced technology be a 16 year old?" or "if this culture is so advanced in its social order and technology, why is it governed by whoever wins in a primitive knife fight?".
I'm not as critical of the movie as you are, but I don't think it's Marvel's best either. As a symbol of black empowerment, I think there are better films out there, some which are even forgotten classics. But as an old white guy and protestant (well former protestant), I may not be in the position to make that call. As I recall, most of the hype leading up to the opening was how this movie symbolized black empowerment and how a Marvel hero could be an inspiration to the black community, and perhaps it did and was. And maybe it was received by the black community as such.
I didn't think the scripting was anything special, but I really enjoyed the premise (which carried the movie for me) that the most advanced society known to man had been secretly hidden in the jungles of darkest Africa for what may have been centuries. Far fetched? Of course. It's a marvel movie. I watched it a second time when it hit Redbox , and I still found myself absorbed by the premise, although I thought the story didn't capitalize on the premise as much as it could have. At the end, when the Wakandans were offering their technology to western society, I had two reactions. One was pleasant goose bumps. The other was disbelief beyond suspension. Why was an advanced society like that giving their technology away knowing how it would inevitably be used by the West? OK to save the universe, maybe. But I had doubts beyond that.
Did we notice the chic young black woman who makes racist remarks very casually?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 02, 2018, 01:34:21 PM
Did we notice the chic young black woman who makes racist remarks very casually?
(http://www.jracenstein.com/mmjrcstore/Images/60-210_opti-loc-pole-10ft-2-sect-unger_th.jpg)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 02, 2018, 01:34:21 PM
Did we notice the chic young black woman who makes racist remarks very casually?
Silence, Colonizer!
Or the black youths who see a strange vehicle and immediately talk about "taking it home" and "selling it for parts"?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 02, 2018, 02:03:11 PM
Or the black youths who see a strange vehicle and immediately talk about "taking it home" and "selling it for parts"?
*whispers*
Shhh. Maybe society is heading back to that ideal level where they don't take offense to everything, and you're going to spoil it for everyone.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 02, 2018, 02:05:55 PM
*whispers*
Shhh. Maybe society is heading back to that ideal level where they don't take offense to everything, and you're going to spoil it for everyone.
Sorry, but black kids as car thieves wasn't acceptable to me.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 02, 2018, 03:20:21 PM
Sorry, but black kids as car thieves wasn't acceptable to me.
...I quoted the wrong quote.
Fuck.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 02, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
...I quoted the wrong quote.
Fuck.
I keel you! Right after this beer.
(http://rationalia.com/z/090824Nagalcohol13.gif)
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 02, 2018, 01:59:35 PM
Silence, Colonizer!
Silence uncle Tom!
See, see how that works?
Maybe what they should have had in the movie was a white south African show up as call one of the black cast out saying "when are you going to stop your lot destroying our home?", Because thats modern and political right?
If a movie like this wants to 'go there' they better be prepared for the backlash.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 02, 2018, 11:58:14 AM
I have a theory about that. The Soul gem stands alone as the strangest and most strangely acquired gem. The trial to claim it was almost too convenient and easy. It may be some sort of deception.
I didn't think about it being a deception, but I remember being puzzled by how easy it was. Maybe I passed it off as the collector guy just being a wuss. He wasn't much of a fighter. He seemed like a wealthy bumbler with a need to collect odd things.
I just rewatched the last 10 minutes again, not all of the Avengers were shown dissolving. There was scene with Rogers, Banner, Widow, and a couple of others where they were aware of the carnage, and I was expecting to see them evaporate, but they didn't. So I'm thinking part of the team might have been among the half that survived, although I don't know how to make a sequel out of that.
Quote from: SGOS on September 02, 2018, 06:09:27 PMSo I'm thinking part of the team might have been among the half that survived, although I don't know how to make a sequel out of that.
There are strong hints that Captain Marvel is going to be in part two. Maybe even Hawkeye and Ant-Man. And - this is a hell of a stretch - The Sentry.
There's enough firepower left. It's just scattered and demoralized. Getting the gang together is going to be the hardest part.
Ant-man did survive, check the PCS in "Antman and Wasp."
Thor, Cap, Ironman, Rocket, Okoye, Black Widow, Hulk/bruce banner, Ant-man, War-machine, and we don't know what happened to hawk-eye.
And of course we have captain marvel. Though it did annoy me how marvel introduced Adam Warlock in GotG but hasn't presented him in anything after, he exists in the MCU but by looks of it isn't going to be used.
Quote from: Munch on September 02, 2018, 07:33:44 PM
Thor, Cap, Ironman, Rocket, Okoye, Black Widow, Hulk/bruce banner, Ant-man, War-machine, and we don't know what happened to hawk-eye.
And of course we have captain marvel. Though it did annoy me how marvel introduced Adam Warlock in GotG but hasn't presented him in anything after, he exists in the MCU but by looks of it isn't going to be used.
Iirc, he's not going to make an appearance until after Infinity War part 2 wraps up.
This gives me hope that Infinity War damaged the fabric of space/time and the Guardians of the Galaxy are going to embark on their classic hijinks - sealing rifts, pissing off the Church, Adam getting a new hairdoo (if you get my drift), and then we get this glorious scene on the big screen:
(https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/5/57845/1504782-behold.jpg)
^_^
Knowing= Asshole angels
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on September 03, 2018, 03:39:09 AM
Knowing= Asshole angels
Like Tilda Swinton playing Gabriel in Constantine?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mj2KRj_9Mk
this is whats happened due to todays culture fucking things up. When the main actor of the best star wars trilogy is disgusted at how they directed his character, you know they fucked up big time.
Is that you Winston Smith? Strap that rat cage back on you face, now! Big Brother says so.
Bad enough they want to kill adult White males, they want to start early by killing 12 year old White males.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUwiIwLRw_M&t=312s
kathleen kennedy is a feminist idiot. Worst, she's a sexist feminist idiot. She thinks women can't relate to men, thus they forced powerful women into star wars while emasculating the male characters. The main female role in the movie is a mary sue while the men can't do anything as good as the female leads. Also one character very clearly being gender studies purple haired character who dehumanizes another male character because 'muh feminism!'.
This is what happens when extreme feminists and sjws get into directing or being the lead, we've seen it happen with marvel, and now its happened with star wars.
If a character is well written, relatable and consistant, then it doesn't matter what the gender of a fan is, if the character is done well anyone can relate to them. I'm a gay guy and I can relate to *shock, horror* straight white male characters, something people like kathleen kennedy want to shit all over because they are straight white and male. I can relate to female character when their written well, like lara croft, ripley from aliens, captain Janeway from star trek, Mulan from the same movie, Clarice Starling from silence of the lambs, the bride from kill bill, just about any role Julie Andrews was in.
And yet, you have people like Kennedy here who thinks so one dimensional about the fans of these things, that she needs to force her gender studies into something like star wars, and fuck up so many characters and concepts with it just because she feels 'it needs to reach women in the audience!'. Bitch, if you want to appeal to women, try being a better writer. Woman, like men, will like any character as long as their well written.
And it goes without saying, Rian Johnson is a narcissist. He didn't give a shit about the integrity of the story or fans, it just wanted to throw in his take on things in a way to say fuck you to the last director J.J. Abrams. He's also now left the final movie for Abrams to clean up his shit, which just makes this movie a bigger stain on the star wars franchise then the phantom menace.
He's one of those cunts who is so dismissive of any criticism of his work is writes anyone off, even constructive criticism, as negative, so dismisses it. He's basically the emperor of the emperors new cloths, only he doesn't acknowledge even when people point out the facts to him.
I thought the fact that Rey was not chained to a fat alien slug with a lunatic space monkey for a pet showed that she had survival skills and a talent for doing the right thing at the right time.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 04, 2018, 08:03:11 AM
I thought the fact that Rey was not chained to a fat alien slug with a lunatic space monkey for a pet showed that she had survival skills and a talent for doing the right thing at the right time.
Ray is a mary sue. Watched this guys entire 5 part criticism of the movie and its clear the character is setup to be flawless and better then anyone before her, because she's a woman. No training, no struggles to overcome, no mistakes or doubts, and in making such a character she's unrelatable and shallow.
She's a better jedi, pilot, fighter then any other character, without training, and even better then the ones training her before they even try to.
princess leia at least wasn't built up like a massive better then anyone character, she had to be rescued, but then showed her leadership skilled in the resistance.
i'm not even a star wars fan, but I've watched the movies, and can appreciate good characterization, something the last jedi lacks in abundance.
Okay then.
Some people here would like powerful women to do nuggie to them ;-) I have no attraction to helpless women types either. But German dominatrices are too far.
(https://i.redd.it/x3eho9zudqk11.png)
Missed opportunity. A few seconds of a wicked smile dissolving into dust would've been chilling.
Upgrade 8/10
Not a bad sci fi flick, but a plot that seems somewhat familiar.
Quote from: SGOS on September 07, 2018, 02:16:25 PM
Upgrade 8/10
Not a bad sci fi flick, but a plot that seems somewhat familiar.
Seri-in-you ... for non-soy-boys.
Justice League: For the life of me I can't see why people expect so much from a comic book movie. The source ear will never make silk purse. The movie was fun to watch as I didn't spend time complaining about things in it. (One guy groused that the corn should have been taller when Clark takes Lois back to the old homestead.)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 07, 2018, 07:28:37 PM
Justice League: For the life of me I can't see why people expect so much from a comic book movie. The source ear will never make silk purse. The movie was fun to watch as I didn't spend time complaining about things in it. (One guy groused that the corn should have been taller when Clark takes Lois back to the old homestead.)
I mean... yeah... but... no.
First off, it just wasn't that great of movie. If you enjoyed it, that's dope and more power to you but... it's possible to enjoy a bad movie, and this was a relatively bad movie.
Secondly, people expect great things from comic book movies because most modern-era comic book movies (since Iron Man I) have been great movies.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 07, 2018, 07:28:37 PM(One guy groused that the corn should have been taller when Clark takes Lois back to the old homestead.)
I haven't seen the movie, but they fucked up corn??? How can you fuck up corn?!!! IT'S CORN!
It's a pretty common sight, especially in the heartland. If you're one of those people who never leave the city and you don't know what corn is like, slip me $20 and I will sketch you a realistic picture of a cornfield. FFS.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 07, 2018, 07:28:37 PM
Justice League: For the life of me I can't see why people expect so much from a comic book movie. The source ear will never make silk purse. The movie was fun to watch as I didn't spend time complaining about things in it. (One guy groused that the corn should have been taller when Clark takes Lois back to the old homestead.)
comic book characters of today are modern day greek and roman heroes and villains. You can study the myth and legend of characters like hercules/heracles, or Achilles, or Perseus, or Theseus, all legends and tragedies and such.
Thats what characters like superman, batman, wolverine, wonder woman, Thor, hulk or starlord are today, modern day heroes built around made up stores battling made up powerful foes.
And there have been many great writers and artists who give these characters that status, Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, Jack Kirby, Mike Mignola, creating amazing stories and worlds that really can be thought provoking (like watchmen, from hell, batman the dark knight, the killing joke, x-men god loves man kills, all star superman).
Just dismissing comic books because of the old trope of 'its just for kids' isn't giving people their dues the depth of work they put into these creations.
And given what I just said, yeah, we do expect and wish for the same quality in these movies as we would expect from the best of the comics as examples I mentioned.
Quote from: Munch on September 07, 2018, 08:53:02 PM
comic book characters of today are modern day greek and roman heroes and villains. You can study the myth and legend of characters like hercules/heracles, or Achilles, or Perseus, or Theseus, all legends and tragedies and such.
Yep. And comic book heroes generally aren't just weirdos in spandex, they're usually symbolic of something else. Batman embodies justice, Iron Man embodies the promise (and perils) of technology, The Hulk is Dr. Jekyll/Mr Hyde, Adam Warlock is essentially space jesus (he was literally crucified). There's a lot more going on here than meets the eye.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 07, 2018, 07:31:07 PM
Secondly, people expect great things from comic book movies because most modern-era comic book movies (since Iron Man I) have been great movies.
I don't expect as much from DC movies. Sometimes they surprise me, however. I liked Wonder Woman, Batman especially the first two, and Superman. The X-Men are usually a good bet, and V for Vendetta was wonderful, but half of them leave me somewhat disappointed because I keep expecting them to rise to the level of Marvel. The potential is there, but they don't seem to capitalize on it as well. But I'll always show up at the theater when a new one comes out.
Quote from: Munch on September 07, 2018, 08:53:02 PM
Just dismissing comic books because of the old trope of 'its just for kids' isn't giving people their dues the depth of work they put into these creations.
I kind of understand the comics are for kids perception, but I've long ago thrown that out as a reason to dis them. In fact, they create a visceral reaction in me as if I were a little kid. And I like that feeling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsC4kf6x_Q0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlUcUfHkdYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntC0xJo2bSU
Quote from: SGOS on September 07, 2018, 09:46:44 PMIn fact, they create a visceral reaction in me as if I were a little kid. And I like that feeling.
I know, right? The Technovore issue alone really freaked me out. Imagine Xenomorphs meets The Borg meets T-1000. Resilient, perpetually growing/improving, and predatory. And not just physically threatening, but a complete antithesis of Stark's dream of using technology to create a better world. Visceral reaction is right.
Quote from: Munch on September 07, 2018, 08:53:02 PM
comic book characters of today are modern day greek and roman heroes and villains. You can study the myth and legend of characters like hercules/heracles, or Achilles, or Perseus, or Theseus, all legends and tragedies and such.
Thats what characters like superman, batman, wolverine, wonder woman, Thor, hulk or starlord are today, modern day heroes built around made up stores battling made up powerful foes.
And there have been many great writers and artists who give these characters that status, Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, Jack Kirby, Mike Mignola, creating amazing stories and worlds that really can be thought provoking (like watchmen, from hell, batman the dark knight, the killing joke, x-men god loves man kills, all star superman).
Just dismissing comic books because of the old trope of 'its just for kids' isn't giving people their dues the depth of work they put into these creations.
And given what I just said, yeah, we do expect and wish for the same quality in these movies as we would expect from the best of the comics as examples I mentioned.
I'm impressed. Not many people equate old myths with modern sci-fi characters. I think they miss a lot of understanding when they don't. Spiderman understands that "with great power comes great responsibility". Wolverine is a modern Hercules. Mr Fantastic (yeah I know the movies wern't loved - but *I* liked them) was a great thinker (flexible, get it?), Iron Man is determined. Hulk is tortured and cursed with destructive strength Bruce Banner doesn't want. Captain America is a good morality of the past. Vision has a new origin. Etc...
The character they ruined is Nick Fury.
We all need a little hope of "doing well" in a crisis. If superhero imaginings help, good.
Nicolas Cage is getting a 95% at Rotten Tomatoes for his latest film Mandy. I doesn't appear to be playing near me, which probably means it won't be playing most places, but 95% for Cage breaks a long string of bad movies, although it looks like a blood fest, and not the good kind.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 07, 2018, 07:31:07 PM
I mean... yeah... but... no.
First off, it just wasn't that great of movie. If you enjoyed it, that's dope and more power to you but... it's possible to enjoy a bad movie, and this was a relatively bad movie.
Secondly, people expect great things from comic book movies because most modern-era comic book movies (since Iron Man I) have been great movies.
I'll grant you that the worst of them were better than "2001", but "great"? Nah. They're fun, mostly, but a hundred years from now they'll be in a special box.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 15, 2018, 12:17:01 PM
I'll grant you that the worst of them were better than "2001", but "great"? Nah. They're fun, mostly, but a hundred years from now they'll be in a special box.
I agree no superhero movies will stand the test of time, but they are good for we who liked the comics but stopped buying them when they hit $5 each. Though I can watch 'Hancock" frequently...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 15, 2018, 12:37:59 PM
I agree no superhero movies will stand the test of time, but they are good for we who liked the comics but stopped buying them when they hit $5 each. Though I can watch 'Hancock" frequently...
I'm fifty years out from reading comics. Makes me less critical of the movies. And I'm not up on any canon, so "The Force Awakens" and "Rogue One" didn't give my hysterics.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 15, 2018, 12:41:49 PM
I'm fifty years out from reading comics. Makes me less critical of the movies. And I'm not up on any canon, so "The Force Awakens" and "Rogue One" didn't give my hysterics.
Yeah, 1968 is about when I had the choice of continuing to buy Marvel comics or paying rent and buying food... LOL!
I even had to look up 'Rogue One'.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 15, 2018, 12:46:03 PM
Yeah, 1968 is about when I had the choice of continuing to buy Marvel comics or paying rent and buying food... LOL!
I even had to look up 'Rogue One'.
Hey, they brought back the Grand Mof Tarken just for that movie.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 15, 2018, 12:37:59 PM
I agree no superhero movies will stand the test of time, but they are good for we who liked the comics but stopped buying them when they hit $5 each. Though I can watch 'Hancock" frequently...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 15, 2018, 12:46:03 PM
Yeah, 1968 is about when I had the choice of continuing to buy Marvel comics or paying rent and buying food... LOL!
I even had to look up 'Rogue One'.
I found "Analog" and "Fantasy and Science Fiction" in 1963, and the comics just died.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 15, 2018, 12:56:03 PM
Hey, they brought back the Grand Mof Tarken just for that movie.
Never saw it. So should I ask "who" or "what"?
Quote from: Cavebear on September 15, 2018, 12:37:59 PM
I agree no superhero movies will stand the test of time, but they are good for we who liked the comics but stopped buying them when they hit $5 each. Though I can watch 'Hancock" frequently...
Has any superhero movie won an Oscar? As much as I love superhero movies, for some reason they don't strike me as Oscar material. But when I think about it, a lot of Oscar movies I don't find that interesting. I'd go to a superhero movie over an Oscar nominee in a heart beat, but I might eventually see them both.
I'm not sure about them not standing the test of time. I won't say that any of them will. But Marvel has breathed new life into science fiction, and into the film industry as well. Even DC has helped push the thing along. I have a suspicion that the Marvel craze will fade, if for no other reason that most crazes fade, but then every once in a while a craze grows roots. I remember when my parent's thought rock and roll was a craze. It turned out not to be, but instead continued to grow in depth and talent. Remember Bill Haley and the Comets and Rock Around the Clock? Rock and roll would have faded if that's all there was to it.
Will Superheroes or some cousin of the genre continue to grow and improve like Rock and Roll? We don't know yet, but Marvel set the bar what seems like awfully high right out of the gate. If it grows from that point, if that's even possible, it might surprise us.
Oddly, some people don't like superhero movies, although I doubt that most of those people ever saw one. It's a whole new thing in film.
Sometimes I'm of the opinion that things come and go, but when I think about it, some things come but don't go.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 15, 2018, 12:58:25 PM
Never saw it. So should I ask "who" or "what"?
Star Wars, Episode 4. "I thought I recognized your foul stench when I was brought onboard." Leia to Tarken, on the Death Star.
Quote from: SGOS on September 15, 2018, 01:02:47 PM
Has any superhero movie won an Oscar?
"Darkest Hour (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4555426/?ref_=nv_sr_1)". Gary Oldman got Best Actor.
Quote from: SGOS on September 15, 2018, 01:02:47 PM
Has any superhero movie won an Oscar? As much as I love superhero movies, for some reason they don't strike me as Oscar material. But when I think about it, a lot of Oscar movies I don't find that interesting. I'd go to a superhero movie over an Oscar nominee in a heart beat, but I might eventually see them both.
I'm not sure about them not standing the test of time. I won't say that any of them will. But Marvel has breathed new life into science fiction, and into the film industry as well. Even DC has helped push the thing along. I have a suspicion that the Marvel craze will fade, if for no other reason that most crazes fade, but then every once in a while a craze grows roots. I remember when my parent's thought rock and roll was a craze. It turned out not to be, but instead continued to grow in depth and talent. Remember Bill Haley and the Comets and Rock Around the Clock? Rock and roll would have faded if that's all there was to it.
Will Superheroes or some cousin of the genre continue to grow and improve like Rock and Roll? We don't know yet, but Marvel set the bar what seems like awfully high right out of the gate. If it grows from that point, if that's even possible, it might surprise us.
Oddly, some people don't like superhero movies, although I doubt that most of those people ever saw one. It's a whole new thing in film.
Sometimes I'm of the opinion that things come and go, but when I think about it, some things come but don't go.
How can you type something so good so fast? That would take me 20-30 minutes at least!
There are many highly-rated movies I would never bother to see. Citizen Kane, African Queen, Casablanca... I'm just not into movies per se.
My parents went through several styles of music, and never thought rock would last. I did though, ansd still listen to everything from about 1960 on to 1990. And electronic too.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 15, 2018, 01:09:04 PM
"Darkest Hour (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4555426/?ref_=nv_sr_1)". Gary Oldman got Best Actor.
Darkest Hour was not a superhero movie, or are you saying Churchill was a political superhero?
Quote from: SGOS on September 15, 2018, 02:21:12 PM
Darkest Hour was not a superhero movie, or are you saying Churchill was a political superhero?
OK, yeah about Darkest Hour. But what about 'Hancock'?
Quote from: SGOS on September 15, 2018, 02:21:12 PM
Darkest Hour was not a superhero movie, or are you saying Churchill was a political superhero?
I HE is my hero. I only wish I could drink like him.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 15, 2018, 03:28:25 PM
I is my hero. I only wish I could drink like him.
You mean Hancock? Did you notice in a movie that Captain America is like that? His metabolism is so fast that he can't get drunk if he tried (and he tried). Hancock was great because he didn't even know who he was and why he had any power.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 02, 2018, 06:49:09 PM
There are strong hints that Captain Marvel is going to be in part two. Maybe even Hawkeye and Ant-Man. And - this is a hell of a stretch - The Sentry.
There's enough firepower left. It's just scattered and demoralized. Getting the gang together is going to be the hardest part.
I just finished watching Dr. Strange again. I think some artifacts of that movie are going to come into play in reestablishing order in the next Infinity Wars. I think the solution to undoing Thanos' mischief is to turn back time. How that happens I'm not sure, but Dr. Strange gave the last clue offered in Infinity Wars. He had played through all possible scenarios, and giving up the stone he said, "It was the only way."
Now going back to the Original Dr. Strange movie, there are some loose ends. The final credits scene makes little sense. Mordo traces down Pangborn (the guy that told Strange about Kamar-Tag), kills him and tells him there are "too many sorcerers," as Pangborn goes back into his former paralysis. WTF? The only thing that implies is that the minor character, Pangborn is going to show up again.
As the Sorcerer Supreme is dying she confides to Strange that Pangborn cured himself by taping into a mysterious power. I had the feeling it was a forbidden act of some sort, maybe something to do with the Dark Dimension and Dormammu.
After Strange defeats Dormammu, he tells him he must remove his minions from Earth forever. He returns to Hong Kong where the minions start to dissolve into little pieces in the same manner that Thanos removed random beings from the Earth. It has something to do with the same stone Strange wore around his neck. Or maybe it was a special effect just being reused in another movie.
I think these things might be key to Infinity Wars 2. Partly, it may be wishful thinking on my part. I never got enough of Dr. Strange. That need to see more of him is more overwhelming than for any other Marvel Character. There's too much about him left to be explored. He's deep and mysterious.
Pangborn was killed because he channeled dark energy to make his legs work again. Mordo doesn't like that kind of thing.
That's what I thought. Mordo gets his nose out of joint over it and leaves Hong Kong in a huff. Forget that he was part of a team that saved the Earth! He no longer has the stomach for taping all the resources necessary to do it. I'm not sure why. The Ancient One said he was inflexible. Mordo says the price is too high. For saving the Earth?? But at the same time he takes on a dark and sinister air. It seems like more than disapproval over some violation of his code of ethics. I think he harbors a lust for power and control and hasn't shown his hand yet. After he leaves, Strange uses the stone to turn back time and restore Hong Kong to it's previous glory.
Restoring order always seems to be possible by turning back time using the stone. It's also what Strange used to trap Dormammu in a time loop. Throughout his learning, the power and danger of altering time or "breaking time" keeps coming up. He seems to have mastered it, and all his sparkler circles and portals not withstanding, altering time seems to be his greatest power.
But at some point he will have to earn the right to wear the Eye of Agamoto (and it looks like that has already happened by the time "Ragnarok" comes around).
Mordo is basically psychotic. He fooled the Ancient One into believing he had conquered his demons, but the revelation of her chicanery tipped him back into Crazy Land.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 16, 2018, 07:27:42 AM
Mordo is basically psychotic. He fooled the Ancient One into believing he had conquered his demons, but the revelation of her chicanery tipped him back into Crazy Land.
I've wondered if I was predisposed to the idea that he was a psychotic after seeing him play in a recurring role as a despicable badass in the TV Firefly Series. He makes a great villain. I don't think he advanced as quickly as Dr. Strange. I doubt that he ever mastered or even messed with the Eye of Agamoto, and I keep thinking he felt like he should be the next Sorcerer Supreme only to be passed over for some newbie that mastered the mystic arts more quickly than himself. Now with Strange supposedly out of the way, he might want to kill off all the competition and run everything himself.
I see opportunities for him to get involved with a now apparently heart broken Thanos, trick him out of the Eye, and then turn back time, so that Strange can set things right again.
My memories of the actor include "The Martian" and "Kinky Boots", so I don't think I'm predisposed.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 16, 2018, 09:24:03 AM
My memories of the actor include "The Martian" and "Kinky Boots", so I don't think I'm predisposed.
That was him in Kinky Boots? Wow! That's being versatile.
Quote from: SGOS on September 16, 2018, 09:30:09 AM
That was him in Kinky Boots? Wow! That's being versatile.
And "Twelve Years a Slave", too.
The Operative was a stable genius in his role and not really evil, he didn't think about that kind of thing. He certainly wasn't sadistic. "This is a GOOD death."
Quote from: SGOS on September 15, 2018, 01:02:47 PM
Has any superhero movie won an Oscar?
Arguably Birdman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdman_(film)), which took Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Cinematography.
Quote from: SGOS on September 16, 2018, 09:30:09 AM
That was him in Kinky Boots? Wow! That's being versatile.
"Please tell me I didn't inspire anything burgundy."
Quote from: Cavebear on September 15, 2018, 01:09:09 PM
There are many highly-rated movies I would never bother to see. Citizen Kane, African Queen, Casablanca... I'm just not into movies per se.
My ex had been a film major, and thanks to him I understand why
Kane is the big deal it is. Yes, it looks like thousands of other movies from the 40s... but it was the
first to look like that, and virtually re-invented moviemaking the same way
Cabiria had in 1914 (from which D.W. Griffith drew his moviemaking style).
Side note on
Cabiria -- there's something almost unnerving about seeing a vintage silent film with nearly modern camerawork. The story is mundane, but the cinematography is fifteen or twenty years ahead of its time.
I might recommend watching
Citizen Kane with a commentary track -- the best one I know of was done by Roger Ebert.
Come to think of it, I've never sat down and watched
Casablanca all the way through. I really should correct that.
Quote from: trdsf on September 16, 2018, 09:40:08 AM
Arguably Birdman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdman_(film)), which took Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Cinematography.
Another movie I was out of sync with. I started watching it twice, but could never make it through. I thought it was about a guy that played a superhero. Did it turn out he was an actual superhero?
Gorgo
The Valley of Gwangi
The Giant Behemoth
The Beast from Twenty Thousand Fathoms
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 16, 2018, 10:53:45 AM
Gorgo
The Valley of Gwangi
The Giant Behemoth
The Beast from Twenty Thousand Fathoms
The Beast from Twenty Thousand Fathoms - that takes me back to my childhood. Lizard version of King Kong or American version of Godzilla.
Two of those were rare British daikaiju movies, IIRC. And Gwangi was Harryhausen's last movie, again IIRC.
Quote from: SGOS on September 16, 2018, 10:45:48 AM
Another movie I was out of sync with. I started watching it twice, but could never make it through. I thought it was about a guy that played a superhero. Did it turn out he was an actual superhero?
I haven't actually seen it myself; I understand it had an ambiguous ending in that regard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5SSD8hVQrg
Yes, you must do calculus forever! Bwahah.
The people who are writing the BS political narrative ... must be watching this video ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l1K6eT43DY&list=PLELtnLhWXsLGa8S3APpxjNN_VL-wzOp__
Quote from: SGOS on September 16, 2018, 10:45:48 AM
Another movie I was out of sync with. I started watching it twice, but could never make it through. I thought it was about a guy that played a superhero. Did it turn out he was an actual superhero?
No he just thinks he is.
Apparently for a superhero movie to win a Oscar it has to be overly dramatic and boring
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on September 17, 2018, 12:11:44 AM
No he just thinks he is.
At least that was a clever ending, because he was a failure at everything else he did, and not in a fun way like the original Clark Kent being romantic clutz in the presence of Lois Lane.
Next Gen - 1/10
What a horrible piece of shit.
About some brat doing nothing, but achieving everything for doing ... nothing? Fuck this this contrived crap. And the 77 robot is cute and all, but a death machine? The story is both ridiculous and makes no fucking sense. It's just one hop-scotch of a mess from one scene to the next.
Captain Marvel trailer incoming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BCujX3pw8
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 18, 2018, 05:52:06 PM
Captain Marvel trailer incoming.
Captain Marvel is a woman? Yikes. Still the trailer has got me pumped.
Quote from: SGOS on September 18, 2018, 06:05:26 PM
Captain Marvel is a woman? Yikes. Still the trailer has got me pumped.
You didn't know that already? Yeah, similar to what the MCU did with Antman, this is second generation character bearing the title. The original was a man, but this woman takes his place.
I understand DC sued Marvel, saying Captain Marvel was a rip off of Superman, so Marvel made him a woman.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Captain-Marvel-a-boy-in-the-comics-but-is-a-girl-in-the-movies
Quote from: SGOS on September 18, 2018, 06:05:26 PM
Captain Marvel is a woman? Yikes. Still the trailer has got me pumped.
"Mason Weaver is a woman!"
"Last time I checked."
Quote from: SGOS on September 18, 2018, 06:38:30 PM
I understand DC sued Marvel, saying Captain Marvel was a rip off of Superman, so Marvel made him a woman.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Captain-Marvel-a-boy-in-the-comics-but-is-a-girl-in-the-movies
That's got to hurt! ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Marvel_(DC_Comics)
I wasn't raised on this, so I am OK with a reboot with a girl playing the part. We are quite used to women in the military now.
They have a parallel on-canon version .. Shazam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go6GEIrcvFY
He's for the younger fans ... but can't help thinking of Greatest American Hero ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb4C7vSByMM
Quote from: SGOS on September 18, 2018, 06:38:30 PM
I understand DC sued Marvel, saying Captain Marvel was a rip off of Superman, so Marvel made him a woman.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Captain-Marvel-a-boy-in-the-comics-but-is-a-girl-in-the-movies
Pfft. How many characters do Marvel and DC have that are copies of each other? Deathstroke, Deadpool. Green Arrow, Hawk Eye. This isn't the first time this happened. Ironically, Captain Marvel was originally a DC comic character, but they went without using them for so long that they lost ownership of the name, allowing Marvel to take it.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 18, 2018, 07:27:20 PM
Pfft. How many characters do Marvel and DC have that are copies of each other? Deathstroke, Deadpool. Green Arrow, Hawk Eye. This isn't the first time this happened. Ironically, Captain Marvel was originally a DC comic character, but they went without using them for so long that they lost ownership of the name, allowing Marvel to take it.
How about Dead Eye and Greek Hawk? ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 18, 2018, 07:27:20 PM
Pfft. How many characters do Marvel and DC have that are copies of each other? Deathstroke, Deadpool. Green Arrow, Hawk Eye. This isn't the first time this happened. Ironically, Captain Marvel was originally a DC comic character, but they went without using them for so long that they lost ownership of the name, allowing Marvel to take it.
That suit did sound like a chicken shit move on DC's part.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 18, 2018, 05:52:06 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BCujX3pw8
I thought it was clever that she fell to Earth and crashed the through roof of a Blockbuster Video store. Typical Marvel ("Here I am, Earthlings... in the movies").
I thought ... Blockbuster Video Store ... how will younger people relate, who only know streaming?
Quote from: SGOS on September 18, 2018, 08:24:28 PM
I thought it was clever that she fell to Earth and crashed the through roof of a Blockbuster Video store.
I thought that was a nice touch. 1) It establishes that this is the past without the stupid and overused trope of looking at a newspaper. 2) It pokes fun at Blockbuster's collapse. 3) It makes good use of cheap, abandoned Blockbuster real estate.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/12/soon-there-only-one-blockbuster-video-store-left-u-s/781653002/
When I was a kid, it seemed like everything was permanent and a Snickers Bar would always be 5 cents. As I got older, I was surprised by how much things do change. But the last three decades have been phenomenal. Financial empires are built and then crash in a spans often less than 20 years.
I don't know how much it costs to rent a movie at that last Blockbuster store today, but 30 years ago, a new movie just out on VHS rented for $5 for one night. Then came Netflix, and if you watched a movie the day you got it in the mail and took it back to post office before the evening's mail was sent out, you would have another in two days. Turn them around fast and the rental could be just over $1, and they drove all those Mom and Pop video stores out of business by renting movies at one fifth of the price. And the behemoth Blockbuster is down to one store. Netflix still rents disks, but only because no one would buy the business when they tried to unload the thing. If you want to rent disks at Redbox it's $1.50, but it's limited to recent releases, and I wonder how long they're going to last.
Newspapers, magazines, Circuit City, and an infinite number of dot.com ventures rose and fell like rocket misfires. The latest generation doesn't know how awkward it is to adjust after a life in the slow zone. It's almost like having an attention span is no longer an asset. I took typing classes in high school. Now most everyone types with their thumbs on a smart phone. It would drive my typing teacher crazy. If it gets any faster, I'm throwin' in the towel. :-|
Eh, things change, things stay the same.
Sure, things happen at a relentless pace, though how much of that is worth keeping track of? Filter out the garbage and you're back to a more manageable pace.
Most of the big businesses and their products are still around, just with shiny new labels on the same old thing (https://m.wsj.net/video/20110525/052511hubamlabels1/052511hubamlabels1_640x360.jpg).
There are a lot of new gadgets and services, thanks to the rapid proliferation of both data (information) and networks (the ability to access data). But imho, new features (and headaches) just replace old ones, so the psychological burden is more or less the same - you don't have to unplug the phone to access the internet, but now you have to deal with an endless stream of notifications (our privacy policy has changed)
But even in this new digital age, most of the BS we deal with on a daily basis is the same stuff that we dealt with decades ago, just slightly different.
Quote from: trdsf on September 16, 2018, 10:00:08 AM
My ex had been a film major, and thanks to him I understand why Kane is the big deal it is. Yes, it looks like thousands of other movies from the 40s... but it was the first to look like that, and virtually re-invented moviemaking the same way Cabiria had in 1914 (from which D.W. Griffith drew his moviemaking style).
Side note on Cabiria -- there's something almost unnerving about seeing a vintage silent film with nearly modern camerawork. The story is mundane, but the cinematography is fifteen or twenty years ahead of its time.
I might recommend watching Citizen Kane with a commentary track -- the best one I know of was done by Roger Ebert.
Come to think of it, I've never sat down and watched Casablanca all the way through. I really should correct that.
I don't care about Citizen Kane because I don't give a damn about modern society movies. I am interested in the farther past and the future. The Present is both boring and unimportant. Here today, gone tomorrow.
Quote from: SGOS on September 18, 2018, 11:22:51 PM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/12/soon-there-only-one-blockbuster-video-store-left-u-s/781653002/
When I was a kid, it seemed like everything was permanent and a Snickers Bar would always be 5 cents. As I got older, I was surprised by how much things do change. But the last three decades have been phenomenal. Financial empires are built and then crash in a spans often less than 20 years.
I don't know how much it costs to rent a movie at that last Blockbuster store today, but 30 years ago, a new movie just out on VHS rented for $5 for one night. Then came Netflix, and if you watched a movie the day you got it in the mail and took it back to post office before the evening's mail was sent out, you would have another in two days. Turn them around fast and the rental could be just over $1, and they drove all those Mom and Pop video stores out of business by renting movies at one fifth of the price. And the behemoth Blockbuster is down to one store. Netflix still rents disks, but only because no one would buy the business when they tried to unload the thing. If you want to rent disks at Redbox it's $1.50, but it's limited to recent releases, and I wonder how long they're going to last.
Newspapers, magazines, Circuit City, and an infinite number of dot.com ventures rose and fell like rocket misfires. The latest generation doesn't know how awkward it is to adjust after a life in the slow zone. It's almost like having an attention span is no longer an asset. I took typing classes in high school. Now most everyone types with their thumbs on a smart phone. It would drive my typing teacher crazy. If it gets any faster, I'm throwin' in the towel. :-|
I was never part of the rent world anyway. The only VHS I ever rented was for a college course in the early 90s (Indochine). I don't have Netflix or HBO, or any other special viewing arrangements. If they all disappeared tomorrow, it would just mean they showed up on my regular cable channels sooner. Its all a scam.
I don't have a smart phone, I don't even have a cell phone. I have a computer. But even then, I've never twitted or instagrammed. I've never facebooked. And yet somehow, here I am a thoughtful human being... Shocking.
I mostly agree with you on newer technology. It has all gone downhill since the 4-function calculator ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 18, 2018, 07:27:20 PM
Pfft. How many characters do Marvel and DC have that are copies of each other? Deathstroke, Deadpool. Green Arrow, Hawk Eye. This isn't the first time this happened. Ironically, Captain Marvel was originally a DC comic character, but they went without using them for so long that they lost ownership of the name, allowing Marvel to take it.
Aaaaactually... Captain Marvel was originally a Fawcett Comics title and for a time in the 1940s was even more popular than Superman, but DC sued Fawcett for copyright infringement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Comics_Publications,_Inc._v._Fawcett_Publications,_Inc.) (at the same time, DC was stealing Dr. Sivana from Fawcett and renaming him Lex Luthor, and Superman didn't fly until after Captain Marvel did) and eventually drove them out of the comics business. They only later licensed Captain Marvel from what was left of Fawcett, in the early 1970s, after Marvel had created their own (quite different) Captain Marvel, and didn't actually purchase the character until 1991.
(https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1519402726-20180223.png)
Quote from: trdsf on September 19, 2018, 01:17:34 PM
Aaaaactually... Captain Marvel was originally a Fawcett Comics title and for a time in the 1940s was even more popular than Superman, but DC sued Fawcett for copyright infringement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Comics_Publications,_Inc._v._Fawcett_Publications,_Inc.) (at the same time, DC was stealing Dr. Sivana from Fawcett and renaming him Lex Luthor, and Superman didn't fly until after Captain Marvel did) and eventually drove them out of the comics business. They only later licensed Captain Marvel from what was left of Fawcett, in the early 1970s, after Marvel had created their own (quite different) Captain Marvel, and didn't actually purchase the character until 1991.
Rule #1 Never risk creating a new character if you can copy a successful one.
Rule #2 Steal a concept. Stan Lee saw a copy of Justice League and said to his producers. I want a TEAM by Monday. FF...
Halo Legends was awesome
8/10
It made me cry and laugh and many can do that.
Synchronicity 2015 ?/10
This is harder to follow than Predestination. I gave up trying to figure out both on my own, so I googled for help. I understand Predestination now, buy I'm still lost with Synchronicity, even with the help. Maybe a few more watches and I'll get it. These time travel flicks can get pretty complicated.
Edit: Synchronicity is technically not time travel. It's interdimensional travel, but it first appears to be time travel.
Here's someone who doesn't get enough credit.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/726499314684559360/RveU3dxs_400x400.jpg)
Javier Botet, a guy born in Ciudad Real (in spain), was at age 5 diagnosed with the condition Marfan syndrome, which is "a genetic disorder of the connective tissue. The degree to which people are affected varies. People with Marfan tend to be tall, and thin, with long arms, legs, fingers, and toes. They also typically have flexible joints and scoliosis"
(https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/scale_crop_768_433/2017/07/thr_20170709_0490_splash_botet.jpg)
(https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/2017/07/thr_20170709_0589_embed.jpg)
But instead of living with the fact he had this condiction in a negative way, he used it to become a film star of sorts.
He played the main creature in the movie mama, the monster in Rec, the crocked man in the conjuring 2, a ghoul in crimson leak, and recently slenderman.
(https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aNAW9xw_700bwp.webp)
(https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/2017/07/botet_crimson_peak_embed.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dm-w3czV4AI45xY.jpg)
(https://filmyfantastyczne.pl/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Rec-Mama-aktor-zdjecia.jpg)
He pretty much took his condition, and made full use of it for horror, making a career from some of the recent horror movies out there.
Guy deserves recognition, as much as they do for andy serkis
Quote from: Munch on September 22, 2018, 09:35:07 AM
Here's someone who doesn't get enough credit.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/726499314684559360/RveU3dxs_400x400.jpg)
Javier Botet, a guy born in Ciudad Real (in spain), was at age 5 diagnosed with the condition Marfan syndrome, which is "a genetic disorder of the connective tissue. The degree to which people are affected varies. People with Marfan tend to be tall, and thin, with long arms, legs, fingers, and toes. They also typically have flexible joints and scoliosis"
(https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/scale_crop_768_433/2017/07/thr_20170709_0490_splash_botet.jpg)
(https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/2017/07/thr_20170709_0589_embed.jpg)
But instead of living with the fact he had this condiction in a negative way, he used it to become a film star of sorts.
He played the main creature in the movie mama, the monster in Rec, the crocked man in the conjuring 2, a ghoul in crimson leak, and recently slenderman.
(https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aNAW9xw_700bwp.webp)
(https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/2017/07/botet_crimson_peak_embed.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dm-w3czV4AI45xY.jpg)
(https://filmyfantastyczne.pl/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Rec-Mama-aktor-zdjecia.jpg)
He pretty much took his condition, and made full use of it for horror, making a career from some of the recent horror movies out there.
Guy deserves recognition, as much as they do for andy serkis
Use what you've got and go with it!
sigh.. looks like my hopes were short lived.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7wqxq2gLpA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo_HeVXHJiA
Now the argument could be made its just fans hyping up and over reacting to something someone did, like making the remark that she should try smiling and how people blew up at this.
However the main actress playing her, Brie Larson, took offense to that too and posted a load of creepy smiling faces for pre existing marvel movies, making a mountain out of a mole hill since the characters in those movies actually do smile.
Also, this was ms marvel from the 90s.
(https://i0.wp.com/nerdbastards.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ms-marvel.jpg)
and this was same character, as captain marvel recently.
(http://cdn1.sciencefiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/mar-vell-captain-marvel.jpg)
and even though the latter came from sjw marvel, the character could still smile, which made sense, because the character is suppose to be a powerhouse, so having a cocky grin made sense.
instead, the movie trailers so far shown a wooden faced actress, and the magazines are playing up 'STRNGETH OF WAMAN!', something they surprisingly didn't need to do for wonder woman.
De hel van Tanger.
Translated: The hell of Tangier.
Another belgian film. I've been seeing a lot of those it occurs to me.
Two busdrivers for tourist-trips are made to transport half a bus of moroccans from antwerp to Tangier, Morocco. What they don't know is that it is a set-up. Their boss, allong for The trip, has 355 kilograms of drugs, i forget which kind, hidden on The bus on the way back.
The three of them wind up in jail, in horendous conditions. What follows is years of The protagonist in declining health without any care amongst crooked abusive guards, torture, corrupt lawyers and judges and impassive bureaucrats. The belgian government also fails to act and it takes 2 years and three months before The lead is eventually, and without any given reason, released.
Based on a true story. And it Happened less than 25 years ago. The man The lead portrayed never fully recovered and died in 2007. For this movie, The lead had to lose 35 kilograms and then regain it bit by bit as they shot The movie backwards.
Now that's dedication in an actor.
Real good film. I praise and recommend it fullheartedly.
Quote from: Munch on September 24, 2018, 08:19:20 AMinstead, the movie trailers so far shown a wooden faced actress
Yes, in the approximately 10 seconds we see her face in the trailer, she's not smiling. And?
Quotethe magazines are playing up 'STRNGETH OF WAMAN!', something they surprisingly didn't need to do for wonder woman.
I'm pretty sure they did that for Wonder Woman, too. Ether way, who gives a crap about what these people say?
I mean, the movie hasn't come out yet and you're already gearing up to hate it and treat it as SJW propaganda...like you do with a lot of movies now. Don't you get tired of these tempests in a teacup? Don't other people get tired of these petty political spats, too? Remember when we could watch a superhero movie, and not politicize the hell out of it? Wouldn't that be nice for a change?
"Won't You Be My Neighbor? 9/10
Nostalgic yet timely documentary about Fred Rogers. His focus on love, kindness, and sincerity was countercultural then but seems even more radical today. Very moving and well done.
https://youtu.be/FhwktRDG_aQ
Quote from: GSOgymrat on September 25, 2018, 08:31:17 AM
"Won't You Be My Neighbor? 9/10
Nostalgic yet timely documentary about Fred Rogers. His focus on love, kindness, and sincerity was countercultural then but seems even more radical today. Very moving and well done.
You know those tall votive candles? Local place (https://shopglean.com/) makes one with him on it as the 'Patron Saint of Make Believe'.
I bought one. :)
Edit: Added a link to the above-mentioned 'local place'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3jsfXDZLIY
She aren't no Julie Andrews, but I'll give them credit for having actual classic animation like the original.
House With a Clock in the Wall: Adults: 2/10 Children 8/10
I went to this thinking it was something different. I started thinking I may have made a mistake when all the coming attractions were those Pixel Cartoon Characters, and not very bright ones either, with klutzy monsters and the like. I stayed for an hour and left. There are children's movies that I enjoy, maybe 1 out of 5 are geared to please adults along with children. Little kids might like this however. I was bored. It had a very capable cast with Jack Black and Cate Blanchett.
I admit, I was hard up for a movie. I haven't been to the theater for two weeks. Sometimes I'm happily surprised when I go under these conditions. Sometimes not.
Halo: Fall of Reach - 6/10
Nothing too special, probably because I haven't played the Halo games.
Watched Geostorm yesterday. I was hesitant because of the bad reviews, but my grandmother talked me into it.
It's... actually really good, a solid 9/10 thriller. Legitimately had me on the edge of my seat trying to figure out who the real bad guys were. Not sure why it got such horrible reviews.
I watched the last five minutes, saved me lots of time.
The Catcher was a Spy 8/10
Here's another movie that most people didn't like, with 34% from Critics and not much more from audiences. Most criticism seems to be that it lacks depth. I'm not sure what that means. As a spy movie, I think it isn't what the fan base is looking for. Specifically, not enough killing. The fighting is secondary to the plot. It's in WWII Germany, so the troops are killing enough, but as a spy, Paul Rudd's character probably doesn't do enough killing to satisfy the viewers. It's also possible that it's not a very good movie, but I strongly disagree. I will agree that it lacks the action and violence in the typical spy flick (think Tom Cruise), but I was unusually engrossed the entire time. The ending is not what I expected because I didn't know enough history about the German scientist, Heisenberg. I know what he's known for, but before the movie, I never even knew he was heading up the Nazi nuclear bomb team. Part of the reason for the lack of depth is that Mo Berg (Rudd) is presented as an enigma, much of it revolving around his sexual identity, which seemed like an unimportant part to play up, as that had little to do with the plot. I'll watch it again though. I liked it a lot.
Quote from: SGOS on October 04, 2018, 01:09:28 PM
The Catcher was a Spy 8/10
Here's another movie that most people didn't like, with 34% from Critics and not much more from audiences. Most criticism seems to be that it lacks depth. I'm not sure what that means. As a spy movie, I think it isn't what the fan base is looking for. Specifically, not enough killing. The fighting is secondary to the plot. It's in WWII Germany, so the troops are killing enough, but as a spy, Paul Rudd's character probably doesn't do enough killing to satisfy the viewers. It's also possible that it's not a very good movie, but I strongly disagree. I will agree that it lacks the action and violence in the typical spy flick (think Tom Cruise), but I was unusually engrossed the entire time. The ending is not what I expected because I didn't know enough history about the German scientist, Heisenberg. I know what he's known for, but before the movie, I never even knew he was heading up the Nazi nuclear bomb team. Part of the reason for the lack of depth is that Mo Berg (Rudd) is presented as an enigma, much of revolving around his sexual identity, which seemed like an unimportant part to play up, as that had little to do with the plot. I'll watch it again though. I liked it a lot.
Will have to see a preview. The first book on the Nazi nuclear program came out in the 70s. At one point, Bill Donovan (OSS) suggested assassinating Heisenberg. Turns out, having an egg head in charge damages the practicality of whatever you are doing. You need engineers.
Daniel Craig (007) plays Heisenberg ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLtnXlgMJ9w
Later, Heisenberg tried to recruit Bohr to the Nazi cause.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya8kpniGINw
Bohr escaped to the Manhattan Project shortly afterward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41jWIRsfAdQ
The Japanese had a nuclear program too.
Supposedly Heisenberg showed Bohr a sketch of the initial design of the Nazi nuclear reactor.
Heroes of Telemark (movie) and Real Heroes of Telemark (documentary) ... is how that design was delayed.
Ex Machina
Sinister and uncomfortable all the way through.
In the best way possible.
Might be in my top twenty movies, just for the atmosphere and themes tackled. But I'll have to let the experience sink in.
Might be top 50 instead.
Still high though. Sure I've seen hundreds and hundreds of films.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 05, 2018, 05:05:46 PM
Ex Machina
Sinister and uncomfortable all the way through.
In the best way possible.
Might be in my top twenty movies, just for the atmosphere and themes tackled. But I'll have to let the experience sink in.
Might be top 50 instead.
Still high though. Sure I've seen hundreds and hundreds of films.
It's high on my list too. Great film, even after watching it 6 or 7 times.
given my often lack of money for anything extra or special one week to the next, I only really go to the cinema maybe once a month these days, so the movies I want to see always have to be something special I'm looking forward to.
This is why when I see a movie coming soon I consider if it might be good or not, I wait for the rating to come out first for the film, I've never been someone so excited to see a movie the moment its released that I'll get down to the cinema on first screening, I might even wait a week or two to see it, just to avoid heavy crowds.
This is how I felt about when they were advertising Venom. Now I've always kinda liked Venom, the character in the comics, though I always prefered him as the anti hero more then a villain to spiderman.
(http://i.imgur.com/MTsbYbg.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/vo8MBjd.jpg)
I brought several comics from when he was this anti hero type from the 90s.
This is why the idea of the movie being more along those lines appealed to me, since instead of being a spiderman villain (like the awful interpretation in spiderman 3), but one focused on bringing the real venom to life on the screen. This is why I waited for reviews to come out, intent to go see it..
and the reviews came out, and it looks like a real mess and one I wouldn't want to waste my money on, sad.
This is the best review I've seen on it.
https://youtu.be/AiEbygBiyCc
I mean some of the action sequences look okay, but the tones just off for everything else. I'm not convinced thats Eddie Brock, its just some tramp off the street the symbiote bounded to, and from whats being said the tone can't decide between dark and gritty, or goofy and comical.
I think, if they included spiderman in it, not as a major character but a prop for venom to play off of, like being the reason why Eddies down on his luck and moved away from new york, I dunno, maybe that might have worked?
Blade... very good movie, actually. First time seeing.
Certainly not a superhero though.
blade played off the whole vampire craze at the time, seemed the right time to introduce him, and the movie was fine.
they could have played off marvels more darker elements such as blade, ghostrider, morbius, werewolf by night and Daimon Hellstrom, but then most of the marvel movies were all hit or miss in that era.
Quote from: Munch on October 06, 2018, 09:38:09 PM
blade played off the whole vampire craze at the time, seemed the right time to introduce him, and the movie was fine.
they could have played off marvels more darker elements such as blade, ghostrider, morbius, werewolf by night and Daimon Hellstrom, but then most of the marvel movies were all hit or miss in that era.
Liked Blade. Liked Blade III, the ensemble worked well together, and Daniel Craig just did Daniel Craig. Can't complain about that.
Ghost Rider could have been cool if they had tried. The second one just sucked.
Quote from: Munch on October 06, 2018, 09:38:09 PM
blade played off the whole vampire craze at the time, seemed the right time to introduce him, and the movie was fine.
they could have played off marvels more darker elements such as blade, ghostrider, morbius, werewolf by night and Daimon Hellstrom, but then most of the marvel movies were all hit or miss in that era.
It is weird to think that before Iron Man I, comic book movies were *almost* universally... meh to bad. Now they are the top movies in the world.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 06, 2018, 09:42:43 PM
It is weird to think that before Iron Man I, comic book movies were *almost* universally... meh to bad. Now they are the top movies in the world.
I dunno, before blade marvel didn't have much to showcase itself, but DC held itself up on the first superman movie back in 1978, and tim burtons batman 1 and 2 in 89 and 92, and they were regarded enough as good movies.
Marvel hit it big with the first x-men and spiderman movies, but I think their quality jumped even more with X2 and spiderman 2. There was a lot of crappy moves and sequals too like x3 and spiderman 3 ang lees Hulk and the wolverine, but since they hit a high with x2 and spiderman 2, it was only 4 years after spiderman 2 ironman came out.
So they did have good products here and their, it just wasn't held within a well put together shared universe till then.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 06, 2018, 09:42:43 PM
It is weird to think that before Iron Man I, comic book movies were *almost* universally... meh to bad. Now they are the top movies in the world.
My theory is that budgets and creative control were the main things holding them back. Plus, a lot of stuff would be difficult to pull off without CGI and motion capture, and those things have only become well developed in the past decade or so.
No idea why there hasn't already been a Black Window spy movie - no aliens or powers, just martial arts and guns - that'd be relatively easy to shoot.
Venom
So I went into it with very low expectations thanks to both bad reviews from critics and bad reviews from friends who had seen it...
Frankly, I don't know what the hell they are talking about. I thought it was a really good movie, the comedy landed and had the theatre laughing, the action was solid and engaging, the story never really had any moments where I was like, "Can you PLEASE hurry the fuck up?"... yeah, there was nothing really to criticise the movie about for me.
Could it have been better? Yeah, definitely. But in terms of just a fun action movie... it was exactly what it was.
One criticism I have seen is that it tried to blend comedy and seriousness, which people didn't like... but it's a Venom movie. Venom exists in the world of Spiderman, and you are expecting it to not have comedy? Really?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1FGxb2YlnY
This was really good. While I'm not the biggest DC comic fan, I grew up on batman in some capacity, the early tv shows on reruns, and the animated series in the 90s, which to me is still one of the best interpretations of batman ever, so given that, some graphic novels and other interpretations in animated movies, it just pisses me off how someone like zack snyder doesn't get that about batmans character.
Unless you have a clever and thought out reason to subvert a core aspect to the characters personality, like in this case batmans no kill rule that he's stood by in the animated shows, movies and comics, then unless you can do it well, its just going to come off like you don't give a shit about these core principles, which snyder clearly didn't.
And yeah, even though the tim burton movies where fun, he fucked that rule up too. I guess the only difference is when he made his movies, batman was still coming into his own in the public space, and only dedicated comic book readers back in the 80s understood that rule then, but thats no excuse now. it doesn't take much to sit down and watch several shows about batman to get why he doesn't kill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgW7pBKcU4k
funny how animated shows and movies have better characterization then live action movies.
Quote from: Munch on October 07, 2018, 08:54:37 PMUnless you have a clever and thought out reason to subvert a core aspect to the characters personality, like in this case batmans no kill rule that he's stood by in the animated shows, movies and comics, then unless you can do it well, its just going to come off like you don't give a shit about these core principles, which snyder clearly didn't.
And yeah, even though the tim burton movies where fun, he fucked that rule up too. I guess the only difference is when he made his movies, batman was still coming into his own in the public space, and only dedicated comic book readers back in the 80s understood that rule then, but thats no excuse now. it doesn't take much to sit down and watch several shows about batman to get why he doesn't kill.
I'm not super into DC or Batman, either. But I don't think that rule's as ironclad as it's made out to be. Batman has killed people in the comics. Not very often, but it happens.
(https://imgix.ranker.com/user_node_img/50075/1001485935/original/the-monster-man-hangs-photo-u1?w=650&q=50&fm=jpg&fit=crop&crop=faces)
I'm also pretty sure that when it comes to godlike enemies that can't reasonably be imprisoned or reformed (like Darkseid) Batman absolutely would kill.
(https://pm1.narvii.com/6857/36f4ce74b2d484cd75385f6ed02c81d2095adee9v2_hq.jpg)
well like in the video its explained, the silver age batman did, but that was the silver age, before the writers cemented his character.
As for the darkseid moment, far as I read about it, he shot darksied to get him to fire his omega beam, that by plot would have him absorb the energy and redirect it at darkseid to beat him down? The writers made him break the one rule he had, but he also didn't kill darkseid while breaking it, so they probably think its okay.
I don't agree with that choices in writing but he still didn't kill him.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 07, 2018, 08:31:36 PM
Venom
So I went into it with very low expectations thanks to both bad reviews from critics and bad reviews from friends who had seen it...
Frankly, I don't know what the hell they are talking about. I thought it was a really good movie, the comedy landed and had the theatre laughing, the action was solid and engaging, the story never really had any moments where I was like, "Can you PLEASE hurry the fuck up?"... yeah, there was nothing really to criticise the movie about for me.
Could it have been better? Yeah, definitely. But in terms of just a fun action movie... it was exactly what it was.
One criticism I have seen is that it tried to blend comedy and seriousness, which people didn't like... but it's a Venom movie. Venom exists in the world of Spiderman, and you are expecting it to not have comedy? Really?
I just got back from the theater, and I went in and came out with exactly your impression. It's a good movie. My theater was laughing too. I guess it's a Marvel Character, but it doesn't have the signature opening that resembles flipping through the pages of comic books. Not sure why it's not part of the Marvel Universe. 9/10
Guess I'll give it a look at when it's out to buy, or download for cheaper.
Best Line in a Trailer in a Long Time
The coming attraction starts out with the camera panning around a medical supply room filled with strap down tables, vials, bottles of pills and surgical supplies, and then to an interview with a woman in a white coat. She explains, "I'm Dr. Martha Abbot (can't remember her name). This is the Bla Bla Pine Hurst (can't remember the name) high security Psychiatric Hospital. I deal exclusively with special patients that pose high risks to themselves and others who believe they are superheroes."
The rest of the preview shows a powerful cast including Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson, and sort of implies that some of the patients will turn out to be actual super heroes. It's due out in January. I think the name of the film might be Mister Glass.
Quote from: SGOS on October 09, 2018, 04:42:37 PM
Best Line in a Trailer in a Long Time
The coming attraction starts out with the camera panning around a medical supply room filled with strap down tables, vials, bottles of pills and surgical supplies, and then to an interview with a woman in a white coat. She explains, "I'm Dr. Martha Abbot (can't remember her name). This is the Bla Bla Pine Hurst (can't remember the name) high security Psychiatric Hospital. I deal exclusively with special patients that pose high risks to themselves and others who believe they are superheroes."
The rest of the preview shows a powerful cast including Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson, and sort of implies that some of the patients will turn out to be actual super heroes. It's due out in January. I think the name of the film might be Mister Glass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq8x1Ps2pdw
Glass ... Bruce Willis is doing lots of movies right now ...
Air Strike ... Bruce Willis again, redoing a John Wayne movie (Flying Tigers) ... the US aiding the Chinese against the Japanese.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiJjMggOUu8
Looks interesting.
Quote from: Munch on October 09, 2018, 04:37:34 PM
Guess I'll give it a look at when it's out to buy, or download for cheaper.
I think you will like it. The critics trashed it at 31%, but I decided to see it, because audiences were giving it an 89%, and it's box office take was twice as high as A Star is Born, which is this weeks favorite of the critics. Ordinarily, I like romantic films, even though they are all cliché, but the previews of A Star is Born seemed like it might be an over the top cliché. I'll wait until the DVD comes out unless nothing appealing shows up at the theater for the next three weeks, or I start hearing that it's a must see from viewers.
For Shiranu ... real life isn't like a movie, let alone a good movie. Sorry, I wish it was too.
Quote from: SGOS on October 09, 2018, 07:39:52 PM
I think you will like it. The critics trashed it at 31%, but I decided to see it, because audiences were giving it an 89%, and it's box office take was twice as high as A Star is Born, which is this weeks favorite of the critics. Ordinarily, I like romantic films, even though they are all cliché, but the previews of A Star is Born seemed like it might be an over the top cliché. I'll wait until the DVD comes out unless nothing appealing shows up at the theater for the next three weeks, or I start hearing that it's a must see from viewers.
thing is I'm a comic book fan fro the 80s and 80s, and liked how venom was in that time, so will have those kind of expectations going in. Maybe this was more designed for audiences not as subscribed long time to the characters as that, which isn't a bad thing they can't just make movies to appeal to comic fans alone since its not that huge a market. But yeah, I know what I'd have hoped for venom, so I'll try and go in neutral as I can.
For a Venom film, I would've liked to see Spidey. Or at least JJ. What little I saw in the trailer didn't impress me.
Sometime in the future, after Marvel really integrates Spider-Man and co into the MCU, I would love to see Maximum Carnage.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 09, 2018, 10:49:23 PM
For a Venom film, I would've liked to see Spidey. Or at least JJ. What little I saw in the trailer didn't impress me.
I agree. They couldn't have made a more uninteresting trailer.
Quote from: Munch on October 09, 2018, 08:59:12 PM
thing is I'm a comic book fan fro the 80s and 80s, and liked how venom was in that time, so will have those kind of expectations going in. Maybe this was more designed for audiences not as subscribed long time to the characters as that, which isn't a bad thing they can't just make movies to appeal to comic fans alone since its not that huge a market. But yeah, I know what I'd have hoped for venom, so I'll try and go in neutral as I can.
Hollywood seldom reproduces the source material as it was. Usually, they change the story, even when it's biographical. So is there some repeating alteration they tend to make with comics, or are they just using the name, and inventing something different. Is it ever better than the original? At least in some ways?
Quote from: SGOS on October 09, 2018, 11:00:14 PM
Hollywood seldom reproduces the source material as it was. Usually, they change the story, even when it's biographical. So is there some repeating alteration they tend to make with comics, or are they just using the name, and inventing something different. Is it ever better than the original? At least in some ways?
The uniforms are almost right...
Quote from: Shiranu on October 07, 2018, 08:31:36 PM
Venom
So I went into it with very low expectations thanks to both bad reviews from critics and bad reviews from friends who had seen it...
Frankly, I don't know what the hell they are talking about. I thought it was a really good movie, the comedy landed and had the theatre laughing, the action was solid and engaging, the story never really had any moments where I was like, "Can you PLEASE hurry the fuck up?"... yeah, there was nothing really to criticise the movie about for me.
Could it have been better? Yeah, definitely. But in terms of just a fun action movie... it was exactly what it was.
One criticism I have seen is that it tried to blend comedy and seriousness, which people didn't like... but it's a Venom movie. Venom exists in the world of Spiderman, and you are expecting it to not have comedy? Really?
Eating yip-yip dogs is always a win.
And it's a comic book movie. As such I enjoyed it. The Elon Musk substitute was worth a chuckle.
Geostorm - 8/10
I expected something in line with The Day After Tomorrow, but it was a surprisingly good sci-fi-ish thriller, although the sci-fi and all the weather is more of the backdrop to the story, not the main plot.
Quote from: Sal1981 on October 11, 2018, 05:58:59 PM
Geostorm - 8/10
I expected something in line with The Day After Tomorrow, but it was a surprisingly good sci-fi-ish thriller, although the sci-fi and all the weather is more of the backdrop to the story, not the main plot.
Exercise in fictional hubris. Unfortunately hubris itself is real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y47w0jNW90E&t=910s
This was a really good video.
I hadn't seen the greatest showman. I love Hugh Jackman, he's one of my two 5 favorite actors both in movies and on stage, so when I first heard of the movie and saw the previews of it I thought this is so up his street of being stage performer. It got good reviews and most people loved it.
But I hadn't seen it at the cinema (due to cost at the time) and expected to get it on blueray.
However after seeing this video, and knowing the truth about what H.P Barnam was really like, I just can't. Infact now I'm questioning how people working on this movie, including its main actors, didn't stop and ask, isn't this portrayal of Barman and his circus completely disingenuous.
What about the fact he kept a black slave and made her perform until she was in her 70s and when she died he performed an autopsy on her? Wheres the story of how he tortured animals to keep them in line? Why doesn't the movie according to critics give genuine portrayals of the sideshow freaks that Barman owned, including children snatched away from their parents? And yet it portrays then none freaks like barman himself, his family and 'nice looking' performers as the central focus?
Instead they made a movie giving a sympathetic light to a man who didn't deserve it. And claiming its all for spectacle for movie goers just doesn't absolve their choice to do so. If they made a movie about humanizing Adolf Hitler, people today would be up in arms over it. Yet for some people in an age of information with the internet at your fingers, people dismiss the facts about P.T Barnam and how he treated people and animals?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiCyXpDsk5M
There was a docudrama that did a better job 30 years ago ... 1986. He invented the "congress of the press" aka "press conference". Reinventing himself more than once. Hocum of course, but you pay your ticket, and that is what you get.
P T Barnum making news 200 years after he was born ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeM7RtCphOU
P T Barnum's daughter, at one time, owned a land development outside of Denver Colorado, back in the late 19th century. The church I was married in is a few blocks from that subdivision.
The "Everything Wrong With" folks obviously don't watch a movie more than once.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 13, 2018, 09:42:41 PM
The "Everything Wrong With" folks obviously don't watch a movie more than once.
Why would a critic do that? Like the misquoted "Mikey", they hate everything.
Star Wars 10. Darth, Luke, and Leia all join into one being "Dukal" (a vaguely disturbing thought) and become the Being Star Trek finds in 'Star Trek Finds God'. The particles of the destroyed Being unify (in Innocence Of Purity) to become Eru Ilúvatar leading to Tolkien's Middle Earth world, which leads to that galaxy "Far Far Away".
I considered deleting this but hey, its KIND of funny. And Hollywood MIGHT go for it...
I don't watch enough new movies...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 14, 2018, 03:21:36 PM
Star Wars 10. Darth, Luke, and Leia all join into one being "Dukal" (a vaguely disturbing thought) and become the Being Star Trek finds in 'Star Trek Finds God'. The particles of the destroyed Being unify (in Innocence Of Purity) to become Eru Ilúvatar leading to Tolkien's Middle Earth world, which leads to that galaxy "Far Far Away".
I considered deleting this but hey, its KIND of funny. And Hollywood MIGHT go for it...
I don't watch enough new movies...
you know, your starting to sound a little like Baruch in that description.
Going to see "First Man" today.
Quote from: Munch on October 14, 2018, 03:24:57 PM
you know, your starting to sound a little like Baruch in that description.
Weak minds think alike...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 14, 2018, 03:38:46 PM
Going to see "First Man" today.
In spite of one, just one, deficiency, I hope you enjoy it ;-) Poor young people, they missed out on real history.
"First Man". Interesting back story for Neil Armstrong, details I've never heard before. Lots and lots of close-ups of everybody. Still, one of the rare movies where I didn't check my watch.
Blair Witch 2 - imho, the best bad movie
Once a year on October, I rewatch old horror films that captivated me as a kid.
Before I begin, I know this movie has been blasted by critics and fans alike. It certainly has a lot of flaws, not the least of which was substantial studio meddling - especially in terms of the rushed schedule and studio editing. But I think a lot of the flak is because it went a totally different route than the previous movie.
The director didn't want to do a rehash of the first film, but instead wanted to cast a critical eye on the interplay of mass media and mass hysteria - how a pop culture phenomenon sucks in a lot of people (some who aren't all that stable to begin with) and really messes with their heads to the point that there's a blurring of the line between fantasy and reality. That's right, the true horror of the Blair Witch is us.
If you're looking for psychological horror - characters' perceptions of reality are damaged, the group is plagued with unease and paranoia, and there's at least one plot twist - then you're in the right place. If you're looking for a thriller or slasher or Blair Witch redux, then keep looking.
One thing that I absolutely love about this film is that all five main characters are deeply damaged people, despite the facade of normalcy at the beginning. Also, the film starts out really bright and cheery but bit by bit, tensions escalate until some serious shit goes down, and then the big reveal just blasts all these characters away. It's so beautiful.
I also really love the delusions. A good portion of what happens in the film never happened in actuality.
For example, a character crashes the van. Just a minor fender-bender, no biggie. She drives back home that night. The next day, another character sees that it's practically totaled. (how'd she even drive it back?) And later we see that the van is perfectly intact. Which one is the truth? Do we have any way to tell?
Thankfully, the film helps us out by telling us that what has been filmed by the characters is 100% real and what the characters see and hear may or may not be the truth. Using that as the foundation, it's possible for theorists like moi to construct a narrative of what really happened. This is the main joy of the film - taking ambiguous data and constructing a plausible explanation that best fits the data.
And that brings me to the final strength of this film. I loved how the first movie was ambiguous about whether or not the witch is real - it puts it out there, but ultimately, it lets you draw your own conclusions. And my conclusion, the hill I'm willing to die on, is that there is no witch, no magic - that's just BS used as a smokescreen to deflect attention away from the real murderers - good ol' muggle humans. That's right, the "spooky" forest isn't what you should be afraid of - it's people you should be afraid of. Maybe even your friend. To me, that's way scarier than some ghost in the woods.
And to its credit, the second film has the exact same ambiguity. Is it supernatural or natural? Whodunit? And what the hell is up with that electrician? Find out! Tune in same bat time, same bat channel!
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 15, 2018, 01:08:02 AM
Blair Witch 2 - imho, the best bad movie
Once a year on October, I rewatch old horror films that captivated me as a kid.
Before I begin, I know this movie has been blasted by critics and fans alike. It certainly has a lot of flaws, not the least of which was substantial studio meddling - especially in terms of the rushed schedule and studio editing. But I think a lot of the flak is because it went a totally different route than the previous movie.
The director didn't want to do a rehash of the first film, but instead wanted to cast a critical eye on the interplay of mass media and mass hysteria - how a pop culture phenomenon sucks in a lot of people (some who aren't all that stable to begin with) and really messes with their heads to the point that there's a blurring of the line between fantasy and reality. That's right, the true horror of the Blair Witch is us.
If you're looking for psychological horror - characters' perceptions of reality are damaged, the group is plagued with unease and paranoia, and there's at least one plot twist - then you're in the right place. If you're looking for a thriller or slasher or Blair Witch redux, then keep looking.
One thing that I absolutely love about this film is that all five main characters are deeply damaged people, despite the facade of normalcy at the beginning. Also, the film starts out really bright and cheery but bit by bit, tensions escalate until some serious shit goes down, and then the big reveal just blasts all these characters away. It's so beautiful.
I also really love the delusions. A good portion of what happens in the film never happened in actuality.
For example, a character crashes the van. Just a minor fender-bender, no biggie. She drives back home that night. The next day, another character sees that it's practically totaled. (how'd she even drive it back?) And later we see that the van is perfectly intact. Which one is the truth? Do we have any way to tell?
Thankfully, the film helps us out by telling us that what has been filmed by the characters is 100% real and what the characters see and hear may or may not be the truth. Using that as the foundation, it's possible for theorists like moi to construct a narrative of what really happened. This is the main joy of the film - taking ambiguous data and constructing a plausible explanation that best fits the data.
And that brings me to the final strength of this film. I loved how the first movie was ambiguous about whether or not the witch is real - it puts it out there, but ultimately, it lets you draw your own conclusions. And my conclusion, the hill I'm willing to die on, is that there is no witch, no magic - that's just BS used as a smokescreen to deflect attention away from the real murderers - good ol' muggle humans. That's right, the "spooky" forest isn't what you should be afraid of - it's people you should be afraid of. Maybe even your friend. To me, that's way scarier than some ghost in the woods.
And to its credit, the second film has the exact same ambiguity. Is it supernatural or natural? Whodunit? And what the hell is up with that electrician? Find out! Tune in same bat time, same bat channel!
That's my conclusion of the first Blair Witch movie too. In fact, I think the two guys.
Tbh though, while I never interpreted it as the Blair Witch being real, the idea that the murderers were both the guys came from the film theorists.
I still remember the hype around Blair witch project, people throwing around that its a real event documented of these people going missing. The internet wasn't big then and they could spin it way easier to convince people. Of course it didn't take a second to realize if this was a real life thing of campers going missing they wouldn't be having the footage released to cinemas across the country.
I remember that when it came out, I wondered if there was any truth to it. There definitely was a lot of ambiguity about that on release. It certainly looked genuine and this was at a time when these Found Footage pseudo-documentaries weren't popular yet and video manipulation wasn't in widespread use among amateur filmmakers - so if you saw footage that looked real, it probably was.
It wasn't until a few days later when I looked into how it was produced that I realized that it was 100% fictitious.
I bought into the hype of The Blair Witch Project and enthusiastically enlisted a group of friends to see it. The movie was being shown at the small art house theater in Greensboro and I remember thinking it was a very adult audience for a horror flick. As we watched the movie my giddy anticipation quickly evaporated and was replaced by resentment. We were watching a couple of undergrad film school students who had gone out into the woods behind their house with Dad's camcorder and this was their B- semester project. I wasn't buying ANY aspect of this movie and I sensed no one else in the theater was either. The film broke part way through, someone loudly said "Thank God..." and people started laughing. About a third of the audience walked out. I stewed throughout the rest of the movie realizing I had fallen for a marketing stunt. When we left the theater, I was really embarrassed and apologetic and my friends were like "It's okay, you didn't know."
If I was younger and with a younger crowd, if I had come upon this movie without the hype, if I didn't feel responsible for other people's entertainment that night, I might have appreciated it. As with most things, when you have high expectation you are setting the stage for disappointment.
The only hype heard about Blair Witch 1, was that a bunch of kids made this movie and then sold it to Hollywood for a million dollars. I don't recall anything about the movie documenting actual murders, just that some kids who were slightly more creative than average, spent a few days playing "make a horror movie," and then sold the rights. As such, I gave them a tip of my hat. I've watched home movies taken by well meaning adults that were hopelessly pointless. So here's a bunch of friends that actually made an amateur movie that did manage to give me a minor experience of the creeps. I didn't see BW II, as it was missing the factor that kids made it, which was where the real interest was for me in the original.
Colette Keira Knightley
This just showed up at the theater midweek, and I wasn't that enthusiastic about seeing First Man (apparently a bad mistake). Colette did well with the critics, even though it doesn't even show up on "This Weeks New Movies" at Rotten Tomatoes. You have to type it in the search bar to read about it. I like Keira Knightley and this sounded like one of those delightful sleepers missed by the box office crowds, and I was intrigued. I left before the end. It wasn't a terrible movie. It's just that I've seen this ripped off plot before, and it was boring me to death.
I was at the university, last grade when The Blair Witch Project came to here. It exploded. Everyone was crazy about it. It was regarded as good, creative art. I think still is. They hype was that I think there wasn't anything like it before.
[spoiler]One of the best example of less is more. The whole deal is the amateur shooting, lack of any visual effects and so giving the feeling of the more realistic. Especially in the day (1999) when everything is about making better and better high tech effects to make it look real, it's actually brilliant to remove it alltogether to make it more real.
Especially in this genre it works. The first Paranormal Activity is based on the same idea. Not bad.
In the end there is no better effects than our own imagination,lol.[/spoiler]
I was thoroughly disgusted with the ending.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 17, 2018, 12:05:04 PM
I was thoroughly disgusted with the ending.
Oh I don't think this movie would actually work now though. It is something when you watch it in the big screen, when you don't know what's it all about and that it is a new idea. Other than that, you'd sleep through it,lol.
I think no movie released in the cinema today could active that sadly, but an independent film found online somewhere could have that impact if they refrain from showing any making of aspects or having any familiar faces in it.
Ever since "Cloverfield" I've avoided POV movies. They can't be anything more than painfully contrived.
Antman and the Wasp. I didn't think it was as good as the first one, but I get to watch it again now that it showed up at Redbox, and I can take a closer look. But that's not the real point of this post. New movies usually show up at Redbox on Tuesdays, but the Antman sequel showed up today (Friday) as a mid cycle release. But I'm still not at the real point yet.
I signed up at Redbox for the convenience it offers. I can browse the new arrivals, locate the boxes where they are available, and reserve them on line. So when I make the 20 mile trip to my nearest Redbox, the disk is there waiting for me to pick it up. This weekend, I got an additional promotion from Ole Red, as I often do; I get $1.25 off any one night rental, so it's costing me 59 cents after taxes to rent the Antman and the Wasp.
I know this sounds like an ad, but I don't intend it to. I'm just amazed at Redbox, because 15 years ago I might pay $5 to rent a new arrival at the video rental store. I know streaming is the thing these days, but my boondocks DSL connection doesn't provide the resolution I want on my projection system, and the sound isn't as good, especially in blu-ray. My cousin used to tell me Blu-ray and DVDs were a waste of money, but then he streamed stuff on a 32 inch TV, and for him, it was good enough. However, I do feel like an old fart sometimes, like I'm resisting the leap to smart phones, facebook, and streaming. Oh wait! I did make those leaps, but leaped back after those things left me unimpressed (different strokes for different folks).
Red Box must be doing something right if they're still in business. They also have new games for rental, so you can try one out to see if you're willing to pay full price for it.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 19, 2018, 10:07:39 AM
Red Box must be doing something right if they're still in business. They also have new games for rental, so you can try one out to see if you're willing to pay full price for it.
Yes, I wonder how long they will remain in business. I see a lot of people using it, and often have to wait a minute or two for someone else to get a movie out of the machine (or slide last nights back into the return slot). But the big money in home movie entertainment seems to be in streaming. But Redbox is used to making money with marginal ideas. They are a subsidiary of CoinStar. Have you ever seen anyone using a CoinStar machine? Have you ever even seen a CoinStar machine? They are handy, but I've only used one once.
I nearly used a coinstar once, then I realized the credit union would probably take 42 pounds of coins. No fee there.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 18, 2018, 06:26:21 AM
Ever since "Cloverfield" I've avoided POV movies. They can't be anything more than painfully contrived.
They can be good sometimes. I liked Hardcore Henry. But mostly, I think POV is best done with short films (<30 minutes).
Going to watch 'girl' a belgian movie in dutch about a boy who wants to become a ballerina and a girl.
Heavy topic for The end of The workweek, but hey, let's hope it's good.
In The cinema right now.
Offline for a few hours .
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 19, 2018, 10:50:31 AM
I nearly used a coinstar once, then I realized the credit union would probably take 42 pounds of coins. No fee there.
I can't remember what it charged me. It wasn't much. But I remember it being kind of fun dumping a bucket of coins in the machine, and then a lot of whirring and noise while it ate the coins, and then... Well, I can't remember if it spit out paper money, or gave me a coupon, or something else.
Coinstars are in all the Krogers around here. I always check them to see what's in the reject tray - I've gotten steel cents, silver dimes, all sorts of foreign coins that way.
Quote from: SGOS on October 19, 2018, 01:50:11 PM
I can't remember what it charged me. It wasn't much. But I remember it being kind of fun dumping a bucket of coins in the machine, and then a lot of whirring and noise while it ate the coins, and then... Well, I can't remember if it spit out paper money, or gave me a coupon, or something else.
Some of them give you a voucher to cash as the service desk.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 19, 2018, 03:52:09 PM
Some of them give you a voucher to cash as the service desk.
That may be how I got my money.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 19, 2018, 01:49:15 PM
Going to watch 'girl' a belgian movie in dutch about a boy who wants to become a ballerina and a girl.
Heavy topic for The end of The workweek, but hey, let's hope it's good.
In The cinema right now.
Offline for a few hours .
I want an equal number of "woke" movies where girls want to become boys ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on October 19, 2018, 06:32:58 PM
That may be how I got my money.
The system would save having to load paper money into the machines.
Quote from: trdsf on October 19, 2018, 03:20:16 PM
Coinstars are in all the Krogers around here. I always check them to see what's in the reject tray - I've gotten steel cents, silver dimes, all sorts of foreign coins that way.
Silver dimes? Yes, I suppose some are still around. Most have been taken out of circulation by hoarders. I bought a tub of "junk silver" one time just to see what kind of an investment it was. I bought quarters, but you can buy them assorted. They come through the Post Office in plastic tubs with "MACHINE PARTS" stamped all over the container. But when I went to pick them up the postal clerk said, "Oh, silver coins, huh?" Like it was some big secret.
I'm still befuddled about how worthless the money we use actually is. There is some value in copper pennies and I suppose also in nickels and dimes, but when you get into the big bills is just paper and ink. I've been told our money is backed by the US government so it actually has more value than the junk it's made out of. But is this the same government that controls inflation, lies to me, and redistributes my tax dollars to wealthy campaign donors? I'm still expecting it to collapse, and when it does there are going to be a lot of losers.
And if it is backed by the government, shouldn't I be able to trade my paper dollars in for something of value? I suppose they would just pay for it using the same garbage I was trying to get rid of. Or maybe some guy would say, "Here, you can have one of these savings bonds." Like that helps a lot. I should be able to get something useful like light bulbs or shovels.
Money is just our agreed upon way of keeping score.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 20, 2018, 08:49:47 AM
Money is just our agreed upon way of keeping score.
And I deny any agreement. Neither your currency nor your credit are good here. I will agree only if you bow the knee to my hegemony (see SWIFT).
Quote from: SGOS on October 20, 2018, 08:38:57 AM
Silver dimes? Yes, I suppose some are still around. Most have been taken out of circulation by hoarders. I bought a tub of "junk silver" one time just to see what kind of an investment it was. I bought quarters, but you can buy them assorted. They come through the Post Office in plastic tubs with "MACHINE PARTS" stamped all over the container. But when I went to pick them up the postal clerk said, "Oh, silver coins, huh?" Like it was some big secret.
I'm still befuddled about how worthless the money we use actually is. There is some value in copper pennies and I suppose also in nickels and dimes, but when you get into the big bills is just paper and ink. I've been told our money is backed by the US government so it actually has more value than the junk it's made out of. But is this the same government that controls inflation, lies to me, and redistributes my tax dollars to wealthy campaign donors? I'm still expecting it to collapse, and when it does there are going to be a lot of losers.
And if it is backed by the government, shouldn't I be able to trade my paper dollars in for something of value? I suppose they would just pay for it using the same garbage I was trying to get rid of. Or maybe some guy would say, "Here, you can have one of these savings bonds." Like that helps a lot. I should be able to get something useful like light bulbs or shovels.
Taxation backs the dollar (or any other currency). You are required to pay taxes. And required to do this in a particular currency. This creates a demand for the dollar etc, every time you pay a tax, which is every time you make an economic exchange (see sales taxes or VAT).
So ultimately it is the power of the government, to put you in jail, or to wage war against our competitors, that makes the dollar valuable. Because really, without the police, almost nobody would pay taxes. Similarly ambitious and greedy people would be all over you, without any defenses, like Sweden and its refugees.
So yes, you can convert your digital or physical cash into purchased goods and services. But at a price, determined by the government, under regulations determined by the government. Unless the government lets you, your digital or physical cash is worth zero.
Ultimately however, the government can't allow you to keep gold or silver, because there is a perpetual shortage of these useful metals ... at least useful for government purposes. In the end, the government can demand taxes in gold or silver, to pry any private metal wealth out of private hands.
Naive politics, naive economics = typical voter.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 20, 2018, 08:10:16 AM
The system would save having to load paper money into the machines.
The greatest saving is for the government to take what you have, and give nothing back. That will come, accelerated by the digital Trojan Horse. Negative interest rates and forced savings anyone?
Just watched doctor strange. One of the three movies I still had to see before avengers 3. The other being thor ragnarok and black panther. (Spiderman homecoming came after, right? Or before?)
It was... okay? Cumberbatch is fun to watch. The acting by the other's wasn't stellar but not bad either. Mikkelsen was a better villain in Hannibal than here though. Or in casino royale. Much more believeable too. I don't know... Maybe if I'd grown up with Doctor Strange, it'd have appealed to me more? Never even knew of him until this film. And 'magic' superheroes have always been less interesting to me. That's why Thor, while his attitude makes up for a lot, is my least favorite of the original avengers. I like him, but someone has to be ranked last. That's right, under black widow and hawkeye. Hawkeye rules.
But idunno. This is not a point i've come up with, but it's true, I feel. In the early marvel movies, and even the batman movies before their joined universe, being the dark knight and batman begins, were better than these movies. IMHO. They felt more 'believeable and tense'. Perhaps because now we've already seen so many and they all follow the same basic structure. But also because in all of these new flicks, the hero has to save the entire planet or universe from total annihilation. And that get's old and unreal fast. The stakes are so ridiculously high that there are no stakes because we know the world's not going to get destroyed. Avengers one earned that by bringing all of them together, but now one hero in the new movies does what the entire avengers assemble would have to pull together to do. So why even have the avengers if you could have had a doctor strange just reversing a nuclear blast? Why need the entire avengers army to save New York from an airborn invasion, when just cap, black widow, fury and angel-suit dude can take down three heli-carriers?
Compare it to the early movies. Spiderman movies did a lot wrong. But in the first one, spidey just fights a psychopatic batman (goblin, but yeah, you know...). Thor has to reclaim his honor and his kingdom by usurping a usurper. Hulk just wants to be left alone. Iron man has to duke it out with the man that wants to stab him in the back. They were smaller movies, but they were better for it. Now, every other movie tries to be Avengers.
But me... Perhaps: The lady doth protest too much, methinks
I mean, I'm still watching them all.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 25, 2018, 04:32:05 PMNever even knew of him until this film. And 'magic' superheroes have always been less interesting to me.
Same. My knowledge of Doctor Strange was him appearing in a crossover where some dangerous magical entity has to be banished and he says "By the hoary hosts of Hoggath!" or some nonsense and saves the day. Whoopee.
But the Doctor Strange movie was a pleasant surprise for me because:
1) I really liked the introduction of magic into the MCU. It's more like well...surgery than hocus pocus. Miraculous things are achievable, but only through a great deal knowledge, willpower, and focus. Stark would call this sort of magic a previously unknown form of technology, and I dunno how inaccurate he'd be about that.
2) I liked Mister Doctor's character growth. He's utterly unlikable at the start (probably too much so, since it's hard to feel bad for his early misfortune) but he's pretty thoroughly humbled and achieves not only self-mastery but cultivates empathy for others, open-mindedness, and a sense of responsibility. Yeah, yeah, I know this has been done to death in Marvel movies, but it's a nice message.
3) I absolutely love the special effects work. The fractal effects, rotating scenery reminiscent of Inception, the fire hula-hoop portals - I love that stuff. And the chase scene with reality manipulation and counter-manipulation reminded me a lot of Mage: The Ascension.
4) I freaking LOVE how Doctor Strange was first introduced to magic. That scene had me at the edge of my seat. Jodie Foster from Contact, eat your heart out.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 25, 2018, 04:32:05 PM
Just watched doctor strange. One of the three movies I still had to see before avengers 3. The other being thor ragnarok and black panther. (Spiderman homecoming came after, right? Or before?)
It was... okay? Cumberbatch is fun to watch.
Deciding on a favorite Marvel hero is a dilemma no smaller than choosing which of your favorite ice cream toppings is the best. It's all wonderfully delicious, but somehow we feel compelled to rank them. But Dr. Strange is my favorite, and I think Hydra hit upon the thing that resonated with me the most. I loved the magic. The others all have special abilities, but Strange's clever magic seems to set him apart. It's not magic spells that he creates but the unique things he conjures and how creatively he uses them. Bending space time by walking through a portal was nifty, but in subsequent films he devises new ways to use the old portal gambit. If he wants to get rid of an annoying enemy, instead of running through a portal to get a way, he throws the portal over the annoyance, and the annoyance ends up someplace far away. I thought that was brilliant writing on Marvel's part.
Tony Stark was at one time the most arrogant of the lot, but Dr. Strange may top him. However, Strange's arrogance is completely different, which is another great example of good creative writing by Marvel, although much of the credit should probably be shared by the actors, who can define a character's personality with devices of their own. Stark swaggered and bragged, but Dr. Strange's arrogance has kind of a "bored with it all" quality. He doesn't seem to be interested in impressing those around him. He doesn't waste as much time showing off. He just does what he needs to to.
If he needs a strand of hair from Thor to do some magic that Thor needs, but Thor is too defiant to let Strange touch one of his precious hairs, Strange doesn't do the, "Oh yeah? We'll see about that," thing. He just dematerializes in an instant, then rematerializes behind Thor, plucks out a hair and is gone before Thor knows what happened. It's all about getting the job done, and his behavior and decisions come instantly out of nowhere and always catch me off guard. His arrogance manifests itself through his obvious boredom with the defiance of others. I love that guy's attitude.
Of course there's more to him than just that. He suffers from internal conflicts like the others, but it seems to be to a lesser degree. But we all have our favorites, and there's reasons to admire any one one of them over the others.
The old Dr. Strange was a special type of egotist, he was amusing himself without concern for others, and using others for his amusement when available. He wasn't in love with himself, it was much more than that, he was alone in his universe.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 26, 2018, 09:20:34 AM
The old Dr. Strange was a special type of egotist, he was amusing himself without concern for others, and using others for his amusement when available. He wasn't in love with himself, it was much more than that, he was alone in his universe.
Actually, that's a fair description of the Dr. Strange I know. When he fucks with someone, he seems uninvolved, but I have this strong sense that deep down he's chuckling about it.
I didn't know anything about Dr. Strange other than his name before the movies and I have no idea how acuurate, but I liked the character Cumberbatch portrayed. He is indeed fun to watch. That man has a weird, asexual appearence that molds into any character he plays.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 25, 2018, 05:05:34 PM
3) I absolutely love the special effects work. The fractal effects, rotating scenery reminiscent of Inception, the fire hula-hoop portals - I love that stuff. And the chase scene with reality manipulation and counter-manipulation reminded me a lot of Mage: The Ascension.
IMO This is one of but a handful of movies that gets a worth while boost from 3D, and much of it comes during the these specific special effects scenes. Most 3D films don't gain much from the 3D technology, and some arguments claim they suffer a negative distraction. If all 3D movies besides the pitiful small handful got the same significant enhancement from the technology, I would buy a 3D projector and add it to my home theater room tomorrow.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 26, 2018, 12:42:53 PM
I didn't know anything about Dr. Strange other than his name before the movies and I have no idea how acuurate, but I liked the character Cumberbatch portrayed. He is indeed fun to watch. That man has a weird, asexual appearence that molds into any character he plays.
Yeah, maybe. But on the other hand, there wasn't much difference to me inbox he playe this role, opporde to how he played Sherlock. Indeed, at times it seemed like they'd just handed his Sherlock a bunch of superpowers.
Now, i'm sure his portrayal of Sherlock, and The succes it garnered, helped to make them choose for him. But still, your riled Should be discernable. They weren't really to me.
I liked most of the 3D movies I've seen. I could live with the rest.
Being in 3D doesn't stop me. If I show up at the theater and the next showing of the movie I want to see is in 3D, I'll buy the ticket. On the other hand, I wouldn't go out of my way to see most 3D movies if other options were more convenient.
True. Show time is more important than 3D/2D issues.
People just love to have something to bitch about.
Saw insidious the last key.
I've liked the insidious movies. The first two were a lot of fun, directed by the awesome James wan. Third one was by Leigh Whannell, which wasn't as good or memorable, but still had some of the same elements in it as the first two.
This was the 4th in the series, and similar to the third, though a little better maybe. Lin Shaye pretty much steals the role she's in with these movies and having the same 70 something year old protagonist throughout you grow to like her role in it.
What I like about this series is the aesthetic of it, the cinematography, the sets, the makeup and costumes, it remains cannon to the style and design of the series, though that does make it kind of a repeated formula in places.
But this was okay, kind of like a soft edition to the rest of the series. 6.5/10
I think I have already expressed my obsession with Blade Runner, but if not or if so... here is one more video on why it's, to me, one of the most beautiful films ever produced, focusing on Hauser's "Tears in Rain" monologue at the end of the film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbXIONSjmkY
Mandy ???
Sheesh! Probably not as sickening as the Saw movies, but it's bloody, disgusting, and perverse, and not in the good way, but it's probably the best movie Nicolas Cage has made in 10 years. 92% from Critics and 69% from audiences (at Rotten Tomatoes). I never know where Cage is at. Didn't he make a couple of those "back to God" type movies while his career was in the gutter? Now he's mutilating members of one of those Jesus sub cults that has strayed from the path. OK, so they probably never were on a path to begin with. They're just some sadistic whack jobs that crawled out of a sewer to make Charles Manson seem normal. I don't know how to rate this. You won't fall asleep, although you might turn it off.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 31, 2018, 06:41:41 PM
I think I have already expressed my obsession with Blade Runner, but if not or if so... here is one more video on why it's, to me, one of the most beautiful films ever produced, focusing on Hauser's "Tears in Rain" monologue at the end of the film.
While it kind of fell flat at the box office, it and it's sequel are both remarkable. The original was just that... original, and it set a new standard for? For what? I'm not sure. It was so unique that it's like a genre all it's own. Same for the second. There's fantasy, drama, science fiction, and then there's Blade Runner.
Just watched Hereditary.
wow.. that was intense. this was some brilliant directing and acting and screenplay. I wanted a good horror movie this year, I didn't know anything going into this one, and while I wouldn't say it blew me away, it had me holding my breath in several moments, because this movie doesn't rely on jump scares, but psychological horror.
First part of the movie took a while to get going, but once it did, my reaction to it was 'oh crap, they went there'.
Went to a showing of the original Ghostbusters last Saturday, hosted by Fritz the Nite Owl.
That is a straight-up fun movie. Also, three cheers for non-computer generated special effects.
Incredibles 2 - 7/10
Pretty entertaining, and somewhat original story.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 06, 2018, 10:29:15 AM
Incredibles 2 - 7/10
Pretty entertaining, and somewhat original story.
Seen the original? Dash's dash is best seen ... enhanced.
I hardly remember the original.
Equalizer 2 - 8/10
Somewhat the same formula as the first, but still entertaining.
Loving Pablo 7/10
The last couple years of Pablo Escobar's career as a drug king pin. It will keep you watching. Based on a biography by his lover.
The hateful 8.
8.8 out of 10
Quote from: SGOS on November 08, 2018, 09:02:18 PM
Loving Pablo 7/10
The last couple years of Pablo Escobar's career as a drug king pin. It will keep you watching. Based on a biography by his lover.
Though I am curious about it, after watching Narcos a couple of years back, it could be a bit too much. I had no idea the level of these cartels before. Sure I have heard of it here and there. But...I couldn't move while watching. Blood freezing.
Yeah, it's a lot like most cartel movies. They are a cold blooded lot.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 06, 2018, 10:29:15 AM
Incredibles 2 - 7/10
Pretty entertaining, and somewhat original story.
Just watched it. 8/10, with a 11/10 for the Edna short subject.
The Lego Movie(2014) - 9/10
Very imaginative and entertaining, especially the ending sequences.
First Man
I do not know why I saw this movie. For some reason, for the last two years, my family takes me to a Ryan Gosling movie on my birthday. Last year we saw the Blade Runner sequel and I think I was the only one who... appreciated that one. I can't say like. So this year we see a movie I never heard of because my finger is waaaaaay off the pulse. I don't care about movies anymore. Fuck that shit. At first I had no idea what this movie was about. Adam? It's Ryan Gosling. Is he a robot? No. Close. He's Neil Armstrong. Okay. The Right Stuff this ain't. I was alternatively bored and wondering if this was historically accurate. I was never swept up in the story. I imagine my family was more interested since Armstrong's daughter died of cancer like my niece, but that ain't good enough for me. It lacked something. I'm not sure what. Part of it was Armstrong was a very reserved person so we don't see any emotion from him and the director had no idea of how to convey emotion outside of Ryan Goslings stony face. I came away from this with nothing but wondering why. Why was this movie made? Why was this movie so boring? Why did we go to see it.
All I know is if next year we see another fucking Ryan Gosling movie... twice is happenstance, three times is enemy action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1roy4o4tqQM
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/67520364/what-the-actual-fuck.jpg)
Quote from: Munch on November 12, 2018, 01:39:41 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1roy4o4tqQM
I can't wait to see the Pitch Meeting for that.
Producer: "So you have a Pokemon movie for me. You mean an animated film with Ash and company?
Writer: "No. Live action. And no Ash, just Pikachu. And he's a detective."
Producer: *confused*
Writer: "There's a video game about it."
Producer: "Oh, it's a movie based on a video game. Those always do well. I'm sold!"
*beat*
*music tone*
*newspaper article about lackluster ticket sales*
Quote from: Munch on November 12, 2018, 01:39:41 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1roy4o4tqQM
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/67520364/what-the-actual-fuck.jpg)
I've always wanted a live action Pokemon movie. This isn't what I was expecting, but I love it. I have to see this. lol
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 12, 2018, 10:51:54 PM
I've always wanted a live action Pokemon movie. This isn't what I was expecting, but I love it. I have to see this. lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shbxUe-S2V8
Quote from: Shiranu on November 12, 2018, 11:26:48 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shbxUe-S2V8
Tell me this isn't the cutest thing you ever saw:
(https://imgix.bustle.com/uploads/image/2018/11/12/278fede5-29b5-47cc-94c3-9a02bcb2e434-screen-shot-2018-11-12-at-21114-pm.png?w=970&h=582&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&q=70)
(http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/pokemon-detective-pikachu-slice-600x200.jpg)
(https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/WCCFdetectivepikachu5.jpg)
A live action Pikachu couldn't look much better.
This doesn't seem like the typical live action cash grab shit either. I don't think this is going to be another Smurfs or Garfield movie. It's a weird concept, yeah, but based on what I've seen so far, it looks like it's made by people who care about Pokemon. The weirdness of the movie might actually be helping to pull me in. If this were just a live action Pokemon move, I'd be excited, but this Detective Pokemon movie has me curious to see how this plays out.
Strange that Nintendo is suddenly willing to let people make live action movies of their IPs again. For decades, it seemed like the Super Mario movie just killed any chance of Nintendo letting that happen again. Now this and the Mario movie... Maybe Detective Pikachu is their way of testing the waters before making a full fledged Pokemon movie.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 13, 2018, 12:02:51 AM
Tell me this isn't the cutest thing you ever saw
Okay, that's not the cutest thing I ever saw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoqG7Px6cOQ
That blue one sounded like Will Smith.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 13, 2018, 03:54:31 PM
That blue one sounded like Will Smith.
First they are child actors. Then they are adult actors (character or romantic lead). Then when they reach second childhood, they do voice overs for cartoons.
Vin Diesel did "Groot" because his children asked him to.
Overlords 4/10
Not much scare, but fairly heavy on gross. I was somewhat bored.
Quote from: SGOS on November 14, 2018, 08:21:01 AM
Overlords 4/10
Not much scare, but fairly heavy on gross. I was somewhat bored.
"Overlord".
Quote from: Munch on November 12, 2018, 01:39:41 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1roy4o4tqQM
This is the kind of thing that makes me wish I smoke pot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEXxKujtEdA
This trailer review pretty accurately sums up why I expect Detective Pikachu to be a decent or even good movie.
Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them (2016) - 8/10
J. K. Rowling pretty much delivers again in this cinematic marvel.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 16, 2018, 09:27:58 PM
Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them (2016) - 8/10
J. K. Rowling pretty much delivers again in this cinematic marvel.
There is a sequel to that, that ties in with Dumbledore.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 16, 2018, 09:27:58 PM
Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them (2016) - 8/10
J. K. Rowling pretty much delivers again in this cinematic marvel.
Pottermore has background material on "Wizarding in America".
BTW, the Magical Council of the United States of America was created in 1693. J. K. doesn't know her history.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 17, 2018, 06:47:11 AM
Pottermore has background material on "Wizarding in America".
BTW, the Magical Council of the United States of America was created in 1693. J. K. doesn't know her history.
To Brits, we are still loyal subjects of the Queen.
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs - 8.5/10
It's actually 5 short stories, all themed from the wild west. All of them are pretty good, if not different from what you'd expect from westerns, but good nonetheless.
Quote from: Baruch on November 17, 2018, 07:10:26 AM
To Brits, we are still loyal subjects of the Queen.
Not really. She's just there, feel no one way or the other about her.
Quote from: Munch on November 20, 2018, 02:28:51 PM
Not really. She's just there, feel no one way or the other about her.
What if she intervened with PM May, with Brexit? Would she be relevant then? Of course Prince Charles wants you all to become Lawrence of Arabia along with him.
Crimes of Grindelwald Very information dense, and a thousand questions to be answered yet.
Watched "Alpha"...I knew it would be bad and it did not disappoint. But I am a sucker for movies with puppy dogs. Anyway it had possibilities, story about the so called "first dog" to be domesticated. Forget their presentation of Cro-magnon, the first flag was when they had to trek what appears to be 50-70 miles to the "sacred" hunting ground. I told the wife, I am pretty sure they would establish their camp within easy reach of a steady source of food. Walking 50 miles and dragging back several hundred pounds of meat per person over several days and fighting off predators does not seem to be very self sustaining. Especially when they had saber-tooths and hyenas all in northern europe 10,000 years ago as they suggest.
Quote from: aitm on November 20, 2018, 08:39:46 PM
Watched "Alpha"...I knew it would be bad and it did not disappoint. But I am a sucker for movies with puppy dogs.
Yeah, no surprises there. The script was a formula containing all the reasons people love dogs. I found myself waiting for the next ingredient of the formula: "Isn't it about time where dog and master learn how to play together? Ooh, ooh, shush. It's happening now. Awe, isn't that the cutest thing you ever saw?" The biggest failure is passing off the long generational process of domestication as being similar to housebreaking a puppy. With all it's predictability and shortcomings, I actually enjoyed the scenes themselves. It's just that the amateur script and direction tainted them. But one thing that gave me goose bumps was that final scene, just before the credits where the tribe emerges over the top of a hill backlit by a morning sun on their way to what is implied is going to be one of many successful hunts that come from the new partnership between man and dog. That imagine is still burned on my brain from when I saw the movie at the theater.
Quote from: aitm on November 20, 2018, 08:39:46 PM
Watched "Alpha"...I knew it would be bad and it did not disappoint.
hmm, I can see why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcqElu6qmog
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/bb2c68c4140a294598fa08541c31e5e6/tumblr_pit9xly9b61qh8d8mo1_1280.jpg)
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/0ba97155e1876a07771ed30ce6704573/tumblr_pit9xly9b61qh8d8mo2_1280.jpg)
(https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/oh-baby-gif-10.gif)
Sexy pentagram?
Quote from: Munch on November 27, 2018, 12:55:58 PM
The devil's in the details
We'd have to turn him around to see de tail.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy GOP dog.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 27, 2018, 02:23:03 PM
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy GOP dog.
Fewer blue-dog Dems in the Congress. They got replaced with the real thing.
Yesterday I watched one of my favorite old movies. I had only seen it once, decades ago, but it stuck with me, so I finally got around to watching it again - My Name Is Nobody (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Nobody), with Henry Fonda and Terrence Hill. A great movie! Maybe not the best western ever made, but damn close to it. At least, it's among my favorite old westerns, though I'm not normally a big fan of the genre. There are some really good, well made ones that I like, such as the spaghetti westerns with Eastwood, and such.
Damn, I just found out there's a sequel! A Genious, Two Partners, and a Dupe. I'll have to watch it, now. Have any of you seen it?
Incredibles II 10/10
I just finished watching. I laughed so much. It was great superhero satire. Familiarity with Marvel and DC a must. They put in characters similar to the superheroes we know in situations that are vaguely similar to the ones we've seen, but they ramped up the silliness. They've even got a character that throws Dr. Strange portals about the place, and a Hulk like guy that does the "smash" thing shows up in a brief appearance, like many of the other characters. It also does one of the fun scenes from the X-Men movies. It's so fast passed, I must have missed much of the humor. I'm going watch it again right away. What a delight for a Pixar cartoon that I almost didn't rent on the grounds that it was a cartoon for little kids. It's not that at all.
Better than Watchmen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUjMO_k9IF8
Similar idea, but not done for laughs.
It doesn't exist, but fuck this plot for a movie sounds amazing...
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39441915_2078591482171370_8078855920685154304_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_eui2=AeFM3JgTOzmtz_7v20HsyJLnjA48gQmoBOLR5URauoF9W-JSWHsJF_Vzl4zKTuggHFi_Ss_9OzWpo3N0wLu_PlNJXV7lPbRcXGFimmVZcxnwaQ&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=63181d72f2630d20f3debb77a59bc6a1&oe=5C6FD32B)
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39453217_2078593198837865_5729885555714424832_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_eui2=AeHhgev558tIH2ID34Cc5XtBNmpFz9GPR-wuX4wQ0dIMzOcmGA0XQemOcMzoxhaXUM_MTF1sfRN4w05KKHz3CUgTfHUn7BMrQKNKSR4xTJNs4g&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=c384da3547cf19f03216f1ac05ee8804&oe=5CA765F1)
Civil servants supervise people? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Quote from: SGOS on November 29, 2018, 07:01:55 AM
Civil servants supervise people? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Bureaucrats want to supervise every sheet of toilet paper you use, to make sure you don't use too much. I presently work in the government, I know. Of course bureaucrats exist in every major corporation. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated, you will not get the key to the executive wash room ;-)
Kin 36% from Critics 58% from audiences
I'd give this Sci Fi flic an 8/10 or a 9/10, so once again I'm out of sync. There are definitely parts of the movie that tax the suspension of belief beyond normal abilities. Of course Sci Fi always does. Good Sci Fi manages to stay within an acceptable range, however. The character development could have been a bit more subtle, maybe. But having said that, it's a good story that is rather unique. I experienced a lot of unsettling "How can this be" moments, but a short series of scenes near the end, with but a minimum of dialog, clears up almost all of those things that don't make sense. And rather than seeming like the writers just tacked it on in order to achieve that clarity, it blends well into the story smoothly as a very integral part. I'd be curious about the reaction of others, since my opinion seems to be so far from the average.
Quote from: SGOS on December 02, 2018, 08:46:20 PM
Kin 36% from Critics 58% from audiences
I'd give this Sci Fi flic an 8/10 or a 9/10, so once again I'm out of sync. There are definitely parts of the movie that tax the suspension of belief beyond normal abilities. Of course Sci Fi always does. Good Sci Fi manages to stay within an acceptable range, however. The character development could have been a bit more subtle, maybe. But having said that, it's a good story that is rather unique. I experienced a lot of unsettling "How can this be" moments, but a short series of scenes near the end, with but a minimum of dialog, clears up almost all of those things that don't make sense. And rather than seeming like the writers just tacked it on in order to achieve that clarity, it blends well into the story smoothly as a very integral part. I'd be curious about the reaction of others, since my opinion seems to be so far from the average.
I have seen the preview twice ... looks like a good kid flick.
The Meg. Should be called the Meh. A movie where circumstances contrive reasons for Jason Stathan to go man to man against a giant shark should be more fun than this.
I did have an epiphany. It starts with a mission going bad and no one believes Statham that there was a giant shark and the doctor from that mission is on this new mission keeps saying he's crazy and shit and I thought to myself "This subplot is not fun." It peters out quickly once the giant shark becomes undeniably evident, but other such scene would happen, like the love interest thing between Statham and Li Bingbing even though he spends most of the time chatting up her daughter (Shuya Sophia Cai). These scenes are cliche but more importantly not any fucking fun. It reminded me of Battleship, of all things. What should be a fun genre flick is bogged down by shitty scenes where they try to make us care about these flat, boring characters. I thought of doing an edit of Battleship where all those scenes are cut out and see if the movie is improved at all, but I doubt it because Battleship is an ugly, ugly movie.
It did remind me of a scene that puzzled me. There is an annoying scientist character who needs to go get a thing from his lab where the aliens have already taken over. He sneaks in and gets the thing and finds himself looking right at an alien in its silly armor and shit. He start shaking uncontrollably and the alien reaches out and puts a hand on the thing to stop him shaking. Then we see him run outside and back to the others.
What. The. Fuck.
How the hell did he get out of that? I'd say the movie was cut for time, but the movie was two hours and twelve fucking minutes, so no. There is no pay off for this. That particular alien does not come back. There is no pay off. There must have been something that inexplicably got cut when they could have cut the entire encounter.
There are many possibilities, but I suspect the alien was a female alien who let him go because she felt sorry for him. Basically making the statement that women don't belong in the military because they're all emotional and shit and will let an important enemy with important equipment go and cost you the war. This didn't jibe with the badass female military thing they had going with Rhianna, so they changed it. To nothing. They should have just cut it.
I relate all this to someone at work and he said I just wanted to know if the guy hooked up with the alien. I said, yes. I wanna know if an alien's vagina can SUCK!
Lala land
First time i was like: okay, not that bad.
Rewatching it with The gf.
This is killing me.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 03, 2018, 04:05:42 PM
Lala land
First time i was like: okay, not that bad.
Rewatching it with The gf.
This is killing me.
A RomCom ... what is wrong with that?
Quote from: Baruch on December 03, 2018, 07:46:26 PM
A RomCom ... what is wrong with that?
The singing.
The dancing.
Some of The acting.
Knowing exactly where The plot is headed also strips most of The 'pezaz' The first showing had.
It can use flashy colors all it wants; it's still boring.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 04, 2018, 12:49:19 AM
The singing.
The dancing.
Some of The acting.
Knowing exactly where The plot is headed also strips most of The 'pezaz' The first showing had.
It can use flashy colors all it wants; it's still boring.
So they need CGI? They need giant robots? Every movie needs giant robots?
Stylistically, it definitely felt like 1950s.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 04, 2018, 12:49:19 AM
The singing.
The dancing.
Some of The acting.
Knowing exactly where The plot is headed also strips most of The 'pezaz' The first showing had.
It can use flashy colors all it wants; it's still boring.
I kind of enjoyed watching actors who were not accomplished dancers and singers giving it a shot, but the plot was tedious. Being a musical, I expected even less. Ryan Gosling learned to play the piano for the movie, well not exactly the piano, but part of one simple tune, which was played a few too many times throughout the movie. I guess they wanted it to act as a kind of theme for the movie. I could not shake that tune out of my head after the movie, a slow boring one finger at a time melody:
"A simple sad song,"
"But not all that long,"
"That lingers,"
"And... lingers,"
"And even slows down,"
"Until... it... is... Gone."
"There's only four notes,"
"Played on and on,"
"In no real order,"
"Just over and over,"
"Over and over,"
"And over and over."
"And now it returns,"
"And we do it again,"
"The same old tune."
"We'll do it again,"
"Ryan plays it all night,"
"He can't get it right."
"There's only four notes,"
"Played on and on,"
"In no real order,"
"Just over and over,"
"Over and over,"
"And over and over."
"It comes back around."
"That same old sad sound."
"You can go take a shower."
"It goes on an hour."
"That same old sad sound,"
"Keeps coming around."
"There's only four notes,"
"Played on and on,"
"In no real order,"
"Just over and over,"
"Over and over,"
"And over and over."
Quote from: Baruch on December 04, 2018, 01:28:27 AM
So they need CGI? They need giant robots? Every movie needs giant robots?
I was thinking more in the line of interesting characters i could relate to.
Quote
Stylistically, it definitely felt like 1950s.
Sadly, i can't drink from that nostalgia-well
Quote from: SGOS on December 04, 2018, 01:59:34 AM
I kind of enjoyed watching actors who were not accomplished dancers and singers giving it a shot, but the plot was tedious. Being a musical, I expected even less. Ryan Gosling learned to play the piano for the movie, well not exactly the piano, but part of one simple tune, which was played a few too many times throughout the movie. I guess they wanted it to act as a kind of theme for the movie. I could not shake that tune out of my head after the movie, a slow boring one finger at a time melody:
"A simple sad song,"
"But not all that long,"
"That lingers,"
"And... lingers,"
"And even slows down,"
"Until... it... is... Gone."
"There's only four notes,"
"Played on and on,"
"In no real order,"
"Just over and over,"
"Over and over,"
"And over and over."
"And now it returns,"
"And we do it again,"
"The same old tune."
"We'll do it again,"
"Ryan plays it all night,"
"He can't get it right."
"There's only four notes,"
"Played on and on,"
"In no real order,"
"Just over and over,"
"Over and over,"
"And over and over."
"It comes back around."
"That same old sad sound."
"You can go take a shower."
"It goes on an hour."
"That same old sad sound,"
"Keeps coming around."
"There's only four notes,"
"Played on and on,"
"In no real order,"
"Just over and over,"
"Over and over,"
"And over and over."
I will agree that it has a better story than your average musical. It's not like it is as bad as say 'mamma mia'. But i don't think musicals Should be held to a lower standard. When i go to a show, i want to be told and shown a story. That above all else. And if the music and songs can help you immerse, that's great. But if they can't pull that of, most often you're stuck watching a mediocre to bad play desperately trying to hide behind flashy routine, kind of like tying a sweater over your ass to hide how big it is: that doesn't work. It only points it out more.
Anyway, my two cents, of course.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 04, 2018, 03:25:40 AM
I will agree that it has a better story than your average musical. It's not like it is as bad as say 'mamma mia'. But i don't think musicals Should be held to a lower standard. When i go to a show, i want to be told and shown a story. That above all else. And if the music and songs can help you immerse, that's great. But if they can't pull that of, most often you're stuck watching a mediocre to bad play desperately trying to hide behind flashy routine, kind of like tying a sweater over your ass to hide how big it is: that doesn't work. It only points it out more.
Anyway, my two cents, of course.
Didn't like the original Mama Mia! Philistine!
2nd Mama Mia ... nostalgia for those who liked the first one ...
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 04, 2018, 03:25:40 AM
I will agree that it has a better story than your average musical. It's not like it is as bad as say 'mamma mia'. But i don't think musicals Should be held to a lower standard. When i go to a show, i want to be told and shown a story. That above all else. And if the music and songs can help you immerse, that's great. But if they can't pull that of, most often you're stuck watching a mediocre to bad play desperately trying to hide behind flashy routine, kind of like tying a sweater over your ass to hide how big it is: that doesn't work. It only points it out more.
Anyway, my two cents, of course.
I have to confess that I have been a closet fan of a cheap franchise of dance movies all named after the first film "Step Up" These are 6 films that are so formulated and stylized that you can't remember which one was which. They became popular enough to become the target of that movie genre that does nothing but satirize other genres. The satire was simply called The Dance Movie, on the heels of The Superhero Movie, and a bunch of other "Genre" Movie satires.
I pulled those 6 movies out from my personal "Music and Dance" category a couple of weeks ago and rewatched them all not having done so for several years. One of them begins with dancers getting out of their cars in city gridlock and dancing wildly in the streets, and it dawned on me that Hollywood writers had ripped off that exact scene to open La La Land, creating for audiences the impression that they are about to witness a marvelous cinematic extravaganza. Of course, both Step Up #?? and La La Land slide downhill quickly after that, but while Step UP sustains the frenzy, La La Land slides into a depressing examination of dysfunction, where partners make all the right decisions to sabotage themselves. Granted, depressing movies of dysfunctional aspects of society often get great reviews from critics, so I'm guessing that there is a significant niche group that finds this interesting.
Not everyone expects you to love their genre, and there is no reason anyone has to. I have a friend that holds the Marvel Cinematic Universe in utter contempt, although he has seen not one Marvel movie, but he's a classic "Old Poop," and we are still good friends. I don't criticize him for his appreciation of vomit films that swim around in the misery of the human condition. Hollywood caters to many tastes.
"Rampage", because I need a double feature with "Jumanji".
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 04, 2018, 11:10:36 AM
"Rampage", because I need a double feature with "Jumanji".
I just rewatched Central Intelligence last night for the 3rd time. I really like Dwayne Johnson. Most of those Hollywood muscle types strut around on the screen acting all badass, but Johnson often acts like he's not even aware of his body or at least like it's no big deal to look like Mr. Universe, which gives the impression he's just a regular guy in a big body. He's just plain likeable, with or without the muscles. Of course Hollywood always has him taking off his shirt for one reason or another, and that's fine, but he doesn't need to in my opinion.
Quote from: SGOS on December 04, 2018, 01:51:32 PM
I just rewatched Central Intelligence last night for the 3rd time. I really like Dwayne Johnson. Most of those Hollywood muscle types strut around on the screen acting all badass, but Johnson often acts like he's not even aware of his body or at least like it's no big deal to look like Mr. Universe, which gives the impression he's just a regular guy in a big body. He's just plain likeable, with or without the muscles. Of course Hollywood always has him taking off his shirt for one reason or another, and that's fine, but he doesn't need to in my opinion.
I like Dwayne Johnson, because he seems to be a nice guy, and they give him funny scenes to do.
Your be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't considered dwayne johnson charming, likable, or good looking.
I watched Venom. I liked him. :) I liked them both. I didn't expect that.
I couldn't finish Lala land. It's ...too lalalala. I don't have anything against musicals. I liked Sweeny Todd and Miserable.
Quote from: SGOS on December 04, 2018, 01:51:32 PM
I just rewatched Central Intelligence last night for the 3rd time. I really like Dwayne Johnson. Most of those Hollywood muscle types strut around on the screen acting all badass, but Johnson often acts like he's not even aware of his body or at least like it's no big deal to look like Mr. Universe, which gives the impression he's just a regular guy in a big body. He's just plain likeable, with or without the muscles. Of course Hollywood always has him taking off his shirt for one reason or another, and that's fine, but he doesn't need to in my opinion.
He mocks his size in both movies. In "Rampage" he's choking out an MP and says "That's a big arm, don't fight it."
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 07, 2018, 12:59:09 PM
I watched Venom. I liked him. :) I liked them both. I didn't expect that.
Venom had fanbois fainting, but I had no baggage going in so I had fun.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 07, 2018, 01:12:48 PM
Venom had fanbois fainting, but I had no baggage going in so I had fun.
I heard so many bad reviews about it, but same... I went in with no expectations and really enjoyed it. It certainly had a few flaws, but it's also one of the few movies I have seen that got an audible chuckle out of me at several points as well as several scenes I thought were just straight up badass.
Aah, I see. [spoiler]All I knew about Venom that he is an alien life form and very very powerful. But I thought he was a villain, seeing it in one of old Spidey movies, because I haven't read it. When they announced there will be a movie on him, I guessed that probbaly he wasn't. But that's it. He is cute. [/spoiler]
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 07, 2018, 12:59:09 PM
I watched Venom. I liked him. :) I liked them both. I didn't expect that.
I couldn't finish Lala land. It's ...too lalalala. I don't have anything against musicals. I liked Sweeny Todd and Miserable.
You like Miserable Cannibals? Yeah, very Continental philosophy ;-) Needs more Angst!
Quote from: Baruch on December 07, 2018, 02:29:41 PM
You like Miserable Cannibals? Yeah, very Continental philosophy ;-) Needs more Angst!
Les Misérables. :) Are you happy now?
Quote from: Shiranu on December 07, 2018, 01:16:01 PM
I heard so many bad reviews about it, but same... I went in with no expectations and really enjoyed it. It certainly had a few flaws, but it's also one of the few movies I have seen that got an audible chuckle out of me at several points as well as several scenes I thought were just straight up badass.
I liked the Elon Musk clone too.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 07, 2018, 05:09:12 PM
Les Misérables. :) Are you happy now?
I loved the music in both. I think you should play a cross-gendered version of the Phantom of the Opera. Artsy you.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 07, 2018, 01:25:40 PM
Aah, I see. [spoiler]All I knew about Venom that he is an alien life form and very very powerful. But I thought he was a villain, seeing it in one of old Spidey movies, because I haven't read it. When they announced there will be a movie on him, I guessed that probbaly he wasn't. But that's it. He is cute. [/spoiler]
Venom is...complicated. Sometimes he's a hero. Sometimes he's a villain. He's supposed to have an obsession with destroying Spider-Man, which of course doesn't apply in a Spider-Manless universe like the one this movie takes place in. Both Eddie Brock and the black symbiote have reasons to hate Spider-Man, which is what's supposed to make their bond especially strong.
More, screw the canon, script writing. Poetic license should be arrested.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 08, 2018, 01:05:05 AM
Venom is...complicated. Sometimes he's a hero. Sometimes he's a villain. He's supposed to have an obsession with destroying Spider-Man, which of course doesn't apply in a Spider-Manless universe like the one this movie takes place in. Both Eddie Brock and the black symbiote have reasons to hate Spider-Man, which is what's supposed to make their bond especially strong.
Hmm. Then he is actually the closer one to the human despite being the only alien based superhero?
Or which one is the real villain? Brock or Venom? Feeding habits doesn't make an organism a villain. Life. All we know, we are worse than Venom when it comes to feeding.
It reminds me a bit of a twisted version of Dr. Jeykll and Mr Hyde. Well, that's a straight one obviously.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 08, 2018, 08:39:44 AM
Hmm. Then he is actually the closer one to the human despite being the only alien based superhero?
Or which one is the real villain? Brock or Venom? Feeding habits doesn't make an organism a villain. Life. All we know, we are worse than Venom when it comes to feeding.
It reminds me a bit of a twisted version of Dr. Jeykll and Mr Hyde. Well, that's a straight one obviously.
Pedophiles have needs too ;-( Sorry, I am species-ist. I want the Great White to eliminate girl swimmers, everywhere!
Yes, Jekyll and Hyde is apt. But it is closer to demonic possession. Both stories are modern attempts at medieval tropes.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 08, 2018, 08:39:44 AM
Hmm. Then he is actually the closer one to the human despite being the only alien based superhero?
Or which one is the real villain? Brock or Venom? Feeding habits doesn't make an organism a villain. Life. All we know, we are worse than Venom when it comes to feeding.
It reminds me a bit of a twisted version of Dr. Jeykll and Mr Hyde. Well, that's a straight one obviously.
Well, no. Venom is Brock + the symbiote. They both work in perfect unison because they have the same goal. Brock wanted to kill Spider-Man, and so did the symbiote. The symbiote needed a host, and Brock needed the power. Basically, they complete each other.
Peppermint Jennifer Garner
I'm on a roll finding movies that Critics have trashed that I like. This one sets a record for my point spreads though. Critics gave it a lousy 10% at RT. I like Jennifer Garner, but I passed on this one at the theater, because at 10% it's got to be about as horrible a film as there is, right? Now it came out at the box and I looked it up again to see how bad it was, because I couldn't remember, but noticed that the critics were out of sync with the public by an absurd amount: Audiences = 74%. So I put it on my wish list and just finished it. 74% is just about right when compared to movies in general, but when compared to other movies in it's genre, I'd say it's one of the best of the revenge films I've seen, possibly the best I've seen.
Revenge films may be the most formula based movies Hollywood puts out. They follow a stricter formula that romantic comedies, but they vary in interest I guess because of the way they are presented, and maybe somewhat by the caliber of the actors. And Jennifer who is so sweet and cuddly that I just want to squeeze her, leaves a trail of body parts that makes other revenge heroes look like annoying juveniles. In Peppermint she reminds me of Batman in Batman Begins as a failed justice system pisses off the sweet housewife and she begins by traveling the world learning how to met out punishment like she was a one woman League of Shadows. But unlike most superhero movies she doesn't spend a second in remorseful introspection wondering whether or not if she is doing the right thing. She has already determined her plan and she doesn't deviate or slow down killing vermin.
In every revenge film there seems to be one sequence where the victims get the drop on the revenger who ends up in a seemingly impossible to survive situation usually chained to a basement pipe, and I may have been more tense waiting for that sequence than anything else, but it doesn't really happen. She just keeps on killing people, until she's finished. Blood and gore and lots of fun. Take the kids. No, forget that last sentence.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 08, 2018, 01:05:05 AM
Venom is...complicated.
Venom is basically 90's super hero comics personified. That they made a Venom movie baffles me when that shit is two decades past its expiration date.
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 12, 2018, 01:23:49 AM
Venom is basically 90's super hero comics personified. That they made a Venom movie baffles me when that shit is two decades past its expiration date.
They made it to make money. 30
Train to busan.
Been wanting to see this one for a long time.
Did not dissapoint. A true recommendation.
Very creative setting for a zombie flick. And good acting too. (Visually, don't understand the language so can't comment on that.) Good feel for tension. Very claustrophobic. Little use of jump scares, but still good at getting you to the edge of your seat. A good rush over all. A smaller story than 28 days later, but better for it. More compact, allowing for bigger impact. More realistic this way: like a snippet into a catastrophe, cutting away from the disaster before you're bored of it. A taste leaving you wanting more. A smaller story that thus manages to grip you by the balls.
Even a bit of self-reflection for the main protagonist with the older corporate bigshot as the main human antagonist and his possible future. As all the best zombie stories are about something else than actual zombies, underneath the skin.
And most important of all: consistent zombies.
While I am more of a fan of the classic, slow zombie. Rather than fast infected... It's most important, to me, that the zombies are consistent. I've been watching the walking dead, into season 3 right now. It's not bad, though I've heard ill of further seasons. But the inconsistent zombie-rules keep pulling me out of it. Depending on the plotthey can only stagger, then again they can run. They can smell or recognize the living unless they are camouflaged, except when the living just lie down on the middle of the road pretending to be corpses. They rot and decay, but they continue to do so for extreme periods of time without losing in mobility or muscle-strentgh. (I've heard the story's progressed over 6 years?) They are only attracted to screaming living victims, and not things that are already dead. That's why in the barn they're fed with chicken with a broken leg. But then when the convict wants to use them for a trap he can lure them with a bloody heart....
Anyway, this was about train to busan, not my gripe with TWD.
Very unique take on the zombie genre. The daylight, the tone of the movie... It's zombies, but from a genuine unique, similar yet different, approach.
9/10
We've learned much about zombies in recent years. When I was a kid, there just wasn't enough knowledge about them, but science has done a lot of research since then and disproved many of the old beliefs such as zombies being sluggish half awake creatures. Indeed they have keen senses and are lighting fast. Same holds true of Vampires. We used to think that Christian symbols, crosses, holy water, and garlic were surefire protection from vampires, but we now know that these safe guards only work sometimes. There is still some hope for garlic, however. As yet, no one wearing garlic garlands about their neck, has ever been bitten by a vampire, although garlic seems to have little or no effect on zombies. Science still doesn't know all the answers about these things, but our knowledge base grows every year. Just recently, we found that vampires are not affected by sunlight, except that sun makes their skin glisten like diamonds. They are nocturnal, but they can do just fine in the daylight.
I know it's not a good idea to dress up in a zombie disguise in order to pass amongst them unseen. The non-zombie people won't kn9w you're not a zombie, and so will shoot you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHBmShA8P28
You can also prove that werewolves only appear when the moon is full, and you can do this scientific experiment at home with your kids. When the moon is less than half full, go outside the house at night. Five minutes is all it takes. You won't see a werewolf.
I was trying to remember a particular movie for a long time, and for the life of me I could not remember the name of it. So today I did a search for movies that feature the Statue of Liberty and et voila! there it was! I had only seen it once, about 30 years ago. It was Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKR-Qf8o4tI
I still haven't found the movie where I can watch it, but I got bit's and pieces. I did manage to watch a pilot for a Remo series that had been planned but never quite got off the ground.
I'd also forgotten that Fred Ward was Remo. He's one of my favorite actors.
"The Last Man on Earth" was the only good zombie movie. I saw it when I was 13 and then had to walk home at night, through a cemetery.
Good zombie movies are rare and in between.
I did like the Original 'Night of the living dead'
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 14, 2018, 05:19:37 AM
Good zombie movies are rare and in between.
I did like the Original 'Night of the living dead'
I found it sluggish. We watched it once when I was on the river. Bunch of half drunk sailors cheering for the zombies.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 14, 2018, 05:19:37 AM
Good zombie movies are rare and in between.
I did like the Original 'Night of the living dead'
Vincent Price could talk real ... scary.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 14, 2018, 05:19:37 AM
Good zombie movies are rare and in between.
I did like the Original 'Night of the living dead'
That one connected with audiences when it came out. It was low budget, with unknown actors, filmed in black and white, but on the bejabbers scale it resonated. It's one of the movies you study and can't quite put your finger on how they did it.
I don't know if Lifeforce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeforce_(film)) was exactly a zombie movie, but it was really good, I thought. Some of the scenes were very well done, and scary as hell.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 14, 2018, 01:37:45 PM
I don't know if Lifeforce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeforce_(film)) was exactly a zombie movie, but it was really good, I thought. Some of the scenes were very well done, and scary as hell.
"You won't believe what I'm looking at!" Then he dies.
Materialists don't believe in Hell, then entertain themselves with many cinematic versions of same. That is really ... hypocritical.
Not hypocritical, just fun.
Quote from: Baruch on December 14, 2018, 06:26:31 PM
Materialists don't believe in Hell, then entertain themselves with many cinematic versions of same. That is really ... hypocritical.
Yeah. It's so hypocritical to enjoy something that exists only in fiction. That's why I stick to entertainment like Game of Thrones. Can you imagine what kind of a hypocrite I'd be if I didn't have a pet dragon in my backyard? Oh, fuck. Hold on. He's trying to eat the neighbor's kids again. Cough him up, Sparks! Bad dragon!
Quote from: Baruch on December 14, 2018, 06:26:31 PM
Materialists don't believe in Hell, then entertain themselves with many cinematic versions of same. That is really ... hypocritical.
a materialist figures out their own version of hell on earth, that being when their card is declined, or their out of pumpkin spice latte.
Quote from: Baruch on December 14, 2018, 06:26:31 PMMaterialists don't believe in Hell, then entertain themselves with many cinematic versions of same.
It's almost like they're treating Hell as if it were fictional.
Quote from: Munch on December 14, 2018, 09:35:54 PM
a materialist figures out their own version of hell on earth, that being when their card is declined, or their out of pumpkin spice latte.
Or they are in Colorado, and their bong is all out of MJ. Hell isn't real either. The US is, and that is close enough to Hell for me. Hell is other people ... who said that? It is completely true. And you meet all the best spawn of Satan in the comment sections of any Internet web site.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 14, 2018, 09:59:35 PM
It's almost like they're treating Hell as if it were fictional.
Why don't they treat political ideology the same way?
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 08, 2018, 11:49:41 PM
Well, no. Venom is Brock + the symbiote. They both work in perfect unison because they have the same goal. Brock wanted to kill Spider-Man, and so did the symbiote. The symbiote needed a host, and Brock needed the power. Basically, they complete each other.
I wasn't talking about in terms of the comic, lol. See, I was trying to read into it, because it's a classic theme?
Quote from: Baruch on December 15, 2018, 02:07:14 AM
Or they are in Colorado, and their bong is all out of MJ. Hell isn't real either. The US is, and that is close enough to Hell for me. Hell is other people ... who said that? It is completely true. And you meet all the best spawn of Satan in the comment sections of any Internet web site.
This also includes:
Out of control children and parents who do nothing to train them when your out shopping.
Pvpers.
Teenage girls on their phones in cinemas.
Political and social degree professors.
Middle management.
Quote from: Munch on December 15, 2018, 07:11:27 AM
This also includes:
Out of control children and parents who do nothing to train them when your out shopping.
Pvpers.
Teenage girls on their phones in cinemas.
Political and social degree professors.
Middle management.
Spelling error ... Muddle Management ;-)
The Nun The title sums up how much attention I paid to this one.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 15, 2018, 10:24:46 AM
The Nun The title sums up how much attention I paid to this one.
you went to see it :S.
I love the last couple of movies but even I wouldn't bring myself to waste my time with this.
Quote from: Munch on December 15, 2018, 10:50:30 AM
you went to see it :S.
I love the last couple of movies but even I wouldn't bring myself to waste my time with this.
Mother Inferior? ;-)
Catholic version of Hecate?
Elektra 8/10
I've been reorganizing my film library and I came upon this Marvel movie from 14 years ago. I got it from a guy that gave me 3 or 4 unopened movies that were included as incentives with the purchase of a PlayStation. As you might imagine, all were box office bombs. Although Cinema Score, which I no longer bother consulting gave it a B, which is what they give to half their movies, the other half being A. Critics gave it an overall 10%. I remember watching it and thinking it was just OK, and saved it on the grounds that I might want to see it again. I couldn't remember anything about it, but the opening screen flashed the comic book pages Marvel still uses today before the movie starts.
Back then, Marvel was yet to become the Universe that now dominates the box office, and Elektra uses a formula that is no longer a part of Marvel, as it includes many poignant scenes that touch the heart. About the closest Marvel has come in recent years to poignancy is that scene on the balcony where Gamora almost kisses Peter Quill, but shoves him away violently at the last minute and screams at him that she will "never take part in any of his pelvic sorcery." It doesn't include today's Marvel humor that comes out of nowhere.
The poignancy is fine, but distracts from today's image of a super hero, and it gives the movie a different feel. She reminds me of Black Widow, although much less vulnerable in battle, but more vulnerable in human relations, and she also has borderline supernatural abilities, but nothing on the order of Dr. Strange's magic. The movie doesn't take suspension of belief to the grandiose extent of today's Marvel formula, but it does test the limits. Seeing it in light of what Marvel has become, it was much more enjoyable as a chance to witness the evolution in super heroes. I liked it 5 times more in that context than I did before Marvel hit the big time. It's a good story, about as predictable as a Rom Com, but with lots of blood, gore, and tense moments. The villains aren't so off the map and other worldly. They look like regular humans although they are Eastern ninja types that call upon the spirit world in battle.
If her character were re-worked a bit, she would fit in quite well with the Avenger team.
Elektra - looks good in trailer. But then I like kung-fu women.
*Heavy sigh*
(https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48399039_10161124337990161_6941448911693283328_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=cc02e1614ae9745552cab4343873ccff&oe=5C9E46EE)
No. Just ... no.
(https://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/010/238/didneyz.jpg)
Hey, remember when disney, you know, animated things?
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 20, 2018, 12:54:44 AM
*Heavy sigh*
(https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48399039_10161124337990161_6941448911693283328_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=cc02e1614ae9745552cab4343873ccff&oe=5C9E46EE)
Love all the click bait on that cover.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 20, 2018, 07:00:34 AM
Love all the click bait on that cover.
I like how they refer to this live action remake as an "updated take," as if the original is somehow outdated.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 20, 2018, 09:03:51 PM
I like how they refer to this live action remake as an "updated take," as if the original is somehow outdated.
In 30 years, the CGI in these Disney remakes will look so outdated, where as the original animated movies will remain timeless, as proper hand drawn animation does.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 20, 2018, 09:03:51 PM
I like how they refer to this live action remake as an "updated take," as if the original is somehow outdated.
Every new and improved, you must stand in line and buy it now!
I like animation. I'm looking forward to seeing Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse but if it was live action I probably wouldn't bother. Do I want to see a live-action "updated take" of Up or Inside Out? No.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 21, 2018, 03:00:41 PM
I like animation. I'm looking forward to seeing Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse but if it was live action I probably wouldn't have bothered. Do I want to see a live-action "updated take" of Up or Inside Out? No.
I still have the original Fantasia, Heavy Metal, and Wizards on tape...
I watched a movie called Tut. Actually a three part mini series. Historical fiction. The names were not changed to protect anyone but they invented a whole war for him to be gloriously killed in. Kind of like the OT Book of Chronicles!
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 21, 2018, 03:00:41 PM
I like animation. I'm looking forward to seeing Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse but if it was live action I probably wouldn't bother. Do I want to see a live-action "updated take" of Up or Inside Out? No.
Question: I saw the TV animated version of Spidey in the Spideyverse with apparently all the same charters. How is the movie not just a repeat in sticky seats?.
Saw Coco the other night. Was amazing. 9/10.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 21, 2018, 04:39:04 PM
Saw Coco the other night. Was amazing. 9/10.
I hope they earn their costs. I like movies like that.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 21, 2018, 04:39:04 PM
Saw Coco the other night. Was amazing. 9/10.
Cute. Hope people can better appreciate Hispanic culture.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 21, 2018, 04:47:08 PM
I hope they earn their costs. I like movies like that.
Stories about the supernatural? Really?
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2018, 08:25:27 PM
Cute. Hope people can better appreciate Hispanic culture.
I'm not sure about the legitimacy of Mexican culture but even if it isn't completely accurate, it was beautiful and written very well
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Stories about the supernatural? Really?
well its a cartoon so anything goes.
Quote from: Munch on December 21, 2018, 08:29:41 PM
well its a cartoon so anything goes.
How about bestiality? No?
Really, 1000 years from now, ignorant savages will be worshiping this movie as scripture. At least the Spanish speaking ones, which will be most everyone, because Mexican men are muy macho.
Quote from: Munch on December 21, 2018, 08:29:41 PM
well its a cartoon so anything goes.
The MCU is supernatural.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 20, 2018, 09:03:51 PM
I like how they refer to this live action remake as an "updated take," as if the original is somehow outdated.
Can't comment, never saw the original. Disney movies are obsessed with singing.
Bohemian Rhapsody - 9/10
The movie follows Freddie Mercury from right before he joined and formed Queen up until the Live Aid concert. Pretty good acting and a bunch of Queen songs, naturally.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2018, 06:37:30 AM
The MCU is supernatural.
That's open to interpretation. Sure, gods like Odin and Thor exist, but they're actually just powerful aliens. Even Doctor Strange's magic could ultimately be rooted in a previously unknown form of physics.
It's interesting that atheist characters like Tony Stark have seen a lot of seemingly miraculous stuff and haven't changed their minds.
Quote from: Munch on December 22, 2018, 07:53:16 AM
Of course it is, it's also sci-fi
Revelations Jesus as the real Thanos? Works for me. Why call modern fantasy sci-fi, when it is in fact nothing of the kind. Jules Verne was sci-fi because it was more or less realistic. Living giant robots are not realistic, but fantastic. Machines aren't alive, aren't conscious. The Bible is just old fantasy (not sci-fi).
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 22, 2018, 09:38:50 AM
That's open to interpretation. Sure, gods like Odin and Thor exist, but they're actually just powerful aliens. Even Doctor Strange's magic could ultimately be rooted in a previously unknown form of physics.
It's interesting that atheist characters like Tony Stark have seen a lot of seemingly miraculous stuff and haven't changed their minds.
Pagan gods were just that, powerful aliens. Same thing with Hinduism and Buddhism. The Abrahamic god is not the only definition, just the most extreme one.
Dr Strange's cape is rooted in physics? Smoke some more dope.
Quote from: Munch on December 22, 2018, 07:53:16 AM
Of course it is, it's also sci-fi
Didn't imply otherwise. Strange, isn't it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2018, 06:38:37 AM
Can't comment, never saw the original. Disney movies are obsessed with singing.
There is singing, but the songs in Aladdin are really good. If for no other reason, though, you should watch it for Robin Williams' performance. They pretty much put a mic in front of him and let him do his own thing. He's hilarious. The third movie is also pretty good, but the second is garbage.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 22, 2018, 09:38:50 AM
That's open to interpretation. Sure, gods like Odin and Thor exist, but they're actually just powerful aliens. Even Doctor Strange's magic could ultimately be rooted in a previously unknown form of physics.
It's interesting that atheist characters like Tony Stark have seen a lot of seemingly miraculous stuff and haven't changed their minds.
Is Tony an atheist? He certainly seems the logical type who'd doubt religion, but has he said he was an atheist? Maybe he's just atheistic toward the idea of a creator god, while accepting the existence of godlike creatures.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 22, 2018, 11:10:27 AM
There is singing, but the songs in Aladdin are really good. If for no other reason, though, you should watch it for Robin Williams' performance. They pretty much put a mic in front of him and let him do his own thing. He's hilarious. The third movie is also pretty good, but the second is garbage.
I can watch all kinds of RW. The show he did where they left him stage with a box of props is my favorite. But he won't make up for the fucking singing.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 22, 2018, 09:38:50 AM
That's open to interpretation. Sure, gods like Odin and Thor exist, but they're actually just powerful aliens. Even Doctor Strange's magic could ultimately be rooted in a previously unknown form of physics.
It's interesting that atheist characters like Tony Stark have seen a lot of seemingly miraculous stuff and haven't changed their minds.
He's a comic book character.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2018, 12:13:51 PM
He's a comic book character.
Medieval stained glass windows ... early comic book. But actually you can also find them in Egyptian papyrus.
Quote from: Baruch on December 22, 2018, 12:52:46 PM
Medieval stained glass windows ... early comic book. But actually you can also find them in Egyptian papyrus.
You're like a perfect sphere. No point at all.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2018, 01:03:24 PM
You're like a perfect sphere. No point at all.
I am against the idea that ... everything was invented by hippies in the 1960s ... because Progressivism.
More like a tesseract.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 22, 2018, 11:14:08 AM
Is Tony an atheist? He certainly seems the logical type who'd doubt religion, but has he said he was an atheist?
MCU Tony Stark hasn't mentioned it yet, Comics Tony Stark definitely is.
I watch Aquaman.
Meh.
Lots of action. Didn't give a shit about most of it. The movie probably had enough story in it for three movies. Thus, since it was so condensed, none of it could breathe. The camera had ADHD. It kept spinning around and made me dizzy, like they were afraid of having a boring second. And a couple times they had some kind of weighty dialog scene where just as or before the final payoff something fucking explodes. I swear, they did that two or three times at least. "Do you know what this means? We finally have what we need to... " BOOM! Fcuking 'splosion.
It's all too bad because it did some things that I actually liked. I like the Black Manta voice. It wasn't exactly like the one from Challenge of the Super Friends, but it was similar. I liked how the eyebrows on the Ocean Master mask moved despite being made of metal. Super heroes need to be expressive in their masks. Hopefully this will continue. There was also a nice bit where Aquaman describes himself as a blunt instrument to illustrate how unsuitable he is for the task at hand. That went nowhere, but it was nice to have something kind of like a character arch in this shit.
But overall, I walked out dissatisfied. Kind of like after The Last Jedi. What I saw was... eh... okay. But I don't want or need to see any more of it. Which is too bad because I enough about the character to have an idea where this may be heading in a sequel, which has a blatant stinger at the end.
Basically, Black Manta is left with a thirst for revenge. In the comic, at one point, Manta captures Aquaman, his sidekick Aqualad and Aquaman's young son. The son is trapped in an air bubble, in the comics Atlantians must breathe water every hour or fucking die, and Manta makes A-man and A-lad fight in a gladiatorial arena to the death to save the boy, who's been in the bubble for nearly an hour. Aquaman actually tries to kill Aqualad to save his son, but they somehow break free, Manta runs off, but they are too late. the boy is dead. Aquaman has his pet octopus take the body back to his wife, who goes insane over the death of her child. Aquaman catches manta and decides to do the "right thing" and put him in jail. So now his son is dead, his wife is crazy, his sidekick's faith in him is shaken. Lots of fucking drama.
Somehow I doubt they'll kill a child in a movie. They should because if Aquaman has any reason why anyone gives a crap about him today, it's this storyline.
But the first movie was overdone and undercooked. Like trying to cook a five course fancy French dinner with a hot plate and a microwave. The components are all there but it's not cooked the right way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8m6WxvZHmo
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 24, 2018, 07:08:31 PM
I watch Aquaman.
Meh.
That's too bad, I've been rooting for DC to get their act together, and at least go toe to toe with Marvel one time. They've got great characters, but the don't seem to get the most out of them. Actually, I won't pass up a DC movie ever. If it has a superhero, I'm going to see it. I loved Wonder Woman up until the end, where it dragged on far too long for an acceptable climax. I'm all for a good explosion, but if it lasts more then 10 minutes, I get bored.
I plan to see Shazam when that hits in a couple months because I like the character. If that one is a disappointment, I'll likely come home and watch the Adventures of Captain Marvel serial from 1941 to make myself feel better.
People take comic book movies way too seriously.
Peppermint.....or was it Cinnamon.....either way when it was over I couldn't remember a thing about it that I found inter....what was I saying?
Quote from: SGOS on December 25, 2018, 07:09:11 AM
Heretic!
I was the kid who didn't know what the other kids were talking about back 1965. I was reading
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich while they were reading comics.
Prime has five "Sleepaway Camp" videos right now. Lowly recommended.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 25, 2018, 09:56:45 AM
I was the kid who didn't know what the other kids were talking about back 1965. I was reading Rise and Fall of the Third Reich while they were reading comics.
Reading to your Nazi dog like Count Dankula? ;-)
I was reading Classics Illustrated comics back then.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 25, 2018, 09:56:45 AM
I was the kid who didn't know what the other kids were talking about back 1965.
I think I was reading See Spot Run...
So nothing has changed. ;-)
prolly a good thing i can't read that
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... comic books and their movies (as well as the occasional culture-changing pieces like LotR or Harry Potter) are the modern day equivalent of the mythological heroes our ancestors have revered for thousands upon thousands of years.
We have lost the mythical, but our Tony Starks and Supermans are just a way for the modern man to enjoy the world the way humans did for all of civilization before the "Enlightenment".
If anything, we don't take comic book movies seriously enough, because there is something amazingly magical about that imo.
I don't take any magic seriously.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 25, 2018, 01:22:12 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... comic books and their movies (as well as the occasional culture-changing pieces like LotR or Harry Potter) are the modern day equivalent of the mythological heroes our ancestors have revered for thousands upon thousands of years.
We have lost the mythical, but our Tony Starks and Supermans are just a way for the modern man to enjoy the world the way humans did for all of civilization before the "Enlightenment".
If anything, we don't take comic book movies seriously enough, because there is something amazingly magical about that imo.
Both imaginary. But one forward looking, the other backword looking. But to tradition, looking to the past, is forward. It is the autistic Enlightenment that reversed it ... to secular heaven, once Christian heaven was gone, there was nothing to look forward to.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 25, 2018, 01:47:19 PM
I don't take any magic seriously.
I don't take secular reality too seriously either .. it is too nihilistic. Modernity = Albert Camus = "the only serious question is suicide or not".
What is post-modern? We already killed ourselves, but being a zombie is reals.
I think you have a shaky relationship with reality.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 25, 2018, 02:23:18 PM
I think you have a shaky relationship with reality.
I think you have a real relationship with Shakey's Pizza .. or am I just dating myself? ;-)
Romantic movement vs Classical movement, Dionysius vs Apollo ... aka Nietzsche was right. I and a few others here are Dionysian. And I take a hammer to smash your Apollonian classicism.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 25, 2018, 01:22:12 PMI've said it before, and I'll say it again... comic books and their movies (as well as the occasional culture-changing pieces like LotR or Harry Potter) are the modern day equivalent of the mythological heroes our ancestors have revered for thousands upon thousands of years.
They're basically folk/cultural heroes, like Heracles or King Arthur or Beowulf.
The thing that a lot of non-fans often miss is that this stuff is not just two costumed weirdoes brawling. These characters are often have enormous symbolic qualities that resonate with people (Spider-Man is an everyman burdened with the moral duty of helping everyday people, Captain America is the idealized form of American values, Iron Man is American ingenuity/technological progress, etc)
There's a lot more going on than meets the eye.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 25, 2018, 01:47:19 PM
I don't take any magic seriously.
My condolences, then.
Quote from: Hydra009They're basically folk/cultural heroes, like Heracles or King Arthur or Beowulf.
The thing that a lot of non-fans often miss is that this stuff is not just two costumed weirdoes brawling. These characters are often have enormous symbolic qualities that resonate with people (Spider-Man is an everyman burdened with the moral duty of helping everyday people, Captain America is the idealized form of American values, Iron Man is American ingenuity/technological progress, etc)
There's a lot more going on than meets the eye.
Exactly. The "magic" of these characters is not really what matters; it's the struggles they go through, the moral lessons they teach, what they represent and what we learn about humanity or the universe that is the true core of a superhero story.
Yes, they are entertaining and their magic is a large part of that... but I don't think any author or director actually expects you to take the fact they have superhuman strength, can shoot lasers from their eyes, can fly, shoot spiderwebs or whatever seriously. To focus on those powers as the "serious" bit of the story is to miss the story entirely.
Magic is a plot device, not the plot itself.
On a related note, I just finished watching Watchmen... I don't understand all the shit talk I have always heard about it, it was honestly a really fucking good movie and makes me want to go and read the actual comic now.
I recently saw Into The Spiderverse.
Absolutely loved it. 9/10, possibly 10/10. It's a very tough call between this and Homecoming for my favorite Spider-Man movie.
Animation: phenomenal. I've never seen anything like this. It's so crisp and fluid. I don't know what's CGI, what's drawn, etc. And it has a very comic-booky aesthetic that works really well.
Characters: good. Miles is okay, but the secondary characters really steal the show. Spider-Gwen was jaw-dropping. Hobo Spider-Man was good for a gag or two. And Peni Parker was absolutely adorable. There were absolutely no other Spider characters that I can recall.
Story: decent. I've seen this one at least a dozen times before, and this one did a competent job with it, with a twist or two. Easily the weakest part of the movie. If the movie weren't stunning, I'd have a couple gripes here. Speaking of...
Gripes: Kingpin's physique has been exaggerated over and over again to the point that now I wonder if he can even use the bathroom without external aid or walk down hallways without peeling the paint off the walls.
[spoiler](https://www.trendsinternational.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/1/7/17118_spider-man-_spider-verse_-_kingpin_-_4x6.jpg)
(https://banner2.kisspng.com/20180601/oip/kisspng-kingpin-daredevil-spider-man-miles-morales-marvel-fat-man-5b11dfef394f14.7608316415278980952348.jpg)
Pick the one that doesn't belong.[/spoiler]
Tombstone is far less intimidating than he is in the comics. Almost to "am I a joke to you?" levels.
Is it okay to say I didn't care for the music?
And finally, the Post-Credits scene:
[spoiler]Spider-Man 2099 in all his memey glory. Hopefully, he's intended for more than just a quick gag, cause I would love to see him in another Spider-Man movie.[/spoiler]
"Atomic Zombie Space Creeps" (on Prime) -10/10. Really horrible. Loved it.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 25, 2018, 03:26:29 PM
On a related note, I just finished watching Watchmen... I don't understand all the shit talk I have always heard about it, it was honestly a really fucking good movie and makes me want to go and read the actual comic now.
Watchmen deconstructed comic book heroism using a comic book format and some fans feel translating the story to film will alway miss what made Watchmen exceptional.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 25, 2018, 04:00:59 PM
I've lost nothing.
I feel on a philosophical level the fact you feel that way only goes to reinforce why I feel sorry for your loss, but to each their own.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 25, 2018, 04:19:25 PMWatchmen deconstructed comic book heroism using a comic book format and some fans feel translating the story to film will alway miss what made Watchmen exceptional.
I have to be honest, that makes absolutely no sense to me, but whatever floats their goats. Their loss, not mine.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 25, 2018, 04:46:09 PM
I feel on a philosophical level the fact you feel that way only goes to reinforce why I feel sorry for your loss, but to each their own.
You take comic books too seriously. I dropped them like a bad habit when I discovered Heinlein, Simak, Asimov, et al. If you're "sorry" for me then you're just sorry.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 25, 2018, 05:02:20 PM
You take comic books too seriously. I dropped them like a bad habit when I discovered Heinlein, Simak, Asimov, et al. If you're "sorry" for me then you're just sorry.
Some people take comic books and graphic novels very seriously.
(https://i2.wp.com/media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Sousanis-Unflattening-Excerpt31.jpg?w=970)
Doctoral dissertation in graphic novel formhttps://boingboing.net/2015/06/21/doctoral-dissertation-in-graph.html
Columbia University awarded a doctorate in education to Nick Sousanis for Unflattening, a graphic novel about the relationship between words and pictures in literature.
It was published by Harvard University Press and got a starred review in Publishers Weekly the journal Comics Grid wrote that it demonstrated "the viability of a comic book as doctoral scholarship in its own right, rather than a separate work requiring some accompanying critical paratext." ...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 25, 2018, 05:02:20 PM
You take comic books too seriously. I dropped them like a bad habit when I discovered Heinlein, Simak, Asimov, et al. If you're "sorry" for me then you're just sorry.
My bookshelf is filled with Dostoevsky, Philip K. Dick, Dumas, Poe, Lao Tzu, Marcus Aurelius, Dickens Homer, Chekov, Cervantes. I have great cultural works like the Shahnameh, the Koran, Suzuki's work on Zen Buddhism, Beowulf, Le Morte d'Arthur. I have historical examinations of the Boxer Rebellion, the British Raj, the Aztec and Mayan empires, the Byzantine Empire.
My appreciation of comic books does not in anyway effect my appreciation of those works, nor do those works effect my appreciation of comic books. You do not have to hate something just because you like something else.
My brain is very musically oriented, so for me this is how I see it... you are telling me that you like classical music, and rock and roll isn't "real" music and anyone who thinks it is is kinda stupid.
Even amongst genres I dislike (country music, for example), I am not going to deny that there are plenty of country musicians who are extremely talented... I just don't aurally enjoy it. But I'm not going to run around and say that country musicians aren't "real" musicians or don't have meaning to their works... and if I did, I would expect people to feel sorry for me as well for having such a judgmental world view.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 25, 2018, 05:08:02 PM
Some people take comic books and graphic novels very seriously.
(https://i2.wp.com/media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Sousanis-Unflattening-Excerpt31.jpg?w=970)
Doctoral dissertation in graphic novel form
https://boingboing.net/2015/06/21/doctoral-dissertation-in-graph.html
Columbia University awarded a doctorate in education to Nick Sousanis for Unflattening, a graphic novel about the relationship between words and pictures in literature.
It was published by Harvard University Press and got a starred review in Publishers Weekly the journal Comics Grid wrote that it demonstrated "the viability of a comic book as doctoral scholarship in its own right, rather than a separate work requiring some accompanying critical paratext." ...
And people get Ph.Ds in playground supervision. (You won't get that reference.)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 25, 2018, 05:02:20 PM
You take comic books too seriously.
Some of them are very serious. Some are intended to be somewhat serious. And some are very silly. It's a much larger and more varied format than you're presenting.
Saying that comics are for kids is like saying that TV shows are for kids. (Some of them are, some of them aren't)
QuoteI dropped them like a bad habit when I discovered Heinlein, Simak, Asimov, et al.
Are these mutually exclusive? Also, relevance? Cause your argument essentially boils down to books are bad because you like plays more.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 25, 2018, 09:01:50 PM
Some of them are very serious. Some are intended to be somewhat serious. And some are very silly. It's a much larger and more varied format than you're presenting.
Saying that comics are for kids is like saying that TV shows are for kids. (Some of them are, some of them aren't)
Are these mutually exclusive? Also, relevance? Cause your argument essentially boils down to books are bad because you like plays more.
Comic book too many words, confuse me!
I was Aqua Man today. It was pretty Marginal I thought.
Quote from: SGOS on December 27, 2018, 05:08:44 PM
I was Aqua Man today. It was pretty Marginal I thought.
Water you mean? Can you be more pacific? Dew you think it was watered down from the source material? Or an opportunaty wasted? Or did the DCEU just run out of stream? (Or didn't give a dam)
I really want to see Vice, but it's too bad it's a comedy. We won't find out what really happened with that White House. Casting look great, though!
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 27, 2018, 08:25:19 PM
I really want to see Vice, but it's too bad it's a comedy. We won't find out what really happened with that White House. Casting look great, though!
Conspiracy theory for liberals?
Quote from: SGOS on December 24, 2018, 08:41:19 PM
That's too bad, I've been rooting for DC to get their act together, and at least go toe to toe with Marvel one time. They've got great characters, but the don't seem to get the most out of them. Actually, I won't pass up a DC movie ever. If it has a superhero, I'm going to see it. I loved Wonder Woman up until the end, where it dragged on far too long for an acceptable climax. I'm all for a good explosion, but if it lasts more then 10 minutes, I get bored.
I am going to be cautiously optimistic about the upcoming Doom Patrol series... but I'm not betting anything on it. That way if it doesn't suck, I can be pleasantly surprised.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 27, 2018, 05:28:58 PM
Water you mean? Can you be more pacific? Dew you think it was watered down from the source material? Or an opportunaty wasted? Or did the DCEU just run out of stream? (Or didn't give a dam)
This post is out of character from you usual serious responses. But I like it. In answer to your question, I've always been perplexed that DC could not match the success of Marvel, and now with Marvel temporarily out of the way, DC failed to capitalize on a watershed moment where they could have turned the tide and ridden a wave to box office success.
I've been looking forward to Glass. I must have seen a trailer 3 months ago, which captivated me with one scene, where a psychiatrist was giving a tour of the asylum, and she introduces herself, "I'm Dr. 'something or other' and I specialize exclusively in patients suffering from the delusion that they are superheroes." That scene alone was brilliant, as it capitalizes on wild popularity of the genre where movie goers have become so all consumed by superheroes that a new mental disorder has manifested itself in the psychiatric desk guide to mental illness. That in itself would be a wonderful premise for a movie, but they take it one step further, and it turns out that some of the patients in the asylum are actually misdiagnosed superheroes. There is so much that could be done with that entire premise that I will be angry if Hollywood fails and wastes such a golden opportunity.
McAvoy is a superhero or just a multiple personality? Enquiring minds want to know.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2018, 06:19:34 AM
McAvoy is a superhero or just a multiple personality? Enquiring minds want to know.
Yeah, I'm not sure how that goes. I've wondered about that too. Superheroes frequently seem to suffer from some sort of internal turmoil, whether it be Batman's original fears or Dr. Strange's narcissism. So I suppose a superhero with a multiple personality might work, although it carries the inner turmoil to an odd extreme. In addition, I didn't like McAvoy's character in split. I actually didn't even like the movie, so we are building from the worst sot of unlikeable character. I know some people didn't like Dr. Strange's personality either, but narcissism is one thing. A psychotic serial murderer is something else.
Let me know how it turns out, please. Too old to watch accidentally bad movies.
Deliberately bad movies, on the other paw...
I saw a pretty interesting video that claimed that the MCU was heavily influenced by three movies: Green Lantern, X-Men, and Spider-Man.
Green Lantern flopped in part because the completely CGI costume looked bad. X-Men eschewed their iconic colors (bad move) and instead used all-black leather suits. Spider-Man went the other route and used its classic colors (good move).
Iron Man is particular did costuming well because the suit takes damage and shows realistic-looking battle damage in subsequent shots. That helps sell audiences on the idea that the suit is real.
In short, these films laid the groundwork for superhero costuming in the MCU - helping to define what's acceptable and what's not. Turns out fans prefer practical effects and iconic colors compared to over-reliance on CGI and bland colors. Who knew!
Well, if that's so, why have the avengers gone from having colourful costumes as you would think they'd wear in the comics in avengers 1, to now the avengers wearing dismal dark colours in infinity war?
(https://media.comicbook.com/2018/03/infinity-war-cap-header-1088882-1280x0.jpeg)
(https://www.sideshowtoy.com/assets/products/903422-thor/lg/marvel-avengers-infinity-war-thor-sixth-scale-figure-hot-toys-903422-09.jpg)
Quote from: Munch on January 03, 2019, 02:16:57 PM
Well, if that's so, why have the avengers gone from having colourful costumes as you would think they'd wear in the comics in avengers 1, to now the avengers wearing dismal dark colours in infinity war?
Thematic reasons. Infinity War is supposed to be a tad grim.
Also in that movie, both Iron Man's armor and Spider Man's armor were fully CGI with little fuss from the fans (in contrast to Green Lantern). So, there might be a case to be made that my earlier summary isn't a hard-and-fast rule, some wiggle room exists, and of course trends can change at any moment.
Maybe people just thought infinity war was just a far more entertaining movie then green lantern, much like how the first X-Men movie was entertaining despite the biker wear costumes
Certain details become more obvious when people are bored.
Good quality CGI is certainly less distracting than bad CGI, but it doesn't make or break the movie for me. Marvel Cinematic Universe movies are overall very entertaining, well written, and manage to balance an overarching narrative while not sacrificing the story of the individual movies. Marvel movies are just fucking good.
Doing the impossible requires either cheesy filming or CGI. When I saw the CGI in "Reign of Fire" I thought "NOW they can do The Hobbit."
Into the Spiderverse: Loved almost everything about it. It's not just a superhero movie, it's a comic book movie.
Bird box
Gf insistent on watching this, told her it looked like a bad film.
Throughout THE film she tried to point out that it was a good movie.
It wasn't. Showing THE monster too often ruins horror flicks. Not showing it doesn't make a good one. THE movie is boring, and from THE moment it starts, you know who in THE group is going to live and who is going to die. Just because it decided to tell it's story through this flashback.
At THE end of THE movie, i asked her. She admitte she didn't like it very much either.
5/10
Would not recommend.
THE children's acting is about all that's believable in this one. A major feat in and of itself, but not enough to save THE film.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 03, 2019, 11:43:45 PM
Into the Spiderverse: Loved almost everything about it. It's not just a superhero movie, it's a comic book movie.
Do we have to know the references?
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 03, 2019, 11:43:45 PM
Into the Spiderverse: Loved almost everything about it. It's not just a superhero movie, it's a comic book movie.
It's my favorite Spider-Man movie by far. The Sam Raimi films (the first two), were a good blend of cheesy and dramatic. The Amazing Spider-Man movies were unimpressive. And as for Homecoming, while it was nice to have Spider-Man in the MCU, I wasn't fond of how much they changed the supporting cast of characters.
Into the Spider-Verse was a big surprise for me. I thought I was done with Sony Pictures Spider-Man movies, and a movie starring a whole cast of Spider-Men sounded boring on paper. But I heard good things about it and decided to go see it. It was funny, really nice to look at, and shows a lot of care for the source material and history of Spider-Man. There are references to past films, cartoon shows, and memes (in a blind and you'll miss it sort of way). Rather than making the film feel lazy, the multiverse actually feels like it opens up a ton of possibilities. Even characters you think you know might not be how you remember them.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 04, 2019, 03:18:57 AM
Bird box
Gf insistent on watching this, told her it looked like a bad film.
Throughout THE film she tried to point out that it was a good movie.
It wasn't. Showing THE monster too often ruins horror flicks. Not showing it doesn't make a good one. THE movie is boring, and from THE moment it starts, you know who in THE group is going to live and who is going to die. Just because it decided to tell it's story through this flashback.
At THE end of THE movie, i asked her. She admitte she didn't like it very much either.
5/10
Would not recommend.
THE children's acting is about all that's believable in this one. A major feat in and of itself, but not enough to save THE film.
Saw that one too---with my wife. I like end-of-the-world movies and books and games. That part was done well enough. The acting I felt was decent, especially the kids. What really fell on it's face was the unseen monster--not only unseen but unknown. And there is only one tiny hint--a guy who is writing a book about the end of the world and it involves deamons and the like killing off mankind. But it does not really tie it to the unseen terror just outside the window. The unknown is not really even hinted at even at the end of the movie. The birds are a slight hint in that in some pagan and ancient religions, birds are guides for the soul either leading to or in, the afterlife. What really disgusts me about the movie is that many christian believers are saying that the movie illustrates why having blind faith is the best way to live. I put this movie into the same category as Signs--a movie that is really christian propaganda, and therefore I rate it a zero!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 04, 2019, 05:32:43 AM
Do we have to know the references?
No. I saw it with my younger brother who has never read a Spiderman comic and he enjoyed it.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 04, 2019, 10:22:08 AM
No. I saw it with my younger brother who has never read a Spiderman comic and he enjoyed it.
I'll put it on the cable list. T/Y
Did anyone else see the latest A Star is Born (2018)? I really enjoyed it. I thought Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga and Sam Elliot all gave excellent performances. I would love to have the soundtrack as there were some really nice songs. The storyline went along the same theme as the previous versions with some updating and tweaking.
Quote from: LoriPinkAngel on January 04, 2019, 11:33:33 AM
Did anyone else see the latest A Star is Born (2018)? I really enjoyed it. I thought Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga and Sam Elliot all gave excellent performances. I would love to have the soundtrack as there were some really nice songs. The storyline went along the same theme as the previous versions with some updating and tweaking.
I'm hoping to see it next week. I've heard good things about the film from friends.
Ha! I just went to see Bumble Bee after totally avoiding Transformers movies and DVDs for the last 4 years. It got good reviews, and I took a chance. It was fun, possibly on par with the first Transformers movie, which I enjoyed a bunch. It's still about the Decepticons out to destroy and wreck havoc, but focuses more on the relationship of the main character and a battered up Bumble Bee (the yellow transformer). It had a different feel than the first one, and it avoided seeming like a rehash of action scenes.
Quote from: LoriPinkAngel on January 04, 2019, 11:33:33 AM
Did anyone else see the latest A Star is Born (2018)? I really enjoyed it. I thought Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga and Sam Elliot all gave excellent performances. I would love to have the soundtrack as there were some really nice songs. The storyline went along the same theme as the previous versions with some updating and tweaking.
I couldn't get interested enough to go to the theater, but I'm definitely going to rent the disk. I don't think I've ever seen Lady Gaga, so I'm interested in that, and I also like about everything Bradley Cooper does.
Quote from: SGOS on January 04, 2019, 05:49:08 PM
I couldn't get interested enough to go to the theater, but I'm definitely going to rent the disk. I don't think I've ever seen Lady Gaga, so I'm interested in that, and I also like about everything Bradley Cooper does.
You never saw Lady Gaga in her meat dress?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms8j5g6OKZU
I find the lack of Elvis and fanclub disturbing in Odd Thomas the movie.
I also find the bodachs to be less horrifying and more dumb when the bodachs "Kenw" that Odd can see them and not instantly die, but save it for the final battle. By gods, I say, this movie skips things and threads things together and leads fans on a sour note.
Stephen Sommers has lost his touch or lack of there of?
I give this movie a 4/10 and critics agree it's a bomb.
Lady Gaga has grown up a lot since she used to wear the meat dress and other outrageous costumes. She is a very talented singer and can sing many genres of music well.
Off track..not a movie but watched my first episode of . Oliver or no. The Orville...some new age Star trekkish show. Had this guy what looked like the next version of the Klingons but in this one he and his partner appear to be maleish but either can also have children..er ....I think..Both the males were very ...er..manly and the one guy started having little tete's in the hologram room with other male-ish characters....realized I am not really into watching men getting busy...or even getting friendly. But when the one who was an officer asked another alien who were "known for their ability to produce top notch porn" I had to say..."adios".....I can handle some mild gay....but apparently not more than mild....even the less the better...sorry bout that.
Quote from: aitm on January 04, 2019, 10:33:03 PM
Off track..not a movie but watched my first episode of . Oliver or no. The Orville...some new age Star trekkish show. Had this guy what looked like the next version of the Klingons but in this one he and his partner appear to be maleish but either can also have children..er ....I think..Both the males were very ...er..manly and the one guy started having little tete's in the hologram room with other male-ish characters....realized I am not really into watching men getting busy...or even getting friendly. But when the one who was an officer asked another alien who were "known for their ability to produce top notch porn" I had to say..."adios".....I can handle some mild gay....but apparently not more than mild....even the less the better...sorry bout that.
Heh, I know exactly what you're talking about, even from that extremely vague and fragmentary summary. Orville S2E2: Primal Urges. That was a strange episode to be sure. Not my cup of tea either, but I think it helped grow the character and resolve a couple lingering issues from S1S3: About A Girl.
I actually kinda liked that episode. It had a lulzy Manslayer-ish vibe to it. I dunno if
@Munch watches The Orville, but I definitely think he would get a kick out of that episode!
I also really like that the holodeck/simulator room was used for what we all know it would actually be used for. Damn TNG and their naive, vaguely puritanical view of human nature! They know damn well no one would want to play Sherlock or Captain Proton except to bang Watson and/or Queen Arachnia. Come on, you've all thought about it!
Every ensign's first thought when entering the holodeck:
(https://i1.wp.com/68.media.tumblr.com/44e1983823209f75f9ebb578d166979c/tumblr_oumura4v5H1sc0ffqo1_1280.gif?w=605)
Quote from: LoriPinkAngel on January 04, 2019, 09:59:50 PM
Lady Gaga has grown up a lot since she used to wear the meat dress and other outrageous costumes. She is a very talented singer and can sing many genres of music well.
In the movie trailer, she seemed very mature and down to Earth.
I saw Aquaman and it a passable superhero-action popcorn movie as long as you check your critical thinking skills at the door. I liked Jason Momoa and the underseas kingdoms. It borrows a lot from other action movies. The trench dwellers were cool and there is a scene with a nice nod to Lovecraft. Atlantian guards give stormtroopers a run for their money for worst marksmen ever.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 05, 2019, 09:21:47 AM
as long as you check your critical thinking skills at the door.
I believe the first time I realized I HAD critical thinking skills when as a boy I watched superman hold down a helicopter standing flat footed on the tarmac. Ummm how does THAT work? Krypton sticky shoes?
Quote from: aitm on January 05, 2019, 09:32:21 AM
I believe the first time I realized I HAD critical thinking skills when as a boy I watched superman hold down a helicopter standing flat footed on the tarmac. Ummm how does THAT work? Krypton sticky shoes?
It's funny how the willful suspension of disbelief can be broken. In
Aquaman, I accept there is a technologically advanced underwater civilization that can convert water into high energy plasma but think "no way" when a pirate completely redesigns that unfamiliar technology.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 05, 2019, 09:51:42 AM
It's funny how the willful suspension of disbelief can be broken. In Aquaman, I accept there is a technologically advanced underwater civilization that can convert water into high energy plasma but think "no way" when a pirate completely redesigns that unfamiliar technology.
Alfred Pennyworth: [to Bruce] One misses when ones biggest concerns exploding wind-up penguins.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 05, 2019, 09:51:42 AM
It's funny how the willful suspension of disbelief can be broken. In Aquaman, I accept there is a technologically advanced underwater civilization that can convert water into high energy plasma but think "no way" when a pirate completely redesigns that unfamiliar technology.
It's called a case mod. Everyone is doing it.
(https://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/secret-base-pc-casemod-by-Hiroto-Ikeuchi-620x399.jpg)
looks like a scene from bladerunner
Quote from: Munch on January 05, 2019, 02:30:38 PM
looks like a scene from bladerunner
"Mortal Engines."
If I ever get a custom case, I want it to be like this Mid-Century Modern hunk of gorgeousness (https://gajitz.com/mid-century-style-meets-modern-pc-in-dazzling-custom-case/):
(https://gajitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/mid-century-madness-case-mod-1.jpg)
Quote from: trdsf on January 06, 2019, 04:34:54 AM
If I ever get a custom case, I want it to be like this Mid-Century Modern hunk of gorgeousness (https://gajitz.com/mid-century-style-meets-modern-pc-in-dazzling-custom-case/):
(https://gajitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/mid-century-madness-case-mod-1.jpg)
I prefer the Vegas look:
(https://pclinkshop.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/carousel_678x452.jpg)
Saw Aquaman.
I've not been impressed by the DCU movies, even seeing some of wonder woman, while its serviceable, it wasn't the grand film spectacle I thought it would be. I've been a comic book fan for years, and when I see a movie about comic book characters I like, I do have an expectation going into a movie about them. This is why movies like deadpool and the first x-men movie, or even the thor and avengers movies, won me over, because actors like Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds and Chris Hemsworth brought their A game to the role they were given and not just phoned in a the roles.
And for me, Jason Momoa was one of those guys, he played Aquaman how I hoped someone would. I find it so funny how given how much of a bomb the other DCU movies have been lately, its Aquaman that has gotten the most liking, because it doesn't take itself so seriously as the other movies have, something I think is thats been missing in other dc movies, something marvel movies has done so well.
And James Wan is a great, fun director, I've loved his films from the conjuring to insidious to even the first saw movie, he's a fine director, and knew what people actually wanted from a comic book movie, fun, action, great effects, and character.
The movie has some problems here and there, like maybe to much cgi. Some of the actors aren't exactly the best, especially the child actors in it, and the movie often seems to have a tone problem what its going for time to time, and a couple of rushed scenes that had me thinking 'oh, right, so that just happened'.
But overall the movie was fun, Jason Momoa pretty much captured the role for me, Amber Heard as Mera was pretty good, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II was black manta was okay but needed more screen time.
So for its flaws, this one did feel like a step in the right direction for better DC movies. would watch again.
7/10
I think "Thor: Ragnarok", the Guardians of the Galaxy, and the lighter spots in "Justice League" have shown that a somber comic book movie doesn't really work.
Not to say serious can't be done when you have the right director. Christopher Nolan had very little in the way of humor in his movies, you could probably count the humorous moments on the finger of one hand. But I think it worked with batman because he is the most grounded superhero you can think of, batman plays serious because its more in a real world setting then anything else in dc.
When you throw in things like god like men who can fly and fire lazers from their eyes or people who can fly in outerspace with glowing rings with green energy constructs and people who can run so fast they can slow down time, you can't have stuff like that and think a serious tone is easy to pull off. Its not impossible, like certain dc writers who have written serious stories for the dc heroes, but its few and far between, and those comics and coming off of decades of growth, not a fresh concept like the story of a comic book movie lineup.
the reason why avengers infinity war worked so well given its somber tones thoughout, is because the characters had movies beforehand where you got to know them as characters, the kind of setting their in, the humor and seriousness of it all, and you got invested in them, which makes the impact of infinity war all the more meaningful.
Justice league had none of this build up, it had one superman movie, and one batman vs superman movie. it gave no investment in the other characters beforehand, and yet tried hard to push for a super serious tone as if things were at stake.. but how was the audience meant to even care if they hadn't spent time with the characters beforehand, and the only one they did was the one character whos pretty much a god.
This is why i liked this movie, it gave development to a character needing it, and it also felt like you could watch this movie and have no ties to the other one (except a small mention of what happened in justice league movie but can ignore that)
I recently enjoyed watching Ed Wood, and was pleasantly surprised at the role Martin Landau played of Bela Lugosi. Quite a good movie, hardly any special effects, though.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 08:42:34 PM
I recently enjoyed watching Ed Wood, and was pleasantly surprised at the role Martin Landau played of Bela Lugosi. Quite a good movie, hardly any special effects, though.
Bela was a total trainwreck by the time "Plan Nine" came around.
Rewatched the Grand Budapest Hotel.
Love that film.
Has a pleasant energy to it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 08:42:34 PM
I recently enjoyed watching Ed Wood, and was pleasantly surprised at the role Martin Landau played of Bela Lugosi. Quite a good movie, hardly any special effects, though.
That was a fun movie. We went and saw it in its theatrical run -- whole bunch of MSTies, we had to go see a movie about Ed. And the phrase "Cut! Print! Perfect!" entered our group's lexicon as a stand-in for "Fuck it, that'll do." :)
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 08, 2019, 06:33:08 AM
Rewatched the Grand Budapest Hotel.
Love that film.
Has a pleasant energy to it.
If you like Wes Anderson who directed that and other similarly quirky movies, you need to see Moonrise Kingdom, especially if you like Grand Budapest. They both have a similar feel with well known serious actors waiting in line to get a chance to play one of the bizarre characters that Anderson creates.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 08, 2019, 06:33:08 AM
Rewatched the Grand Budapest Hotel.
Love that film.
Has a pleasant energy to it.
I enjoyed it, I liked the stylisation of it, almost like looking into a doll house. The music was great too.
Only Lovers Left Alive. I have seen it when it came out, but loved it more when I watched it again a few days ago.
This is the best vampire movie ever made. I am telling you.
Double Feature Matinee: "Red Planet" and "Mission to Mars".
Watching batman returns.
Can't say why.
Can't look away.
Help.
There is no help for you, resistance is futile...
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 08, 2019, 03:38:58 PM
Watching batman returns.
Can't say why.
Can't look away.
Help.
I tried watch "The Dork Knight", didn't happen.
He's sending out his army of penguins.
Fuck, why didn't I ever start smoking pot?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 08, 2019, 03:38:58 PM
Watching batman returns.
Can't say why.
Can't look away.
Help.
Oooh I see what's happened. You've been pulled into the Tim Burton void.
It's like an inescapable vortex, you want to pull away, the weird stylistic humor and dark comedic action has your rational brain telling you 'this isn't batman!", But Burton's weird and surreal directing has your curiosity drawing you back in for more.
We've all been there, just get yourself some cough syrup for afterward, chug it down.
Yeah, that's it - chug like a steam locomotive! LOL
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 08, 2019, 03:27:03 PM
Double Feature Matinee: "Red Planet" and "Mission to Mars".
Top 10 includes those two ... have you seen them all?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ_CicA08pM
Well it's official, aquaman is now the highest grossing DCEU movie to date.
https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2019/01/aquaman-highest-grossing-dceu-movie
I just keep finding it hilariously ironic, since for years, even decades, aquamans been considered the joke of the DC characters cast, because he's the character who swims around and talks to fish. Yet here we are, with DC's failed DCEU franchise, and the character people mocked for decades pulling ahead of all others like batman, superman and even wonder woman.
Now if only Jason Momoa was hot...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 09, 2019, 06:26:35 AM
Now if only Jason Momoa was hot...
(https://sayingimages.com/wp-content/uploads/katt-william-excuse-me-meme.jpg)
Yawn
Quote from: Munch on January 09, 2019, 06:11:59 AM
I just keep finding it hilariously ironic, since for years, even decades, aquamans been considered the joke of the DC characters cast, because he's the character who swims around and talks to fish.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/law-order-psychiatrist-super_hero-super_heroes-superhero_counselling-mental_health-shl111021_low.jpg)
We had a joke when I was in high school. The school's guidance counselor hated kids, so we called her "Miss Guidance".
Question then gawd, who do you consider hot?
Quote from: Munch on January 09, 2019, 09:51:31 AM
Question then gawd, who do you consider hot?
Shirley you jest.
Quote from: Munch on January 09, 2019, 06:11:59 AM
Well it's official, aquaman is now the highest grossing DCEU movie to date.
https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2019/01/aquaman-highest-grossing-dceu-movie
I just keep finding it hilariously ironic, since for years, even decades, aquamans been considered the joke of the DC characters cast, because he's the character who swims around and talks to fish. Yet here we are, with DC's failed DCEU franchise, and the character people mocked for decades pulling ahead of all others like batman, superman and even wonder woman.
I think part of that is because we've seen Batman and Superman a million times already. Wonder Woman, not so much, but her movie was considered one of the "good ones" and was successful. Sometimes, it helps to have a character that people either don't know or don't expect a lot from. It allows the audience to go into the movie with little to no expectations. For instance, take a look at Spider-Man. His origin story has been done to death. At this point, it's very hard to impress me with a Spider-Man film because I'll always compare it to the other Spider-Man movies I've seen. Compare that to the Guardians of the Galaxy; a team of heroes virtually no one had heard of besides the most die hard of comic book fans. New characters, no expectations, high praise all around. Of course, it also helps to have an actually good movie...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 09, 2019, 10:24:07 AM
Shirley you jest.
oh shirley temple? okay she made her career as a child, but maybe you preferred her later roles.
I was just pulling your chain, Munch.
Quote from: Munch on January 09, 2019, 06:11:59 AM
Well it's official, aquaman is now the highest grossing DCEU movie to date.
https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2019/01/aquaman-highest-grossing-dceu-movie
I just keep finding it hilariously ironic, since for years, even decades, aquamans been considered the joke of the DC characters cast, because he's the character who swims around and talks to fish. Yet here we are, with DC's failed DCEU franchise, and the character people mocked for decades pulling ahead of all others like batman, superman and even wonder woman.
The Little Mermaid for gay men ;-)
Quote from: Munch on January 09, 2019, 02:10:06 PM
oh shirley temple? okay she made her career as a child, but maybe you preferred her later roles.
Maybe he was jealous of her white and red polkadot dresses? (sarc).
The Oath 8/10
This movie is a riot. The government creates an oath of loyalty to the president that citizens have one year to sign before the deadline. It's supposed to be voluntary, but if you don't sign, a government agency affiliated with Homeland Security sends agents to your home to "talk to you." Sometimes they take you away, but no one knows where. Friends find it safest not to talk about whether they signed or not. They try not to talk about it at Thanksgiving dinner, but of course, everyone does. Families are destroyed. Protests against it happen. People get killed. It's actually a timely satire about America today. It's bloody and visceral and fun. I felt sick and frightened all the time I was laughing. It was unique and clever.
Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2019, 07:25:29 PM
The Little Mermaid for gay men ;-)
Actually there is this theory...
(https://funsubstance.com/uploads/original/46/46043.jpg)
This video contains heavy spoilers for the movie hereditary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JHXWUongeM
I talked about this movie back in October/November when I saw it, with a belief rundown. But this guy really brought back what I remember about the movie, and why it lingered with me.
Spoilers:
Admittedly, the movie has a couple of silly moments mostly due to the direction of the story near the end of it, basically the movies progression went from bizarre family drama with some unsettling traits, to suddenly thrusting you into visual horror, to by the end going full on supernatural horror.
However, 'that scene' has quickly become infamous as maybe one of the most intense scenes in a horror movie in a long time, right up there with the shining moment twisting along the corridors, the scene in IT of the kid getting pulled into the storm drain, or the alien bursting from chest scene. Not gonna spoil the scene, and yes, the review above does spoil the moment, so don't watch it before seeing the film. But for me, those 10 minutes in the movie left an impression on me, because unlike so much of the surreal and supernatural stuff in the rest of the film, those 10 minutes were so real in how it was portrayed, and you could imagine anyone in that situation, making the horror of it all the more intense.
maybe I've already ruined it by building it up to much, as that tends to do, but if you go in with an open mind, yeah, watch this film.
Quote from: Munch on January 09, 2019, 10:02:31 PM
This video contains heavy spoilers for the movie hereditary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JHXWUongeM
I talked about this movie back in October/November when I saw it, with a belief rundown. But this guy really brought back what I remember about the movie, and why it lingered with me.
Spoilers:
Admittedly, the movie has a couple of silly moments mostly due to the direction of the story near the end of it, basically the movies progression went from bizarre family drama with some unsettling traits, to suddenly thrusting you into visual horror, to by the end going full on supernatural horror.
However, 'that scene' has quickly become infamous as maybe one of the most intense scenes in a horror movie in a long time, right up there with the shining moment twisting along the corridors, the scene in IT of the kid getting pulled into the storm drain, or the alien bursting from chest scene. Not gonna spoil the scene, and yes, the review above does spoil the moment, so don't watch it before seeing the film. But for me, those 10 minutes in the movie left an impression on me, because unlike so much of the surreal and supernatural stuff in the rest of the film, those 10 minutes were so real in how it was portrayed, and you could imagine anyone in that situation, making the horror of it all the more intense.
maybe I've already ruined it by building it up to much, as that tends to do, but if you go in with an open mind, yeah, watch this film.
Watched it withfriends on Halloween. Liked it.
Started off creepy and unsettling. Then kicked it in overdrive.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 09, 2019, 08:00:51 PM
Actually there is this theory...
Disney is fond of putting unusual sexual references in their films for children. There might mushrooms in a forest or architectural turrets on castles shaped like penises. I suppose if you were obsessed you could find more too. Or you might deny that's what they really are while you fascinate on them:
"Oh, never mind SGOS. He has his mind in the gutter again."
That's where it is most of the time, but I Know what castle turrets and mushrooms look like. Sure you might find an odd mushroom now and then that reminds you of something sexual in real life. But it happens more often in Disney movies:
"Just a coincidence! SGOS's mind is running wild again."
But the fact that you recognize it as a coincidence betrays you, because you recognize it too. And just remember that every time you take your kids to see a Disney movie, that they will eventually grow up spending unnecessary hours thinking about sex. It's inevitable.
(https://www.mysavings.com/img/link/large/46615.jpg)
Quote from: SGOS on January 09, 2019, 08:00:14 PM
The Oath 8/10
This movie is a riot. The government creates an oath of loyalty to the president that citizens have one year to sign before the deadline. It's supposed to be voluntary, but if you don't sign, a government agency affiliated with Homeland Security sends agents to your home to "talk to you." Sometimes they take you away, but no one knows where. Friends find it safest not to talk about whether they signed or not. They try not to talk about it at Thanksgiving dinner, but of course, everyone does. Families are destroyed. Protests against it happen. People get killed. It's actually a timely satire about America today. It's bloody and visceral and fun. I felt sick and frightened all the time I was laughing. It was unique and clever.
Hitler did this with the German armed forces, in 1933. How about the ongoing Communist subversion, would that make a good movie? Communists love their gulag. Nazis just murder you.
Watch Emperor Macron's descent into autocracy as we post ...
Yeah, no Nazi ever made a camp for people they didn't like.
Let's not turn this into political discord guys, it's about movies, we got a politics section.
Glass, the movie about psychotics who think they are superheroes has not been released, but the critics are previewing it and giving it dismal scores. Audiences are still giving it a 97%, although admittedly this is on the basis of wanting to see it, not on actually seeing it. Too bad, because I thought the premise showed promise.
Quote from: Munch on January 10, 2019, 06:43:36 AM
Let's not turn this into political discord guys, it's about movies, we got a politics section.
Don't watch political movies then ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on January 10, 2019, 07:32:59 AM
Glass, the movie about psychotics who think they are superheroes has not been released, but the critics are previewing it and giving it dismal scores. Audiences are still giving it a 97%, although admittedly this is on the basis of wanting to see it, not on actually seeing it. Too bad, because I thought the premise showed promise.
It took me a minute when watching the trailer to recognize these are the characters from "Spilt" and "Unbreakable."
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 10, 2019, 07:38:29 AM
It took me a minute when watching the trailer to recognize these are the characters from "Spilt" and "Unbreakable."
Unbreakable sounds like a familiar title, but if I saw it, I sure can't remember. I'll look for a trailer. Split didn't do much for me, even with my casual interest in psychological thrillers.
Edit: Yes, I did see Unbreakable, but don't remember much.
Quote from: Baruch on January 10, 2019, 07:37:13 AM
Don't watch political movies then ;-)
Movies with politics in them are usually only viable within the context of the world of the movie it's made in. Like any of the James bond movies, or independence day.
Quote from: Munch on January 10, 2019, 08:05:54 AM
Movies with politics in them are usually only viable within the context of the world of the movie it's made in. Like any of the James bond movies, or independence day.
Yeah, nobody does Bond like Sean Connery ;-) Nobody takes down aliens like Will Smith ;-))
People want to see fantasy. Political movies are too close to reality to be good movies.
Quote from: Baruch on January 10, 2019, 12:41:36 PM
Yeah, nobody does Bond like Sean Connery ;-) Nobody takes down aliens like Will Smith ;-))
People want to see fantasy. Political movies are too close to reality to be good movies.
thats why politics in such movies are always silly and fabricated, like having the president being a war hero flying a fighter jet againest aliens, or fighting werewolves. People wouldn't pay to see 2 hours of political discussion they can't tweet about at the time.
Quote from: Munch on January 10, 2019, 01:10:09 PM
thats why politics in such movies are always silly and fabricated, like having the president being a war hero flying a fighter jet againest aliens, or fighting werewolves. People wouldn't pay to see 2 hours of political discussion they can't tweet about at the time.
Case in point ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZp7eBStN1U
Fantasy outlives facts, because they are less boring.
Quote from: Munch on January 10, 2019, 01:10:09 PM
thats why politics in such movies are always silly and fabricated, like having the president being a war hero flying a fighter jet againest aliens, or fighting werewolves. People wouldn't pay to see 2 hours of political discussion they can't tweet about at the time.
I'm trying to think of good counterexamples... the political movies that don't go the silly and fabricated route generally speaking have the politics as a side or back story, not as the main plotline. The main ones that come to mind are
All the President's Men (which is probably more a journalism story than a politics story) and
The Manchurian Candidate (which is more a Cold War story than a politics story). And there are plenty of good movies about politicians, but they tend to stay away from the actual politics and focus on (an idealized version of) their private lives, like
Sunrise at Campobello.
TV, the pickings are a little easier. I haven't seen the US version, but the original British
House of Cards (and its follow-ups
To Play the King and
The Final Cut) was fantastic without being fantasy
per se. I find it very easy to imagine a politician like Francis Urquhart. And I would like to see
A Very British Coup some time as well.
Seven Days In May ... is a good counterpart to The Manchurian Candidate. But I don't consider them good theater, just good ideological triggering. Mary Poppins is good theater. Ars Verite is simply the local police crime sheet with the names changed to protect the guilty.
On another tac ... are you a Mary Sue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcXVGIi1m28
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Shark-jumping training film.
Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark Hasn't aged well. Jones' flirtation with a young ... lady ... wouldn't make it through the censors these days. I did notice for the first time that the second unit director was Michael Moore*.
*Not that one.
The censors need to be fed to the wood chippers.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 11, 2019, 10:22:28 AMIndiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark Hasn't aged well. Jones' flirtation with a young ... lady ... wouldn't make it through the censors these days. I did notice for the first time that the second unit director was Michael Moore*.
She was 15 at the time of her initial relationship with Indy, who was 10 years her senior. Definitely broke the 'half your age plus seven' rule. At the time, Indy had 19-36 age socially acceptable range. Should've waited 9 more years! A 24-year-old with a 34-year-old is much more reasonable.
And here's a great quotable:
Marion: "I was a child! I was in love! It was wrong and you knew it!"
Jones: "You knew what you were doing."
Hooboy, I'd love to see the movie blogs react to that!
The SJW haven't yet banned inappropriate innuendo, otherwise many movies will be culled. What about all the old movies with people smoking? Reeeee.
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Stories about the supernatural? Really?
"Willing suspension of disbelief".
Quote from: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 10:52:21 AM
"Willing suspension of disbelief".
If you can do that ... then no true atheist (or Scotsman). On the other hand, being able to do that makes you a good slave to a political party.
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 12:16:33 PM
If you can do that ... then no true atheist (or Scotsman). On the other hand, being able to do that makes you a good slave to a political party.
Neither slave nor Um "slave" will I be. And of course, you do realize that atheists do not make slaves. I will leave you to the tender mercies of the Scots.
DAMN, I just realized I missed Samurai Jack tonight. Cartoon Channel 8 pm weekdays here.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 12:57:16 PM
Neither slave nor Um "slave" will I be. And of course, you do realize that atheists do not make slaves. I will leave you to the tender mercies of the Scots.
DAMN, I just realized I missed Samurai Jack tonight. Cartoon Channel 8 pm weekdays here.
Atheists make gulags instead ;-((
Quote from: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 10:52:21 AM
"Willing suspension of disbelief".
Yep. Marvel movies, DC movies, zombie movies, Michael Moore's movies...
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-S8k-RAi7eEc/Umym2XdZg_I/AAAAAAAADEU/ITllQKYQhvY/s640/Troops.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 12:16:33 PM
If you can do that ... then no true atheist (or Scotsman). On the other hand, being able to do that makes you a good slave to a political party.
Dumbass. Most people who die in novels never even lived, but Sherlock Holmes was fun to read. Get that stick out of your ass, it's banging up against your uvula.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 12, 2019, 02:50:56 PM
Dumbass. Most people who die in novels never even lived, but Sherlock Holmes was fun to read. Get that stick out of your ass, it's banging up against your uvula.
Don't see the connection. Sorry. There is a difference of opinion on what good fiction is, and whether or not something is fiction (it is a gray scale depending on fantasy vs reality (in writing). Of course fiction is just that, however "based" it may be on real events. Such differences of opinion are normal. BTW - a novel, like Gore Vidal's Lincoln, isn't history .. it is the reuse of a historic character for fictional purposes. Both a novel and a mini-series. But all fiction writers have an ax to grind, even if it is just their opinion on what ought to be entertaining.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNf2UZPMiBs
interesting video.
just to clarify so anyone fearful of getting offended, no, the guy doesn't hate the movie, the says at the start he loved black panther. He simply draws up some problems with the movie on a logical basis I've often brought up too.
problems like, wakanda is meant to be an advanced society, yet its governed by a dictatorship based on strength, not thought.
The fact that their entire system of advancement and growth is based on one resource, the vibranium, which as has been shows with real life nations when a country is only dependent on one resource, it doesn't advance as other nations do that grow based on many difference resources.
And the biggest plothole with wakanda, its meant to be this bubbled off society thats been hidden from the outside world for a long time. There is no logical way wakanda could have evolved to one of the most advanced places on earth by doing that, as the real world most advanced societies on earth have evolved and grown due to trade and interacting with other nations for shared resources, or even war in claiming those other resources.
And yeah, i know, comic book movie. But even comic book movies need to operate in the realm of believable scientific reasoning. Even Aquaman as a movie makes more sense that undersea cities can have grown and operated due to them being many different undersea nations.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TyjqCRJmCPE
Wow, a Ghostbusters sequel that's an.. Actual sequal, and not a feminist agenda film. And it's made not by a self loathing feminist this time, but the son of one of the original creators of the first movies :O
But uh oh, social justice media upset that someone decided to make an actual sequel to the originals and ignore the 2016 one, oh dear!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=25mrjyDxkM4&t=318s
It's almost like making a movie that ignores what the fans have asked for for years, while pushing your own modern agenda social politics, might have made someone who actually cared about the first movies to go 'we can do better'.
The Discovery 9.5/10
A quite good movie with a pretty good premise; a scientist discovers there's an afterlife with "definitive proof" (the wording they use in the movie), except it's not what most people expect. It results in, in the span of 2 years after The Discovery of the afterlife that more than 4 million people kill themselves to "get there". Although this isn't the driving plot of the movie, surprising as that might seem. It's not a sci-fi movie, just one with an interesting premise.
The trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9j6WcdU-ts
It's also a movie I'll rewatch later to get some additional clues into what is going on in the plot.
If you want to know what the afterlife is:
[spoiler]It's a rerun of your own life, where you correct your biggest regret every turn, leaving your memory-less of your past loops. Not alternative realities, the same reality, just where you alter your biggest regret. And who doesn't have regrets in their life?
P.S. Don't kill yourself.[/spoiler]
That is replay of Our Town ... and play and movie from decades ago ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Town
One of the most depressing things I have ever watched ... what if you had no good memories to go back to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Town_(1940_film)
A lot of people from that time did go to premature deaths ...
Quote from: Munch on January 19, 2019, 07:02:19 AMhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TyjqCRJmCPE
Wow, a Ghostbusters sequel that's an.. Actual sequal, and not a feminist agenda film. And it's made not by a self loathing feminist this time, but the son of one of the original creators of the first movies :O
But uh oh, social justice media upset that someone decided to make an actual sequel to the originals and ignore the 2016 one, oh dear!
I never cared for the reboot, but why now, after all these years? The original cast are all old men now, so they're likely not the main characters. At best, this could be The Force Awakens of Ghost Busters, where a new generation of Ghost Busters take the place of the old one.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 19, 2019, 11:38:55 AM
I never cared for the reboot, but why now, after all these years? The original cast are all old men now, so they're likely not the main characters. At best, this could be The Force Awakens of Ghost Busters, where a new generation of Ghost Busters take the place of the old one.
maybe because jason reitman, given his father made the original ghostbusters, saw the movies on set and so grew up on them, when he saw what a disaster the paul feig movie was, he wanted to step in and give the people what they actually wanted a ghostbusters movie, even if it is one about passing the torch.
They have already made a concept of ghostbusters passing the torch with the extreme ghostbusters from the late 90s, which was a continuation of the original 80s cartoon show, and that did successful enough to win fans over, while paying homage to the original.
And thats something the 2016 movie didn't do, pay proper homage to the original movies, so if the son of the original director ivan reitman wants to make a proper homage to what his dad helped make an icon, I'm all for him trying, instead of the mess paul feig crapped out.
Quote from: Munch on January 19, 2019, 12:14:24 PM
maybe because jason reitman, given his father made the original ghostbusters, saw the movies on set and so grew up on them, when he saw what a disaster the paul feig movie was, he wanted to step in and give the people what they actually wanted a ghostbusters movie, even if it is one about passing the torch.
They have already made a concept of ghostbusters passing the torch with the extreme ghostbusters from the late 90s, which was a continuation of the original 80s cartoon show, and that did successful enough to win fans over, while paying homage to the original.
And thats something the 2016 movie didn't do, pay proper homage to the original movies, so if the son of the original director ivan reitman wants to make a proper homage to what his dad helped make an icon, I'm all for him trying, instead of the mess paul feig crapped out.
If that's the case, it sounds similar to what happened with Dragon Ball. The creator, Toriyama, was retired and pretty much done with Dragon Ball, aside from a few side-story manga he'd make on occasion. But when Dragon Ball: Evolution released, he was so disgusted by it, he decided to revive the series to get the bad taste out of peoples' mouths.
New information out, it will be an actual passing the torch movie, explaining why the original three surviving cast members are coming back, and passing it onto 4 teenagers, 2 girls and 2 guys, so.. omg, FEMALE GHOSTBUSTERS :O RREEEEEEE!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IIRlmgFVes
Serious though, this is a proper sequel and passing of the torch should be, and not forcing an agenda. They did this with the extreme ghostbusters cartoon in the 90s which was a sequel to the 80s animated series, in which 4 teens followed egon and became the next generation, consisting of a disabled guy, a spanish guy, a black guy and a female, and yet this didn't feel like it was forcing an agenda, they were built as characters instead of stereotypes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10sMHAl1EJM
Also, Leslie Jones bitching because their not making a sequel to the ghostbusters she was in, you know, the one that didn't pay homage to the original movies. Clearly cares less about what the audience wants and more about her movie roles.
Bohemian Rhapsody. Not bad. Good when you just need something to watch and too bored to spend the energy looking for something else. So...obvious props....
I saw Dragon Ball Super: Broly recently. Went in with a lot of hype. Bought the tickets a month in advance since it was a limited release (three days, two shows per day, at the theater I bought from), and it seemed like tickets were already disappearing fast. The first theater I checked already had nearly all of its seats taken for its first show. When I got there, it was surprisingly quiet. The theater in general was pretty much empty. I think pretty much everyone was there for the same movie. lol
Anyway, I had high expectations for this movie. It was written by Toriyama himself, the father of Dragon Ball, and it shows. The movie definitely had a lot of Toriyama-ish humor in it. The new art style threw me off at first, but it looked very stimulating from how the trailers made it seem. The writing was also built to be a lot more deep than typical Dragon Ball. I know that's not saying a lot, but it was described as being a very plot-driven movie.
For the most part, the movie did live up to its promises. They took Broly, the villain who basically personified stereotypical Dragon Ball with his screaming, huge muscles, and constant powering up, and turned him into an actually sympathetic character. No joke, they actually gave him a pretty interesting backstory and personality. The movie is basically split into two parts. The first part is a prequel, following the stories of the fathers of Goku, Vegeta, and Broly, giving context to the inevitable conflict to come. The prequel portion is pretty much all drama. It competently explains the motivations of each character. No more Broly being mentally scarred for life because baby Goku cried in a crib next to him, like in the original story. They even managed to write the plot so that people who haven't been able to keep up with the anime/manga, such as my sister who saw it with me, wouldn't get lost.
After the prequel portion ends, the mood shifts quite a bit, and that's one of my main criticisms of the movie. The prequel part was very interesting for me, and it seemed like the plot took a back seat when the story jumped to the present time. In the present part of the movie, there's still some drama, but it's mostly action and comedy. It's still good, but just feels like a complete tonal shift to me. And once the fighting begins, it's basically a mindless light show. Which leads me to my next criticism... The art.
Don't get me wrong, the movie looks amazing. The problem is the lack of consistency. Throughout the battle, a lot of scenes just felt disconnected, like there were each made by a different team, then slapped together. There were also a few moments where CGI was used. It wasn't terrible CGI, but it was just off enough to take me out of the moment sometimes. Like the writing, the art was good, just not cohesive.
One last criticism of this movie was its lack of surprises. This is, unfortunately, one of those movies where the trailers tell the whole story. There were so many parts I would have been pleasantly surprised by if I hadn't already seen it. I know the Japanese have different attitudes toward spoilers, but from what I've heard, even they thought it was a bit much. I mean, even as soon as we got our tickets, we saw the movie poster which had a freaking spoiler right on it! It was this, but with English text:
(http://cdn.epicstream.com/assets/uploads/ckeditor/images/1543618970_saiyanex.jpg)
A friend I was with, who hadn't seen the spoiler-heavy trailers somehow, saw it and was like, "Is that Gogeta?" Yup. it was the first canonical appearance of that character. First time seeing him in Super Saiyan Blue form too. It would have been nice if he weren't literally thrown in our faces moments before seeing the bloody movie.
Overall, did it live up to expectations? Not really, but it didn't leave me terribly disappointed either. It was good, by Dragon Ball standards. If you're not a Dragon Ball fan, it might be a good place to start if you're thinking of getting into it. Otherwise, it's not for general audiences.
I'm giving 1408 an 8/10 rating. The jump scares put me off a little, but overall the film had a wonderfully tense and creepy atmosphere and the twist at the end left me with my mouth wide open.
Quote from: Halkenburg on January 27, 2019, 05:50:43 AM
I'm giving 1408 an 8/10 rating. The jump scares put me off a little, but overall the film had a wonderfully tense and creepy atmosphere and the twist at the end left me with my mouth wide open.
My slum apartment is scarier than that shit ;-)
So...Aquaman.....really? Some spoiler here.....so the dude can push a 150 million ton submarine straight up through the ocean to the surface but still can be knocked over by a regular guy? Also, he jumps out of an airplane about a half mile up and slams into the dirt no problems but then falls down a cavern and is grasping onto the ledge? Wat? I mean...why is it always so hard for these "superheros" to dispatch regular humans with just a flick of a booger?
alas....I weep for real hero's....
Quote from: aitm on January 27, 2019, 09:31:52 AM
So...Aquaman.....really? Some spoiler here.....so the dude can push a 150 million ton submarine straight up through the ocean to the surface but still can be knocked over by a regular guy? Also, he jumps out of an airplane about a half mile up and slams into the dirt no problems but then falls down a cavern and is grasping onto the ledge? Wat? I mean...why is it always so hard for these "superheros" to dispatch regular humans with just a flick of a booger?
alas....I weep for real hero's....
welcome to the world of comic books.
On the fact of his powers, its been made clear from the comics aquaman's strength increases to almost superman levels while he's underwater.
Superman didn't kill Hitler. Reality would have intruded. Never get off the boat and never let reality intrude into a comic book movie.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 27, 2019, 03:28:37 PM
Superman didn't kill Hitler. Reality would have intruded. Never get off the boat and never let reality intrude into a comic book movie.
Captain America smacked around a lot of Nazis, didn't he?
Suspension of disbelief is a weird thing. Superman breathes ice, and no one questions it. But when he reverses the spin of the Earth and time moves backwards as a result, that's where I draw the line. lol
I think that's one reason I tend to prefer Marvel over DC. When two DC characters fight, the limitations of their powers aren't well defined. When Superman punches Zod through a building, I don't feel the impact of that. Marvel characters, on the other hand, are more easy to relate with. When they fight, the impact feels more real, IMO.
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2019, 05:24:31 PM
Captain America smacked around a lot of Nazis, didn't he?
And he punched Hitler over five hundred times. But he didn't kill Hitler either.
I have seen Bird Box. It was OK, but ordinary. Apperantly, it is very popular.
It just made me think why on earth people gave that bad a reaction to Shyamalan's The Happening. It's basically the same idea in different context and his was better; also had a better message, lol.
Also that series called, You.
[spoiler]It's Gossip Girl with murder. It's bad. The main male and female characters are living a life in central New York that would require them to earn tens of thousands dollars a month.
She gets to be a TA and supposedly that saves her life, lol. But then she is graduated from Brown?! She is supposed to be a talented writer, but you'd doubt if she can write a paragraph and all she writes is about how his dad didn't care about her. And because of that she dates garbage rich guys who doesn't care about her blah blah.
He has a little book store, like the ones full of with used books in Brooklyn, but handles rare books and first editions. He is a serial killer.
People keep saying that it is an ironic work. LOL
In my defense, I was heavily hungover that day.[/spoiler]
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 28, 2019, 09:48:27 AM
I have seen Bird Box. It was OK, but ordinary. Apperantly, it is very popular.
It just made me think why on earth people gave that bad a reaction to Shyamalan's The Happening. It's basically the same idea in different context and his was better; also had a better message, lol.
I lived through that one. It was banal and stupid. Other than that it was okay. But boring. I can't imagine anyone watching it twice.
Bumble-Bee. A funish little cute story, rather mindless entertainment...I do mean mindless as in you have to be mindless if you really enjoyed it. I mean they did it in an earlier episode but still FFS futuristic advanced robotic creatures need attack robot dogs? oy vey...ish.
Quote from: aitm on January 28, 2019, 11:47:18 AMFFS futuristic advanced robotic creatures need attack robot dogs? oy vey...ish.
Maybe not need, but who doesn't want attack robot dogs?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 28, 2019, 08:06:49 AM
And he punched Hitler over five hundred times. But he didn't kill Hitler either.
That was Rubber Hitler ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8IfDNHsCLE
TL;DW: Films are dominated by realism - actors are attempting to portray real people (well...real people with great looks, fashionable wardrobes, flawless dialogue, etc) while Nick Cage is trying to portray someone larger than life, someone who's less of an actual person and more of a force of nature. He looks and acts weird because we expect someone to act...well, normal (or at least Hollywood's version of normal)
Quote from: Baruch on January 28, 2019, 01:08:29 PM
That was Rubber Hitler ;-)
(https://sextoysutra.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/hitler-stalin-chariman-mao-sex-toys-dildo.jpg)
In some kinky porn, you are transformed into an object, maybe a sexual object. Those could be the real guys, in which case I hope they are only bought by gay men ;-))
Bohemian Rhapsody. Nope. Failure.
The kid gives a good performance, but other than that they failed at showing who Freddie Mercury is, what was Queen in my opinion. They made the actor say it a few times, but failed to show it. This man is one of the greatest performers of all time, not a self destructive something wanna be who missed what he aimed for. On the contrary, he nailed it before 40 and then died ffs. He didn't fail to do what he did because he cannot deal with his sexual identity, he did it despite of whatever he lived and felt about it.
We were chatting with my cousin about the movie and she said they actually declared that they were gonna change a lot of things to bost the story? But why? Queen doesn't need that. Freddie Mercury doesn't need that. Nobody needs to convince young generations to what Queen is or who Freddie Mercury was. It doesn't work that way. It's music. They listen it and either like it or don't. Also I doubt that there is anyone who really doesn't like Queen. I mean who would say, 'turn that shit off, I hate this music and what it represents'. Even this Bieber, Swift, Jonas whatever generations can't be that music deaf, can they?
Myeh. It annoyed me.
I was stationed in Sicily when Queen's first album was released. I bought it and was impressed. When I went home on leave I bought a copy for my sister and her SO. They were living at home until she graduated from high school. We were playing it when Mom came in and said "What is that!" Later I saw her dancing around to the music. I don't think she ever figured out what "Queen" implied there.
I don't think the name is just one thing though.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 01, 2019, 09:08:08 AM
Bohemian Rhapsody. Nope. Failure.
The kid gives a good performance, but other than that they failed at showing who Freddie Mercury is, what was Queen in my opinion. They made the actor say it a few times, but failed to show it. This man is one of the greatest performers of all time, not a self destructive something wanna be who missed what he aimed for. On the contrary, he nailed it before 40 and then died ffs. He didn't fail to do what he did because he cannot deal with his sexual identity, he did it despite of whatever he lived and felt about it.
We were chatting with my cousin about the movie and she said they actually declared that they were gonna change a lot of things to bost the story? But why? Queen doesn't need that. Freddie Mercury doesn't need that. Nobody needs to convince young generations to what Queen is or who Freddie Mercury was. It doesn't work that way. It's music. They listen it and either like it or don't. Also I doubt that there is anyone who really doesn't like Queen. I mean who would say, 'turn that shit off, I hate this music and what it represents'. Even this Bieber, Swift, Jonas whatever generations can't be that music deaf, can they?
Myeh. It annoyed me.
I don't see the need for a movie. There was a good documentary on TV about Freddy Mercury / Queen recently. It was both entertaining and informative. You're probably better off watching that. And yes, Queen had a lot of amazing music under his belt. If the movie presented him as a failure, that is absolutely ridiculous. The man was able to fill entire football stadiums with fans, he was so popular.
Home (2017)
Flemish movie.
My gf liked it. I didn't think it was good. Teenage angst flick about 16-17 year olds pushed into situations turned up to eleven.
It flows from one scene into the other without much feel for some continuation and fluidity. Instead it al seems chopped.
And I guess that's what it went for? To show how confusing and rushed puberty and adolesence are and go by? Trapped as an island, cut off from children and adults, who simply don't understand you.
But that's where most of the problems lie. While the acting in many cases was very believable; it was done excessively 'casual'. Which not only annoyed me after a while, because it was like watching real teenagers being real teenagers for two hours. An age I can't stand at the best of times. But the main problems weren't the good but annoying acting: it was the story. It seemed preachy. I didn't like the characters. Nothing seemed to happen. Until it did. And yes, the main character is shown to learn a lesson by the end. But even at the end so little was resolved.
I feel this movie tried very hard to be realistic. And I give it kudo's for what it achieved. It seemed believeable. But that did not make it enjoyable to watch. And I don't think kids would want to see this. I think adolescents would just go: "yeah sure, that's how old people see us. Fucking wankers." And for people my age and up, I don't get what we are expected to get out of it. Cringe at remembering your own awkward, self-righteous, self-obsessed, vain, ignorant 16 year old self? Or is that just me?
Either way.
4/10
And it scored all it's points on the kids acting realisticly uninterested.
Watched the original "Halloween" last night. Didn't age well.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 02, 2019, 07:11:13 AM
Watched the original "Halloween" last night. Didn't age well.
I still think it's the best one compared to any sequal, or the Rob Zombie mess, or the bs recent one that tries to rub out all the sequals.
Quote from: Munch on February 02, 2019, 08:25:21 AM
I still think it's the best one compared to any sequal, or the Rob Zombie mess, or the bs recent one that tries to rub out all the sequals.
ret·conDictionary result for retcon
/ˈretkän/Submit
noun
1.
(in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.
"we're given a retcon for Wilf's absence from Donna's wedding in ‘The Runaway Bride’: he had Spanish Flu"
well yeah, its a retcon. doesn't make it a good idea of course.
Quote from: Munch on February 02, 2019, 03:31:47 PM
well yeah, its a retcon. doesn't make it a good idea of course.
You expect too much from Whollyweird.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 02, 2019, 03:42:37 PM
You expect too much from Whollyweird.
Not anymore. I take the one good thing my father taught me, cynicism. Everythings bs until proven otherwise.
I watch Bleach the movie on Netflix and man -oh-man it was shit. It felt like a cheesy ripoff. The movie follows the manga..sort of, and the characters sort of followed their costume design but not their physical and mental designs.
Ichigo is far from being a total punk, and his hair is naturally orange. He is good natured and caring about others and that's why he gets into fights in the 1st place.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on February 10, 2019, 09:51:50 PM
I watch Bleach the movie on Netflix and man -oh-man it was shit. It felt like a cheesy ripoff. The movie follows the manga..sort of, and the characters sort of followed their costume design but not their physical and mental designs.
Ichigo is far from being a total punk, and his hair is naturally orange. He is good natured and caring about others and that's why he gets into fights in the 1st place.
Live-action adaptations of anime are almost always shit. The only one I can think of which is mostly okay is the Death Note movie. No, not THAT one. The Japanese one. The Japanese live-action Death Note was basically an abridged version of the original story, essentially removing the second season altogether (which most people agree was the weakest part of the anime anyway). One reason I think Death Note worked was that the manga/anime are fairly based on the real world. There aren't any weird, brightly colored hairstyles or clothing. Typical anime just don't translate well to the real world. Aside from the Shinigami, everyone in Death Note looks like someone you'd expect to see in Japan.
I found a pretty interesting video on the trend of portraying unattractive book characters with attractive actors in movie and television adaptions. It goes over a few examples of when this was done, and discusses whether it is an actual issue, or if it's just fans of the original work getting worked up over every little change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P_83taoceE
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 10, 2019, 11:13:16 PM
Live-action adaptations of anime are almost always shit. The only one I can think of which is mostly okay is the Death Note movie. No, not THAT one. The Japanese one. The Japanese live-action Death Note was basically an abridged version of the original story, essentially removing the second season altogether (which most people agree was the weakest part of the anime anyway). One reason I think Death Note worked was that the manga/anime are fairly based on the real world. There aren't any weird, brightly colored hairstyles or clothing. Typical anime just don't translate well to the real world. Aside from the Shinigami, everyone in Death Note looks like someone you'd expect to see in Japan.
The Japanese version also had Chairman Kaga from Iron Chef. I'll watch damn near anything for Chairman Kaga. :)
The nutcracker and the four realms.
We watched it with 9 friends, and glad for it.
The movies wasn't 'bad', for a kid's movie.
But I feel they really went all out in Visuals, costumes and sets, and had little budget left in editing, acting-assistance and camerawork.
Overal: underwhelming.
I'm also left with a lingering suspicion that Keira Knightley might be a freak in the bedroom.
Which I think is what they were going for? So good job?
Or is that just me?
I've seen the trailer...
just..
(https://images.complex.com/complex/images/c_limit,w_680/fl_lossy,pg_1,q_auto/mbmietuyhc5ydcjail3f/genie-aladdin)
just..
(https://i.giphy.com/media/8vUEXZA2me7vnuUvrs/giphy.webp)
Quote from: Munch on February 11, 2019, 09:47:41 AM
I've seen the trailer...
just..
[spoiler](https://images.complex.com/complex/images/c_limit,w_680/fl_lossy,pg_1,q_auto/mbmietuyhc5ydcjail3f/genie-aladdin)[/spoiler]
just..
(https://i.giphy.com/media/8vUEXZA2me7vnuUvrs/giphy.webp)
CGI from Disney last year:
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vulture/2018/04/25/25-thanos.w700.h700.jpg)
CGI from Disney this year:
(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/willsmithgenie.jpg?quality=100&w=650)
Dafuq? Did we take a time machine back to the 90's?
someone compared it to how dwayne 'the rock' johnson looked in cgi form in the mummy returns movie, and that was released in 2001.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/345/203/236.gif)
And Dwayne had been dead 3,000 years.
This would have honestly been a better Genie:
(https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51930019_2273898135993347_3036130523484258304_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=f3a1a98f1ff31c07f857ef0a30ddb151&oe=5CED6B19)
that blue face it offensive to them poor avatar people on.....wherever they are...I sure they have internet..
By the way I watched Hunter Killer....not bad. I just wish the producers would sit in a smaller room and try to hear the conversations through all the background music and shit. Damn man. Nice little action film....
Quote from: Munch on February 11, 2019, 12:04:14 PM
someone compared it to how dwayne 'the rock' johnson looked in cgi form in the mummy returns movie, and that was released in 2001.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/345/203/236.gif)
I have been stung by a scorpion, so don't give me flashbacks!
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 11, 2019, 02:08:37 PM
This would have honestly been a better Genie:
(https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51930019_2273898135993347_3036130523484258304_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=f3a1a98f1ff31c07f857ef0a30ddb151&oe=5CED6B19)
That is Gandhi as a Hindu god. All Hindu gods have blue skin.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 11, 2019, 01:29:28 PM
And Dwayne had been dead 3,000 years.
5,000 but who is counting. Dwayne was ... that was a long time to be locked up, waiting to go potty. No wonder mummies are so ill tempered ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdOGSdjYmy8
I knew it was happening. I'm just surprised it took them this long.
well, least its an original story and not a live action cgi remake.
but it is a disney sequal.
thats a coin flip.
Personally, I think the background looks too realistic. It contrasts badly with the movie's big-eyed cartoon characters. But maybe that's just me.
thats the problem with cgi, as it develops and gets better, in making 'cartoon' characters in cgi, the more advanced settings either need to match with the cartoony designs, or this happens.
This is why traditional animation rarely had this issue, with the textures and color pallets are usually in line with the animators. Think like 101 dalmatians setting and characters, or beauty and the beast, or even animes like the boy and the beast, or miyazaki's movies. Even cartoons like animaniacs or batman the animated series, the characters blended with the environments because it worked in line with the animators.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq5vNY_FJeE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTtqpen-Wo0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVd83QTO_1M
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 11, 2019, 11:57:29 AM(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/willsmithgenie.jpg?quality=100&w=650)
Here's the fixed version (fanmade):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzGx8GKUUAMjM19.jpg)
Not 100%, but much better imo.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 13, 2019, 09:31:06 PM
Here's the fixed version (fanmade):
[spoiler](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzGx8GKUUAMjM19.jpg)[/spoiler]
Not 100%, but much better imo.
That would have been an acceptable Genie.
Will smith was horrible choice
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on February 14, 2019, 02:38:09 AM
Will smith was horrible choice
Name brand. And they saved money on CGIing him like they did with the guy who did Golum.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on February 14, 2019, 02:38:09 AM
Will smith was horrible choice
They probably chose Will Smith for the same reason they chose Robin Williams: marketability. They've always got to have at least one big star to draw people in with. Only, in Robin Williams' case, he was comedian with a knack for making people laugh with his unique brand of humor. Will Smith is an actor people tolerate now because of how good he
used to be. If they really wanted someone to be a decent stand-in for the late Robin Williams, they should have hired a high-energy comedian. But I can't think of any famous comedians who would fit that bill.
I think there are bigger problems with the movie than Will Smith, though. Will Smith might actually be the most entertaining actor in the movie, given how stoic and bored the other actors seem. The guy they chose to be Jafar, for instance, looks and sounds more like he's Jafar's nephew.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 14, 2019, 11:39:57 AM
They probably chose Will Smith for the same reason they chose Robin Williams: marketability. They've always got to have at least one big star to draw people in with. Only, in Robin Williams' case, he was comedian with a knack for making people laugh with his unique brand of humor. Will Smith is an actor people tolerate now because of how good he used to be. If they really wanted someone to be a decent stand-in for the late Robin Williams, they should have hired a high-energy comedian. But I can't think of any famous comedians who would fit that bill.
I think there are bigger problems with the movie than Will Smith, though. Will Smith might actually be the most entertaining actor in the movie, given how stoic and bored the other actors seem. The guy they chose to be Jafar, for instance, looks and sounds more like he's Jafar's nephew.
I for one think it would be a very interesting movie if they had Frankie boyle as the genie.
And if he were allowed to write his own Jokes.
I thought the same thing. It's not the design, it is Will Smith. Casting is wrong.
Other than that they actually tried to make it that way on purpose it seems.
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.
I loved it. Super. Watch it.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 15, 2019, 04:35:51 AM
I for one think it would be a very interesting movie if they had Frankie boyle as the genie.
And if he were allowed to write his own Jokes.
Oh, fuck. Even I would have paid to see that.
Bird Box 7/10
I REALLY liked the concept (there's an extremely spoilery video up on Film Theorists if you want to know more about that), but the execution was a tad off. I didn't care for most of the characters, especially the main protagonist. There could have been a lot more meat on the bones - a lot more thrills and chills (like getting captured or having to make a sadist choice) - but sadly, that just wasn't in the cards.
But I loved the setting - dark river/woods is perfect for some unseen monsters. Great vibe.
The monsters themselves are clearly the stars of the show, and if you want the deets on them, you're going to be disappointed with this film. You're going to have to turn to the internet for that.
The very worst part of the movie is the ending. If you're thinking about watching it, do yourself a favor and stop about 9/10 of the way through and make up whatever ending you want to believe. Whatever you come up with will be much better than the official ending, I promise. I went with the same ending as The Mist. Heh, good times.
Also, here's what I thought about the movie's editing:
[spoiler]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwxCCjHWrX8[/spoiler]
So, Day of the Triffids II?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 18, 2019, 08:14:47 AM
So, Day of the Triffids II?
Pretty much, with minor differences. I prefer that the survivors aren't rendered blind - they're perfectly capable of looking, but they run the risk of doom with every glance. This allows for a temptation VS self-discipline internal struggle in addition to the external struggle.
The Lady in the Van.
It's good. Apparently, it's mostly a true story.
Wreck it Ralph 2 - 6/10
OK story, I guess.
I was on Netflix and saw both The Incredibles 2 and Ant-Man & the Wasp were on there, so I watched them both. The Incredibles 2 was good. The main premise is basically that super heroes are still outlawed, so the actions of Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl, and their kids are seen by the general public in a negative light. But this rich guy who's nostalgic for superheroes wants to change the public perception, and he hires Elastigirl to do it. At the same time, a villain named Screenslaver appears, using screens to hypnotize people and cause trouble. Overall, I thought it was a good followup to the original film.
[Spoiler]I was expecting the nostalgic rich guy to be the real Screenslaver, creating problems for Elastigirl to fix. But it turned out to be his sister, who blames superheroes for the deaths of her parents.[/spoiler]
Ant-Man & the Wasp was a lot better than I was expecting. The previous Antman movie kinda left me underwhelmed, but I liked this one. The humor is very self-aware, with Scott often being the only one in the room who doesn't understand the others' sciencey mumbo jumbo. The villain is interesting and has a unique power I've never seen before.
When I first saw the trailer for Ant-Man, I thought it was a bit farfetched that the entire Ant-Man team would be uneffected by the snap, since everyone essentially had a 50/50 chance of survival. But apparently a few movies released between the two Infinity War movies are out of order and take place before the snap.
[Spoiler]Now that I've seen the movie, though, I ironically think the opposite. What are the chances Hank, Hope, and Janet are all snapped away, leaving Scott trapped?[/spoiler]
Brexit: The Uncivil War - 8/10
A political drama that follows the Leave.EU Campaign.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 19, 2019, 11:03:10 AM
I was on Netflix and saw both The Incredibles 2 and Ant-Man & the Wasp were on there, so I watched them both. The Incredibles 2 was good. The main premise is basically that super heroes are still outlawed, so the actions of Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl, and their kids are seen by the general public in a negative light. But this rich guy who's nostalgic for superheroes wants to change the public perception, and he hires Elastigirl to do it. At the same time, a villain named Screenslaver appears, using screens to hypnotize people and cause trouble. Overall, I thought it was a good followup to the original film.
[Spoiler]I was expecting the nostalgic rich guy to be the real Screenslaver, creating problems for Elastigirl to fix. But it turned out to be his sister, who blames superheroes for the deaths of her parents.[/spoiler]
Ant-Man & the Wasp was a lot better than I was expecting. The previous Antman movie kinda left me underwhelmed, but I liked this one. The humor is very self-aware, with Scott often being the only one in the room who doesn't understand the others' sciencey mumbo jumbo. The villain is interesting and has a unique power I've never seen before.
When I first saw the trailer for Ant-Man, I thought it was a bit farfetched that the entire Ant-Man team would be uneffected by the snap, since everyone essentially had a 50/50 chance of survival. But apparently a few movies released between the two Infinity War movies are out of order and take place before the snap.
[Spoiler]Now that I've seen the movie, though, I ironically think the opposite. What are the chances Hank, Hope, and Janet are all snapped away, leaving Scott trapped?[/spoiler]
In Incredibles I it was Dash's dash. In II it was Jack-Jack vs. the trash panda. Both worth the price of admission.
Quote from: Sal1981 on February 25, 2019, 03:45:01 PM
Brexit: The Uncivil War - 8/10
A political drama that follows the Leave.EU Campaign.
Cumberbatch destroys the EU with Dr Strange powers ...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 12, 2019, 02:49:37 PM
Yep. Marvel movies, DC movies, zombie movies, Michael Moore's movies...
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-S8k-RAi7eEc/Umym2XdZg_I/AAAAAAAADEU/ITllQKYQhvY/s640/Troops.jpg)
That looks like Wizards. I'm impressed...
Cartoon version of The Hobbit?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 01, 2019, 01:29:08 PM
"Peace."
I think that is where "They killed Kenny" came from in South Park.
Watched Ferdinand while I was babysitting my nephews, them wanting to see it.
eh.. honestly, this movie was okay at certain parts, but with some glaring problems. I liked the first sequence, when the character was young, and the harsh reality of his life and what he endured, I felt like if the movie kept that same tone all throughout it could have been way better, kind of like how UP was in the first few minutes of its opening.
But the minute john cena bull came into it my like for the movie bucketed, and it became another bad cgi animal movie like the hundreds of others studios produce these days, janky animation, the kind you see in cheap kids shows, the characters were obnoxious and I had no feel for them or the story. The ending was okay, but didn't make up for the slog having to sit though the rest of the film.
If the movie was like the first 10 minutes all throughout, might have been so much better, but felt like them playing this to being an animated movie starring an WWE star just sucked any quality out of it. And this was a disney movie..
edit: correction, its a Blue Sky Studios production and Fox, but honestly that doesn't make it any better or worse, though the character is owned by disney.
4/10
Quote from: Munch on March 01, 2019, 03:27:22 PM
Watched Ferdinand while I was babysitting my nephews, them wanting to see it.
eh.. honestly, this movie was okay at certain parts, but with some glaring problems. I liked the first sequence, when the character was young, and the harsh reality of his life and what he endured, I felt like if the movie kept that same tone all throughout it could have been way better, kind of like how UP was in the first few minutes of its opening.
But the minute john cena bull came into it my like for the movie bucketed, and it became another bad cgi animal movie like the hundreds of others studios produce these days, janky animation, the kind you see in cheap kids shows, the characters were obnoxious and I had no feel for them or the story. The ending was okay, but didn't make up for the slog having to sit though the rest of the film.
If the movie was like the first 10 minutes all throughout, might have been so much better, but felt like them playing this to being an animated movie starring an WWE star just sucked any quality out of it. And this was a disney movie..
edit: correction, its a Blue Sky Studios production and Fox, but honestly that doesn't make it any better or worse, though the character is owned by disney.
4/10
Sorry to hear that the movie went off-book so badly. A frequent problem... Why do movie types take a success and change it? How likely is it to get better with changes?
Quote from: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 06:03:51 PM
Sorry to hear that the movie went off-book so badly. A frequent problem... Why do movie types take a success and change it? How likely is it to get better with changes?
well they didn't really have to much to work with, since the original animated was a short from 1938 and at the time was very much inkeeping with the kind of animation back then, which was impressive at its time, but inline with that kind of era.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDKQ7_C88c8
I mean this modern remake sits in line with modern day animation tropes, that in order to get attention for the movie, they needed a big star attached to it, and hyped it based on that, not on nice storytelling or quantity animation.
Quote from: Munch on March 01, 2019, 06:56:44 PM
well they didn't really have to much to work with, since the original animated was a short from 1938 and at the time was very much inkeeping with the kind of animation back then, which was impressive at its time, but inline with that kind of era.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDKQ7_C88c8
I mean this modern remake sits in line with modern day animation tropes, that in order to get attention for the movie, they needed a big star attached to it, and hyped it based on that, not on nice storytelling or quantity animation.
I agree with you about the Big Star for advertising, but I wonder why that is required? Other than "good voice", I usually can't identify them. I'm sure there are a lot of "good voices" out there that would do just fine, cheaper...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 04, 2019, 08:38:40 AM
I agree with you about the Big Star for advertising, but I wonder why that is required? Other than "good voice", I usually can't identify them. I'm sure there are a lot of "good voices" out there that would do just fine, cheaper...
thats just the times we live in, its used as advertising to draw more people in if they know. In this case, john cena being a famous wrestler would be within the demographic of those their appealing to, kids and people who see wrestling as a form of entertainment.
I've seen the face my nightmares...
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/LIvzl1X7iSpV-f5Mf25rMZE7PLY=/1400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15340878/HCI_News_Sonic_Header_Horiz_1024x682.jpg)
And all I can say is..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzmeOo7oJNo
Its needs to stop.. this need for film makers to make live action movies of cartoon characters.. it has to stop.
Quote from: Munch on March 06, 2019, 09:07:32 AM
I've seen the face my nightmares...
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/LIvzl1X7iSpV-f5Mf25rMZE7PLY=/1400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15340878/HCI_News_Sonic_Header_Horiz_1024x682.jpg)
And all I can say is..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzmeOo7oJNo
Its needs to stop.. this need for film makers to make live action movies of cartoon characters.. it has to stop.
It's actually not as bad as I was expecting, but there are still so many things wrong with this. First, they've got Sonic wearing normal human shoes, but his gloves have been replaced with white fur. Why? I don't have a clue. They also replaced his bare skin with peach colored fur because reasons. They separated Sonic's eyes, changed the shape of his arms and legs to fit normal human proportions, and made each quill visible for the sake of realism. But they kept his side mouth that magically changes sides to face the camera. They made Sonic even more top heavy than he was before. I mean, if they went through all this trouble of redesigning Sonic so he wouldn't stand out too much in the real world, they failed. He looks just as cartoony as before. He's a goddamn blue hedgehog for crying out loud. What made them think live action was a good idea?
Every Sonic fan on hearing this was a live action movie:
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/88/8844cbeb3b1a1909fd2062a61cd0afd3b368284bfbcb3c1467656108f14ac605.jpg)
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 06, 2019, 10:21:19 AM
It's actually not as bad as I was expecting, but there are still so many things wrong with this. First, they've got Sonic wearing normal human shoes, but his gloves have been replaced with white fur. Why? I don't have a clue. They also replaced his bare skin with peach colored fur because reasons. They separated Sonic's eyes, changed the shape of his arms and legs to fit normal human proportions, and made each quill visible for the sake of realism. But they kept his side mouth that magically changes sides to face the camera. They made Sonic even more top heavy than he was before. I mean, if they went through all this trouble of redesigning Sonic so he wouldn't stand out too much in the real world, they failed. He looks just as cartoony as before. He's a goddamn blue hedgehog for crying out loud. What made them think live action was a good idea?
because its the trend these days and since that trend is about what disney more or less got going, everyone wants a piece of that, never stopping to ask if its a smart idea or not.
This to me is what the warcraft movie bombed like it is, because the game it came from has cartoony graphics, but they decided to make it live action instead of a stylized cgi movie throughout, why use live actors for humans but go cgi for the orcs, its a mess.
Someone might argue that this trend of blending in animation with live actions has been around a long time, infact early disney movies did this like mary poppins, song of the south, and later works like who framed roger rabbit, but those movies were made specifically to merge animation and live action for their purpose, who framed roger rabbit specifically to show real humans and cartoon characters together.
This now though, when you take an existing animated movie or game or concept and try and force the cartoon characters into a cgi form to blend in with the live action, it feels like their trying to hard to make it work with live action, and missing the point of what made the original concept good, as in it was animation with an animated setting.
This is why things like the live action beauty and the beast, aladdin and lion king just unsettles me, you can't improve on the classic animated because its timeless, and the only reason their doing it is to pocket off peoples nostalgia with an inferior product. And everyone else is seeing disney do this, and gets the same idea thinking they can make it work too.
At least Disney live action movies, as bad as they are, have nostalgia going for them. Sonic isn't nostalgic to the general public, but has a bad reputation. A live action movie of a series people expect crap from is destined to bomb hard.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 06, 2019, 11:47:47 AM
At least Disney live action movies, as bad as they are, have nostalgia going for them. Sonic isn't nostalgic to the general public, but has a bad reputation. A live action movie of a series people expect crap from is destined to bomb hard.
But Sonic is topical in the US and Europe. It is pro-environment and anti-industry.
I wasn't planning to go see anything in theaters until Godzilla comes out, but my mother talked me into going to see Apollo 11 with her.
I really enjoyed the way the clips were strung together, and the score does a fantastic job of putting you on the edge of your seat despite the fact that anyone watching already knows everything ended up okay. Calmer segments are marked by upbeat piano and orchestra, while more intense points drop to very low-bass electronic music that gets your blood running.
Apparently most of the footage comes from a documentary that never ended up being made. The cameramen ran out of "interesting" things to film and ended up pointing the cameras at onlookers and random NASA personnel. Quite fortunate for us, though, since it lets Apollo 11 put us right in the moment and see how people were actually reacting at the time; both inside and outside mission control.
But was it really NASA or Memorex?
Have you seen "First Man"?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2019, 06:07:04 AM
Have you seen "First Man"?
I saw the original when it happened. I was joking before. However with "First Man" that wasn't an American accomplishment.
Ah, the Tralfamadorians were the first on the Moon. Got it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2019, 08:59:26 AM
Ah, the Tralfamadorians were the first on the Moon. Got it.
No ... identitarian Black Panthers. Wakanda you know.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2019, 08:59:26 AM
Ah, the Tralfamadorians were the first on the Moon. Got it.
Wasn't it the Skrulls and the Kree in the Watchers' last intervention contest (the disaster of which CAUSED them to become "The Watchers")?
I just watched Mr. Frost. It was OK, but only because Jeff Goldblum was in it, playing the Devil.
I think I need to check Verizon free movies to see if 'Thor: Ragnarok' is available yet.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 05:49:55 PM
Wasn't it the Skrulls and the Kree in the Watchers' last intervention contest (the disaster of which CAUSED them to become "The Watchers")?
I'll take Kurt Vonnegut over Stan Lee.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2019, 06:12:27 PM
I'll take Kurt Vonnegut over Stan Lee.
Vonnegut Novels‎: ‎14
Stories‎: ‎123
Other works‎: ‎3
Plays‎: ‎7
Stan Lee Comic books. While this is difficult to pin down, one site mentioned 32,000 Marvel Comic Books some of which were not Stan Lee. So let's say 25,000.
'Nuff said?
my brother got aquaman on his works VPN
jason momoa goodness.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 07, 2019, 05:59:00 PM
I just watched Mr. Frost. It was OK, but only because Jeff Goldblum was in it, playing the Devil.
So your hell froze over? Neat!
Quote from: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 06:21:53 PM
Vonnegut Novels‎: ‎14
Stories‎: ‎123
Other works‎: ‎3
Plays‎: ‎7
Stan Lee Comic books. While this is difficult to pin down, one site mentioned 32,000 Marvel Comic Books some of which were not Stan Lee. So let's say 25,000.
'Nuff said?
Yeah, Lee did comic books. 'Nuff said.
I just saw Captain Marvel.
I intentionally tried to avoid all the drama and politics and theories and come into it fresh. I absolutely loved this movie. 9/10. One of the better Marvel movies for sure. I'd rate it up there alongside Guardians of the Galaxy, which is my third favorite. (Infinity War is #2 and Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is my all-time favorite)
Great special effects, surprisingly good plot, decent characters, good world-building, even a few chuckle-worthy moments. I also got a nostalgia boner for the 90s music.
Watch it and know that there are two post-credits scenes. Break anyone's legs who tries to leave the movie theater early. And Youtube is no excuse for leaving early. Youtube is for quitters. Quitters with broken legs.
https://youtu.be/JcMtWwiyzpU
Okay. That's better. Much better than the last trailer. But I'm still not sold on this. The movie seems stuck between trying a new spin on things and being formulaic in its recreation of iconic moments from the original. Also, blue face Will Smith seems to be missing from most of the movie. I wonder if it was originally that way, or if they reacted to the negative press and decided to remove some of the CGI.
so they didn't even stick with the genie remaining blue, they had to make his skin tone of the actor close as possible.
As I saw someone say in a review, they've just taken the elements from the original, and stripped it down to this boring, lethargic, pantomime version of its original.
The original animated had not just a well thought out style in animation and design, but everything felt grand, from the towering presence of the main antagonist, to the scope of size the genie could take, something this just is lacking and can't be portrayed in live action.
The buck really should stop here and people shouldn't see this thing, it just makes the mouse think people want more of this shit..
Quote from: Munch on March 12, 2019, 10:31:51 PM
so they didn't even stick with the genie remaining blue, they had to make his skin tone of the actor close as possible.
Well, after thinking about it a bit, it occurred to me that there may be a good reason Genie isn't always blue. Maybe he takes on a natural skintone so he can blend in in public. Originally, Genie transformed into animals like a bee to hide himself.
Fuck Internet drama.
And for some welcoming news from the house of mouse.
Quotehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47577507
James Gunn: Disney rehires sacked Guardians of the Galaxy director
Director James Gunn has been rehired to direct Guardians of the Galaxy 3 after he was fired by Disney over decade-old tweets that joked about rape and abuse.
It comes after famous cast members from the Marvel series signed an open letter pleading for Gunn's return.
In a tweet he thanked Disney and his supporters and said he is "excited to continue making films that investigate the ties of love that bind us all".
He was fired last July over the tweets that Disney called "indefensible".
Stars from the first two films in the franchise had openly supported Gunn after his dismissal, including Bradley Cooper, Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Vin Diesel and Dave Bautista.
The Guardians of the Galaxy series has grossed over $1.6bn (£1.2bn) worldwide, with the sequel surpassing the earnings seen by the first film.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/485/socialembed/https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/1106633508657651712~/news/entertainment-arts-47577507)
According to Deadline, the decision was made by Disney executives months ago after he publicly apologised in July and took blame for the incident.
He will reportedly begin production of Guardians of the Galaxy 3 after he completes Suicide Squad 2, which is being producing by Marvel rival DC, Deadline reports.
Could Disney re-hire James Gunn for Guardians?
Before his dismissal, he confirmed that he had written the script for a third Guardians movie.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/fbd2e7e07d439ef6b008c6751c410751/tenor.gif)
Niiiiiice
I just watched, "Arrival" (finally) and holy titty twisting Jesus I was not expecting that type of mindfuck today.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 22, 2019, 07:23:17 PM
I just watched, "Arrival" (finally) and holy titty twisting Jesus I was not expecting that type of mindfuck today.
You learned to speak Heptapod?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 22, 2019, 07:31:56 PM
You learned to speak Heptapod?
I want to say I wish, but I really don't. I know I've seen people give it positive spins, ,but that still seems terrifying to have your entire "future" predetermined like that.
Oh, and while we are talking about Gunn... I think now is as good of time as any to talk about how he was the craziest possible choice for a director for GotG in the first place...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjwzCrtK5G0
Quote from: Shiranu on March 22, 2019, 07:55:09 PM
I want to say I wish, but I really don't. I know I've seen people give it positive spins, ,but that still seems terrifying to have your entire "future" predetermined like that.
It's just your timeline. There's no mechanism to "predetermine" it. Foreknowledge can be scary, like if you see yourself dying while trapped in a flaming car.
Saw Shazam earlier tod--yesterday. I didn't expect much of the movie when I saw the trailer, but I heard good things about the movie and decided to give it a shot. Boy am I glad I did. The movie is absolutely brilliant. It's hilarious, it's self-aware, and it has just the right measure of campiness to be enjoyable. Sometimes, it feels like a spoof of early comic book movies. The actor who played Shazam did a perfect job playing a kid in an adult superhero's body. A lot of people compare this movie to Big, the movie about a kid who turns into an adult, and that comparison is pretty accurate. The movie even has a reference to one of Big's most memorable scenes. Overall, I considered it a very enjoyable movie.
This probably doesn't count, but I just watched the last half of Alien tonight.
So I will give you all a story...
I was visiting a friend in New York City specifically to see the debut of 'Alien'. We had seen the ads and thought it was about some poor alien struggling on Earth. We got there hours early, but were just a few people before the theater was filled. We waited. My friend was a real movie nut.
When the first audience came out, they were stunned. Like deer-in-the-headlights. Pale. Numb. We asked them questions but they all just waved us off. My friend and I just looked at each other and asked what we were getting into. And we were right.
You had to see it and not know what to expect to understand the impact.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 07:50:12 AM
This probably doesn't count, but I just watched the last half of Alien tonight.
So I will give you all a story...
I was visiting a friend in New York City specifically to see the debut of 'Alien'. We had seen the ads and thought it was about some poor alien struggling on Earth. We got there hours early, but were just a few people before the theater was filled. We waited. My friend was a real movie nut.
When the first audience came out, they were stunned. Like deer-in-the-headlights. Pale. Numb. We asked them questions but they all just waved us off. My friend and I just looked at each other and asked what we were getting into. And we were right.
You had to see it and not know what to expect to understand the impact.
Never saw it or the sequels/prequels. I saw a comic book version of the story of the first movie, in a comic store in San Diego ... and it creeped me out! Very Kali ... evil mother.
Your talking about the 1979 film right?
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2019, 09:36:15 AM
Never saw it or the sequels/prequels. I saw a comic book version of the story of the first movie, in a comic store in San Diego ... and it creeped me out! Very Kali ... evil mother.
Baruch, I don't scare easily. I watched The Crawling Eye as a child and never lost a moments sleep. I watched "Day Of the Triffids" and laughed. Hitch cock's 'The Birds was vaguely funny. Because none of it could be real ...
Alien scared the bejebus out of me. I have never looked at our space exploration the same way since.
When the miacids found their way into NA and faced the Terra Birds, only one species survived. When Europeans landed on NA shores and didn't die in 10 years, it was all over for the Amerindians.
In "Alien" I first saw the possibility that we aren't the winners of First Contact. If I could destroy the voyager ships right now, I would. They are actually "come get us" beacons.
There are really only 2 possibilities. We are the first intelligent life to explore space or we are "food for wolves".
I thought it was tedious.
Its a good movie, Sigourney Weaver sold it and the sequel for me, which when to watch them both are two very different types of horror, one being suspenseful and tense, the second being action based violence and gore.
Ripley will always stand to me as how you write/act as a strong female protagonist. You go on a journey with her and the shit she goes through and how that changes her.
Quote from: Munch on April 07, 2019, 10:53:17 AM
Its a good movie, Sigourney Weaver sold it and the sequel for me, which when to watch them both are two very different types of horror, one being suspenseful and tense, the second being action based violence and gore.
Ripley will always stand to me as how you write/act as a strong female protagonist. You go on a journey with her and the shit she goes through and how that changes her.
Agreed. Ripley in the mech suit was AWESOME! But everyone else around her dies, LOL! I KNEW, as the shield wall started to go up in Aliens that she was going to stomp jaw...
I'm thinking of how she slid carefully into the astro-suit in the first movie and thought OMG, she has a PLAN.
And in the 2nd, it had to be Jonsie. I cried buckets realizing that.
Ripley is a hero of mine...
She is more lethal than security guards on Star Trek.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 11:12:54 AM
Agreed. Ripley in the mech suit was AWESOME! But everyone else around her dies, LOL! I KNEW, as the shield wall started to go up in Aliens that she was going to stomp jaw...
I'm thinking of how she slid carefully into the astro-suit in the first movie and thought OMG, she has a PLAN.
And in the 2nd, it had to be Jonsie. I cried buckets realizing that.
Ripley is a hero of mine...
She is more lethal than security guards on Star Trek.
On Star Trek, red shirts are always expendable. Ripley isn't a Mary Sue.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 05, 2019, 01:30:50 AM
Saw Shazam earlier tod--yesterday. I didn't expect much of the movie when I saw the trailer, but I heard good things about the movie and decided to give it a shot. Boy am I glad I did. The movie is absolutely brilliant. It's hilarious, it's self-aware, and it has just the right measure of campiness to be enjoyable. Sometimes, it feels like a spoof of early comic book movies. The actor who played Shazam did a perfect job playing a kid in an adult superhero's body. A lot of people compare this movie to Big, the movie about a kid who turns into an adult, and that comparison is pretty accurate. The movie even has a reference to one of Big's most memorable scenes. Overall, I considered it a very enjoyable movie.
I have also seen this movie. I've been a captain Marvel fan from waaaaay back. I used to watch the Shazam! live action TV series from the 70's. I saw the cartoon show as part of the Kid Super Power Hour With Shazam! Later in life, I found the Adventures of Captain Marvel serial from 1941 and watched the fuck out of that. 12 chapters, four hours, joy. So I'm a longtime fan of the character. The reason why is in the above-mentioned cartoon, there was a comedic element to the hero, which is kind of there in the original comics. The villains kept calling Captain Marvel a big, red cheese. I thought that was hilarious.
The new movie takes most of its clues from the new Shazam! comic series, I am told as I haven't read. This is just the latest reboot of the character, which makes the fourth or fifth time DC has tried to get this character going. Jeff Smith and Jerry Ordway couldn't keep it going, but hopefully the movie will help here. So, this is largely an all-new mythology that takes some elements of the original but updates and changes them. Dr Sivana is no longer and evil mad scientist but a ... I dunno. Something else. I guess he's technically an evil scientist, but not in the same way as before. Billy Batson is an orphan, but he doesn't get a job as a radio reporter but now lives in a group home. His hero alter ego is no longer Captain Marvel, in this day when licensing is a bigger deal than in the 70's, but has no name. Because he can't tell anyone he's "Shazam" because he'll change. This is a gag reserved for the original Captain Marvel Jr who got his power by saying "Captain Marvel." Now it's a gag they can use all the time. Fine. And Shazam acts more like a kid in an adult body than he ever did before. This help make the hero stand out a bit more.
The plot has several things going on at once which all mesh together fairly well.
Sivanna was a potential heir to the power of the wizard Shazam, but was deemed unworthy. He spends his adult life trying to find his way back to the wizard and when he does, he set free the Seven Deadly Sins from the Playstation One game they were trapped in. (The CGI is not great) Orphan Billy Batson is then rather quickly chosen to receive the power of Shazam and finds himself in an adult body and a silly red suit. Fortunately, Freddie Freeman, who lives in the same group home, is a super hero nerd (in a world where superheroes are real, think on that) and helps him figure out how to use some of his powers.
The movie does shine where the two characters are messing around with super powers and doing what kids would do if one of them could pass as an adult, like purchase beer. his fun could have been spoiled if the supervillain was just a generic bad guy who just shows up and makes things all serious and shit. But since Sivanna's original is tied to Billy's, it give the villain more depth than they tend to have in these things. Throughout this, we also have Billy's search for his birth mother which is keeping him from accepting the loving foster home until the third act, possibly a little too quickly, but I guess it works alright.
So what we've got here is a theme of family played out in multiple ways. Sivanna's family is pretty shitty and doesn't accept him, reflected in the wizard's rejection. Billy's foster family accepts him, but he rejects them because he still believes he has a mother out there somewhere even though he hasn't seen her is, what? Ten years? These two people and life experiences involving the theme of family are central to the film.
I won't spoil, but I will note that the hero defeated the main villain not by punching harder or by stumbling into success dick first but by doing something clever. I won't say what, but I appreciated that they gave the hero a bit of brain and had him try something smart instead of bumbling into it. Compare this to the Rocketeer, of which I recently watched a retrospective review, where the hero is a bit of a bumbler even at the end where he accidentally damages the rudder on the Nazi zeppelin when he should have done so intentionally to keep the bad guys from getting away. A hero can be a bumbler, like Indiana Jones, but he has to do something smart, especially at the end, or else you've made another Rocketeer. I mean, who remembers that fucking movie?
There's a tease for a sequel involving a caterpillar. I know exactly who that guy is and I hope they don't pay that off until at least the third or maybe fifth movie. They need to build up a rogue's gallery before dropping that hammer. The caterpillar can be like Nick Fury gathering up a team to pay off in a final movie of the first wave, like an evil Avengers.
The movie appears to be doing well at the box office, which is good. I figured it would be kind of like Deadpool, a super hero movie that is so different that no one sees it coming. We'll see if it does Deadpool numbers. I wore my Shazam t-shirt to see the movie and stopped for a bite before and after. In both places people commented on the shirt but were ignorant that there was a new movie playing in the theater IN THE SAME SHOPPING CENTER. I think this one is flying a bit below the radar. But, someone at work said his kid didn't care to see Captain Marvel but was excited to see Shazam. So maybe it is connecting with its target audience.
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2019, 11:49:32 AM
On Star Trek, red shirts are always expendable. Ripley isn't a Mary Sue.
I recall seeing a single panel cartoon where a sign said "Star Trek extras" and the guy there was handed a red shirt and said (thought balloon) "So much for next week".
Who is "Mary Sue"?
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 03:27:07 PM
I recall seeing a single panel cartoon where a sign said "Star Trek extras" and the guy there was handed a red shirt and said (thought balloon) "So much for next week".
Who is "Mary Sue"?
Mary Sue is the new term for a fictional super hero of feminist persuasion, who doesn't have to make any serious effort to use the superpowers provided. Star Trek A New Hope, the lead character isn't part of the Skywalker dynasty, and can beat Kilo Ren on first attempt. The new Captain Marvel is more of the same ... though the powers in this case are off the chart. The character did have to train to get some of them. It is the infinite level of power (will be able to defeat Thanos with out any Infinity Stones) that makes her uninteresting. The training arc is an opportunity to develop a hero's character, but a road not taken with a Mary Sue.
BTW - I not only liked Rocketeer, I still remember it ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi0Et31E7s4
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2019, 04:59:49 PM
Mary Sue is the new term for a fictional super hero of feminist persuasion, who doesn't have to make any serious effort to use the superpowers provided. Star Trek A New Hope, the lead character isn't part of the Skywalker dynasty, and can beat Kilo Ren on first attempt. The new Captain Marvel is more of the same ... though the powers in this case are off the chart. The character did have to train to get some of them. It is the infinite level of power (will be able to defeat Thanos with out any Infinity Stones) that makes her uninteresting. The training arc is an opportunity to develop a hero's character, but a road not taken with a Mary Sue.
Oh, Star WARS, got it. Thanks. Never heard of her before though...
Separately, I better download and watch some movies. I'm behind the knowledge curve.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 05:07:22 PM
Oh, Star WARS, got it. Thanks. Never heard of her before though...
Separately, I better download and watch some movies. I'm behind the knowledge curve.
The term comes from Millennial movie critics.
Saw Schindlers list again. First time in maybe a decade.
What a film.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 07, 2019, 05:12:05 PM
Saw Schindlers list again. First time in maybe a decade.
What a film.
A study in human psychology. Even bad guys aren't totally bad. The HaShoah itself is too vast to be properly covered in even a miniseries. But the Holocaust deniers have to be protected.
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2019, 05:09:37 PM
The term comes from Millennial movie critics.
OK, let's try this again. If I understand you right, "Mary Sue" is a term for any heroine in any of the Star Trek/War Marvel DC et al universes?
Quote from: Munch on April 07, 2019, 10:53:17 AM
Its a good movie, Sigourney Weaver sold it and the sequel for me, which when to watch them both are two very different types of horror, one being suspenseful and tense, the second being action based violence and gore.
Ripley will always stand to me as how you write/act as a strong female protagonist. You go on a journey with her and the shit she goes through and how that changes her.
Kill, kill, kill, kill...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 07, 2019, 05:56:35 PM
Kill, kill, kill, kill...
your right yes, ripley did indeed kill those aliens, very satisfying.
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2019, 05:09:37 PM
The term comes from Millennial movie critics.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 03:27:07 PM
Who is "Mary Sue"?
"Mary Sue" is taken from the 1973 Star Trek fan Fiction "A Trekker's Tale" by Paula Smith which was written as a criticism of fan fiction which tend to introduce new characters into the cannon that tend to be:
A) obvious author self-insert fantasy wish fulfillment
B) inexplicable more skilled/powerful/good looking/etc than the existing franchise characters
C) well-liked, even loved and/or romantically engaging to the existing characters
D) tend to die saving everybody or something so that the existing characters can all cry about this great guy/gal being dead.
E) Any combination of the above.
I recommend reading the original story (https://fanlore.org/wiki/A_Trekkie%27s_Tale). It's fucking short. It was written by the editor of the fanzine who got sick of terrible submissions that tended to go basically like the parody she'd written.
These days, the term gets thrown around a bit more loosely, one could argue incorrectly. Usually with some kind of half-assed political agenda behind it. Like calling Rei from the new Star Wars movies a Mary Sue. I'm not sure about that. (What I am sure is I really do not care about Star Wars or anything in it anymore, but I digress)
I think this misuse of the Mary Sue term not only ruins a perfectly good criticism shorthand term, but is due to poor communication skills. Lately there's been a lot of "girl power" shit, like the Ghostbusters reboot, where women are coming into space that typically had only or mostly boys. There is something to be said for that. But there is also something to be said for male bonding and men having spaces and activities where women aren't involved. But these chuckleheads aren't very good at expressing this in a way that can be understood, much less sympathized with. So it get label toxic masculinity or something.
Quote from: Munch on April 07, 2019, 07:48:27 PM
your right yes, ripley did indeed kill those aliens, very satisfying.
I think I see the problem here.
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2019, 04:59:49 PM
Mary Sue is the new term for a fictional super hero of feminist persuasion, who doesn't have to make any serious effort to use the superpowers provided. Star Trek A New Hope, the lead character isn't part of the Skywalker dynasty, and can beat Kilo Ren on first attempt. The new Captain Marvel is more of the same ... though the powers in this case are off the chart. The character did have to train to get some of them. It is the infinite level of power (will be able to defeat Thanos with out any Infinity Stones) that makes her uninteresting. The training arc is an opportunity to develop a hero's character, but a road not taken with a Mary Sue.
As antithesis pointed out, that's not the correct definition of "Mary Sue." If you recall, even Luke Skywalker didn't finish his training in the original movies, but he was able to fight Darth Vader, who had centuries* of training and combat experience. Unlike Vader, Kylo Ren was a novice, and had to finish his training off-screen in Episode VIII. Additionally, Episode VIII explains (poorly, but it's there) that Rey rose to power via the Force in order to counterbalance Kylo Ren. See, the Force actually has three sides, not two. Light, Dark, and Balance. The Balance side of the Force attempts to bring the other sides into equilibrium. If one side gets too powerful, it builds up another. In the prequel trilogy, the Jedi had complete dominance over the Force, so the Force created Anakin to destroy them from the inside. In the original trilogy, the Sith had complete control, so the Force built up Luke Skywalker to destroy the Sith. Now that the Sith, or whatever you call these new evil Force users, have returned, the Force needs a Light side champion. As a result, Rey, some nobody on a desert planet, was given greater potential than a normal Jedi.
Ironically, Luke Skywalker is kind of to blame for the problems of the new trilogy. If he hadn't started a Jedi academy, both the Jedi and the Sith might have gone extinct, equal in their nonexistence. But because he built up warriors on the Light side, the Dark had to rise again to bring balance, and so the cycle continues. I think that's what Luke realized when he said it was "time for the Jedi to end."
Edit: Decades, not centuries. Doh.
Quote from: the_antithesis on April 07, 2019, 07:50:38 PM
"Mary Sue" is taken from the 1973 Star Trek fan Fiction "A Trekker's Tale" by Paula Smith which was written as a criticism of fan fiction which tend to introduce new characters into the cannon that tend to be:
A) obvious author self-insert fantasy wish fulfillment
B) inexplicable more skilled/powerful/good looking/etc than the existing franchise characters
C) well-liked, even loved and/or romantically engaging to the existing characters
D) tend to die saving everybody or something so that the existing characters can all cry about this great guy/gal being dead.
E) Any combination of the above.
Exactly. My rule of thumb is that Mary Sue characters are
supercompetent - they're good at everything with all sorts of strengths and no real weaknesses. They can outcommand Picard, outthink Data, outfight Worf, etc. Most decently-written characters aren't like that - they have a certain range of expertise but they also have limitations and a few character flaws.
If you're looking at a character and there's no situation they can't handle, you're likely looking at a Mary Sue.
QuoteSee, the Force actually has three sides, not two. Light, Dark, and Balance. The Balance side of the Force attempts to bring the other sides into equilibrium. If one side gets too powerful, it builds up another.
I'm about to go all old-school Christian schism-era here and argue that "balance" is not a third side but instead rather the system itself that both operate in, the philosophical catalyst for their being good and evil, Light and Dark... for without a system known as "balance" there would be no concept of "imbalance".
Thus balance cannot exist without imbalance, and vice versa. So if balance is the third side, imbalance must be a fourth... and thus as scales must stay even to stay in-between light and dark... so if the force becomes "too balanced" or "too imbalanced", it inherently imbalances the force.
This is why I am invited to parties.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 09, 2019, 12:47:27 AM
I'm about to go all old-school Christian schism-era here and argue that "balance" is not a third side but instead rather the system itself that both operate in, the philosophical catalyst for their being good and evil, Light and Dark... for without a system known as "balance" there would be no concept of "imbalance".
Thus balance cannot exist without imbalance, and vice versa. So if balance is the third side, imbalance must be a fourth... and thus as scales must stay even to stay in-between light and dark... so if the force becomes "too balanced" or "too imbalanced", it inherently imbalances the force.
This is why I am invited to parties.
Well, there are actually Force gods now. It's kind of confusing, since it seems like they used to be powerful users of the Force, and now they seem to represent the Force itself. But these three beings, called the Ones, are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Sp--I mean the Daughter. The Daughter represents the Light Side, the Son the Dark Side, and the Father above them is the balance. There is no god of imbalance in the Force.
In the Extended Universe, which is no longer canon, there was a group of Force users who were neutral. Using both the Light and the Dark sides, they were known as Gray Jedi. I was kinda expecting Episode VIII to have Rey and Kylo Ren come together to form the Gray Jedi, and it seemed like Kylo Ren wanted that. But of course, Rey couldn't abandon her principals or her friends, so she refused Kylo Ren's offer. If they had become Gray Jedi, the balance would have been satisfied without any more conflict.
QuoteThe Daughter represents the Light Side, the Son the Dark Side, and the Father above them is the balance. There is no god of imbalance in the Force.
Ah, but therein lies the very on-the-nose comparison to the early Christian schisms... the council of Nicaea of 300-something was convened exactly for this exact argument... is the Holy Trinity one divine entity, or are they each completely separate entities (or even if some are more important than the others). This is where the Nicene Creed (which is still practiced) originated; a declaration that what would be the "United" Catholic Church was legitimate and the Eastern Orthodox view point was heresy.
They were essentially arguing of balance (god) was part of the trinity or existed on a higher plain to the other two of the trinity. People literally were tortured, martyred and killed nearly 2000 years ago over the exact same argument we are now casually having on a global social media platform.
Given that the balance point is an infinitesimal point between two sides I don't buy it as being an entity.
Glass - 9/10
M. Night Shyamalan last (maybe there'll be spin-offs, who knows) movie in the trilogy about superhumans in a more "common" theme instead of the hyped and flashy venues of D.C. and Marvel. Quite good and as always, there's a twist in the end, true to Shyamalan's style.
Peter Jackson's "Morgul Engines". Pretty. 5/10
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3krPsDXsAEAO-I.png)#
yeah, does make a lot of sense now..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEUlnLOQG8k
Dumbo is one of those stories that, if it had died off 80-years ago, not much of value would have been lost. The need to extend it's life even longer is completely baffling to me... but you do you, Disney.
whats beautiful about the disney classics, that is completely lost on the current disney corporation, is you can watch a classic disney movie, and its like looking back at an era which reflects the thoughts, ideals and aspects of the era, showing the progression of time. Look at how a character like snow white is in 1937, to how a character like jasmine is in Aladdin in 1992. theres something pretty amazing about seeing the style and characterization in those times.
With the disney remakes, it loses all that charm, because the live action remakes are all being made in the same era, today, so all the characters who had their character and personalities reflective of the time the classics were made, are now stripped away to 'appeal to audiences of today'.
This is why I just don't care for seeing any of them now. Disney could try harder, they've made movies that do reflect the audiences of today, with tangled and frozen, but just remaking the classics though a lens of today just does a disservice to the originals.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 09, 2019, 01:16:11 AM
Well, there are actually Force gods now. It's kind of confusing, since it seems like they used to be powerful users of the Force, and now they seem to represent the Force itself. But these three beings, called the Ones, are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Sp--I mean the Daughter. The Daughter represents the Light Side, the Son the Dark Side, and the Father above them is the balance. There is no god of imbalance in the Force.
Wait a sec...I thought The Force was generated by life itself? I thought that it's more a ground-up thing than a top-down thing.
The way I've always pictured it is that Jedi/Sith are not bestowed with Force powers by an outside source, they manifest the Force potential that all living things generate into actual Force powers. Potential energy -> usable energy.
Seems like adding Force...umm...gods would be antithetical to that not to mention making The Force too much like real-world religions like Christianity.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 11, 2019, 07:35:42 PM
Wait a sec...I thought The Force was generated by life itself? I thought that it's more a ground-up thing than a top-down thing.
The way I've always pictured it is that Jedi/Sith are not bestowed with Force powers by an outside source, they manifest the Force potential that all living things generate into actual Force powers. Potential energy -> usable energy.
Seems like adding Force...umm...gods would be antithetical to that not to mention making The Force too much like real-world religions like Christianity.
Nothing canon in Star Wars is canon anymore. Originally like Zen, the next movie had them as micro-symbionts the midichlorians ;-( They should have answered the question, "What is the sound of one Jedi light saber not hitting anything?"
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 11, 2019, 07:35:42 PM
Wait a sec...I thought The Force was generated by life itself? I thought that it's more a ground-up thing than a top-down thing.
The way I've always pictured it is that Jedi/Sith are not bestowed with Force powers by an outside source, they manifest the Force potential that all living things generate into actual Force powers. Potential energy -> usable energy.
Seems like adding Force...umm...gods would be antithetical to that not to mention making The Force too much like real-world religions like Christianity.
The Force flows through all life. Episode VIII was consistent with that. But the original trilogy was pretty vague as to what exactly the Force was. It was kind of like a god, it was kind of a power source. In the prequels, Anakin was a Force baby, with no natural father, and we learned about midichlorians that served as a way to measure a person's sensitivity to the Force. I don't think George Lucas originally intended there to be Force gods, but the idea that the Force has goals pulling in conflicting directions depending on the alignment, or that Balance was a factor in the Force didn't come out of nowhere. The Jedi received the prophecy about the chosen one who would bring "balance" to the Force. This has two implications. First, the Force bestows hidden knowledge about the future to select individuals, like a god speaking to its prophet. And second, the Force does seek to find balance between Light and Dark, but the Jedi misunderstood what "balance" meant. They assumed "balance" meant peace or enlightenment, but it actually meant the pendulum was swinging the other direction, and it was about to hit them hard.
Disney is one of the worst offenders when it comes to violating the spirit of copyright. There's a reason the most recent extension to copyright was called the Mickey Mouse Protection Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act). It was never foreseen by the Framers that copyright would keep getting extended indefinitely. The idea of copyright is to protect the creator's right to profit from their creation, not to protect corporate properties forever.
Instead, the idea of copyright as practiced now is legalized extortion -- it wasn't until 2016 that Warner quit fighting to maintain their rights over 'Happy Birthday to You', even though it had been demonstrated the previous year that there never had been a valid copyright on the song, only on one particular arrangement of it. Warner eventually paid back only $14 million of an estimated $56 million they'd made enforcing a copyright they never actually held.
That said, as a writer and photographer, I do believe in copyright protections. Certainly I would like to have my work protected for the period of my natural life, plus maybe ten years for the benefit of my heirs, but anything more than that is counter to the spirit of copyright. The current term of life plus 70 years is crazy, and certainly has nothing to do with protecting creators' rights, but rather protecting the profits of those who weren't the creators. Statistically, copyright will serve a creator's heirs longer than it will the creator -- even someone who is published at 20 will have to live to be 90 to get the same protection term that their estate will have.
I remember the crows in Dumbo, and shudder a bit.
The Devil's Rejects 9/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3P1ejh9pGs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3P1ejh9pGs)
It's no secret that Movies with Mikey is one of my idols in terms of viewing and interpreting art, and I think he nails it with John Wick. It's a film of catharsis, of the gods of Olympus being destroyed by the Boogieman, an action film produced and directed by men deeply knowledgeable of not just what actions look good but how and why they look good (the two key figures in the creation of this film are both long-time stunt actors)... and executed by a cast (particularly Reeves, who spent something like 5 months, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day training in martial arts and gun usage for this film)...
It's a great film, and it's a great analysis of it. It's right up there with "The Raid" (Indonesian action film) for best modern action film imo.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 17, 2019, 03:42:08 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3P1ejh9pGs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3P1ejh9pGs)
It's no secret that Movies with Mikey is one of my idols in terms of viewing and interpreting art, and I think he nails it with John Wick. It's a film of catharsis, of the gods of Olympus being destroyed by the Boogieman, an action film produced and directed by men deeply knowledgeable of not just what actions look good but how and why they look good (the two key figures in the creation of this film are both long-time stunt actors)... and executed by a cast (particularly Reeves, who spent something like 5 months, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day training in martial arts and gun usage for this film)...
It's a great film, and it's a great analysis of it. It's right up there with "The Raid" (Indonesian action film) for best modern action film imo.
I loved John wick. But the raid has it beat.
Wick totally should have died on the balcony at the Red Circle.
Did you notice that the doorman told Wick how many opponents were waiting inside? (Hint: do the conversion.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh_eIReMeNw
One more, just because I am binge watching his videos atm. This one's kinda core theme is how movies can force us to address concepts we might not be aware of... or even "worse" (from our perspective), concepts we might not be comfortable with or disagree with.
QuoteI loved John wick. But the raid has it beat.
I agree and disagree. I feel like in terms of world building, character development, themes and motifs... the more "cerebral" aspects... John Wick is the better film/series (which gives it a leg up since it is a series vs a film).
In terms of just pure action though, The Raid definately edges out ahead. I'm probably going to go back and watch them back to back tonight just for the shits and giggles and see if watching them in very close succession helps me compare the two, because it's been years since I've seen either... and I saw them pretty far apart as well.
Watched spiderman: homecoming
Trying to watch all the marvel films before going in for infinity war parts 1 and 2
still need to see black panther, ant man 2 (i think) and thor ragnarok. (Then watch captain marvel between the two infinity wars films, right?)
Anyway: i liked it. It was kind of refreshing to just see another (almost) avenger have fun with it. Comedy worked for me. And the villain wasn't some overpowered guy looking for galactic or world domination. Not out just for global destruction, armed with the means to do so.
It was a nice return to have less at stake, which made it feel like what was at stake was actually at stake. You know?
There are 32+ hours of Avengers movies to watch before Endgame then.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 19, 2019, 08:57:27 PM
There are 32+ hours of Avengers movies to watch before Endgame then.
For five or six movies?
I think, I was around 8 years old when I have seen Dumbo. I loved it very much. It's one of those things you won't try to be objective about.
However, considering the theme, it has universal value. Esp. for children. It's about being bullied. He gets bullied because of a personal trait and then turns that into a super power. Well, we can write a lot of things, but that's enough.
Among all the movies Disney has made in the last 80 years -that's the age of the first movie- Dumbo is the last one to complain about being remade or seen as unnecessary.
I haven't seen the new one, but I can forgive Burton for almost anything, so I'll ask: Is it really that bad? I don't think so. How bad it can be? Doesn't matter how much badly it is critcised now, it will be a hit for the unborn generations. And it is a good thing to make child watch.
This is not just about Dumbo either. I don't get what the so called critics have been trying to accomplish in the last 20 years. These stories are very basic. Same with the new Alice in the Wonderland ones...etc. Everybody hated it? Why? I think it's LotR. Not the LotR as in LotR. The epic era movie opened.
It's the abominations like Frozen and the Little Mermaid stuff we need to burn in piles and dance around it. Yes, I hate Disney as much as any sensible person and think that Pixar, Miyazaki, Addams Family should be mandatory for primary school kids. But Dumbo is not one of the former group.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 20, 2019, 02:54:10 AM
For five or six movies?
Thor has three, Ironman has three, Captain America has three, and there are the ensemble movies, and so one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 20, 2019, 06:22:11 AM
Thor has three, Ironman has three, Captain America has three, and there are the ensemble movies, and so one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films
Ah, I get it, you did not completely read my initial post.
Why would I do that?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 20, 2019, 11:01:52 AM
Why would I do that?
You know, I wish I could give you a good reason.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 20, 2019, 11:13:50 AM
You know, I wish I could give you a good reason.
Well played, sir!
Okay, so...
Maybe not the most popular opionion. And at the risk of sounding to some of you like how my gf sounded to me when she said she liked the Avatar (the last airbender) movie, without having seen the previous much more praise-worthy animated installment...
I've never seen the anime movie of Ghost in the Shell. I've watched an episode or two of the 2002 series, but I think I was just a tad too young too appreciate it fully. And probably just saw it because I thought the Major was hot.
So, I just want to say, without having seen the anime, the old movie or having read the manga. Without any real foreknowledge of this franchise... I liked the Netflix adaptation.
[spoiler]I just watched it and it was a good-looking and (for the most part) well acted series. I liked Scarlett Johanson and Euron Greyjoy Pilou Asbaek's performances. The visuals were nice. The story was captivating enough to keep me goign. And except for a few plotholes, unanswered questions and different simple things that bug me, (like the Major only having been transformed a year ago, which would make Kuze also only a year post transformation which I find a ridiculously short amount of time for him to create new network to download himself into...) it was very enjoyable. Not movie of the year, good. Of course not. But not bad.[/spoiler]
I hear people complain it goes against the fundamental core of the original work. Which might be so. Perhaps in a while I'll revisit my initial opinion, as I think I'm going to try and watch some of the original stuff now. Perhaps this too will look bad by comparison. But without something to compare it too: I like it.
And at least it got me interested in going into the source material again.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 22, 2019, 06:16:41 PM
Okay, so...
Maybe not the most popular opionion. And at the risk of sounding to some of you like how my gf sounded to me when she said she liked the Avatar (the last airbender) movie, without having seen the previous much more praise-worthy animated installment...
I've never seen the anime movie of Ghost in the Shell. I've watched an episode or two of the 2002 series, but I think I was just a tad too young too appreciate it fully. And probably just saw it because I thought the Major was hot.
So, I just want to say, without having seen the anime, the old movie or having read the manga. Without any real foreknowledge of this franchise... I liked the Netflix adaptation.
[spoiler]I just watched it and it was a good-looking and (for the most part) well acted series. I liked Scarlett Johanson and Euron Greyjoy Pilou Asbaek's performances. The visuals were nice. The story was captivating enough to keep me goign. And except for a few plotholes, unanswered questions and different simple things that bug me, (like the Major only having been transformed a year ago, which would make Kuze also only a year post transformation which I find a ridiculously short amount of time for him to create new network to download himself into...) it was very enjoyable. Not movie of the year, good. Of course not. But not bad.[/spoiler]
I hear people complain it goes against the fundamental core of the original work. Which might be so. Perhaps in a while I'll revisit my initial opinion, as I think I'm going to try and watch some of the original stuff now. Perhaps this too will look bad by comparison. But without something to compare it too: I like it.
And at least it got me interested in going into the source material again.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/k1WNsvwuYUGzu/giphy.gif)
Don't actually care. lol
People make movies out of cartoons and other people complain about that. Fuck 'em.
Obvious, what have you done?! I can't look at you. :p
I love the animated series. When somebody says it is the only Avatar I remember. I never thought of watching the movie, because it should be obvious to everyone over 20 that these kind of projects go the other way most of the time.
Watch the original Ghost in the Shell, you will like it.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on April 23, 2019, 12:13:20 PM
Obvious, what have you done?! I can't look at you. :p
I love the animated series. When somebody says it is the only Avatar I remember. I never thought of watching the movie, because it should be obvious to everyone over 20 that these kind of projects go the other way most of the time.
Watch the original Ghost in the Shell, you will like it.
Wilco!
PS, just to be clear, I did not like the avatar movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSwgJVwV7PM&app=desktop&persist_app=1
This is amazing. When Chris Hemsworth, the guy who played a brain dead idiot in Ghostbusters 2016 along with its all female cast, having Him calling out Larson for her bs, that's the point when someone needs to step in and tell her to tone it the fuck down.
Apparently other stars in end game hated working alongside her too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuztqX_r2Ds&app=desktop&persist_app=1
Also, saying she does her own stunts? Nice way of giving respect to your stunt double there XD
She's the gift that keeps giving
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ3jMs0lVXY
gets better and better.
Sad thing about this is, end game signals the end of an era, end of the MCU as people know and love it. This 'passing of the torch' thing (which is a trope I've always personally found ridiculous in any franchise) it should at least have been a happy moment though the pain of things coming to a close.
But instead, these interviews just show this 'passing of the torch' thing with larson, isn't so much a happy transition. Its showing the end of an era, and whatever comes next won't be anywhere near as good as what came before.
It doesn't matter if an actor can play a role, if they can't be decent human beings outside the role, its going to effect everything else long term.
♫It's the end of the world
as we know it,
And I feel fine.♫
Quote from: Munch on April 24, 2019, 10:19:38 PMIt doesn't matter if an actor can play a role, if they can't be decent human beings outside the role, its going to effect everything else long term.
Decent human beings? She's not molesting children. You just don't appreciate her political opinions. What is with people acting like SJWs are the worst threat on the planet? I don't give a damn. I watched the Captain Marvel movie, and I enjoyed it, even more than the reviewers (the non-alt-Right ones I pay attention to) had me expecting I would.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 25, 2019, 10:16:59 AM
Decent human beings? She's not molesting children. You just don't appreciate her political opinions. What is with people acting like SJWs are the worst threat on the planet? I don't give a damn. I watched the Captain Marvel movie, and I enjoyed it, even more than the reviewers (the non-alt-Right ones I pay attention to) had me expecting I would.
you know, considering this is a forum that often makes debates about peoples political opinions and how much they suck as people (trump post No:298) Its funny people called out for criticizing an actress for the same reason. Also claiming anyone who doesn't like brie larson must be an alt righter, lol.
Like the movie all you want, she's still a garbage human being. I guess I just have more value in watching actors based on their personality more then their acting credits.
Quote from: Munch on April 25, 2019, 10:50:36 AM
you know, considering this is a forum that often makes debates about peoples political opinions and how much they suck as people (trump post No:298) Its funny people called out for criticizing an actress for the same reason. Also claiming anyone who doesn't like brie larson must be an alt righter, lol.
Like the movie all you want, she's still a garbage human being. I guess I just have more value in watching actors based on their personality more then their acting credits.
When I go to watch a movie, the actors' political opinions do not matter to me. Like, I know that Chris Pratt donates a considerable sum of his money to an anti-LGBTQ+ church. Should I restrict myself from seeing End Game because he's in it? Until an actor does something morally indefensible, I don't care. There is an argument to be had about whether or not art can be disconnected from the artist. Like should we be able to enjoy Michael Jackson music even though there's a ton of evidence he sexually abused boys in his Neverland park? But again, the only thing Brie did wrong was exist as a feminist, so...
Also, I like Braveheart and the lethal weapon films. But I wouldn't want to be stuck in a room with Mel Gibson.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 25, 2019, 11:33:05 AM
Also, I like Braveheart and the lethal weapon films. But I wouldn't want to be stuck in a room with Mel Gibson.
So both you and Blackleaf are enabling 7 billion baby Hitlers out there? It is OK if you aren't activists. That shows you aren't insane, yet ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on April 25, 2019, 01:00:59 PM
So both you and Blackleaf are enabling 7 billion baby Hitlers out there? It is OK if you aren't activists. That shows you aren't insane, yet ;-)
You don't like Braveheart?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 25, 2019, 02:21:39 PM
You don't like Braveheart?
It's about Mel Gibson, the anti-Semite. Not about Braveheart etc.
Quote from: Baruch on April 25, 2019, 07:23:40 PM
It's about Mel Gibson, the anti-Semite. Not about Braveheart etc.
Hm. Fooled me. How is Braveheart about anti-semitism?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 26, 2019, 01:14:29 AM
Hm. Fooled me. How is Braveheart about anti-semitism?
He did say "Not about Braveheart".
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 26, 2019, 01:14:29 AM
Hm. Fooled me. How is Braveheart about anti-semitism?
Been drinking too much beer? You didn't read clearly ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on April 26, 2019, 03:21:45 AM
Been drinking too much beer? You didn't read clearly ;-)
My bad, I thought you meant: the movie is not about Braveheart but about Gibson himself.
Yeah, Gibson seems like a shit person, that's what I agree with.
Still like Braveheart. Do you?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 26, 2019, 04:28:39 AM
My bad, I thought you meant: the movie is not about Braveheart but about Gibson himself.
Yeah, Gibson seems like a shit person, that's what I agree with.
Still like Braveheart. Do you?
Gibson's movies are ... not that great (as opposed to movies he only starred in earlier). I liked Apocalypto better as a film. There was too much poetic license in Braveheart. Rob Roy was released that same year and was better. The original point you made, others made, was to what extent does the politics or misbehavior of people associated with films, drive your assessment of their films. My point is, if someone was really Left, one would boycott the film.
Quote from: Baruch on April 26, 2019, 05:43:17 AM
Gibson's movies are ... not that great (as opposed to movies he only starred in earlier). I liked Apocalypto better as a film. There was too much poetic license in Braveheart. Rob Roy was released that same year and was better. The original point you made, others made, was to what extent does the politics or misbehavior of people associated with films, drive your assessment of their films. My point is, if someone was really Left, one would boycott the film.
I dunno. Right wing nuts also boycott films like harry potter or Frozen, if I recall correctly. As do the far left, indeed. shaming and cencorship go hand in hand with extremes.
I don't boycott movies, based on politics or misbehavior. Fuck it, even if Sean Connory turned out to have been a raping pedophile, he's still my favorite actor. But then only in regards to acting. Plus, a movie is never just one person.
I liked apocalypto a lot better too. Now that you mention it.
Haven't seen Rob Roy. Will attempt to.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 26, 2019, 04:28:39 AM
My bad, I thought you meant: the movie is not about Braveheart but about Gibson himself.
Yeah, Gibson seems like a shit person, that's what I agree with.
Still like Braveheart. Do you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajChZOK1k88
I watched Avengers: Endgame. I thought it was good. Didn't really think about Brie Larson's SJW antics. 9/10.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Rob Roy ... a more contemporary Scottish patriot than William Wallace ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR1YEOrYOdw
Liam Neeson ... hot! Violent as f**k.
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 26, 2019, 07:45:13 AM
I watched Avengers: Endgame. I thought it was good. Didn't really think about Brie Larson's SJW antics. 9/10.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
But did you hear about the special makeup effects artist? I heard they're racist AND homophobic. You can't support a movie with a special makeup effects artist like that, can you?
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 26, 2019, 11:11:20 AM
But did you hear about the special makeup effects artist? I heard they're racist AND homophobic. You can't support a movie with a special makeup effects artist like that, can you?
It is a conundrum. All actors should be Black or female, better be both. But for White or male to be employed in acting, you need makeup per Al Jolson or Mrs Doubtfire. Which is cultural appropriation, misogynist and racist. So better just fire all White or male actors, to get the reparations going ;-))
I saw End Game last night. My god, it is fucking awesome. It might have been three hours, but it didn't feel like it to me. There are just a few nitpicky problems I have with it, which can't be mentioned without spoilers, but I doubt Marvel will ever be able to top this. If you like Marvel movies, go watch it. But definitely don't get a drink. Three hours is a long time to hold it. lol
[Spoiler=Do not read until you've seen the movie]There is time travel in the movie, and it does get a little confusing. Based on what the bald lady from Dr. Strange said, dark branches in the timeline would be created if the Infinity Stones were not returned to their place and time of origin. And the present is not affected by changes in the past. So that implies that returning the stones cleaned up the timeline, so that there were no branches. Essentially, but fixing the biggest changes to the timeline, the timeline was able to correct itself and return to normal. However, Captain America goes to the past and doesn't return. Since he's there, he didn't create a timeline split, but rather a closed loop. Confusing, but I think I understand it.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 26, 2019, 11:11:20 AM
But did you hear about the special makeup effects artist? I heard they're racist AND homophobic. You can't support a movie with a special makeup effects artist like that, can you?
I heard listening to Michael Jackson's songs makes you a pedophile.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 27, 2019, 01:43:23 PMBut definitely don't get a drink. Three hours is a long time to hold it.
Amauters. I go whole shifts without peeing sometimes.
I'm peeing right now.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 27, 2019, 06:33:29 PM
I'm peeing right now.
Old person advice ... don't leave home or a restaurant, without peeing first ;-(
I'm sitting at my desk and peeing. Your rule doesn't apply.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/avengers-endgame-box-office-records-wont-include-300-million-debut.html
LOL
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 27, 2019, 07:35:24 PM
I'm sitting at my desk and peeing. Your rule doesn't apply.
Eww ... what size Depends?
The cartoon send-ups of the movies have me rolling on the floor ... I am my own Roomba ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-oyxwvcGrY
This Australian team is really ... down under!
I am completely indifferent to Endgame or whatever it's called. I have no opinion on whether it's a good or a bad movie -- I just don't care. No interest in seeing it, or any of the zillion other Marvel Universe movies. Effects extravaganzas either make me dizzy or trigger migraines anyway.
My favorite superhero movie remains the Adam West/Burt Ward Batman, with Mystery Men and The Incredibles not far behind.
Love The Incredibles. The new one does justice to the franchise.
Never seen Mystery Men.
The live action cartoon I don't miss at all.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 27, 2019, 08:23:05 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/avengers-endgame-box-office-records-wont-include-300-million-debut.html
LOL
The article makes an interesting point about not being able to hit the 300 million debut record on the grounds that American theaters do not have the capacity to sell that many tickets.
Quote
First and foremost, “Endgame†is not the only film in theaters this weekend. “The Curse of La Llorona,†“Breakthrough,†“Shazam!,†“Hellboy,†“Missing Link,†“Dumbo†and “Captain Marvel,†among others, are contracted to play over the weekend at theaters nationwide. Even if no one were to attend these screenings, theaters are still obligated to set aside screens for these films to play.
In addition, there are more movies playing this weekend than those just mentioned, at least at my theaters. Also, my nearest theaters have gone to a new type seating with full reclining seats wider than regular seats, which also take up more room front to back, cutting the capacity of each theater in the multiplex to probably 1/3 of normal. It might be less than that. I'm not sure what the phrase in the article "contracted to play" means legally. Does this mean a theater can fulfil it's contract by showing Dumbo only once on Sunday? As of today (Sunday) Endgame is scheduled for 31 separate showings at one local Cineplex starting at 30 minute intervals, so Cineplexes apparently have reserve capacities that I've never seen tapped before, because I've never seen that many showings listed for a movie in one day.
At any rate, this is going to be a spectacular week for Marvel, probably record breaking in the film industry in any event. Marvel's achievement continues to amaze me. I keep wondering how long this consumer infatuation will continue. I've never seen anything like it. 3D was supposed to be a breath new life to Hollywood. It fell flat. Instead what created new interest was just plain old 2D, done in a more appealing format. I also wonder if Stan Lee's death will have an eventual effect on this phenomenon. I don't know how much control he had over Marvel's film making, or if his influence played a big part or not.
Distributors want a certain number of seats available for their offerings. The theaters want the most seats for the best draws because they have to pay for the right to show them. This is negotiated with every new release.
Quote from: SGOS on April 28, 2019, 08:32:06 AM
The article makes an interesting point about not being able to hit the 300 million debut record on the grounds that American theaters do not have the capacity to sell that many tickets.
Apparently they do, because it topped $350 million domestically.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 29, 2019, 11:18:52 AM
Apparently they do, because it topped $350 million domestically.
The gauntlet was thrown.
Avengers Endgame spoilers without context:
[spoiler](http://images3.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED52/5cc76e252657e.jpeg)
(https://messageinabottleblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/fine.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZSpCv1WAAo0CPZ.jpg:large)
(https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/-sorry-thats-above-my-pay-grade-54bed.png)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSaZklaZ580snglcp1ZvaektHu6Yf9s2ZQ5C-fAPWMWyItWnaMe)
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/82113477/bored-now.jpg)
(https://www.maxim.com/.image/t_share/MTU2ODcwNTczODgyODc3NTUy/2001-space-odyssey-kubrick.jpg)
[/spoiler]
(https://i.redd.it/9juum5mpc2v21.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Rpi4aoh.jpg)
Well, I doubt the MCU will ever be able to top Infinity War / End Game from either a storytelling or moneymaking perspective, but it's not like they're suddenly going to fade away into nothing. It'll probably be less of a downhill trend and more of a plateau.
"Oh no! This new Marvel movie only made $150,000,000 in its opening weekend! What a tragic failure!"
I think that now that they know how things will continue to improve.
I just walked in the door from the Tuesday matinee. It's a wonderful film.
Quote from: SGOS on April 30, 2019, 04:24:28 PM
I just walked in the door from the Tuesday matinee. It's a wonderful film.
Oh you are back. Hello. *Waves.
I haven't seen it yet.
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-superhero-movies-of-all-time/
Here's some click bait from Rotten Tomatoes: The 71 Best Superhero Movies of All Time. 71? Really? I couldn't name 71 off the top of my head. They should have just called the article All Superhero Movies Ever Made. But these are the best, mind you, so presumably there are some stinkers that didn't make the list. In fact, many stinkers are on the list. Think of a superhero movie. It will probably be on the list. I made it 1/3 of the way through.
Demi-gods would count as "superheroes". Heracles, Achilles, etc. The field gets crowded quickly that way.
Quote from: SGOS on April 30, 2019, 06:23:15 PM
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-superhero-movies-of-all-time/
Here's some click bate from Rotten Tomatoes: The 71 Best Superhero Movies of All Time. 71? Really? I couldn't name 71 off the top of my head. They should have just called the article All Superhero Movies Ever Made. But these are the best, mind you, so presumably there are some stinkers that didn't make the list. In fact, many stinkers are on the list. Think of a superhero movie. It will probably be on the list. I made it 1/3 of the way through.
Does the Rocketeer really count? That's more pulpy than superheroey, imo, though there's a lot of overlap.
He doesn't even have any powers...*slowly realizes that a lot of heroes, from Batman to Kick-Ass, don't have powers*
I mean, by that logic we might as well consider Indiana Jones to be a superhero and that's just crazy... *seriously considers it for a second*
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 30, 2019, 07:33:27 PM
Demi-gods would count as "superheroes". Heracles, Achilles, etc. The field gets crowded quickly that way.
We know which one Munch "likes". That Iolas ..
"Super" would be, I think, a person who has abilities, from whatever means/sources, above that of the common person. Remember that PR is their greatest power, same with villains.
I cannot endure to watch film because i cannot sit and focus for 2 hours at a time;
i am getting bored while watching.
Is there any of you who have the same problem?
Some films, sure. I've been trying to watch "Batman v. Superman" since it hit blu ray.
I watched it today. I liked it.
[spoiler]I had no idea I liked Stark. I felt bad. :/ I got emotional. Also liked that Cap got his life back. [/spoiler]
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 01, 2019, 06:12:41 AM
"Super" would be, I think, a person who has abilities, from whatever means/sources, above that of the common person.
But what about aliens? Their abilities are perfectly ordinary for their race. Groot's not super compared to other walking trees. He's only superpowerful from a human perspective.
That would be going too deeply into what is, in point of fact, comic book science.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 01, 2019, 05:36:21 PM
But what about aliens? Their abilities are perfectly ordinary for their race. Groot's not super compared to other walking trees. He's only superpowerful from a human perspective.
"Super heroes" can be a difficult term to define. It's kinda one of those things where you know it when you see it. Most people define super heroes as hero characters with super powers. But as mentioned earlier, Batman has no super powers. Do gadgets substitute as super powers? Maybe. But we can make a robot exoskeleton in real life. Does a person donning that exoskeleton become a real life super hero? There are also some unusual people in real life who can do things normal people can't. For example, when people lose their sense of sight, their other senses heighten to make up for it. Daredevil was based on that concept, although his senses are heightened to a greater degree, to the point that he basically has echo location. Are the real life equivalents super heroes? As you say, aliens can also have powers which seem super to earthlings, but are perfectly average on their own planets.
Maybe the easiest way to define super heroes is like this: Fictional characters who fight evil in a larger-than-life fantasy scenario. Batman may be an ordinary man in his universe, but the ways he goes about fighting bad guys is very fantastical. Using technology that doesn't (and sometimes can't) exist, breaking the laws of physics, and sometimes dealing with problems of supernatural origin.
If there's a real measure of who's a superhero, it's who has guaranteed script immunity. In the real world, statistically, someone would have thought to aim something high-caliber and/or explosive at Batman's unmasked and unprotected lower face by now.
Because let's face it, in comics, there are only three permanent deaths (not counting faceless victims and innocent bystanders): Thomas and Martha Wayne, and Ben Parker.
Quote from: trdsf on May 02, 2019, 01:44:09 AM
If there's a real measure of who's a superhero, it's who has guaranteed script immunity. In the real world, statistically, someone would have thought to aim something high-caliber and/or explosive at Batman's unmasked and unprotected lower face by now.
Because let's face it, in comics, there are only three permanent deaths (not counting faceless victims and innocent bystanders): Thomas and Martha Wayne, and Ben Parker.
In comics, sure. But it's different in the movies. Deaths in the MCU happen occasionally, and they typically stay dead. Quicksilver, for example, likely ain't gonna return. Granted, he was only a hero for about five minutes, but still. Super villains are especially more expendable in the movies. Since the writers know they're just going to use a different villain next time, the villain nearly always gets killed off at the end.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 02, 2019, 02:49:44 AM
In comics, sure. But it's different in the movies. Deaths in the MCU happen occasionally, and they typically stay dead. Quicksilver, for example, likely ain't gonna return. Granted, he was only a hero for about five minutes, but still. Super villains are especially more expendable in the movies. Since the writers know they're just going to use a different villain next time, the villain nearly always gets killed off at the end.
Implicit Abrahamic religion. Otherwise both hero and villain would be reincarnated.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 02, 2019, 02:49:44 AM
In comics, sure. But it's different in the movies. Deaths in the MCU happen occasionally, and they typically stay dead. Quicksilver, for example, likely ain't gonna return. Granted, he was only a hero for about five minutes, but still. Super villains are especially more expendable in the movies. Since the writers know they're just going to use a different villain next time, the villain nearly always gets killed off at the end.
But you can't kill a great villain, he helped make money at the box office.
Quote from: trdsf on May 02, 2019, 01:44:09 AM
If there's a real measure of who's a superhero, it's who has guaranteed script immunity. In the real world, statistically, someone would have thought to aim something high-caliber and/or explosive at Batman's unmasked and unprotected lower face by now.
*cues footage of Kick-Ass look-alike getting gunned down by the mob*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvvZaBf9QQI
Westworld has gotten really weird lately...
(Imho, this looks just bad enough to be actually enjoyable. I'd never watch it in theaters, but an april 20th rental...)
Two new movies coming ...
Tolkien ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ1vn85iQRE
A story of the story maker
All Is True ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt4K5-5_N1s
Kenneth Branagh plays Shakespeare in retirement
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 01, 2019, 05:36:21 PMGroot's not super compared to other walking trees.
I thought he had the power to heal or something like that didn't he?
Quote from: aitm on May 02, 2019, 04:20:43 PM
I thought he had the power to heal or something like that didn't he?
He can fully regrow from even a small twig, though this can take weeks. Additionally, he can do short, temporary bursts of growth - lengthening his arm or growing vines from his hands to reach a ledge. These temporary bursts wither within seconds.
He used to be a bad guy, didn't he?
Apparently, Paramount is going to try to fix Sonic's movie design.
https://twitter.com/fowltown/status/1124056098925944832
Saw Endgame today, complete spoilers below on my rundown of the movie.
[spoiler]I saw avengers End game. I got a lot to say about it, so to do so I’m going to break it up into sections. First I want to gush over the movie, then I want to break down the points I loved about it, other people I was unsure of, and maybe just a couple points I found just not to my liking, which is a very short list.
First, gushing.
This movie was a fantastic send off to the MCU. All other movies prior to it had been building up to it, the character arches coming to a close like cap and iron man and black widow, and maybe others. It had some tone shifts though it that worked well in places, the somber mood of the first chapter, the more fun hijinx of the time travel chapter, and the heart pumping action of the final battle, leading to a sad but satifying conclusion to the avengers as we know them. This felt like a true conclusion to something I've been invested in for years, even longer if i include my comic book days of reading about these characters. I felt genuine emotion in many points in this movie, as much as I felt when watching Logan.
Onto the key points.
points I loved:
- I loved the fact that in this movie, while in past movie, Thanos was shown in an almost sympathetic light to how he saw the universe. Infinity war made you almost side with him in his belief that wiping out half of all life in the universe would benefit it, and nothing would stop his goal to get there, even sacrificing his adopted daughter to do that.
This movie, end game, just break that down, and shows just how whatever harp strings were made for thanos in infinity war, it was all bullshit, because he really was just an insane tyrant no true care for ‘saving half the universe’ or ‘because its fair’, in this one it straight up near the end shows he really didn’t give a shit, he just formed an idea in his head, and went with it, and now he saw that his idea for a perfect universe failed, he decides he wants to just end it all. All that sob story for him in the first is made null and void because of it.
- I loved Nebula’s development in this. I was concerned how they would use her, because in the comics, she was the one who had undone everything thanos had set in motion, but in the comics she became the bad guy to overcome. They didn’t do that however, and made her growth as a character all the more meaningful her, she was fantastic.
- I’ve seen people complain, and even buzzfeed writers whining about this, but I’m gonna say it, fuck them, I loved Thor in this. We’ve seen him change over the years, and he has gone though so much loss, more then anyone, his family, his friends, his home, his people, including from losing his eye to his hammer being lost, in this we actually see all that shit finally breaking him down, and him hitting rock bottom. People complain about the beer gut, how he’s got serious anxiety, how he’s just a broken shell. Well, NO FUCKING DURR, He’s been though so much shit.
And yet, in a review chris stuckmann put about this movie, he highlighted a great point, that inspite of fallen so low he’s now got a beer gut and looks a mess, Thor still rises to the challenge, and fights Thanos with both his weapons at the end of the movie, and he did so not with the body of an Adonis. That actually felt great to me, since lets be honest we don’t see very many overweight superheroes, and just seeing him do this despite how he looked felt charming to me. I guess I was also just happy to see his long hair back.
- Professor Hulk just had be smiling ear to ear. In the comics, professor hulk (bruce banners mind in control of the hulks body) was what endured me to the character back in the 90s, and while this version of hulk didn’t last, I loved those comics, because it just seemed like bruce banner was finally a complete person, happier and more enduring to everyone around him. And they nailed that her with this take on the hulk. Some people might be put off that the character of hulk isn’t here rather mark ruffalo’s Bruce Banner is, but for me it was a fond reminder of my favourite comic era for the hulk.
- Tony Stark/Iron mans death, I didn’t think it would impact me the way it did (I didn’t know who would really be dying off in this going it, kept myself spoiler free), so when the scene happened, with Peter beside him, and Pepper, I admit, I teared up. Ironman was the first of the real MCU characters, and him being one of the ones to die saving everyone felt like it had meaning to it, all he did, fact that he had a family, fact that he brought back those that meant something to him, it felt like his arch was complete, so yeah, I teared up, it meant something.
- also black widows death, I can see why they did this. She said for her, the avengers were like a family to her, at the start of the movie we saw how she stepped up to help lead what was left of the avengers in a time when the world was just broken. In hawkeyes case, while losing his family lead him down to a dark place of killing criminals, he still had a family with a chance of saving them, so her sacrifice was like her giving him a chance to be with them again, the chance he needed to save them. That again had a lot of meaning.
When you kill characters off with real meaning, it leaves that impact. Just mindlessly killing characters off for weak plot reasons has always been something I hate, but when it had deeper meaning, and isn’t done en masse (game of thrones cough cough) then the deaths that do occur have a purpose and build those that actually survive, such as in hawkeye and bruce/hulks case here.
- The time travel aspects were interesting, though I’ll get more into that in my less then favourable parts. I loved the fact they called out other time travel movies, and how the ancient one described it simply as time acting like singular timeline, and making alterations in it like taking an infinity stone out from it causes a rift that could damage the main timeline. That I liked, because time travel plots are fickle, you can do them a right way or a wrong way, but this method of how ‘we were always destined to time travel to the point’ has always been a good one, since it keeps things neat.
- When cap was in the lift when they travelled to the past avengers tower, and he whispered to the ‘shield agent’ hail hydra. I gotta be honest this threw me, because of knowing where this came from. And thoughout the movie I seriously thought ‘oh fuck, they didn’t make cap the secret agent of hydra like in the comics did that!?’. In the comics the red skull used either the mind stone or charles xaviers mind (its complicated) to manipulate cap into thinking he was always a secret agent of hydra. Fans hated this, and yet the plot kept up for years. What pissed off fans about this in the comics was because captain america was invented by jack kirby, a jewish guy, making a symbol to fight against the tyrannical nazism at the time, so to have that same cap in the comics become a nazi was just a shit in the face of his meaning.
What it actually meant in the movie, were the writers giving a middle finger to the writers of that comics, because the MCU cap isn’t a secret hydra agent, he just knew those shield agents were hydra agents from the future, and used that knowledge to fool them into getting the case from them.
Apparently fans cheered at this moment knowing they were taking the piss out of the comics.
- the possible last cameo of stan lee. I smiled and even waved at the screen when he past on by. Aww.
- Funny enough, I did not mind captain marvel in this movie, and only because it seemed like the writers used her just right. I still have a strong negative towards brie larson, but putting that aside for this movie, I actually appreciated what the writers did with her. I once liked the character enough from the 90s comics, and it almost seemed like they got some good points off with her. Her only being in the movie for a short time, because this movie was more about the original avengers. It did feel satifying to see her destroy Thanos’ ship, and then hold toe to toe with him, just for him to use one of the gems to throw her off, she didn’t win the fight but she was one of the ones who came close to.
Now, some less favored points
- I mentioned how I loved the time travel aspect of things happening because they were destined to time travel. Thats all well and good, but certain points are left open in this story that had me stretching my head. For one, when early nebula uses the device to pull Thanos’ ship to the past, when current nebula fights and kills past nebula, how could current nebula still exist? Even going by the whole time travel rules here, she shouldn’t have existed, it opens the grandfather paradox.
- Thanos destroyed the infinity stones. There might have been an explanation already, but fact is the infinity stones are part of the fundamental aspect of the universe, it was even said, you can’t really destroy them because it would destroy everything. And yet Thanos does this. The only explanation I can think of is because cap returns the stones to the points in time they were meant to exist in, this negated them being destroyed by thanos?
- If past loki got the tesseract in avengers tower due to hulk, either that was always meant to happen, or it created a plothole. We know he had the tesseract when facing Thanos, some theorised he simply used it to escape and gave it back to odins vault?
- If current thor went back in time to get the stone from past asgard, and he got mjolnir back with him, wouldn’t this screw with his own timeline, since the destruction of mjolnir in ragnarok was a turning point for him. Did he return mjolnir to the past after these events?
And now some points of what I just didn’t like (but weren’t anything that took me out of the movie)
- I will say this one problem, going back to thor, as some reviewers have pointed it out, because like say I don’t mind where he characters ended up, how far he’s sunk, and how he manages to bounce back at the end of the movie. As someone pointed out on another view, its the fact that while say tony starks decent into misery and lose is taken very serious, it seems like they take thors one, and play it up for laughs.
In a way, this is the problem I had with ragnarok. When they first made thor in the MCU, they made him more serious in tone, in his first 2 movies. Those movies didn’t get as much traction, and so the writers of ragnarok made that movie into a tone shift from serious, to guardians of the galaxy comedic and light hearted. I for one saw the difference, and realised they made a change to thors character, in order to get bums in seats, without thinking of how it would work in the long run.
Like say, I loved the idea of Thor being so down in the mud, and from that he could rise up and be a badass again against Thanos. But how they got him there was less them taken serious as it was with say ironman.
Thors my fav character in the MCU, I’ve loved chris hemsworth as him, and like anytime he’s on screen as him, but once getting past that fangasming, this movie did have moments of not taking his problems as seriously as say other characters in it. It was like without the guardians of the galaxy mostly present, they shifted the humor they had in infinity war onto Thor.
I was just glad for the tone getting back to the right place when the main battle began. And again, it wasn’t his appearance, the fact he was so low down, even his anxiety attacks. It was the tone they went for with him during it.
Now despite the plotholes with time travel and odd tone shifting in places, I still loved this movie, from the opening scene to the final moments in it, I felt invested and satisfied with it. Those points I mentioned were things I thought about afterward as holes, but during it I still very much enjoyed the movie. It wasn’t a perfect thing, but the important thingsite needed to tell were very, very good, such as certain characters stories ending, the action and battles in it, the satisfaction of the good guys winning despite their sacrifices given, I still loved it despite some of the problems
8.5/10
One last point I forgot to add here. Ironman might have defeated Thanos, Hulk brought everyone back to life. All the avengers played their part in finishing him.
But none of that could have been possible, if not for the true hero of this story.
We celebrate you, warehouse Rat!
(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/36/590x/secondary/Avengers-Endgame-rat-saved-universe-marvel-real-hero-1851241.webp?r=1556730201372)[/spoiler]
Quote from: Munch on May 02, 2019, 08:22:17 PM
Saw Endgame today, complete spoilers below on my rundown of the movie.
[spoiler]This movie, end game, just break that down, and shows just how whatever harp strings were made for thanos in infinity war, it was all bullshit, because he really was just an insane tyrant no true care for ‘saving half the universe’ or ‘because its fair’, in this one it straight up near the end shows he really didn’t give a shit, he just formed an idea in his head, and went with it, and now he saw that his idea for a perfect universe failed, he decides he wants to just end it all. All that sob story for him in the first is made null and void because of it.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Yep. His rationale was complete bullshit. I thought they were going with the "impressing Lady Death" angle, alas I too found out that reality is often disappointing. The complete truth is that Thanos's rationale was just a way of rationalizing his death-dealing and make it seem heroic and noble. Self-aggrandizing twaddle. It's deeply disturbing that Thanos had some IRL fanboys.[/spoiler]
Quote[spoiler]- I’ve seen people complain, and even buzzfeed writers whining about this, but I’m gonna say it, fuck them, I loved Thor in this. We’ve seen him change over the years, and he has gone though so much loss, more then anyone, his family, his friends, his home, his people, including from losing his eye to his hammer being lost, in this we actually see all that shit finally breaking him down, and him hitting rock bottom. People complain about the beer gut, how he’s got serious anxiety, how he’s just a broken shell. Well, NO FUCKING DURR, He’s been though so much shit.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]So did everyone else, and they dealt with it in varying ways, but no one shut down quite like Thor. Granted, his head-missing was a spectacular failure and no doubt feels guilty for a good reason, but a LOT of mistakes were made in Infinity War that brought about the snap, so Thor really shouldn't take it so hard.[/spoiler]
Quote[spoiler]- Professor Hulk just had be smiling ear to ear. In the comics, professor hulk (bruce banners mind in control of the hulks body) was what endured me to the character back in the 90s, and while this version of hulk didn’t last, I loved those comics, because it just seemed like bruce banner was finally a complete person, happier and more enduring to everyone around him. And they nailed that her with this take on the hulk. Some people might be put off that the character of hulk isn’t here rather mark ruffalo’s Bruce Banner is, but for me it was a fond reminder of my favourite comic era for the hulk.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I hate the Hulk in general, but I hate that Hulk most of all. Fundamentally, Banner/Hulk is an exploration of the duality of man in the same way as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde - man's intellectual/civilized side and man's brutal, animalistic side. If you combine them into a stable Dr Hyde, you lose all of that conflict. It creates a boring character, which is why it didn't last in the comics.[/spoiler]
Quote[spoiler]- Tony Stark/Iron mans death, I didn’t think it would impact me the way it did (I didn’t know who would really be dying off in this going it, kept myself spoiler free), so when the scene happened, with Peter beside him, and Pepper, I admit, I teared up.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I cried buckets. And I never cry at movies. I dgaf when Black Widow died and I actually enjoyed the snap, knowing full well that it'd never be permanent.[/spoiler]
Quote[spoiler]- Thanos destroyed the infinity stones. There might have been an explanation already, but fact is the infinity stones are part of the fundamental aspect of the universe, it was even said, you can’t really destroy them because it would destroy everything.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Exactly. That was bullshit writing. The power gems/stones are not "control knobs", they're the load-bearing columns. They're like the towers in Elder Scrolls. They keep our universe grounded. Without them, nothing can exist.
Additionally, it's impossible to use any gem against another gem - so you can't destroy the gems with the gems.[/spoiler]
And finally, my two cents:
[spoiler]I am sooo glad Hawkeye pointed out that the whole a-soul-for-a-soul quest might be a lie. A normal person doesn't take Red-Freaking-Skull at his word, and a complete idiot starts chucking people off a cliff because some strange guy in a robe says that's the path to power. Have a shred of critical thinking ability, people!
I'm also kinda peeved that the infinity stones are mainly used for destruction. Such a failure of imagination. The stones can accomplish just about anything. Think of it as an Empowered Wish spell. Well, "bad guy die" is a hell of a lame wish.
You could create a new Earth. Hell, you could create a whole new dimension within this one or merge two existing universes. You could turn space itself into a vast ocean. You could make every door open up to another random door in the universe. You could make rain chocolate-flavored. You could create a library of every book ever written, every thought ever thought, every deed recorded - from the beginning of time to the end of time. You could also create a clockwork nirvana and/or heaven on earth. And that's just for starters. Godhood is a bit of an understatement, Gods are like babies in comparison.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 02, 2019, 11:59:57 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvvZaBf9QQI
Westworld has gotten really weird lately...
(Imho, this looks just bad enough to be actually enjoyable. I'd never watch it in theaters, but an april 20th rental...)
I think I'd rather watch two hours of vintage test cards and off-air announcements. Or an Uwe Boll movie.
Dwight in Shining Armour. A funny kids show. Just watched the pilot episode.
(https://i.imgur.com/e7g6O2R.png)
I kinda wish they asked for feedback before releasing the trailer, but meh, this is a hell of a correction.
that version of sonic seriously looks like a poundland rip off version of him, made from cheap scratchy felt and cheap plastic
Quote from: Munch on May 02, 2019, 08:22:17 PM[spoiler=End Game spoilers]Thanos destroyed the infinity stones. There might have been an explanation already, but fact is the infinity stones are part of the fundamental aspect of the universe, it was even said, you can’t really destroy them because it would destroy everything. And yet Thanos does this. The only explanation I can think of is because cap returns the stones to the points in time they were meant to exist in, this negated them being destroyed by thanos?[/spoiler]
[spoiler=End Game spoilers]I think the idea of having the Infinity Stones destroyed was to remove them as a plot device, so they couldn't rely on them in future stories, as well as to make the overarching plot until now feel completely resolved. No longer will any villains attempt to collect all of the stones to get their wish. The MCU has made changes to the Marvel universe before, and this change didn't bother me. I noticed they never mentioned that the stones were part of the god who created the Marvel universe as well. There's been a trend in the movies of turning gods into powerful aliens instead, essentially turning the MCU into an agnostic universe, where the existence of gods is as questionable as in real life.
My only real concern is that they might not be able to capture that lightning in a bottle a second time. The next Spider-Man movie is the Russo Brothers' last one, I believe, which means their plans probably never extended beyond this point. Will they be able to connect another 22 movies in another in an overarching plot, or will each Avengers movie after this be disjointed from the rest? Will the next Avengers movies even be as entertaining without Captain America or Iron Man around? It feels like End Game should have been the end of the MCU, but of course, they're going to keep making movies since they make a ton of movies. I just hope they don't milk the MCU until it loses all of what made it great.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 03, 2019, 04:49:52 PM
[spoiler=End Game spoilers]I think the idea of having the Infinity Stones destroyed was to remove them as a plot device, so they couldn't rely on them in future stories, as well as to make the overarching plot until now feel completely resolved. No longer will any villains attempt to collect all of the stones to get their wish. The MCU has made changes to the Marvel universe before, and this change didn't bother me. I noticed they never mentioned that the stones were part of the god who created the Marvel universe as well. There's been a trend in the movies of turning gods into powerful aliens instead, essentially turning the MCU into an agnostic universe, where the existence of gods is as questionable as in real life.
My only real concern is that they might not be able to capture that lightning in a bottle a second time. The next Spider-Man movie is the Russo Brothers' last one, I believe, which means their plans probably never extended beyond this point. Will they be able to connect another 22 movies in another in an overarching plot, or will each Avengers movie after this be disjointed from the rest? Will the next Avengers movies even be as entertaining without Captain America or Iron Man around? It feels like End Game should have been the end of the MCU, but of course, they're going to keep making movies since they make a ton of movies. I just hope they don't milk the MCU until it loses all of what made it great.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Eh, it really should be an end tbh, I mean they said the next spiderman will be like an epilogue to endgame, and I'm good with that.
But going forward, I just don't feel like i'll be invested in this like I was. Its like trying to make further justice league stories without the core league members. I'm someone who just feels that if a story removes core characters that made that world likable in the first place, then like you said, it just won't have the lightning in a bottle it once did.
I can say I'll enjoy a new spiderman and guardians of the galaxy movie, but they can't really make avengers a thing anymore without the characters that brought it together. In the comics when they've tried to do things like replace a popular character with someone else wearing that costume or title, its just not ever the same deal. Having say dick gryson wearing batmans costume and standing in as him, it just isn't the same as the real batman, or jane foster as thor.
I've never enjoyed these stories of 'passing on the mantle' of popular characters like this, because if you've been invested in the character for years, your just not gonna have the same feels for someone else wearing the costume, and claiming its for a 'new generation' is bs, because they will look at the original characters stories anyway in movies and tv and comics.
This is why the movie Logan was so much more powerful, because it was not just retiring the characters of wolverine, but it ended the stories of the x-men created back in the early 2000s, patrick stewart as charles xavier, and we can for sure guess the death of the other x-men as well. There was no passing the mantle into wolverines daughter, it was simply her escaping, and his final moments. [/spoiler]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n1RjoxE9ww
All I can hope for is the legacy of these movie icons from the original star wars will carry on as movie legends, in spite of the the insane trolls on social media finding any reason to try and destroy them in this current time.
okay.....so last night I watched Infinity wars and tonight we watched End game......so blasphemy incoming.....meh.
Really.
I'm not going to harrass you guys but really. As a person who is not a panty waist like you....hehehe....no harrassment at all....jeepers that was just a meh movie.
Lots of action and shit...so that was kinda nice, but really. Thank fully I didn't pay to watch it or I would be a little more grumpy about it. I think the Star Trek movie was much better but hey...it had a real plot.
Ok thats all. You guys go ahead and spin all yer "spoiler" alerts, but good heavens a lot of energy into a meh movie.
Quote from: aitm on May 04, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
okay.....so last night I watched Infinity wars and tonight we watched End game......so blasphemy incoming.....meh.
Really.
I'm not going to harrass you guys but really. As a person who is not a panty waist like you....hehehe....no harrassment at all....jeepers that was just a meh movie.
Lots of action and shit...so that was kinda nice, but really. Thank fully I didn't pay to watch it or I would be a little more grumpy about it. I think the Star Trek movie was much better but hey...it had a real plot.
Ok thats all. You guys go ahead and spin all yer "spoiler" alerts, but good heavens a lot of energy into a meh movie.
comicbookdom is its own genre of entertainment, and its not for everyone.
theres people who would say the same about star trek shows and movies
no biggie really, I never got into game of thrones despite the praises its been given.
Quote from: aitm on May 04, 2019, 09:40:01 PMokay.....so last night I watched Infinity wars and tonight we watched End game......so blasphemy incoming.....meh.
Really.
I'm not going to harrass you guys but really. As a person who is not a panty waist like you....hehehe....no harrassment at all....jeepers that was just a meh movie.
(https://i.imgur.com/y9g9W2z.gif)
Munch - your comment RE Mark Hamill. SJWs trash everything, they are nihilists. While virtue signaling. A real nihilist would realize that there is no such thing as virtue.
Quote from: aitm on May 04, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
okay.....so last night I watched Infinity wars and tonight we watched End game......so blasphemy incoming.....meh.
Really.
I'm not going to harrass you guys but really. As a person who is not a panty waist like you....hehehe....no harrassment at all....jeepers that was just a meh movie.
Lots of action and shit...so that was kinda nice, but really. Thank fully I didn't pay to watch it or I would be a little more grumpy about it. I think the Star Trek movie was much better but hey...it had a real plot.
Ok thats all. You guys go ahead and spin all yer "spoiler" alerts, but good heavens a lot of energy into a meh movie.
It's the 21st century, blockbuster action culture. And it is coming to an end or at least stay as a sub genre as itself. For example, 10 years ago a movie like John Wick wouldn't get an audience ike this, because people had already seen that kind of action countless times and asked for something more visually epic. But now, it is back in demand.
This era started because of the Lord of the Rings. I am not sure how youngsters would perceive that though. I mean the scale, the completeness, the details. If you are not an adult at the beginning of the century, you could see it differently. After LotR, any material that hasn't been turned into something epic to create its own universe, didn't get much following. That has become the demand of the audience from any franchise wanted to make big.
If you look at the stories; the plot, they are very simple. They are very ordinary, straight, even weak stories, but stretched, and filled with fan culture. Fans can actually do something with these movies. They can dress up like characters, go to conventions, buy props. Most people don't want to see movies about with messages any more. Anything they need to think to get it it. May be about real people they know, but their lives. Biographical movies are on the rise. Also, low budget series, simple. The old tradition style of action.
If you don't expect anything big, artistic and deep, you can have fun. But if you buy the hype, you are bound to get dissapointed. In the end, it is comic book material. And I am saying that lovingly. Do I read Marvel or DC? No. I read vertigo. But I have read as a kid.
Speaking of Lord of the Rings, there is a huge pile of books that came out of that world, wait to be maide into movies.
Forgotten Realms,
Dragonlance for example. (Potentially, huge franchises I mean.) Esp. the Dark Elf Trilogy has endless potential.
"13 Assassins" (2010), directed by Takashi Miike and a remake of the 1963, "13 Assassins" directed by Eiichi Kudo.
If you've seen alot of Westerns, Samurai movies, or both... you know exactly what you are going to get. It's essentially Kurosawa's, "Seven Samurai", though this time set at the end of the Edo period rather than the Sengoku Jidai. If you are tired of that plot... then this is probably not the movie for you.
However, if you like Samurai dealing with the ethical implications of following the code of bushido, even if it means protecting a Shogunate-heir who wishes to return Japan to pure chaos and warfare or giving up a life of peace to seek an honourable death, and the story of the underdog (13 Samurai) using both cunning and superiour discipline to try and defeat a force 10 times their size... all presented in a sharply directed, well-funded package... then you will likely enjoy this movie.
The 45-minute battle scene, if predictable, is really well choreographed. My biggest complaint about the movie is not delving into the backstories of the characters more... but then it would most likely be pushing "Lord of the Rings" territory on run time. And the implications of one of the characters being perhaps a spirit or a demon is pretty interesting and adds another layer to think about when the film ends.
I've seen people complain about this character because it "ruins the immersion and realism" of the film, but it's a Samurai film... or do you really think a single Samurai could take on 20 people all at the same time from all angles is realistic?
All in all, I really enjoyed it. One of the best samurai films I've seen in awhile.
LOTR series we're epic f-ing masterpieces of film and story telling. Cinematography just stunning.
Quote from: aitm on May 05, 2019, 01:26:38 PM
LOTR series we're epic f-ing masterpieces of film and story telling. Cinematography just stunning.
I do that once a year. I have the extended versions, with the extra disks. It takes an entire day to do one of the movies with the extras.
There's still Galactus somewhere in the MCU. They can make another 22 movies about that, or something.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 05, 2019, 02:10:17 PM
There's still Galactus somewhere in the MCU. They can make another 22 movies about that, or something.
WatchMoJo lists the available villains on a Youtube.
Quote from: aitm on May 05, 2019, 01:26:38 PM
LOTR series we're epic f-ing masterpieces of film and story telling. Cinematography just stunning.
Yep. And it changed movie making forever. But Tolkien can create of course,lol. The material is amazing.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 05, 2019, 02:10:17 PM
There's still Galactus somewhere in the MCU. They can make another 22 movies about that, or something.
There's Annihilation, Secret War, Operation Galactic Storm, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign, all the X-Men stories, Maximum Carnage, the Inhumans, Realm of Kings, Warlock, Nova, and Darkhawk. And that's just for starters.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 05, 2019, 05:48:36 PM
There's Annihilation, Secret War, Operation Galactic Storm, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign, all the X-Men stories, Maximum Carnage, the Inhumans, Realm of Kings, Warlock, Nova, and Darkhawk. And that's just for starters.
many of those had the core avengers in them, like cap, ironman and thor, like secret war, galactic storm, many of the x-men crossovers.
And it won't be paying any kind of homage to those classic stories if you swap out other characters in those roles, or people taking on the mantle of said other characters.
they simply shouldn't keep making more and more movies within the shared universe, they captured lightning in a bottle once, but milking this for all its worth will just make it worse down the line. They should wrap up things with the characters in a couple more years and let the MCU retire.
Quote from: Munch on May 05, 2019, 07:07:47 PM
they captured lightning in a bottle once, but milking this for all its worth will just make it worse down the line.
PT Barnum.......
Quote from: aitm on May 05, 2019, 08:34:31 PM
PT Barnum.......
yeah thats probably what he did.
Quote from: Munch on May 05, 2019, 07:07:47 PM
many of those had the core avengers in them, like cap, ironman and thor
If you think they're not somehow returning, I have 60+ years of marvel characters returning from the death to show you. And yeah, they're probably going to have to recast, but they absolutely are returning sometime in the future.
Quotethey simply shouldn't keep making more and more movies within the shared universe
That's probably the single most incorrect thing I've heard here.
Quotethey captured lightning in a bottle once, but milking this for all its worth will just make it worse down the line.
That's what people said after Avengers 1.
QuoteThey should wrap up things with the characters in a couple more years and let the MCU retire.
$2 billion box office --> time to throw in the towel?
Uhh...no. That's not in the cards. That's not even in the deck.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 05, 2019, 10:04:24 PM
If you think they're not somehow returning, I have 60+ years of marvel characters returning from the death to show you. And yeah, they're probably going to have to recast, but they absolutely are returning sometime in the future.
I really hope that doesn't happen. Iron Man and Captain America's arcs are complete. Bringing them back would just feel really cheap. I'd rather they continue to build on the universe with new characters. At some point, they might reboot the series, go a different route and cover different stories with the old characters. But at that point, the older fans who were invested in the MCU might not care any more.
I'm talking about bringing them back a decade or two from now, not right away. (expect cameos though)
Until then, they of course will continue to develop existing and new characters - black panther, spider-man, captain marvel, etc.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 05, 2019, 05:48:36 PM
There's Annihilation, Secret War, Operation Galactic Storm, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign, all the X-Men stories, Maximum Carnage, the Inhumans, Realm of Kings, Warlock, Nova, and Darkhawk. And that's just for starters.
I've seen Stan Lee credited with ~32,000 comic book plots. The well is deep.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 05, 2019, 10:04:24 PM
If you think they're not somehow returning, I have 60+ years of marvel characters returning from the death to show you. And yeah, they're probably going to have to recast, but they absolutely are returning sometime in the future.
Thing is, these are movies, not comics. It's a very different beast.
Quote
That's probably the single most incorrect thing I've heard here.
Actually there's no right or wrong about what I said, it's an opinion on personal taste.
QuoteThat's what people said after Avengers 1.
Fair point, however while back then they were starting out, with end game they very clearly built this cinematic universe up to reach this point, with serious conclusions to fav main characters, making it a finale for them.
Quote$2 billion box office --> time to throw in the towel?
Uhh...no. That's not in the cards. That's not even in the deck.
Perhaps not, but if your expecting the continued MCU to have the same grand impact as this build up did, I think your hoping for to much.
Quote from: Munch on May 06, 2019, 05:56:20 AM
Actually there's no right or wrong about what I said
The wrong part was saying that Marvel/Disney should stop making mcu movies immediately after record-breaking success making mcu movies. Read the room and/or the writing on the wall.
QuotePerhaps not, but if your expecting the continued MCU to have the same grand impact as this build up did, I think your hoping for to much.
Goalpost shift, much? (This seems to be a frequent issue)
I could've sworn my argument was that the mcu should continue (the opposite of your argument that the mcu should be retired), I wasn't aware that my actual argument was that the new movies would top the old ones. (Since the new movies are almost completely unknown at this point, how could I possibly know this?) But you seem to know my thoughts better than me, so you tell me.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 06, 2019, 10:27:13 AM
The wrong part was saying that Marvel/Disney should stop making mcu movies immediately after record-breaking success making mcu movies. Read the room and/or the writing on the wall.
Goalpost shift, much? (This seems to be a frequent issue)
I never said they would stop making them, I meant they won't capture lightning in a bottle again like they have with infinity war/endgame.
QuoteI could've sworn my argument was that the mcu should continue (the opposite of your argument that the mcu should be retired), I wasn't aware that my actual argument was that the new movies would top the old ones. (Since the new movies are almost completely unknown at this point, how could I possibly know this?) But you seem to know my thoughts better than me, so you tell me.
you overthinking this to much. I simply make a point, I think they should die down the collective mcu universe now, and not milk it like a cash cow else run the risk of things getting stale. Also they simply won't have the level of grandiose going forward like they have with infinity war/endgame.
Quote from: Munch on May 06, 2019, 10:37:47 AM
I never said they would stop making them
I could've sworn I put a sh- in that -ould. *checks". Yep, there it is. So, did you just not see that? Or is the problem worse than that? I'm trying to figure out where this failure to communicate is coming from.
QuoteI meant they won't capture lightning in a bottle again like they have with infinity war/endgame.
That's not contested.
Quoteyou overthinking this to much.
*winces at the linguistic redundancy of "overthinking too much" and the implications of the apparent dislike of "too much" thinking*
QuoteI simply make a point, I think they should die down the collective mcu universe now
I heard you the first time.
Quoteand not milk it like a cash cow else run the risk of things getting stale.
"milking it" is a rather subjective loaded term, don't you think? No doubt 10 years ago, the prospect of Marvel coming out with 22 movies would face exactly that sort of charge. Do you think Avengers 1-4 "milked it" too much? How about the Spider-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy movies?
And besides, who is truly a proponent of "milking it like a cash cow"? You might as well ask when I began beating my wife.
QuoteAlso they simply won't have the level of grandiose going forward like they have with infinity war/endgame.
Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? If they followed your advice and retired the mcu, it would be impossible to know.
For the sake of argument, let's say the new movies *only* make a few hundred million at the box office. Would that really be so bad? Bad enough to throw in the towel?
People will be going because it's in the MCU. This will be hard to kill. No impossible, of course, but if they don't do anything stupid...
For evidence I give you John Wayne.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 06, 2019, 05:26:30 PM
People will be going because it's in the MCU. This will be hard to kill. No impossible, of course, but if they don't do anything stupid...
They've had some underwhelming offerings, imo. I didn't particularly like a few of the films. But overall, their sales are up and up. And I don't think most people really understand just how high the sales have been.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcf-W68VBSs
We're talking practically nothing to highest grossing franchise in 10 years. That's a hell of a climb. Endgame alone is the second-highest grossing film ever. Just imagine what that graph would like like updated.
Obviously, this won't continue indefinitely, at some point it will plateau or decline. But I dunno, I think there's such a market for superhero action films that there will be mcu offerings for decades. Superhero movies will have their own niche just like horror and scifi-movies. The sales might not be through the roof anymore, but they'll still get asses in seats.
What might really kill it is some sort of sea change that wipes out either comic books or Disney, but I don't see that realistically happening anytime soon.
the problem will come, when quantity overtakes quality. Or just when bad directors come in and botch up things that previous good directors made.
The DCEU is a fine example of this, just a bad director alone can screw over so much potential. zack snyder ruined the potential of not only one of DCs popular stories (batman vs superman) but what he did with justice league, and then having Joss Whedon and his tonal shift while trying to still give credence to snyder, just lead to a mess and a punch in the face of all justice league fans.
And yet, seeing how james wan managed to save aquaman, right now being the DCEUs highest grossing film, shows just having the right kind of director does make a difference.
But even then, its believed the DCEU can't be fully salvaged, and they are better off restarting the whole thing. I've been a marvel comics fan longer then a DC fan, but I wanted to see a good justice league movie, I like many of the DC heroes and want to see that franchise do better. But I'm content if they scrap it and start over.
And thats the point, if going forward marvel hires on bad directors on the level of zack snyder, and produces bad movies, then I have no problem wanting to see that end too. Not saying it would go that way, I'm just a natural skeptic in believing just because marvel is a popular as it is now, that it'll stay that way if it keeps making more movies within the MCU.
Oh, I have another poor prediction: Infinity War probably won't top Black Panther! (http://www.adventuresinpoortaste.com/2018/04/16/why-avengers-infinity-war-probably-wont-outgross-black-panther/) (spoiler: they're at $2 billion and $1.3 billion respectively, so yes it *probably* will!)
These articles are like candy to me. They come at you with the appearance of insider knowledge and mathematical rigor, and often, they're from trusted sources. They really seem trustworthy. But in reality, so much is unknown that it's pretty much anyone's guess. So articles like this often get things wrong. Not necessarily horribly wrong, but wrong enough to age poorly.
I just love it when some smug "expert" falls flat on their face. They cultivate this appearance of knowledgeably and trustworthiness that is completely illusory. Don't fall for it. Don't take my stuff as gospel, either. I've been wrong plenty of times, but at least I'm not trying to calculate multipliers to divine which movie is going to earn more than the other. That strikes me as worthless clickbait fortune-telling more than anything else, and people just gobble this stuff up despite having zero reason to trust it. Hence my schadenfreude.
Quote from: Munch on May 06, 2019, 06:06:46 PMBut even then, its believed the DCEU can't be fully salvaged, and they are better off restarting the whole thing.
I'm in that camp. I've liked a lot of their animations, but I generally avoid their live-action productions like the plague. I can't really put my finger on exactly why that is (maybe the more colorful costumes and environments more faithfully adapt the comics?)
Still, I'm hoping they do okay with Joker and Birds of Prey. Those sound promising. I have no idea if they'll be good, but I'd certainly like them to be.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 06, 2019, 06:36:32 PM
I'm in that camp. I've liked a lot of their animations, but I generally avoid their live-action productions like the plague. I can't really put my finger on exactly why that is (maybe the more colorful costumes and environments more faithfully adapt the comics?)
Still, I'm hoping they do okay with Joker and Birds of Prey. Those sound promising. I have no idea if they'll be good, but I'd certainly like them to be.
DC's animation division is fine, great even. I've seen several of theres, the animated suicide squad, gothem by gaslight, justice league dark, throne of atlantis, flashpoint paradox, batman ninja, all good movies, infact while marvels strength in movies right now is in the live action roles, DC seems to just do better with their animated division.
Problem is, even when animated movies excel far better then live action (animated suicide squad is miles ahead in quality to the pos live action movie), we still sadly live with the stigma of people preferring to see live action movies more then animated ones. Even if these movies were on the big screen, they still wouldn't attract as much as live action movies.
Well, in the end Dark Knight is still the best movie based on a comic. We are not getting a joker like that ever again. He is the only comic book villian that gives me the heebie jeebies. He is real. He is alive. He is everywhere. And he knows humans so well. Batman isn't any of that.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 07, 2019, 09:18:17 AM
Well, in the end Dark Knight is still the best movie based on a comic. We are not getting a joker like that ever again. He is the only comic book villian that gives me the heebie jeebies. He is real. He is alive. He is everywhere. And he knows humans so well. Batman isn't any of that.
Chaos and order, it's why they both play off each other so much
Infact stories like the killing joke showed how batman and joker were like Ying and Yang. Order and chaos but within each a small piece of the opposite
Quote from: Munch on May 07, 2019, 11:06:33 AM
Chaos and order, it's why they both play off each other so much
Infact stories like the killing joke showed how batman and joker were like Ying and Yang. Order and chaos but within each a small piece of the opposite
Never thought of it that way. A bit too much mumbo jumbo for me. But yeah I get it. Though apparently my chinese horoscope is yang too and I am ying as a cricket.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 07, 2019, 12:16:57 PM
Never thought of it that way. A bit too much mumbo jumbo for me. But yeah I get it. Though apparently my chinese horoscope is yang too and I am ying as a cricket.
Which Chinese horoscope? Bet you are a Monkey ;-). My mother was a Dragon. I am a Goat, have a gotten yours yet? ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on May 07, 2019, 12:41:33 PM
Which Chinese horoscope? Bet you are a Monkey ;-). My mother was a Dragon. I am a Goat, have a gotten yours yet? ;-))
You're a goat too?
Baaaaah
In the end they're comic book movies, and, internet furors aside, they'll be stupid fun if done right. I don't expect anything more.
Quote from: Baruch on May 07, 2019, 12:41:33 PM
Which Chinese horoscope? Bet you are a Monkey ;-). My mother was a Dragon. I am a Goat, have a gotten yours yet? ;-))
I'm a dragon. Chinese mumbo jumbo is more elaborated. I think, it is also fire. Not sure. 1976.
Isn't that Sheep? "What do dragons eat, anyway?" :)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2019, 01:16:25 PM
In the end they're comic book movies, and, internet furors aside, they'll be stupid fun if done right. I don't expect anything more.
This. Exactly, how I see.
this is jasmine in 1992
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/9522440481f07f6d85e82b72bec29f6d/tumblr_n1ozolBTlp1trmkp7o1_500.gif)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/fb/7b/71fb7b430f0ee220cf963b49b0297a03.gif)
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/af5640fa0c5300682aac9b6993401edf/tumblr_p7t5r8qu3p1ta1ycso2_500.gif)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/kkyAWNHCZMj3G/giphy.gif)
And this is Jasmine in 2019
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/9a6b82724d232df3a68b18bf6b8a39bc/tumblr_pr51ouQZ0B1x0bvwko1_540.gif)
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/85445e27b9ed1a7c7e0b904928096e43/tumblr_pr51ouQZ0B1x0bvwko4_540.gif)
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/2d154c902c546874771153246fae71cc/tumblr_pr51ouQZ0B1x0bvwko3_540.gif)
(https://www.bellforestproducts.com/_includes/product-photos/1747.jpg)
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/c9c765030cf9667f3610c082b7cb69dd/tumblr_pr51ouQZ0B1x0bvwko5_540.gif)
I'd do either of them...but I imagine the first one would require a lil lube.
Quote from: aitm on May 07, 2019, 08:10:18 PM
I'd do either of them...but I imagine the first one would require a lil lube.
when I watch porn, I tend to prefer the performers show emotions beyond a plank of wood. least animated jasmine can emote.
The Detective Pikachu movie was leaked on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAA_yWX8ycQ
Quote from: Munch on May 07, 2019, 08:24:41 PM
when I watch porn, I tend to prefer the performers show emotions beyond a plank of wood. least animated jasmine can emote.
Tut tut. The whole of banging is to get them to emote....you should know ya brut!
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 08, 2019, 11:38:32 AM
The Detective Pikachu movie was leaked on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAA_yWX8ycQ
I didn't think so.
https://heroichollywood.com/jason-momoa-beard-return-aquaman/
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/f6571c3fa5bbd5a7d0f0e6893009960d/tenor.gif)
Watched Disney's Beauty and the Beast and was surprised at how beastly the Beast was. It was better than I expected it to be.
Watched Thor: Ragnarok. Totally butchery of the actual Norse legends, but one heck of a movie. The scene where Thor realizes he is the God Of Thunder and Lightning (as Odin said "Are you the God of Hammers?") where he jumped into Hela's army was GREAT!
I suspect now I have to rent or buy Infinity Wars and Endgame... I usually wait for free view, but I can only delay gratification of the MCU for so long...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xJCf4uPgK4
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 07, 2019, 02:01:40 PM
I'm a dragon. Chinese mumbo jumbo is more elaborated. I think, it is also fire. Not sure. 1976.
Isn't that Sheep? "What do dragons eat, anyway?" :)
Nobody's gonna make fun of this? Guys?
You made me quote myself.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 11, 2019, 07:05:30 PM
Nobody's gonna make fun of this? Guys?
You made me quote myself.
I'm too scared of women to make fun of one.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 11, 2019, 07:15:50 PM
I'm too scared of women to make fun of one.
And they don't. We promise that 'one' is just a fantasy and not alive, so don't worry.
E: I'm not making fun of anyone, I am just drunk. But if anyone makes fun of you, tell me. You do know about about it, it's not diffferent. And no they are not gonna get it, I promise.
Saw "Avengers:Six McGuffin" and "Captain Marvel" this weekend. Repeats on both. Had fun, no higher praise to be had.
Life of Pi.
It was pretty damn good. I can see why it won prizes.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2019, 04:58:07 PM
Life of Pi.
It was pretty damn good. I can see why it won prizes.
yeah saw that in the cinema, was very good movie visually and story.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2019, 04:58:07 PM
Life of Pi.
It was pretty damn good. I can see why it won prizes.
Visually: 10
Plot: 2
Making sense: 0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fZGcAmXWyM
interesting look at the problem with cgi today.
my personal take is, there is so much cgi now, its being used in so much now, that it can be produced without as much thought or effort as say 10-20 years ago.
Back then, they had to work hard to make CGI creations blend into the world they were in, like the dinosaurs in Jurassic park, or gollum in lord of the rings, they hard to work hard to make these things meld into the film and give them weight. Nowadays, they just make everything around the characters in cgi, and it loses that effort and attention to details.
This is the same issue I see with animation. for the longest time animation was hand drawn and done by cells of animators checking and rechecking what they drew to make sure things lined up perfectly. These days animators use things like flash animation to process things though a computer to animate and render everything. Its far less painstaking as hand drawn, and because it loses that extra effort, most modern none anime cartoons (mostly western cartoons) are left seeming, well more fluid, a lot less defined or unique, or just bland to look at. Many modern western cartoons not in cgi all seem to use the same art style, to the point the characters from different shows and companies all look similar.
(https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/375/303/347.gif)
This is just a sign of the times in how lazy people are in such industries. When I think of some of the beautiful animated movies coming from japan, who still use traditional animation styles even when using computers to help with it, it just shows the difference in dedication to the format.
(https://www.madman.com.au/news/wp-content/uploads/Mairi1.gif)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10182949/yuki_anime.gif)
Do the final battle in Endgame without CGI.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 15, 2019, 08:32:34 PM
Do the final battle in Endgame without CGI.
point wasn't to dis on all cgi, watch the video. The point is when its being use so overabundantly in everything, it becomes a lazy tool so less quality and effort goes into production.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 15, 2019, 08:32:34 PM
Do the final battle in Endgame without CGI.
I'm not sure the Avengers series would have lost much without the final battle, tbh.
Of course it is visually pleasing, but it didn't really add anything to the plot. The world of art is not fundamentally changed because of the inclusion of it, and despite the thousands of CGI baddies and cannon fodder... they had exactly zero influence of the main characters. They could have been leaves falling in the background and been as relevant to the plot.
The point of that being that visual media is increasingly becoming CGI for the sake of it rather than CGI to fundamentally influence the plot, either through things like giving a relevant character fundamental powers (for example, Dr. Strange would be a very hard character to sell with just practical effects while Captain, Thor, even to an extent Iron Man and the Hulk could be entertaining with limited or no CGI) or creating worlds that simply wouldn't be possible with regular props.
If you view movies as just popcorn-entertainers, and that's a perfectly valid way to view movies, that's fine. But it is often used as a crutch in place of good writing, which is a shame.
Hater gonna hate.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 16, 2019, 12:52:36 AM
Hater gonna hate.
I liked Avengers: Endgame, so... sure.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 15, 2019, 09:15:19 PMThe point of that being that visual media is increasingly becoming CGI for the sake of it rather than CGI to fundamentally influence the plot, either through things like giving a relevant character fundamental powers (for example, Dr. Strange would be a very hard character to sell with just practical effects while Captain, Thor, even to an extent Iron Man and the Hulk could be entertaining with limited or no CGI) or creating worlds that simply wouldn't be possible with regular props.
If you view movies as just popcorn-entertainers, and that's a perfectly valid way to view movies, that's fine. But it is often used as a crutch in place of good writing, which is a shame.
CGI is a tool like anything else. It's meant to give better visuals to complement a story's writing, not replace it. Babylon 5 (an early CGI adopter) understood this. Imo, the MCU largely understands this. But unfortunately, there are directors out there who think that good visuals alone are enough to carry a film and sadly, their folly gets rewarded more often than punished.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 15, 2019, 07:15:44 PM
Visually: 10
Plot: 2
Making sense: 0
I think it was intended to leave the story uncertain. I personally like the idea as shown. 2 desperate critters surviving...
I watched Thor: Ragnarok last week. The plot was wrong according to Norse mythology, but it was very well done as a movie.
I suppose now I can rent Infinity and End...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbjfAQFxmio&t=338s
interesting views.
part 1 summery: why is it sports players have the habit of thanking god when they win, but when they lose blame it on themselves. If god was responsible for them winning, then wouldn't god then be responsible for them losing and letting the other team win, in which case blaming themselves for losing seems redundant if an all powerful entity got the other team to win.
To do this would cast god in a negative light, so they have to come up with an excuse for why they lost, it couldn't be the 'almighty' to blame for it, must be something else.
it boiled down to only believing in something when its convenient to do so. Its convenient to believe in god when things are going their way, but when not, its can't be gods fault, because it would ruin the perfect imagine of the sky daddy if they questioned it.
part 2 uses the same outlook in regards to strong female characters in movies, and certain groups claiming anyone who doesn't automatically love these strong female leads must be a misogamist. and yet its been shown so often people who actually really like strong female leads in movies, are not people who dislike these other 'strong female leads' because their women, but just because their awful characters.
Men liking characters like ripley, sarah conner, princess leia, Clarice Starling, the bride, and yet dislike characters like rey or captain marvel aren't misogynists because they happen to hate a couple roles for female actors, its the actors or characters themselves they just happen to dislike.
and yet the people calling them misogynists can't factor anything outside of the fact characters like rey or captain marvel are women, so any criticism of them, rather then questioning if theres a good reason why people are doing this, instead they default to 'nope, its not them thats the problem, men just hate them cause they hate women!"
This is where the mindset of a religious people and curtain social groups are similar in nature, it really boils down to that bubble people exist in regardless of the religious, social or political ideology, having it popped is to scary to face thinking outside it, like in the case of maybe god is a flawed character, just like maybe people just don't like certain characters in movies because their just not that good, despite beliefs they are perfect by certain demographics.
i'm on the side of this, since I've got my roster of fav movie heroines myself, I don't dislike any character based on race or gender. I dislike them because of unlikable characterization or because the particular actor playing the role it just unlikable in real life.
Ah, the nerd-rage over Paterson (Twilight) being likely cast as Batman is music to my ears.
Dude's been doing alot of risky, indie, art-sy films since then... he is actually a very good actor. But, "HuRuR, TwIlIgHt Is AsS hE aSs!".
I like women in general, particularly women actors of course (usually younger and prettier than average). I don't care about their personal views, nor confuse them with the characters they play. Beyond my daughter, my ex, and female coworkers/friends I cared about, their views simply don't matter to me. Same goes for male coworkers/friends. The recent controversy over Captain Marvel was a branding/marketing thing IMHO.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 16, 2019, 07:43:48 AM
I liked Avengers: Endgame, so... sure.
I'm referring to the "everybody hates CG so I hate CG" crowd.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 17, 2019, 04:49:51 AM
I'm referring to the "everybody hates CG so I hate CG" crowd.
Its not really about hating CGI. Think about CGI like chocolate, it can be delicious and when effort is put in it can have rich quality and taste. But chocolate can also have bad quality, and eating to much eventually makes you sick or gives you the shits.
That's CGI, its better when used effectively and with quality, then overusing it and getting sick of it.
It's a movie.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 17, 2019, 07:25:20 AM
It's a movie.
It's also a product and art. It shouldn't be shocking for people to expect quality from those things.
Quote from: Munch on May 17, 2019, 05:39:30 AM
Its not really about hating CGI. Think about CGI like chocolate, it can be delicious and when effort is put in it can have rich quality and taste. But chocolate can also have bad quality, and eating to much eventually makes you sick or gives you the shits.
That's CGI, its better when used effectively and with quality, then overusing it and getting sick of it.
I generally agree, though I don't think the problem is actually overuse, but poor use. I mean, it's possible to have a great movie that's all CGI and a terrible one with virtually no CGI. CGI isn't the problem, it's how it's used.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 17, 2019, 07:37:22 AM
It's also a product and art. It shouldn't be shocking for people to expect quality from those things.
It's also aimed at the great unwashed. They don't care about quality, they just want to be entertained.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/d2/d2ad29fb640c5a6ee03aaf874242b4adf403f6bebb291cb3d0ac715a9e35e042.jpg)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 17, 2019, 08:16:02 AM
It's also aimed at the great unwashed.
So?
Are you implying that art need not be good if it is intended for the general public?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 17, 2019, 08:16:02 AM
It's also aimed at the great unwashed. They don't care about quality, they just want to be entertained.
people have standards and want quality, and everyone had there own tastes in what they find appealing. I would sooner spend my day in a classical art gallery like the victora and albert museum then spending it in a modern art gallery like the tate modern.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 17, 2019, 09:12:57 AM
So?
Are you implying that art need not be good if it is intended for the general public?
No, I'm
saying that expecting art from Whollyweird will make one very, very frustrated.
Quote from: Munch on May 17, 2019, 09:21:05 AM
people have standards and want quality, and everyone had there own tastes in what they find appealing. I would sooner spend my day in a classical art gallery like the victora and albert museum then spending it in a modern art gallery like the tate modern.
Enjoy.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 17, 2019, 08:16:02 AM
It's also aimed at the great unwashed. They don't care about quality, they just want to be entertained.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/d2/d2ad29fb640c5a6ee03aaf874242b4adf403f6bebb291cb3d0ac715a9e35e042.jpg)
You say that as if that is a bad thing. Are you an Oxford toff?
This is a thread specifically dedicated to discussing and criticizing movies and we are discussing and criticizing movies and the process of making them. By all means I would be happy to debate the merit of art as entertainment vs art as something more, but that's not really what's happening.
I have even agreed that there is nothing inherently wrong with "basic" art that is only really there, and clearly there, to be an entertaining popcorn flick, and I would assume Hydra and Munch feel roughly the same way.
It just feels odd to come into a thread literally dedicated to discussing movies and then seem to be aghast that people are discussing movies.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 17, 2019, 05:38:28 PMI have even agreed that there is nothing inherently wrong with "basic" art that is only really there, and clearly there, to be an entertaining popcorn flick, and I would assume Hydra and Munch feel roughly the same way.
Absolutely. So long as they don't pretend to be something they're not, I have no problem with that.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 17, 2019, 07:00:59 PM
Absolutely. So long as they don't pretend to be something they're not, I have no problem with that.
well, what are we pretending their not?
Actually think I see what your asking. whatever constitutes as basic art, everyone has their own tastes and interests so its an open book.
When it comes to the subject of movies, I value presentation and innovation. Like having generic cgi animal kids movie no:247 doesn't count as anything special, however seeing something like stop motion animation and the painstaking work going into that I find a lot of value in.
In less animated movie sense, a well presented movie with good visuals that draws you in is what anyone should expect to be given. visuals, lighting, staging, makeup, costume, these are all classic things any movie maker should understand and going back to the dawn of film making or even stage acting. I do think when everything is being done on a computer screen, it loses some of that innovation and attention to detail.
Same time if film makers can use CGi as a tool and blend it seamlessness into a movie, then they are doing their jobs right.
Quote from: Munch on May 17, 2019, 07:44:19 PM
well, what are we pretending their not?
Then that would be misrepresentation and that's messed up.
I have no problem with art. I have no problem with "high" art or "low" art. I have a problem with Transformers 8: Decepticon Ragnarok With a Vengeance presented as if it's amazing storytelling.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 17, 2019, 05:38:28 PM
This is a thread specifically dedicated to discussing and criticizing movies and we are discussing and criticizing movies and the process of making them. By all means I would be happy to debate the merit of art as entertainment vs art as something more, but that's not really what's happening.
I have even agreed that there is nothing inherently wrong with "basic" art that is only really there, and clearly there, to be an entertaining popcorn flick, and I would assume Hydra and Munch feel roughly the same way.
It just feels odd to come into a thread literally dedicated to discussing movies and then seem to be aghast that people are discussing movies.
Ah, so differing opinions don't count?
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 17, 2019, 08:03:59 PM
Then that would be misrepresentation and that's messed up.
I have no problem with art. I have no problem with "high" art or "low" art. I have a problem with Transformers 8: Decepticon Ragnarok With a Vengeance presented as if it's amazing storytelling.
well yeah, i've never even been to see any transformers movies, except the 1986 animated movie when I was a kid. I like any variety of movie from action to drama to horror to romance to animated to comedy, but doesn't mean I should just accept any old shlock from these categorizes. I am a cynic after all and will look at things with a critical eye on if its worth my time and money to see it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 17, 2019, 08:18:08 PM
Ah, so differing opinions don't count?
Considering I am now explicitly stating for the second time that I agree with your basic premise to an extent, sure, why not.
I don't have a problem with a differing opinion on how art should be interpreted or received, I just have a problem with one sentence responses that act high-and-mighty without actually saying anything new. Particularly when they are judging people for talking about what the thread is literally about.
It was annoying when people like pr did it, and it's annoying now.
Your impressions of my posts are internal in origin.
Shazam
Shashit.
Quote from: aitm on May 18, 2019, 12:40:35 PM
Shazam
Shashit.
You were expecting maybe the real Captain Marvel?
I don't know if y'all watch Kimmel, but this is pretty funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSYjs5RnlRo
But I wish Jimmy would have told us what the #1 answer was on that last question!
Saw Detective Pikachu last evening. I had heard mixed reviews about the movie, so I had my expectations in check. Reviewers said that the lead (Tim Goodman, not Pikachu) was kind of annoying, that the pacing was inconsistent, and that it was basically just a "meh" kind of movie. After seeing it for myself, I don't see what they were on about. I loved the movie.
Plot: Anyone can instantly recognize who the villain of the movie is going to be. It is a bit predictable there. However, the twists were genuinely surprising to me, and more than made up for the villain.
Visuals: Very nice. I don't know why, but the Pokemon looked better in the movie than they did in the trailer. I don't know if they improved on the CGI before release, if the trailer just didn't pick the best parts to show off, or if it's just that the designs fit the world around them. I wonder if they used practical effects for some of the Pokemon, particularly the Snubbull, because it was very convincing at times. There was one moment where the CGI did feel off, when it was used for the human characters, but it was the exception rather than the rule.
Humor: Ryan Reynolds is great in this movie. Critics said he carried the movie, but I wouldn't go that far. Somehow he managed to take the weird idea of a talking Pikachu and make it work, and that's pretty impressive. While the movie is suitable for kids, there are some innuendoes here and there for those old enough to pick up on them.
Overall: Would recommend if you're a Pokemon fan. While this movie doesn't leave much room for a sequel, I do hope this will be the start of a line of live action Pokemon movies. Maybe the next one could be based on the Pokemon Adventures manga?
https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a27558948/hellboy-reboot-us-box-office-disastrous-total/
On the one hand I want to say its a shame, I love hellboy as a character and his comics, and loved the Ron perlman movies and his portrayal, so having the hellboy franchise revived so more people could discover the character would have been a plus.
On the other hand, I'm glad it failed, since I was someone hoping for the third Ron perlman hellboy, and just wasn't on board with this remake with this ugly as sin lemon faced take on the character, instead of a third sequal.
If they try and reboot it again in a few years time I just hope they learn from this one (and cast someone who can actually pull off the character better again)
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 19, 2019, 02:44:03 AM
Plot: Anyone can instantly recognize who the villain of the movie is going to be. It is a bit predictable there. However, the twists were genuinely surprising to me, and more than made up for the villain.
That's a pretty common failing. I can barely remember the last movie I've seen where the villain wasn't immediately obvious. Fight Club, I think. Man, it's been a while.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 23, 2019, 10:20:42 AM
Fight Club, I think. Man, it's been a while.
WTF dude? Rule No 1!
Hmm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avyqEQD_5Ok
okay, i mean I knew this was coming and it had to happen. I knew hugh Jackman was never going to reprise his role, and Logan was an end to it, so expected this to happen them choosing a new actor for when the x-men joins the MCU.
so far, I don't really have much opinion on their choice, as honestly I've not seen very many movies with Charlie Hunnam in it that stood out to me. However I was a fan of the american take on Queer as Folk back in the early 2000s, where he looked like this.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/05/13/21/001744D500000258-4503248-image-a-82_1494706995980.jpg)
I'm wondering now if when seeing him playing Wolverine, am I going to be able to escape the image of him rimming a guy on camera like in queer as folk, and now imagining wolverine doing the same.
That said, people didn't know what to make of an Australian actor playing the role of wolverine back in the early 2000s, so maybe same thing here?
(https://celebrityinsider.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Charlie-Hunnam-In-Danger-Former-Sons-Of-Anarchy-Star-Nearly-Goes-Overboard-Filming-A-Dangerous-Boat-Scene-For-Triple-Frontier.jpg)
He's gonna have to work out to get in the same kind of shape Jackman did.
Still, best wait and see. I doubt I'm going to ever imagine anyone else being Wolverine as perfectly as hugh jackman, but just like batman, there needs to be a chance for other actors to play iconic roles.
yeah...I understand what rimming is, but have never seen it and won't be googling it any time soon but...yeah, that would probably play heavily into my perception of the actors role.
Quote from: aitm on May 23, 2019, 09:33:02 PM
yeah...I understand what rimming is, but have never seen it and won't be googling it any time soon but...yeah, that would probably play heavily into my perception of the actors role.
I mean, if he's any kind of a good actor, it won't matter, because he'd be able to take on whatever role and doesn't matter what came before. (unless your will smith)
After all they turned this:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c5/2a/06/c52a069cdd922f6cf701473829199acc.jpg)
into this:
(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/36/590x/Hugh-Jackman-as-Wolverine-771379.jpg)
so its possible to turn a guy who played a twink in QAF into a butch masculine figure like wolverine.
That said, casting choices matter, I loved Ron Perlman was hellboy, and was just as hopeful the new guy, David Harbour, could capture the same lighting in a bottle perlman did.. and we know how they turned out -_-
Edit: OKAY I just thought of it, Wolverime!
Going to see the original Godzilla tomorrow night, hosted by local late night movie legend Fritz the Nite Owl. Is it in bad taste that we're going to a sushi joint before the movie, and then to the Asian Festival the following day? XD
Meanwhile, I have found the next movie I want to see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6gsLnAMOkY
They already tried that with Lincoln's corpse ;-( Nobody would care about James Buchanan, except that he was our first confirmed bachelor President aka gay.
The original Godzilla is so good, particularly since nothing like it came before ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKrj1ymJzmo
Like seeing the original Frankenstein with Boris Karloff (only saw it once).
For the Japanese, Godzilla actually has meaning ... it is America. And it came out right after Castle Bravo (biggest US H bomb).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl9JS8-gnWQ
This...actually looks pretty good. I wasn't sure after the teaser or the first official trailer, but this second trailer has me sold.
Godzilla: King Of The Monsters is a solid 8/10 from me. You won't find the meaning of life in this movie, but you will be thoroughly entertained. I'd recommend re-watching Godzilla 2014 and Kong: Skull Island before you go see it, as there are some blink-and-you'll-miss-it callbacks to those films.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 30, 2019, 10:46:14 PM
Godzilla: King Of The Monsters is a solid 8/10 from me. You won't find the meaning of life in this movie, but you will be thoroughly entertained. I'd recommend re-watching Godzilla 2014 and Kong: Skull Island before you go see it, as there are some blink-and-you'll-miss-it callbacks to those films.
I have a 9:45 AM ticket for this. (Nobody's surprised I'm going, right?)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 31, 2019, 08:37:56 AM
I have a 9:45 AM ticket for this. (Nobody's surprised I'm going, right?)
So TELL us already!
Quote from: Cavebear on May 31, 2019, 02:39:24 PM
So TELL us already!
He can't … he can only make a roar with his radioactive breath!
The new Godzilla is on my list -- the director is a local, who made not one, but two of the very few horror movies I actually liked. They ran the trailer last Friday at the showing of the original 'Godzilla King of the Monsters' (not the ORIGINAL original, the one with Raymond Burr spliced in).
Alas, but for a showing of Jaws this summer as part of the CAPA Summer Movie Series, that was Fritz the Nite Owl (http://www.fritzlives.com)'s last show in Columbus. He's 84 now, and Columbus venues are too expensive. He'll still be doing midnight movies at regional theaters, though.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 31, 2019, 02:39:24 PM
So TELL us already!
I was broken hearted in '98. I thought .... somebody ... had killed the Big G. Since then I've had three new movie, if you could the Fukushima allegory, and the new franchise has kicked butt. It's not Shakespeare, thankfully, it's daikaiju kick names and taking ass.
I'm seeing it again tomorrow with Boss Lady.
Quote from: trdsf on June 01, 2019, 04:49:16 AM
The new Godzilla is on my list -- the director is a local, who made not one, but two of the very few horror movies I actually liked. They ran the trailer last Friday at the showing of the original 'Godzilla King of the Monsters' (not the ORIGINAL original, the one with Raymond Burr spliced in).
"Godzilla: King of Monsters" is the Burr cut, with only ~45 minutes of the original left. It's embarrassing.
Look for "Gojira" if you want to see the original. For a double feature find "Godzilla Raids Again" (Japanese original, not US theatrical release), the second movie in the Toho franchise. Big G fights Anguirus. The meme scene of Godzilla fighting another big monster at the Japanese Capital Building comes from this movie. It was rushed into release six months after they realized they had a hit in the first one. It's the original "big thing fights big thing" in the Gojira-verse.
(All above available on Amazon.)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 01, 2019, 06:08:01 AM
"Godzilla: King of Monsters" is the Burr cut, with only ~45 minutes of the original left. It's embarrassing.
Look for "Gojira" if you want to see the original. For a double feature find "Godzilla Raids Again" (Japanese original, not US theatrical release), the second movie in the Toho franchise. Big G fights Anguirus. The meme scene of Godzilla fighting another big monster at the Japanese Capital Building comes from this movie. It was rushed into release six months after they realized they had a hit in the first one. It's the original "big thing fights big thing" in the Gojira-verse.
(All above available on Amazon.)
I'd recommend the Criterion Collection's blu-ray of the original, also available on Amazon and here (https://www.criterion.com/films/27755-godzilla). It includes the original and the Raymond Burr cut with a very insightful commentary track on both (the commentator assumes you watch them in that order). It also has a short documentary called The Unluckiest Dragon, which details the incident with the Lucky Dragon Number 5 and how it influenced the final cut and audience reception of
Gojira. I recommend watching everything in this order: the original cut, the Burr cut, the documentary, the original with commentary, and then finally Burr with commentary.
I have a question for those who have seen the latest Godzilla:
I heard that a lot of the time, the big fights are interrupted by human characters. I've always been kinda miffed by that (the humans aren't exactly the main draw of these films) but I understand that it's a LOT cheaper to film humans than render a CGI monster battle.
Are there too many interruptions? Or is it tolerable?
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 01, 2019, 11:07:33 PM
I have a question for those who have seen the latest Godzilla:
I heard that a lot of the time, the big fights are interrupted by human characters. I've always been kinda miffed by that (the humans aren't exactly the main draw of these films) but I understand that it's a LOT cheaper to film humans than render a CGI monster battle.
Are there too many interruptions? Or is it tolerable?
It had the standard interruptions you get in superhero movies to avoid the spectacle wearing out its welcome, but nothing nearly as bad as what Godzilla 2014 did. Like when Godzilla and Ghidorah collide in the middle of Boston, we cut away to a fighter pilot's face before turning back to see Godzilla and Ghidorah grappling. Then we cut to some humans on the ground doing their thing before panning up to see the two still grappling. It pretty much continues like this until Godzilla and Ghidorah start doing something more interesting than pushing each other, at which point we get a nice long shot of [REDACTED].
tl;dr version is: long shots when interesting shit's going down, cut away to human perspective when the action slows down, then back to long shots when things pick up again.
"This time we join them."
The new Sonic design is looking pretty good.
[Spoiler]https://youtu.be/yBexoB2bBVU[/spoiler]
I see the same thing that's infected Garfield has gotten to sonic.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8l3Kh5N_fuI&t=42s
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 01, 2019, 06:08:01 AM
Look for "Gojira" if you want to see the original. For a double feature find "Godzilla Raids Again" (Japanese original, not US theatrical release), the second movie in the Toho franchise. Big G fights Anguirus. The meme scene of Godzilla fighting another big monster at the Japanese Capital Building comes from this movie. It was rushed into release six months after they realized they had a hit in the first one. It's the original "big thing fights big thing" in the Gojira-verse.
I have seen the original original. It's terrific. So much better than the Burr-invaded version.
Quote from: trdsf on June 03, 2019, 08:10:04 PM
I have seen the original original. It's terrific. So much better than the Burr-invaded version.
Hiroshima allegory, very heart-felt.
While never caring much for "monster movies", I've always understood the allegories for Godzilla. Some concepts are very nation-specific.
I dig the allegory, but I remember who started that war.
I have learned so much from this place. Never knew what a brony was, or a furry, knew one person that was unusually fascinated with Stewie even quote him regularly....a real nut job. And I guess I should have realized that some find enjoyment in knowing all about a movie franchise...but zilla? I have seen maybe 2 zilla's and never thought much about it ceptin, meh. I have never cared enough to look for allegories or hidden meanings in movies.....especially meh ones....(insert Freud quote here)......
you should know the one.
I didn't spend much time on the franchise until I retired and Amazon found movies for me.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 04, 2019, 05:15:15 PM
I didn't spend much time on the franchise until I retired and Amazon found movies for me.
We all need hobbies ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3fyLzYSwvI
summery, marvel is trying to push for more diversity in future movies. The guy hosting this video makes it clear he isn't against more diverse characters, its just the way social justice warriors want 'inclusivity' is criney and forced, rather then just writing good characters and making whatever diversity they fit into feel natural.
It makes me think how in the 90s, gay characters had to be 'safe', they had to be stereotypes or flamboyantly gay, like jack from will and grace. That isn't dissimilar to whats being forced in current marvel comics, bad writers forcing 'diverse' characters for no other reason but for the sake of them 'diverse', you know, instead of being well written characters. Its also the fact these 'writers' have a hate on for anyone they consider 'part of the problem', being white, hetero men, which makes anything they write feel trashy and unsophisticated.
Saw Endgame.
Endgame=disappointment
@Munch [spoiler]and yet there was very little Ms. Marvel action in Endgame[/spoiler]
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 07, 2019, 05:54:29 PM
Saw Endgame.
Endgame=disappointment
@Munch [spoiler]and yet there was very little Ms. Marvel action in Endgame[/spoiler]
yes, and that made it tolerable
The Matrix, A.K.A. the world's most famous film about transgenderism and an infinite other amount of philosophical and identity issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyTkC554CP4
Why didn't the machines use cows for power. Never going to be a revolution if they used cows.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 11, 2019, 04:59:34 AM
Why didn't the machines use cows for power. Never going to be a revolution if they used cows.
There are two answers for that...
1. In the original script it is stated they are using all the human brains for processing power rather than their bodies for energy. Fox however thought that was too complex of theory, and told the Wachowski's to change it because, you know, studio's know more about art than the actual directors. So from that standpoint, it's an illogical situation forced upon the movie by a studio rather than an intentional choice and we should substitute human batteries for human processors in our own heads.
2. All that was happening within the Matrix. The machines were created specifically with the idea of keeping human's happy within the Matrix by their creators. However the Architect himself said that a, "too perfect" Matrix lead to a suspension of belief and people realizing they were in a simulation, so he fine-tuned the program to be just gritty enough for everyone to believe it was real. However you still had the 1% or so who realised it was a simulation and wanted out, so to take care of them they were falsely given a belief that they were escaping the program and fighting for their freedom...when infact they were just in another layer of the Matrix. This also explains how the Matrix can have such extreme effects on the "real" body of someone who has escaped it and gone back in, as well as how Neo can have special powers in the "real" world or Agent Smith can occupy a body outside of the Matrix.
3. Finally, assuming neither of the above are true and it was meant to be human batteries; it's just alot easier to make a philosophical statement with humans than it is with cows.
Well, part of the reason the machines did that to the humans was because the humans were seen as a threat. By trapping the humans in the Matrix, they've got the humans under control.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 11, 2019, 08:15:19 AM
There are two answers for that...
1. In the original script it is stated they are using all the human brains for processing power rather than their bodies for energy. Fox however thought that was too complex of theory, and told the Wachowski's to change it because, you know, studio's know more about art than the actual directors. So from that standpoint, it's an illogical situation forced upon the movie by a studio rather than an intentional choice and we should substitute human batteries for human processors in our own heads.
2. All that was happening within the Matrix. The machines were created specifically with the idea of keeping human's happy within the Matrix by their creators. However the Architect himself said that a, "too perfect" Matrix lead to a suspension of belief and people realizing they were in a simulation, so he fine-tuned the program to be just gritty enough for everyone to believe it was real. However you still had the 1% or so who realised it was a simulation and wanted out, so to take care of them they were falsely given a belief that they were escaping the program and fighting for their freedom...when infact they were just in another layer of the Matrix. This also explains how the Matrix can have such extreme effects on the "real" body of someone who has escaped it and gone back in, as well as how Neo can have special powers in the "real" world or Agent Smith can occupy a body outside of the Matrix.
3. Finally, assuming neither of the above are true and it was meant to be human batteries; it's just alot easier to make a philosophical statement with humans than it is with cows.
I don't see #2 as being at all relevant.
#3 works just fine.
The entire Matrix series takes place in the Matrix. Just throwing that out there.
Also, Mr Smith was The One, not Neo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkMU1mKdwPI
Much more succinct version of the above video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrUUFQzJpWQ
Anyone who expects movies to be logically consistent had better get used to disappointment.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 11, 2019, 08:07:04 PM
Anyone who expects movies to be logically consistent had better get used to disappointment.
Anyone who expects ancient literature to be logically consistent had better get used to disappointment.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 11, 2019, 08:07:04 PM
Anyone who expects movies to be logically consistent had better get used to disappointment.
Eh, depends on the genre and the quality of the director. There are plenty of wonderfully consistent movies.
QuoteI don't see #2 as being at all relevant.
If it is a simulation, they aren't actually harvesting the humans for energy; it's just a story they tell the humans who "escape" the Matrix to make them feel good about themselves and like they are wise. Their motive in this simulation could be anything because there is no actual gain or loses to be had. It just has to be convincing enough for the humans, and if you lived your entire life in a simulation and then believed you were yanked out into the "real" world where machines are out to get you (and seeing people be killed by those machines)... you wouldn't take the time to question if it made sense, and if you did... it wouldn't matter, you are still fighting for your life.
Which itself is a very interesting philosophical train of thought to go down.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 11, 2019, 01:04:46 PM
Well, part of the reason the machines did that to the humans was because the humans were seen as a threat. By trapping the humans in the Matrix, they've got the humans under control.
Maybe, but I'm not entirely sure that's why. Perhaps the Matrix is running exactly as intended; a giant simulation to keep humanity entertained. Perhaps the "real world" really is a wasteland, and humans are just existing in vats controlled by robots programmed to keep them alive. Like the architect says, it cant be a utopia otherwise people would catch on... but by keeping it the way it is, humanity doesn't reach that third level of awareness of realizing both the Matrix, and the "real world", are just simulations.
However a baby raised in the Matrix from birth could be indoctrinated to not see utopia as a simulation, so there are certainly holes in that theory that could be torn open.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 11, 2019, 09:35:39 PM
Maybe, but I'm not entirely sure that's why. Perhaps the Matrix is running exactly as intended; a giant simulation to keep humanity entertained. Perhaps the "real world" really is a wasteland, and humans are just existing in vats controlled by robots programmed to keep them alive. Like the architect says, it cant be a utopia otherwise people would catch on... but by keeping it the way it is, humanity doesn't reach that third level of awareness of realizing both the Matrix, and the "real world", are just simulations.
However a baby raised in the Matrix from birth could be indoctrinated to not see utopia as a simulation, so there are certainly holes in that theory that could be torn open.
I don't think it would make a difference if I baby were raised to believe a Utopian Matrix was reality. The implication is that a harsh simulation is intrinsically more convincing. And a agree. A world that doesn't conform to your desires feels real, while a Utopian world feels like a dream. Plus, when you're struggling to survive, you're too busy to think hard enough about the simulation to see through it.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 11, 2019, 09:35:39 PM
Maybe, but I'm not entirely sure that's why. Perhaps the Matrix is running exactly as intended; a giant simulation to keep humanity entertained.
I'm not sure "entertained" is the right word. Pacified? Compliant?
We know two things for certain about the machines:
1) they were created by humans
2) they want to keep humans alive (otherwise, humanity would be gone entirely)
My theory is that the machines are thoroughly investigating humans, trying to learn exactly what makes us tick down to the finest detail. The Matrix, in addition to pacifying humans, serves another function: allowing the machines to expose humans to stimuli and observe the results.
The Matrix is a laboratory as much as it is a penal colony.
Its function: to allow the machines to learn from humanity. Learn what? Unknown at this point. Perhaps a certain spontaneity and rule-bending that the machines currently lack. A more organic, less rigid perspective. Perhaps to learn a way to make a true utopian virtual world in which machines and humans are true equals. Perhaps...
QuotePerhaps the "real world" really is a wasteland, and humans are just existing in vats controlled by robots programmed to keep them alive.
My hunch is that the real world is indeed a wasteland, but it's actually worse than what Neo and company think. It's despoiled to the point that it's basically unlivable for humans and barely livable for machines. That's why humans can never truly break free from the Matrix - and why the machines are willing to go to such great lengths to keep it operational. They need humans, and so they need humans to survive.
Rewatching The Matrix now...
1. Why does the machine let him live when he is unplugged from the Matrix? It stares at him, with tools and weapons in hand ready to end his life, and then decides to just fly off and flush him down the garbage drain where Morpheus and the crew find him. It seems like the A.I., fighting the humans, would kill anyone they detected escaping the Matrix rather than just let them live and even help them escape.
Perhaps it's in their programming to maintain that second layer of Matrix? Or perhaps studying the rebel humans is a goal of theirs.
2. Where do babies come from? It might be answered in the series and I've forgotten, but why does two people in the Matrix having sex result in a baby? Do the machines hunt down the semen of the actual bodies and impregnate their female, or is it an artificial insemination type situation?
Quote from: Shiranu on June 12, 2019, 10:40:33 PM2. Where do babies come from? It might be answered in the series and I've forgotten, but why does two people in the Matrix having sex result in a baby? Do the machines hunt down the semen of the actual bodies and impregnate their female, or is it an artificial insemination type situation?
It's not explained exactly.
Morpheus says "human beings are no longer born, we are grown" but it's not clear if he's talking about humans literally being incubated then hooked into the matrix as babies or figuratively (humans are treated like livestock or crops)
The exact details are pretty nebulous and come to think of it, it does seem kinda illogical that two bluepills in a relationship in the virtual world would have a kid who is their biological kid even though they could be hundreds of miles away IRL. (Seems like a lot of effort for something I seriously doubt the machines care all that much about)
But my theory is that human offspring are mostly neither born nor grown...
THEY ARE GENERATED. (dun-dun-dun!)
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 12, 2019, 11:59:11 PM
It's not explained exactly.
Morpheus says "human beings are no longer born, we are grown" but it's not clear if he's talking about humans literally being incubated then hooked into the matrix as babies or figuratively (humans are treated like livestock or crops)
The exact details are pretty nebulous and come to think of it, it does seem kinda illogical that two bluepills in a relationship in the virtual world would have a kid who is their biological kid even though they could be hundreds of miles away IRL. (Seems like a lot of effort for something I seriously doubt the machines care all that much about)
But my theory is that human offspring are mostly neither born nor grown...
THEY ARE GENERATED. (dun-dun-dun!)
Same model as Brave New World.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 11, 2019, 09:28:28 PM
Eh, depends on the genre and the quality of the director. There are plenty of wonderfully consistent movies.
"demands" rather than "expects".
Was that two-layered Matrix thing ever actually confirmed, or is that a fan theory? Some things do make sense with the two-tiered system, but I can't recall it ever being stated that it was true. Why go through the trouble of killing the resistance if they were all still trapped anyway?
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 13, 2019, 12:29:40 PM
Was that two-layered Matrix thing ever actually confirmed, or is that a fan theory?
Just a fan theory.
QuoteWhy go through the trouble of killing the resistance if they were all still trapped anyway?
Do we actually know for a fact that they're dead? Maybe they just wake up somewhere else and believe whatever they want to believe.
I mean, wouldn't it be pretty strange to allow agents and rebels to shoot at each other in the matrix if valuable bystanders die by the score? Doesn't that strike you as wasteful and illogical?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=2msJTFvhkU4
sequel to the shining. Dunno what to think right now, I'll wait and see.
Robin Hood (2018) was fun to watch but not historically or story like accurate. It's one of those movies where it's so bad its good.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 13, 2019, 07:23:04 PM
Robin Hood (2018) was fun to watch but not historically or story like accurate. It's one of those movies where it's so bad its good.
I choked during the first fight. It's a parody of historical movies.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 13, 2019, 07:36:37 PM
I choked during the first fight. It's a parody of historical movies.
Is a parody of a parody, the truth?
Quote from: Munch on June 13, 2019, 02:56:20 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=2msJTFvhkU4
sequel to the shining. Dunno what to think right now, I'll wait and see.
Seems to be based on an actual Stephen King book, so at least they're not pulling this sequel material out their ass because the first one was popular and Hollywood has no new ideas.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 14, 2019, 12:40:36 PM
Seems to be based on an actual Stephen King book, so at least they're not pulling this sequel material out their ass because the first one was popular and Hollywood has no new ideas.
yeah, although its been said king hated the stanley kubrick take on his book, so much so he arranged for a tv movie adaptation. I think kings one of those writers who are a bit of a stickler for how his work is interpreted, even if the end result is popular, if its not to his standards he can't find merit in it.
If it were me, just knowing my work got made into a film and people loved it would be enough to feel good about it.
Quote from: Munch on June 14, 2019, 01:54:58 PM
yeah, although its been said king hated the stanley kubrick take on his book, so much so he arranged for a tv movie adaptation. I think kings one of those writers who are a bit of a stickler for how his work is interpreted, even if the end result is popular, if its not to his standards he can't find merit in it.
If it were me, just knowing my work got made into a film and people loved it would be enough to feel good about it.
I've seen some of the TV version of the Shining, but haven't seen the movie yet. I think it's safe to say the movie was the better version, though. The TV version was just...ugh.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 14, 2019, 03:37:39 PM
I've seen some of the TV version of the Shining, but haven't seen the movie yet. I think it's safe to say the movie was the better version, though. The TV version was just...ugh.
Stephen Weber (the guy from Wings) was hilarious in that role! And iirc, they changed the axe to a croquet mallet. Much scarier!
I take it back. This was the best version of The Shining:
https://youtu.be/n_rATyEiOrw
Technically it's the shinning.
Quote from: Munch on June 15, 2019, 04:37:04 PM
Technically it's the shinning.
Stephen King was inspired to write this story in 1974, when he stayed with his wife at a hotel, the last day of the season. They were the only one's there. That is the hotel I had my honeymoon in 12 years later. In my case by the end of the honeymoon, it was the bitching.
Quote from: Baruch on June 15, 2019, 08:20:26 PM
Stephen King was inspired to write this story in 1974, when he stayed with his wife at a hotel, the last day of the season. They were the only one's there. That is the hotel I had my honeymoon in 12 years later. In my case by the end of the honeymoon, it was the bitching.
any ghostly activities while staying there?
Quote from: Munch on June 15, 2019, 08:28:30 PM
any ghostly activities while staying there?
The first time you see your bride without her makeup ... horrifying!
This looks pretty good, have any of you seen it?
QuoteA sci-fi thriller about a teenage girl (Clara Rugaard), who is the first of a new generation of humans to be raised by Mother (Rose Byrne), a robot designed to repopulate the earth after the extinction of humankind. But the pair’s unique relationship is threatened when an injured stranger (Hilary Swank) arrives with news that calls into question everything Daughter has been told about the outside world and her Mother’s intentions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5BKctcZxrM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_XwRFD5Lqs
waiting to see twitter explode claiming mothers not really a mother if she's being played by a man.
Quote from: Munch on June 17, 2019, 07:54:14 PM
waiting to see twitter explode claiming mothers not really a mother if she's being played by a man.
I think Unbeliever gets a h-n when he sees sex dolls ;-) And maybe he wants to be a robot for ... other reasons.
Better than falling in love with Seri.
Quote from: Munch on June 17, 2019, 07:54:14 PM
waiting to see twitter explode claiming mothers not really a mother if she's being played by a man.
Haha ... Twitter is going away, where MySpace went to. There is a new service, but you have to give legal proof of identity. That way we can keep the vast Russian troll army out.
Quote from: Baruch on June 13, 2019, 09:51:08 PM
Is a parody of a parody, the truth?
"We're reaching new depths of irony never heard of." It's more like a dream within a dream.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 05:24:24 AM
"We're reaching new depths of irony never heard of." It's more like a dream within a dream.
Biggest chunks in the vomit?
I Am Mother - 7/10
Better than "I, Robot".
Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 10:15:47 PM
I think Unbeliever gets a h-n when he sees sex dolls ;-) And maybe he wants to be a robot for ... other reasons.
Better than falling in love with Seri.
What is "a h-n"?
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 05:32:18 PM
What is "a h-n"?
Have you proven you have reached puberty yet? ;-) Also called h**d on.
A head on? Like on a beer?
Bird Box is an inherently unwinnable situation (Kobayashi Maru, for you trekkers)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftyMVoH3Owg
The basic premise is that there are creatures roaming the streets/countryside and if you see them, your survival instinct drops to zero and you almost immediately off yourself. The creatures can mimic the voices of alive and dead people, tempting you to open your eyes. "No big deal, I'll just blind myself" But wait, there's more! The creatures have human allies who can see without dying (a HUGE advantage over other humans) who will try to force you to see the creatures or try to kill you outright. They're armed, organized, and actively hunting down human survivors.
To recap, you have to survive without relying on your sense of sight (every time you look at something outside, you're taking a big risk) while being actively hunted by other humans. You can't fight and win, you can't run and win, you can't take shelter and win. There's no viable strategy. You're shit outta luck no matter what you do.
Sounds like a very realistic game ;-( Not entertainment though.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/21/marvel-boss-promises-much-prominent-lgbt-heroes-backlash-avengers-endgame-gay-character-10026040/amp/
There was seriously backlash over something like this? The second most highest grossing movie of all time, and yet there was backlash over something so incidental and barely noticeable?
The tempest needs a smaller teacup.
Quote from: Munch on June 21, 2019, 03:46:22 PM
https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/21/marvel-boss-promises-much-prominent-lgbt-heroes-backlash-avengers-endgame-gay-character-10026040/amp/
There was seriously backlash over something like this? The second most highest grossing movie of all time, and yet there was backlash over something so incidental and barely noticeable?
In the future, everyone is like the character "Michael" from the newer Star Wars TV show.
Kung Fu Panda - 9/10
Kung Fu Panda 2 - 8.5/10
Pretty wholesome story and entertainment, and not just a repeat of the story in the 2nd movie, but ever so slightly less good than the 1st.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 22, 2019, 04:13:55 PM
Kung Fu Panda - 9/10
Kung Fu Panda 2 - 8.5/10
Pretty wholesome story and entertainment, and not just a repeat of the story in the 2nd movie, but ever so slightly less good than the 1st.
#3 was quite the best one IMNSHO.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 22, 2019, 04:13:55 PM
Kung Fu Panda - 9/10
Kung Fu Panda 2 - 8.5/10
Pretty wholesome story and entertainment, and not just a repeat of the story in the 2nd movie, but ever so slightly less good than the 1st.
What about King Fu Panda 3 and the TV show?
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2019, 10:54:30 PM
What about King Fu Panda 3 and the TV show?
Not watched it yet.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 22, 2019, 11:25:12 PM
Not watched it yet.
Panda 3 is better than Panda 2, IMHO.
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2019, 11:51:06 PM
Panda 3 is better than Panda 2, IMHO.
Yeah, and the reasons would be spoilered if I posted them.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 23, 2019, 06:18:06 AM
Yeah, and the reasons would be spoilered if I posted them.
OK, a personal opinion on my part. I didn't like the story in Panda 2, but liked the story in Panda 3 better. But Panda 1 was best, because sequels ...
Jack Black is god.
Shazam! - 7/10
Pretty family safe entertainment, nothing too fancy.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 27, 2019, 08:24:24 PM
Shazam! - 7/10
Pretty family safe entertainment, nothing too fancy.
When I was a little boy. I imagined what it was like to be an adult. Nothing I could imagine. But no super powers.
Spider-man - Into the Spider-verse
Confession; I've never been big on Spider-man, and not necessarily because I didn't like him but because I was always given a negative impression about him by others.
After watching this movie... nah, he is fucking awesome. Amazing movie.
Tom Holland will pick up for RDJ in the MCU, so the web is being flung far and wide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPpjdU2MhUQ
One more, since I cant stop geeking out over this movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ubmvZ-CUrQ
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 29, 2019, 07:04:27 AM
Tom Holland will pick up for RDJ in the MCU, so the web is being flung far and wide.
True, and I think he is the best live-action adaption as well... so it's a good time for Spidey. Best film, best actor, and best Spider-man game last year.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 29, 2019, 06:30:09 AM
Spider-man - Into the Spider-verse
Confession; I've never been big on Spider-man, and not necessarily because I didn't like him but because I was always given a negative impression about him by others.
I've always liked him well enough (solid 7 character).
I really liked the animated series, kinda disliked the Raimi films (heresy, I know, but they were so damn goofy and cringey), and absolutely loathed the Amazingly awful Andrew Garfield reboot. But Homecoming and Into The Spiderverse really blew me away. I now have high hopes for Far From Home.
Spider-Man is best in an ensemble against a decent villain like Venom or Carnage or Norman Osborn. He probably has the largest rogue's gallery of any marvel hero but most of them are pretty lame, with either some dumb animal motif (rhino, scorpion, lizard, vulture) or something random (sandman, hydroman, stilt-man, etc)
Alita Battle Angel - 8/10
There might be a sequel, but there are so many questions left after the movie.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 29, 2019, 07:16:54 PM
Alita Battle Angel - 8/10
There might be a sequel, but there are so many questions left after the movie.
I hope there is, that was one of the more surprisingly good movies imo.
That said, I went to it with extremely low expectations so... that probably helped a lot. But I would love to see more done with the universe on the big screen. Anything cyberpunk is pretty much an instant win for me.
River Tam Effect in action again.
" Start with the part where Jayne
gets knocked out by a ninety pound
girl. 'Cause I don't think that's
ever getting old."
I just pre-ordered the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouz6vQ80dag
I'm gonna keep an eye out for this. I'm not really into arthouse movies, but this could be interesting.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 05:25:08 PM
I Am Mother - 7/10
Better than "I, Robot".
Most things are better than 'I, Robot'. I nearly walked out of the theater just over the
trailer.
Meanwhile, Harlan Ellison's exquisite screenplay of 'I, Robot' remains unproduced. Culture may not be dead, but it's been moribund for a while.
Quote from: Munch on June 30, 2019, 10:08:30 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouz6vQ80dag
I'm gonna keep an eye out for this. I'm not really into arthouse movies, but this could be interesting.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_bad_batch
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 01, 2019, 07:47:44 AM
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_bad_batch
Oh.. so I was right about the arthouse flick. Shame, hoped to see momoa in another kind of role.
Quote from: Munch on July 01, 2019, 09:17:17 AM
Oh.. so I was right about the arthouse flick. Shame, hoped to see momoa in another kind of role.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816462/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_22
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 01, 2019, 11:46:06 AM
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816462/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_22
Nnnnnnnnnnnah.
Quote from: Munch on July 01, 2019, 12:32:25 PM
Nnnnnnnnnnnah.
Better than "Hercules". https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hercules_the_thracian_wars
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 02, 2019, 04:46:26 AM
Better than "Hercules". https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hercules_the_thracian_wars
The thing with movies being so bad their good (being such an awful production that it's entertaining to see how bad it is) I prefer not to spend money on them anyway, and just wait for mocking reviews of them
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L6xszuoSm7M
Quote from: Munch on July 02, 2019, 06:49:59 AM
The thing with movies being so bad their good (being such an awful production that it's entertaining to see how bad it is) I prefer not to spend money on them anyway, and just wait for mocking reviews of them
I watched "Gorgo (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054938/?ref_=nv_sr_4?ref_=nv_sr_4)" last night.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xsTJza1MYgY
Their not just going after the white male hero's anymore.
Hopefully things will calm down somewhere around 50/50.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 05, 2019, 05:37:55 AM
Hopefully things will calm down somewhere around 50/50.
That is about 100 proof, so at least we won't care anymore.
Disney can hire the new 15 year old American black girl tennis wunderkin.
"Spiderman: Far From Home". 8/10. Not at all bad for a comic book movie.
I really liked Spider-Man Far From Home. Solid 9/10. Good humor, good action, good character development, good [redacted], good all around.
Better than Homecoming, and I rate that movie highly.
The lackluster trailer had me fooled into thinking this was a very generic, very predictable movie. It wasn't.
I'd say more but it seems people sometimes peek into the spoiler tags when they shouldn't. I'll give everyone a week to see this movie, then I'm cracking it open.
And tell us why EDITH did that.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-7ZPfp04jA
The little mermaid is based off a story by hans christian andersen, where he describes the character as being of Nordic appearance.
I have to wonder if the twisted logic of claiming people are racist for not accepting black aerial, an established character, as another race, would hold up if they had cast a bunch of white people in the live action Aladdin?
What I find funny is thinking how someone could have made a joke about this back in the early 2000s about race swapping characters for muh diversity, because it would have been thought of as such a ridiculous concept no one would seriously do.
I guess we do live in clown world.
Then they came for the little mermaids, and I did nothing...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 06, 2019, 07:02:16 AM
Then they came for the little mermaids, and I did nothing...
Sound fishy to me ;-)
It is up to the customer if they want to put up with this race pandering or not.
Quote from: Baruch on July 06, 2019, 07:49:20 AM
Sound fishy to me ;-)
It is up to the customer if they want to put up with this race pandering or not.
Or with racism.
Quote from: Munch on July 06, 2019, 08:29:32 AM
And it is racist, against red heads
Well, gingers are insane, so that's okay. Gingers with PMS are even worse.
The Little Mermaid may be based on a Danish tale, but otherwise it is pretty clearly a predominately Caribbean tale (the original movie) with a strong bit of Mediterranean and a small bit of Baltic influences. And if you are upset that it isn't following Andersen's story by making her black... boy, have I got some news to you about the plot that will really blow a gasket. The Disney version is almost nothing like the original tale.
Quote from: aitm on June 04, 2019, 04:30:33 PM
I have learned so much from this place. Never knew what a brony was, or a furry, knew one person that was unusually fascinated with Stewie even quote him regularly....a real nut job. And I guess I should have realized that some find enjoyment in knowing all about a movie franchise...but zilla? I have seen maybe 2 zilla's and never thought much about it ceptin, meh. I have never cared enough to look for allegories or hidden meanings in movies.....especially meh ones....(insert Freud quote here)......
you should know the one.
*SLAP!
What I have done, is just an allegory. It has hidden, high meanings in arts and human emotion related to real life. I'm an art historian in German sense, trust me. *giggles.
The latest Mermaid. She is hot, she is beautiful. She is going to sell. She is going to make a lot of money. That's the whole point. Like the last batwoman. Anyone looking for ideology in that is naive, politely put. But honestly just a fucking moron in the real world.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 06, 2019, 02:25:07 PM
The Little Mermaid may be based on a Danish tale, but otherwise it is pretty clearly a predominately Caribbean tale (the original movie) with a strong bit of Mediterranean and a small bit of Baltic influences. And if you are upset that it isn't following Andersen's story by making her black... boy, have I got some news to you about the plot that will really blow a gasket. The Disney version is almost nothing like the original tale.
I think anyone with fingers knows the original tale and the sea foam ending.
Pray tell, would your reaction to a white version of tiana from princess and the frog be as care free? Because you do know the whole excuses of 'she's a talented actress' is all fluff right? Thats not why they picked her.
LOL, you are fucking stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv5gj_Z1soA
Quote from: Munch on July 06, 2019, 03:01:25 PM
I think anyone with fingers knows the original tale and the sea foam ending.
Pray tell, would your reaction to a white version of tiana from princess and the frog be as care free? Because you do know the whole excuses of 'she's a talented actress' is all fluff right? Thats not why they picked her.
Dude, 99% of characters in media are white. Even when it makes more sense to cast a minority in a role, such as in a movie about the goddamn Great Wall of China, they casts white actors anyway. It's ironic how much this kind of thing upsets you, given how much you rant about "outrage culture."
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 06, 2019, 03:34:03 PM
Dude, 99% of characters in media are white. Even when it makes more sense to cast a minority in a role, such as in a movie about the goddamn Great Wall of China, they casts white actors anyway. It's ironic how much this kind of thing upsets you, given how much you rant about "outrage culture."
So basically, instead of new characters being invented, your okay with hand me down roles and black washing white characters?
Don't you think it be better having new characters of none white origin, instead of race changing?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JRmnbtSs1fw
Here's a guy who knows what he's talking about.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 06, 2019, 03:20:31 PM
LOL, you are fucking stupid.
Great arguement there my dear, really adds to the debate.
Quote from: Munch on July 06, 2019, 04:21:05 PM
Great arguement there my dear, really adds to the debate.
Yes, Munch, actually it does. Especially, for people who have a memory goes longer beyond than just three decades. (I mean, think about aitm and Baruch. :pp)
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 06, 2019, 05:31:44 PM
Yes, Munch, actually it does. Especially, for people who have a memory goes longer beyond than just three decades. (I mean, think about aitm and Baruch. :pp)
Baruch is a theologist and strong historical study, he's got info dating back several thousand years. Its how one discovers things beyond their lifespan.
Also lifetime fan of Judy Garland here despite her having died well before I was even born.
The Spongebob Squarepants Movie (2004) - 8/10
Pretty entertaining.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 06, 2019, 08:27:04 AM
Or with racism.
Of course. But the Left can go around all anti-Fa with their street legal flamethrowers going all auto-da-fe on anyone who is racist or who tolerates them ;-)
Quote from: Munch on July 06, 2019, 04:11:53 PM
So basically, instead of new characters being invented, your okay with hand me down roles and black washing white characters?
Don't you think it be better having new characters of none white origin, instead of race changing?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JRmnbtSs1fw
Here's a guy who knows what he's talking about.
Were you upset when Nick Fury was played by Samuel L. Jackson? Or is it just when it's a main character that it matters? I really don't care what characters have their race changed. The bigger sin here is that Disney is still making so much money off of these stupid remakes.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 06, 2019, 08:52:43 PM
Were you upset when Nick Fury was played by Samuel L. Jackson? Or is it just when it's a main character that it matters? I really don't care what characters have their race changed. The bigger sin here is that Disney is still making so much money off of these stupid remakes.
There's a reason why the nick fury comparison thing doesn't work there. Nick fury was a white guy for decades, and still is in the main marvel comics timeline. Black nick fury however was a nick fury from the parallel timeline of the ultimate marvel series. Its a different character just having the same name from an alternative reality. And that is the nick fury they based him on for the MCU, which as there was no other version of him in the MCU it worked.
What matters to me when adaptions are being made of pre established characters is keeping the integrity of the characters held for good adaptation. Race, gender, ethnicity, if these have been part of the character for years then swapping them out for an adaptation is losing part of the character.
If you say something like black spiderman, I straight away think of mile morales, who is his own character, not a race swapped version of peter parker, though better term is morales spiderman.
Seriously, race/gender swapping characters who have been a certain race or gender for years is cheap and lazy all for the sake of pandering, the only time it works is if say the characters persona is more of an interchangeable title, like the green lantern corp who are solders so anyone can be a green lantern, or doctor who, who change change into any new humanoid race or gender.
My fav green lantern was John Stewart from the justice league unlimited series. I also know the green lantern in the main DC comics series is hal Jordan, a white guy, but it doesn't bother me they choose john Stewart as the green lantern for this series because he's his own character, and the title is given to loads of other characters
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fevwy0PDKIM
QuoteBlack nick fury however was a nick fury from the parallel timeline of the ultimate marvel series.
And this is a Little Mermaid from a parallel timeline of the Disney cosmos.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 07, 2019, 08:19:11 AM
And this is a Little Mermaid from a parallel timeline of the Disney cosmos.
No it's a re-release of a classic movie in live action.
Quote from: Munch on July 07, 2019, 08:59:14 AM
No it's a re-release of a classic movie in live action.
Oooooor live action is just a different dimension. That's why it looks completely different; different laws of physics and what not.
Also, it's not like the Little Mermaid wasn't already "Brown-washed", even if they gave her white skin.
The Little Mermaid (as presented by Disney) is predominately a Caribbean and Mediterranean tale, not Baltic (correction; Norse, being on the North Sea.) It's not like people of African descent are rare in the Caribbeans. I would argue her being African makes more sense given the setting... but, given the fact she was aristocracy, being white also makes sense.
Now, given the Atlantian upbringing, the most logical background for her would be for her to look like me; dark hair, dark eyes, olive complexion. Poseidon (sorry, King Triton) and his wife Athena are undeniably clearly Mediterranean influences, particularly Greek influenced. The same can be said of the architecture and imagery of Atlantica (which funny enough was a kingdom in Saharan Africa according to Herodotus).
If you are upset about this, you should be upset that they "Greco/Italian-washed" the Danish little mermaid as well. The Danes have a very long, proud tradition of mythology and a very separate ethnic background from my people and it was completely "brown-washed". I would argue that's far worse than just changing her skin color; they didn't just destroy her identity, they destroyed her entire culture.
According to research, where there is now a great salt flat, in S Tunisia, it was once an inland sea, probably very good for catching Med fish. That may be the location that Herodotus heard about second hand. Given the stone age Berber culture prior to 1000 BCE … I doubt it had much sophistication.
Quote from: Baruch on July 07, 2019, 09:39:23 AM
According to research, where there is now a great salt flat, in S Tunisia, it was once an inland sea, probably very good for catching Med fish. That may be the location that Herodotus heard about second hand. Given the stone age Berber culture prior to 1000 BCE … I doubt it had much sophistication.
Possibly, but given that Herodotus believed the Atlantians existed around 10,000 years prior to his life in the early 400s B.C. (though it likely was heavily exaggerated by the Egyptians), that still could put Atlantis around 3,000-11,000 B.C. ...more than long enough for their civilization to completely collapse and crumble to dust and the remaining people to revert to a more primitive lifestyle.
Add in climate change or cataclysmic events, and it's very easy for a civilization of say Hellenistic Greek or Roman Empire complexity to be reverted back to the Stone Age.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST7IeVJYCKg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST7IeVJYCKg)
Mostly regarding Brie's problematic remarks, but a lot of it hits the nail on the head about the outrage culture, on both sides, surrounding film lately as well as what we can do to avoid it in the future.
how about, don't hire toxic actors who can't take criticism?
Quote from: Munch on July 07, 2019, 02:49:35 PM
how about, don't hire toxic actors who can't take criticism?
Honest question;
What did she say that makes you think she is a toxic actor, and where did she say or indicate she couldn't take criticism?
Edit: Actually, I do see where she says she is not great with criticism... but that's why she also tries to live a private life. I don't think being a shy and reserved person is a character flaw though and certainly not something to hate someone over.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 07, 2019, 02:55:17 PM
Honest question;
What did she say that makes you think she is a toxic actor, and where did she say or indicate she couldn't take criticism?
https://pimediaonline.co.uk/arts-culture/opinion-by-rejecting-criticism-brie-larson-makes-an-enemy-of-everything-we-should-value/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=PYXTgh8_R6c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qyw8j9dHww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPtkdJ-CmuI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-NpbgzGZNY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfNffP4aZo0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHhexi3FS28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ3jMs0lVXY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ka0Sx9U-78
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbhLr3oXnsg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIDEfW7tzws
I mean which part do you want to go over, fact that she hated on people based on their skin color, and when called about it got defensive? Or fact that she claims she did her own stunts and didn't credit the actual stunt women? How about when her own cast members sarcastically rip into her and she gets defensive of that, ever wonder why that was?
I know this whole brie larson thing insulting her is like calling out a christian about facing reality about the bible, but I'd have thought time would have given you some perspective.
QuoteEdit: Actually, I do see where she says she is not great with criticism... but that's why she also tries to live a private life. I don't think being a shy and reserved person is a character flaw though and certainly not something to hate someone over.
shy and reserved, thats what your getting from all this? lol.
I mean, when an entitled individual in some position of noteriaty acts this way, let's say when trump does it, aren't you the first to call them out on it?
All those superheroes out there saving the fictional world, and yet the real world isn't being saved by anyone. Superheroes stopping small-time criminals from stealing a bit of cash from a market, and yet the real criminals steal $billions from those just trying to make an honest living.
Superhero movies don't do much for me, but they can be entertaining, I guess.
I actually spent a good thirty minutes going point by point refuting the first video and watched all of the next two, making sure I found each section and properly quoted it and made sure I wasn't misrepresenting what he was saying... but after skimming through all 82.62 minutes of video you sent me... I'm sorry, I am not doing that for over an hour and a third worth of footage.
I asked for what she said that makes you think she is a toxic actress, not what other people said that make you think she is a toxic actress.
In those 82.64 minutes of video you posted, only 3 minutes, 52 seconds actually were remarks by her, and 22 seconds of that were repeated. Four of those videos (about 32 minutes and 40-some seconds) didn't directly quote or show or at all. So in 82.64 minutes worth of video you shared, only 3 minutes and 30 seconds actually were things she said.
If you want it broken down by video and what she said/was quoted as saying...
[spoiler]Video 1 - 2:09 - 2:26 - "Proof" that Beedle hates her, even though he is multiple times stated he finds people who think that, in his words, "hilarious kids" and "People (that) need to take a break from being detectives, calm down and just enjoy the movie."
3:18 - 3:33 - She realises she makes mistakes and she wants to learn from them, and that she realises she has a platform to be a positive role model in the world and feels she has a responsibility to use it.
6:52 - 7:03 - She is looking forward to seeing the Avengers in theatres, because she hasn't been shown the final cut yet and is really excited to see how it turned out.
Video 2 - 1:00 - 2:50 - Statistically, the overwhelmingly majority of movie critics are white males, which does not remotely accurately represent the racial and sexual makeup of the country. She believes it matters because ultimately... movie reviews do matter, it effects the audience turn out to those films. What might be profound, uplifting, inspiring, relatable to one person might be dull and boring to another, and that deciding factor is very often based on the persons' gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.
Video 3 - N/A, no direct quotes or clips of Larson
Video 4 - N/A, no direct quotes or clips of Larson
Video 5 - 0:50 - 1:19 - It is important for movie reviewers to be able to relate to a film, hence the necessity of diverse film critic body. For example, a movie made as a love letter to gay black women and their experiences would be most impactful to a gay black woman who can personally relate to it's message. You don't "need" a straight white man's opinion on it because that's not who it is for. That's not to say he has no place to review it, or he shouldn't enjoy it or dislike it for the criteria he has for it, just that his opinion is not the one that really matters. The problem is that, due to the statistics she has pointed out, his is the only opinion that ever gets presented.
3:20 - 3:40 - "I don't know what the headlines are (people who are accusing her of hating white men, men, whatever), who's saying what, what I said (that triggered them), all I know is that I've said we need to bring more seats to the table. No one is having their seat taken away, there aren't less seats at the table, there are just more at the table."
Video 6 - 1:05 - 1:16 - Repeat of 3:18 - 3:33 from Video 1.
5:33 - 6:01 - Her literally just goofing around and having fun with Chris Hemsworth, which refutes Video 1.
Video 7 - 3:55 - 4:06 - Repeat of 0:50 - 1:19 from video 5. (Sidenote: the speaker conveniently leaves out the very next paragraph, in his own shot, where she states it doesn't have anything to do with kicking old white men from the table but rather allowing more minorities to join them at it)
Video 8, - N/A no quotes or clips of Larson.
Video 9 - N/A, no quotes or clips of Larson.[/spoiler]
When you break it down only 2:29 (and that's being generous) of time in the videos is actually dedicated to her saying anything that can be construed as toxic or "SJW", and all she says in that time is that the overwhelmingly majority of movie critics are white and/or men (objectively true), which means that movies that are intended for audiences other than those criteria are often times not reviewed on any significant level by professional critics who they are meant to relate to (objectively true).
This creates a problem where films may receive bad reviews (I would say often justifiably) because the critic is viewing it through a certain lens and it fails through it... but the movie was never intended to be viewed through that lens and may be an outstanding film to someone who sees it through a different perspective (logically true).
All she is saying is that it would be great to have more lenses to view the world, or at least film, through... and that doesn't require taking away the chairs from the white man or gouging their eyes out so they cant see anymore, it just means there need to be more minorities given a seat at at the table.
You posted nearly 80 minutes of people telling me they hate her, several of the videos being full of personal attacks, not just because of her statements but some because of how she looks or what they think she "really" is thinking, against a person they have never met nor know nothing about, with only about 3 minutes of it being her actual remarks.
If that isn't tribalism, I don't know what is.
Me: Hollywood is so uncreative, they just pump out sequels and reboots.
Also me: they really should make a History of the World Part 2.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 07, 2019, 06:05:59 PM
I asked for what she said that makes you think she is a toxic actress, not what other people said that make you think she is a toxic actress.
So your saying you've never gotten an opinion on anyone else as why you dislike someone, based on other peoples thoughts and information they've presented?
Sorry but if people didn't form opinion on things based on what others say, the structure of information itself would be meaningless.
I just so happened to share sources from multiple peoples thoughts, opinions, facts and feelings on what you asked, but even that is never enough.
Its like presenting a flat earther with volumes of scientific information and documentation, but them still not wanting to take it in. You asked what I disliked about her, why I thought she said things that's been documented her saying it, but you don't really care why I dislike her or anyone else, your held on your beliefs and thats all that matters.
Been down this road enough times by now.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 07, 2019, 06:13:18 PM
Me: Hollywood is so uncreative, they just pump out sequels and reboots.
Also me: they really should make a History of the World Part 2.
It is Very Good to be the King!
Quote from: Munch on July 07, 2019, 02:49:35 PM
how about, don't hire toxic actors who can't take criticism?
How about toxic politicians like AOC? I like both AOC and Brie, for perfectly sexist reasons. Prove me wrong.
QuoteSo your saying you've never gotten an opinion on anyone else as why you dislike someone, based on other peoples thoughts and information they've presented?
I have, and I try not to do it anymore.
QuoteSorry but if people didn't form opinion on things based on what others say, the structure of information itself would be meaningless.
Sure, but when what other people say is just, "I hate them, I hate them, personal attack, one relevant piece of information, personal attack, personal attack, I hate them." and never actually backs up why they hate them, then would you not agree there are better "others" to get opinions from?
QuoteIt is s like presenting a flat earther with volumes of scientific information and documentation, but them still not wanting to take it in. You asked what I disliked about her, why I thought she said things that's been documented her saying it, but you don't really care why I dislike her or anyone else, your held on your beliefs and thats all that matters.
You just posted 82 minutes of video with only 2 minutes and 29 seconds of it actually containing information I asked for when my exact quote was, "What did she say that makes you think she is a toxic actor?"
What did
SHE say. If it's so clearly documented, why not just share what she said? Why do I need to listen to 82 minutes of people telling me how much they hate her to form my own opinion about what she said?
In a round about way, you did answer my question; I do care why you hate her, and unfortunately it doesn't seem to actually be for any rational reason.
You posted 82 minutes worth of people telling me why I should hate someone, when they only present about 3 minutes of what she actually said that I'm suppose to hate. That is some real sketchy shit.
All I am asking is what did she say, specifically, that you believe to be toxic?
Comic book movies make a furor? LOL
Neither of us have said a thing about the movie.
The alt-Right are very quick to jump on the bandwagon. They criticize, they mischaracterize, they make shit up, rarely if ever actually addressing the content of the person's actual words, until the thing they're angry about is just a figment of their own imaginations. It's funny how the people they dog pile on are almost always minorities. Total mystery that one.
It's very reminiscent of the SJW outrage machine, where one person has a public hissy fit, it spreads to their subs, they throw hissy fits, and then it kinda snowballs from there. Though a noticeable difference here is that the target's main fault (other than accidents of birth) seems to be making political statements critical of the Right (James Gunn and Brie Larson come readily to mind). It's almost as if they were looking for a reason, seized on whatever they could find and then made up the rest wholecloth in order to self-justify their prexisting animosity. And the cherry on top is making this toxic behavior seem reasonable and noble, when it's really just petty and vindictive.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 07, 2019, 11:38:16 PM
The alt-Right are very quick to jump on the bandwagon. They criticize, they mischaracterize, they make shit up, rarely if ever actually addressing the content of the person's actual words, until the thing they're angry about is just a figment of their own imaginations. It's funny how the people they dog pile on are almost always minorities. Total mystery that one.
I am perfectly happy if they would criticize hetero White males too. Equal opportunity hate and revolution, comrade.
I would be happy if the people in the Arts wouldn't comment outside of Arts.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 07, 2019, 08:25:13 PM
Neither of us have said a thing about the movie.
Did I quote you?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 08, 2019, 05:55:42 AM
Did I quote you?
No, but you generally don't quote anyone when you have a borderline Pavlovian urge to come in here and let us know when there is a Marvel movie discussion happening just how stupid you find comic book movies.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 08, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
No, but you generally don't quote anyone when you have a borderline Pavlovian urge to come in here and let us know when there is a Marvel movie discussion happening just how stupid you find comic book movies.
LOL. That butt must hurt 3000.
(https://i.imgur.com/rl4YiAI.gif)
Quote from: Munch on July 06, 2019, 06:15:42 PM
Baruch is a theologist and strong historical study, he's got info dating back several thousand years.
That's not historical study. That's how Jewish theologists in ancient world thought they 'read the future events' through Torah. :) Seriously, that's what he is trying to do. e: I mean the 'method'.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 08, 2019, 03:32:18 PM
That's not historical study. That's how Jewish theologists in ancient world thought they 'read the future events' through Torah. :) Seriously, that's what he is trying to do. e: I mean the 'method'.
History rhymes. In Hebrew only ;-)
LOL, Baruch. Sigh.
I started talking movies with a coworker and we actually have a shared love of scifi/action movies.
She also liked Blair Witch 2, which blew me away.
Me: "Critics hated that movie. I think it was secretly brilliant, a cautionary tale on popular media and how fan obsession can affect people in negative-"
Her: "I also like Twilight and the Fast and the Furious movies."
Me: (https://i.imgur.com/JuNdmMi.png)
Finally saw "How Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World". Perfect capper for the trilogy.
Just found out an interesting bit of trivia about the original Matrix film. The directors, then known as the Wachowski Brothers, later came out as transgender. Similarly, the character Switch was originally going to have a different gender in the Matrix, contrasting the gender they identified with with their biological sex. For one reason or another, however, this character trait was scrapped, and she just became the character who wears white. My guess is because it was the 90s, having a transgender character was considered too risky, so the Wachowskis were pressured to change the character.
Jupiter Offending wasn't their best work.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 11, 2019, 01:21:40 PM
Just found out an interesting bit of trivia about the original Matrix film. The directors, then known as the Wachowski Brothers, later came out as transgender. Similarly, the character Switch was originally going to have a different gender in the Matrix, contrasting the gender they identified with with their biological sex. For one reason or another, however, this character trait was scrapped, and she just became the character who wears white. My guess is because it was the 90s, having a transgender character was considered too risky, so the Wachowskis were pressured to change the character.
I want to say "Movies With Mikey" did an episode on the deeper meanings in the Matrix, and it's amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7zAymon84Q&t=345s
summery, its a 'pretty' but shallow cash grab with none of the personality of the original.
I love stuckmanns reviews, he's always given a down to earth analysis of the movies he watches.
Quote from: Munch on July 11, 2019, 08:00:13 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7zAymon84Q&t=345s
summery, its a 'pretty' but shallow cash grab with none of the personality of the original.
I love stuckmanns reviews, he's always given a down to earth analysis of the movies he watches.
I saw that earlier (the review, not the movie). It sounds like it was pretty much exactly what I was expecting. It's funny. A few years ago, I would have loved a movie like this, but now I'm tired of Disney remaking every single classic animated film in their library. They all do pretty much the same thing. Copy/paste the script and the music, make a few weird, random changes, and CGI basically everything. The Lion King was an especially weird choice when you think about it. Sure, the animals and environments look photorealistic, and that is very impressive, but the characters lack the facial expressions that were possible in the animated version. Real lions don't have expressive faces like humans do, so these photorealistic characters just don't leave as much of an impact in the movie's emotional moments.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 11, 2019, 07:18:05 PM
I want to say "Movies With Mikey" did an episode on the deeper meanings in the Matrix, and it's amazing.
I got this from a video from New Rockstars, but I might check Mikey out. It's kinda overwhelming how much symbolism is hidden in the movie. Bible references everywhere.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 11, 2019, 11:10:38 PM
I saw that earlier (the review, not the movie). It sounds like it was pretty much exactly what I was expecting. It's funny. A few years ago, I would have loved a movie like this, but now I'm tired of Disney remaking every single classic animated film in their library. They all do pretty much the same thing. Copy/paste the script and the music, make a few weird, random changes, and CGI basically everything. The Lion King was an especially weird choice when you think about it. Sure, the animals and environments look photorealistic, and that is very impressive, but the characters lack the facial expressions that were possible in the animated version. Real lions don't have expressive faces like humans do, so these photorealistic characters just don't leave as much of an impact in the movie's emotional moments.
Thing being they could have easily given the characters the more expressive faces and animations, made it more towards the cartoon style of something like tangled or frozen.
I mean, weird thing to draw attention to, but the animals in the animated original didn't have buttholes or genitalia, because you know they were cartoon characters and you didn't draw to that because they were animated characters. But by making them look so photorealistic here, to it almost looking like a nature documentary, it just looks uncanny having these animals without, you know, those parts.
This is the fault of CGI, I dunno who at disney, a company based on cartoon characters, thought photorealistic interpretations of their characters would be the way to go.
Just watched 'thor: ragnarok'.
i liked it. Good. Funny. good action. good pacing.
I will say the joke of: "Hero delivers epic line and moves to do something epic only to have it fail and make him look like a fool." Gets a tad overplayed here.
Wasn't a fan of thor ragnarok. Reason being I grew up on several comic books including Thor comics, so I've had for the longest time the concept in my head of how thor should be.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/59/b8/41/59b84149c3dfa81f450c9ee8ed3db4b8.jpg)
and for what its worth they tried to make thor this character in the first two thor movies, both of which didn't hit the mark as well as say iron man or captain america. Though for me I didn't care because it felt like a proper homage to the character I grew up on.
Ragnarok felt like a parody of the character, which if it was outright said to be that I would have probably enjoyed it, but they tried to make the events of it, thors fall from grace, Hela, the destruction of asgard, all played for laughs, I just didn't feel invested in it given the tone it went for, and yet people found this more engaging then the other two movies just seemed off to me.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 11, 2019, 11:10:38 PM
I saw that earlier (the review, not the movie). It sounds like it was pretty much exactly what I was expecting. It's funny. A few years ago, I would have loved a movie like this, but now I'm tired of Disney remaking every single classic animated film in their library. They all do pretty much the same thing. Copy/paste the script and the music, make a few weird, random changes, and CGI basically everything. The Lion King was an especially weird choice when you think about it. Sure, the animals and environments look photorealistic, and that is very impressive, but the characters lack the facial expressions that were possible in the animated version. Real lions don't have expressive faces like humans do, so these photorealistic characters just don't leave as much of an impact in the movie's emotional moments.
Basically my opinion on the remakes as well. That said, the Mulan remake looks extremely promising, and I hope they keep a serious tone (like it is portrayed in China) for most of the movie. However, being Disney... eh....
QuoteJust watched 'thor: ragnarok'.
i liked it. Good. Funny. good action. good pacing.
I will say the joke of: "Hero delivers epic line and moves to do something epic only to have it fail and make him look like a fool." Gets a tad overplayed here.
Maybe a little overplayed, but I would still say it's top 3-5 Marvel movies to me... but Guardians of the Galaxy is probably my number one and the sequel probably number 4 for me, so that shouldn't be too surprising. It's basically just GotG with Thor, and I am okay with that. His movies and character were... okay... but extremely formulaic and forgettable before that.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 12, 2019, 07:30:00 PM
Basically my opinion on the remakes as well. That said, the Mulan remake looks extremely promising, and I hope they keep a serious tone (like it is portrayed in China) for most of the movie. However, being Disney... eh....
That wasn't the overall tone of the original. mulan had funny moments in it, but it also had serious moments, like her finding the village wiped out by the huns, or thinking she was going to be beheaded by her captain.
On the one hand by making mulan into just an overly serious movie they will take out some of the elements that made the original charming, the comedy as a break from the serious nature of war.
But then again if they kept the exact tone it would suffer the same issue as other remakes of being just a pointless cash-grab without anything to make it stand out from the original.
however if I wanted to see an over the top kung fu movie, i'd just rewatch crouching tiger hidden dragon.
QuoteMaybe a little overplayed, but I would still say it's top 3-5 Marvel movies to me... but Guardians of the Galaxy is probably my number one and the sequel probably number 4 for me, so that shouldn't be too surprising. It's basically just GotG with Thor, and I am okay with that. His movies and character were... okay... but extremely formulaic and forgettable before that.
thats exactly what ragnarok felt like. And I loved the guardians of the galaxy movies too, mostly because the tone they went for with their movies were like that from the start. It felt jarring for thor, an altogether serious character, get shifted into the GotG style of humor.
Quote from: Munch on July 12, 2019, 09:21:15 PMIt felt jarring for thor, an altogether serious character, get shifted into the GotG style of humor.
This. It works for GotG because that's an ensemble cast of full of wacky alien characters (a recurring gag is misunderstanding an Earth reference). Thor telling a joke to a skeleton doesn't quite have the same punch.
This might be the reason why Thor started teaming up with the GotG - that way directors who want to go the jokey route with Thor have a much more fitting venue for it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 12, 2019, 10:00:44 PM
This. It works for GotG because that's an ensemble cast of full of wacky alien characters (a recurring gag is misunderstanding an Earth reference). Thor telling a joke to a skeleton doesn't quite have the same punch.
This might be the reason why Thor started teaming up with the GotG - that way directors who want to go the jokey route with Thor have a much more fitting venue for it.
I guess. I never found it too jarring... starting with the first Avengers movie, he had a very clear comedic side to him delivered in quick little one-liners. I just imagine it as someone becoming less concerned with his social status and more someone who is just embracing themselves and doing whatever they want (maybe too much come the final Avengers movie...).
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 12, 2019, 10:00:44 PM
This. It works for GotG because that's an ensemble cast of full of wacky alien characters (a recurring gag is misunderstanding an Earth reference). Thor telling a joke to a skeleton doesn't quite have the same punch.
This might be the reason why Thor started teaming up with the GotG - that way directors who want to go the jokey route with Thor have a much more fitting venue for it.
maybe, though when you look at how he was in infinity war, they went back to making him this serious character, now with the baggage of having lost everything. Infact the shift from the jokey tone in ragnarok to suddenly being dark and foreboding in infinity war with the deaths of the asgardians, death of loki and thors defeat to thanos, it felt like they were trying to ignore the previous movies tone.
Only to Then in endgame go right back to him being a character played for laughs with fat thor, until the end of the movie where he gets his shit together, talks to his mom in the past and then feels like how he was in the first thor movie again.
there just doesn't seem to be any consistent tone for thor, and thats what I find off-putting.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 12, 2019, 10:13:35 PM
I guess. I never found it too jarring... starting with the first Avengers movie, he had a very clear comedic side to him delivered in quick little one-liners.
To an extent, yes. But he wasn't a goofball like in Ragnarok.
*edit - rewatching some scenes from the Avengers, Thor was hella serious in them. Like almost Stannis-level serious. I don't even remember his jokes in Avengers, to be perfectly honest.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 12, 2019, 10:21:48 PM
To an extent, yes. But he wasn't a goofball like in Ragnarok.
*edit - rewatching some scenes from the Avengers, Thor was hella serious in them. Like almost Stannis-level serious. I don't even remember his jokes in Avengers, to be perfectly honest.
"He [Loki] is my brother!"
"He killed hundreds of Shield agents."
"...He was adopted."
'Thor, report on hulk.'
'the gates of hell are filled with the screams of his victims.'
Sees frustrated banner.
'but not the screams of the dead, of course. No no: screams of the wounded... Mainly whimpering... A great deal of complaining and tales of sprained deltoids and gout.'
"He's adopted"
That was a good one. Thor's only really good one. The rest of them were just so forgettable.
Meanwhile, Hulk had "puny god" (which got a smirk out of me but had people around me in hysterics and stands out as the most memorable joke of the film) and Tony Stark had a ton of witty comebacks.
All in all, Thor definitely did not stand out as the jokester of the group.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 13, 2019, 06:44:09 AM
"He's adopted"
That line startled me, because it was almost out of character for Thor.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 13, 2019, 06:44:09 AM
All in all, Thor definitely did not stand out as the jokester of the group.
Not many funny lines, but I laughed at him a lot. From the very start, he was often the focal point of jokes, like Jane Foster running him over with her car twice. He frequently embarrassed himself, or was setting up lines for everyone else.
Thor: "Who convinced you, Sif, that a woman could be a great Warrior?"
Sif: "I did."
Thor: Er, yes... But I supported you."
I didn't see Dark Phoenix because...well it looked like garbage, like most of the other X-Men movies. But apparently, Dark Phoenix and Captain Marvel had basically the same plot. It seems there's a reason for that. Both Dark Phoenix and Captain Marvel were based on the same source material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1ial6_iWZ8
I think the last movie I saw is now free on cable...
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 13, 2019, 04:56:19 PMBoth Dark Phoenix and Captain Marvel were based on the same source material.
Fox should have done Phoenix first. Starting with Dark Phoenix is like starting with Empire Strikes Back.
Quote from: SGOS on July 13, 2019, 07:56:13 AM
That line startled me, because it was almost out of character for Thor.
He was protecting the family's reputation.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iNZsuRltmDQ
Summery, Scarlett Johansson said on twitter she can play whatever dam character she wants, which I believe is in response to her maybe playing a role that was originally an Asian person, and people on twitter blew a bitch fit as Johansson for saying this.
It's exposed the hypocrisy of these people, as the guy said, that it's perfectly okay to race change a character who's always been white into a non-white character because 'its just a fictional character them being white isn't tied to their character', however when a white person does the reverse suddenly its "YOU CAN'T DO THAT THE CHARACTERS ETHNICITY IS TIED TO THEIR CHARACTER!!'
"The Ghost in the Machine."
Quote from: Munch on July 14, 2019, 08:25:20 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iNZsuRltmDQ
Summery, Scarlett Johansson said on twitter she can play whatever dam character she wants, which I believe is in response to her maybe playing a role that was originally an Asian person, and people on twitter blew a bitch fit as Johansson for saying this.
It's exposed the hypocrisy of these people, as the guy said, that it's perfectly okay to race change a character who's always been white into a non-white character because 'its just a fictional character them being white isn't tied to their character', however when a white person does the reverse suddenly its "YOU CAN'T DO THAT THE CHARACTERS ETHNICITY IS TIED TO THEIR CHARACTER!!'
Again, white washing is actually a thing, and it has been historically prevalent in movies and television since the beginning. Originally, black actors couldn't even get roles unless they were playing servants, because heaven forbid a black person be shown in a position of equality or power. Now today, white actors such as Scarlett Johansson continue to dominate cinemas, taking roles which should go to minorities. So yes, people like you bitching about "brownwashing" is absolutely pathetic. And seeing as you seem perfectly fine with Scarlett Johansson playing a Japanese character, but are not fine with a black woman portraying Ariel, this is yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I personally approach the changing of characters' races on a case-by-case basis. In Marvel and DC stories, if you went by original designs, you'd think the world were a Nazi paradise where nearly everyone was a white, blue-eyed man. To fix this over the years, some characters were changed, while some new characters were made. Black Panther, for example, was designed specifically to give black men representation in the Marvel universe. Lex Luthor was also made black in the animated Superman series. While I'm sure a few racist assholes were offended by both examples, the characters were justified. There are some cases, however, when changes feel lazy or disingenuous, like they're just trying to pander. Even in these cases, I consider them mild annoyances at worst. Changing a minority class character into a white character is an entirely different thing, and the reasons why should be perfectly obvious.
I will say, though, that I think the motivations for Hollywood whitewashing have changed. While whitewashing was originally done to underplay the contributions of minorities, I think the tradition continues today because the people on top want to make money. They know that having a big movie star increases their chances of making a profit, but most movie stars are white. So it has become a self-sustaining loop, like trying to get a job that requires experience in that job.
"Brownwashing" is such a laughably ridiculous concept. Yes, on the barebones surface level, they are similar in the sense that a change is being made. If we lived in the bizarre alternate reality Munch comes from, where straight white men are the most oppressed group in the world, then I would agree that brownwashing is a problem. But we don't, so it isn't.
I should also admit that I am not enraged when I see whitewashing happen. I don't think that movies or television are the most important things in the world. But I also recognize that as a straight, white man, I have no shortage of representation in entertainment.
"It's OK when we do it."
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 14, 2019, 10:55:34 PM
"It's OK when we do it."
Yes. That's totally what I said.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/3kIcyN7fUtlUA/source.gif)
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 14, 2019, 10:55:34 PM
"It's OK when we do it."
"Are you a black ant or a red ant?" ... said by one ant to another, after the demise of humanity.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 14, 2019, 08:47:56 PMI personally approach the changing of characters' races on a case-by-case basis.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
It's complicated (but not overly so) - consider the character (how integral is race to the character?), consider the setting (would a Sudanese actor make sense in Dorn?), consider the actor (can Samuel L. Jackson pull of a convincing Nick Fury?). They won't all be winners, but it's way better than either the SJW or regressive SIW approaches.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 14, 2019, 10:59:27 PM
Yes. That's totally what I said.
Well you clearly missed the point entirely so yeah. Your case by case basis isn't applicable to those who throw a bitch fit because a white actor is playing the role for a once non-white character
Not a movie, but I just started watching the German series, "Dark", and my god is it intense so far. Two episodes in and I just want to binge watch more to figure out what the hell is going on.
Quote from: Munch on July 15, 2019, 01:34:17 AM
Well you clearly missed the point entirely so yeah. Your case by case basis isn't applicable to those who throw a bitch fit because a white actor is playing the role for a once non-white character
I'm not the one who missed the point. Talking with you on this topic is like trying to debate a Christian on theology. You don't make an attempt to communicate, but only look for opportunities to tell me why you think I'm wrong.
Your attempt at a point was, "If it's okay to change a white character black, how come we can't make a Japanese character white?" And as I explained, it's because white characters already dominate media. We don't need any more. And it's because of the motivation behind the changes. Whitewashing diminishes representation, while "brownwashing" increases it.
And I do find it funny when you complain about the new Ariel being black, and then think you can criticize others for being upset at Scarlett Johansson playing a Japanese character. Are you not self aware enough to see that you're highlighting your own hypocrisy? Just because you call it first doesn't absolve you.
"It's OKAY when we do it," is a ridiculous response, and only shows they didn't understand a word I said, nor did they make an attempt in trying. We never did "do it." White male characters still comprise an unrealistic majority of characters in media, and will likely continue to do so for quite a while longer.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 15, 2019, 03:27:02 AM
I'm not the one who missed the point. Talking with you on this topic is like trying to debate a Christian on theology. You don't make an attempt to communicate, but only look for opportunities to tell me why you think I'm wrong.
And you don't? Lol
Quote from: Munch on July 15, 2019, 03:35:36 AM
And you don't? Lol
12.3% of Americans are Black. So is it reparations of 87.7% of current/future roles should go to Blacks?
About 20% of the world is White. So if we go by world population, then is it reparations for 80% of current/future roles should go to non-Whites?
Went and saw Jaws on Friday night, hosted by Fritz the Nite Owl (https://niteowltv.wixsite.com/main), our local late night movie host.
You know what? It's still a damn good movie. I saw it probably six or seven times in the theater in its original run (which lasted almost three years -- the days before home video when a movie stayed in the theaters as long as it remained profitable rather than being rushed out to Blu-Ray almost before the run closes). It's unusual when a movie adaptation is better than the book, but I've seen the movie and I've read the book, and the movie is better. If you get the chance to see it in a theater -- either again or for the first time -- do it.
I guess diversity is a bad thing.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 15, 2019, 08:08:13 AM
I guess diversity is a bad thing.
If there is a movie you want to make, or to attend, go for it. But I may choose to ignore it. And I have no means or interest in making my own movies.
Quote from: Baruch on July 15, 2019, 08:16:54 AM
If there is a movie you want to make, or to attend, go for it. But I may choose to ignore it. And I have no means or interest in making my own movies.
So, we have diverse tastes. Not a horrible thing, now is it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 15, 2019, 12:16:40 PM
So, we have diverse tastes. Not a horrible thing, now is it.
Yes. But per SJW ... soon people will be required to watch "woke" propaganda. Our children already are in GB and the US. Neither the Left nor the Right love freedom, they both lover power and tyranny.
As promised, my Spider-Man: Far From Home review:
[spoiler]I loved it. Absolutely loved it. 9.5/10 This movie is even better than Homecoming, imo.
It has a little bit of everything, a little teen drama, a little comedy, a little action, and one doozy of a ending.
For starters, let's talk about the weakest part, the teen drama.
A lot of people didn't like this, and yeah, that's kind of the point. You're supposed to be just as annoyed as Peter. You just want to be with MJ or talk to Fury and all these well-meaning but annoying people are getting in the way. It also highlights how Peter is a teen with teen wants and needs, which serves to ground Spider-Man and makes the action all that more exciting. Also, the classic refusal of the call to adventure (figuratively and literally) reminded me a lot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and that's always good.
The action was even better than it otherwise would have been because of the big villanous reveal. Confession: Mysterio was an utter mystery to me before this movie, and like the Vulture, I think the MCU hit it out of the park. That trippy illusion sequence alone was worth the price of admission.
Mysterio in the second act:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0k92RSxYq0
And of my God, that end credits scene really hit me hard. I thought that "execute them all" line was pretty strange, and could easily be taken out of context, and it was!
I consider myself a decently skeptical guy, but Mysterio would have totally fooled me right to the very end. Does SHIELD have a PR division? Cause capes should definitely have a go-between for exactly this kind of situation.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Baruch on July 15, 2019, 01:12:40 PM
Yes. But per SJW ... soon people will be required to watch "woke" propaganda. Our children already are in GB and the US. Neither the Left nor the Right love freedom, they both lover power and tyranny.
I don't care about what the following think:
SJWs
Antifas
Neonazis
Catholics
Dewayne Gish
Ken Ham
(list goes on for quite a while)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 15, 2019, 03:07:11 PM
I don't care about what the following think:
SJWs
Antifas
Neonazis
Catholics
Dewayne Gish
Ken Ham
(list goes on for quite a while)
That is why we keep guns. But if the IRS is hired to enforce SJW, you will obey (see Obamacare).
Quote from: Baruch on July 15, 2019, 08:03:45 PM
That is why we keep guns. But if the IRS is hired to enforce SJW, you will obey (see Obamacare).
"The 2nd Amendment won't be real until people use guns to protect themselves from the IRS."
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 16, 2019, 11:04:20 AM
"The 2nd Amendment won't be real until people use guns to protect themselves from the IRS."
Bad idea. Even Dick Cheney is afraid of the IRS. And as I recall a political cartoon, Darth Vader is afraid of Dick Cheney ;-) IRS is only doing what the Congress orders them to do. "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session." - Gideon Tucker 1866
I only have gun for a true emergency ... home invasion with no other way out. And certainly never against government people. No knock raids, in plainclothes ... not the best idea. I will simply have to guess who they are.
I worry that you have a gun at all.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 17, 2019, 07:22:53 AM
I worry that you have a gun at all.
I worry that you have a spork. Are you old enough to only eat protein shakes? ;-)
I am not claiming I am particularly competent with guns, though I did get training from my dad. I usually fantasize using much more brutal weapons that lead to a much slower death. How about making the home intruder read my selection of favorite Unbeliever posts? Too drole?
Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2019, 07:34:16 AM
I worry that you have a spork. Are you old enough to only eat protein shakes? ;-)
I am not claiming I am particularly competent with guns, though I did get training from my dad. I usually fantasize using much more brutal weapons that lead to a much slower death. How about making the home intruder read my selection of favorite Unbeliever posts? Too drole?
You're more likely to shoot someone who lives there, like yourself, than an intruder. You don't need a gun to intimidate an intruder. I have a large collection of edged weapons that would make an intruder beg to just be shot.
Look, you're in the home a lot. Other residents, if any, are in the home at lot. The gun is in the home a lot. Intruders are rare. Figure the odds.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 17, 2019, 11:00:36 AM
You're more likely to shoot someone who lives there, like yourself, than an intruder. You don't need a gun to intimidate an intruder. I have a large collection of edged weapons that would make an intruder beg to just be shot.
Look, you're in the home a lot. Other residents, if any, are in the home at lot. The gun is in the home a lot. Intruders are rare. Figure the odds.
A responsible owner will keep the gun locked away to prevent such accidents. My dad has had one for years, but he never told me where he had it hidden. I only saw it recently. But yeah, the chances of someone breaking into your home while you're there are pretty slim. Most thieves would try to get in while you're away at work, or on vacation. It doesn't matter if you have a gun or not when that happens.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 17, 2019, 12:00:41 PM
A responsible owner will keep the gun locked away to prevent such accidents. My dad has had one for years, but he never told me where he had it hidden. I only saw it recently. But yeah, the chances of someone breaking into your home while you're there are pretty slim. Most thieves would try to get in while you're away at work, or on vacation. It doesn't matter if you have a gun or not when that happens.
The police will tell you that night burglars are the most dangerous, because they are confident someone will be home, so they're looking for a confrontation.
Your Dad is the rare responsible gun owner. Kudos!
Having a gun for self-protection means it isn't stored safely. Kids die like that.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 17, 2019, 12:13:25 PM
The police will tell you that night burglars are the most dangerous, because they are confident someone will be home, so they're looking for a confrontation.
Your Dad is the rare responsible gun owner. Kudos!
Having a gun for self-protection means it isn't stored safely. Kids die like that.
My cats don't have fingers. And are anti-NRA.
Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2019, 04:07:52 PM
My cats don't have fingers. And are anti-NRA.
Irrelevant.
When I was a kid, I saw the cover of a Captain Marvel comic book. I'm pretty sure he was a man, so when I heard they were making him a her, it kind of bothered me. But then I heard because of some lawsuit from DC Comics, they had already made Captain Marvel a woman anyway. Prejudice aside, I went to see Captain Marvel a few months back because I didn't want break my chain of not missing a Marvel Movie on the day it opened. Actually, I didn't care for the movie, but maybe it was my mood, or something else. Then I went to see it again to try and like it more, and I did, but didn't think it was in Marvel's top 5. Then it came out on DVD, which I bought because I have all the Marvel movies starting with Iron Man in my collection. Since then, I've watched it maybe 6 more times. I've got to say I love this movie, and am looking forward to watching it again. I think Captain Marvel as a woman in both the origin story and Endgame is Marvel's second most exciting character. Obviously, this is personal taste, as I'm the only person I know that ranks Dr. Strange as the most exciting Marvel Character. Not sure why I brought it up. It may not even relate to the fuss about changing race or gender of characters. I never followed the comics as a kid, so none of this is much of an adjustment for me. To me a good character in the movies is a product of casting, directing, and script. And Captain Marvel has got my attention.
I'm not a fan of horror, unless they introduce an evil worthy of disturbing me and keeping me awake at nights. This of course means that the only evil up to the task must be human, as no other entity can scare me as much as mankind pursuing some sick philosophical tangent. Midsommer stands out in this regard, and I'm having a hard time getting that film out of my head. It's in English, but the crew lists a lot of obvious Scandinavian names. It may have been shot in Sweden, but who knows? The main part of the story takes place in a Swedish commune composed of a large number of deranged cult members.
Quote from: SGOS on July 17, 2019, 07:31:39 PMI think Captain Marvel as a woman in both the origin story and Endgame is Marvel's second most exciting character. Obviously, this is personal taste, as I'm the only person I know that ranks Dr. Strange as the most exciting Marvel Character. Not sure why I brought it up.
Eh, she's not quite there with me - she needs to be fleshed out more, maybe a good team-up movie (Ooh! A duo movie with Rogue would be cinematic gold!) but she certainly has potential.
It just bugs me how in Captain Marvel, we know virtually nothing about her time with the Kree (did she actually have problems keeping her powers/temper under control or was that just a line?) and less than nothing about her struggle to end the Kree-Skrull war. Their origin story wrapped in a hollywood amnesia plot was good as far as those go, but I'm going to need more than that to get emotionally invested in the long term, especially considering that her much-hyped Endgame appearance was brief and underwhelming.
I liked her comic. I tuned in during Secret Invasion/Dark Reign, and I've gotta say, both the artwork and general story were excellent! Very hard to put down! *smash cut to Civil War II and me very easily putting it down* Okay...maybe not that hard to put down...but for a while there it was really good! But my therapist says I shouldn't read any more comics with Captain Marvel for a few more deca...for a while.
Rogues a fleshed out and likeable character
Captain marvel, this current Captain marvel, is a farce, with the personality of cardboard.
I'd ask them to make a movie about rogue, having loved her from the 80s-90s comics and animated series, but I'm to afraid what modern marvel would do with her if they did.
Quote from: SGOS on July 17, 2019, 07:31:39 PM
When I was a kid, I saw the cover of a Captain Marvel comic book. I'm pretty sure he was a man, so when I heard they were making him a her, it kind of bothered me. But then I heard because of some lawsuit from DC Comics, they had already made Captain Marvel a woman anyway.
See thing is, marvels Captain marvel has always been a woman, she was known as ms marvel for a time. Captain marvel of DC comics is a man and a different character, also going by the name shazam. The only connection between the two are the names Captain and marvel together
Quote from: Munch on July 17, 2019, 08:46:32 PM
Rogues a fleshed out and likeable character
Comics Rogue, definitely. The 90s cartoon Rogue, absolutely. Movie Rogue, not so much.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 17, 2019, 08:53:20 PM
Comics Rogue, definitely. The 90s cartoon Rogue, absolutely. Movie Rogue, not so much.
Agreed. I'd like to see this rogue in a movie.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dcTr3TqGaio#searching
I love how in the X-Men animated series, you can get introduced to a character and get a pretty good idea of what they're all about in like 5 seconds. There's just a lot of details - appearance, actions, dialogue, reactions to other characters - that convey a hell of a lot of information in such a short time.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 17, 2019, 05:09:01 PM
Irrelevant.
Dogs are too loyal to be dangerous. But don't trust cats ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 17, 2019, 08:31:11 PM
Eh, she's not quite there with me - she needs to be fleshed out more...
Perhaps, much of this is yet to come. I've noticed that in other Marvel films things that at first didn't make sense become clearer. And it jarred me also, leaving me at first with the sense that something was missing, but then a sense of relief when a later film shed more light on a mystery. Sometimes I sensed those gaps that are actually explained within the current movie. I like to watch them several times to get a clearer understanding, and Captain Marvel was like that for me. After watching it maybe 4 times, I caught many little details that helped bring a lot more understanding. It may have been why I didn't care for Captain Marvel the first time. I may have been distracted, and I think I even dozed off during the movie a time or two. I may have been tired. It's almost embarrassing how much I can miss in a film.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 17, 2019, 08:31:11 PM
It just bugs me how in Captain Marvel, we virtually nothing about her time with the Kree (did she actually have problems keeping her powers/temper under control or was that just a line?) and less than nothing about her struggle to end the Kree-Skrull war.
There was a lot missing there, although I never felt like all of that needed more explanation to get to the rest of the origin story. It struck me as the writers purposely left that vague, so people could imagine their own filler, but that still may be clarified later.
Did she actually have problems controlling her powers? I don't know, but I assumed it was indeed a lie invented by the Kree for the purpose of controlling her, although I'm not sure how they thought it would control her. They kept saying they gave her those powers and could take them away. That was clearly a lie. He powers came from the explosion of the energy core in the crashed plane. The Kree did implant what appeared to be a governor button in her neck, which she eventually removed at the end of the film to unleash the full extent of her power, and then it was Katie bar the door and a new hero came into being at that instant.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 17, 2019, 08:31:11 PM
Their origin story wrapped in a hollywood amnesia plot was good as far as those go, but I'm going to need more than that to get emotionally invested in the long term, especially considering that her much-hyped Endgame appearance was brief and underwhelming.
It seems like there is a redundancy from one origin story to the next, with but only slight variations in how the heroes gain their strength. Yet I'm a sucker for origin stories. I love them, and the format has yet to get stale for me.
One of the things I liked about Endgame and Captain Marvel is that she wasn't there most of the time. She was off cleaning up evil in other parts of the universe. I liked the Avengers scripted so as to clean up their own mess without her because it seemed like that was their job in keeping with the overall plot of all the previous movies, and whether they would have cleaned up their mess was touch and go until Captain Marvel showed up at the end and put a stop to Thanos once and for all. It kind of ended the Avengers series, but still set the stage for whatever Marvel has up their sleeve next.
I've worried about what comes next, but now I'm thinking it may be better than I imagined. Without Stan Lee? I don't know how much he shaped the movie Universe. There was something about the whole Marvel thing that was much more creative than what we had gotten used to from Hollywood. Did Stan Lee do that? We will see.
Quote from: SGOS on July 17, 2019, 10:24:00 PMI've worried about what comes next, but now I'm thinking it may be better than I imagined. Without Stan Lee? I don't know how much he shaped the movie Universe. There was something about the whole Marvel thing that was much more creative than what we had gotten used to from Hollywood. Did Stan Lee do that? We will see.
I doubt he was personally involved in production and direction, but his appearances on set no doubt were a great morale boost and quite inspirational.
What I am worried about is some combination of franchise fatigue (waning fan interest), resting on one's laurels (waning production creativity/effort), and talent loss (skilled actors retiring from the MCU and getting subpar replacements)
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 17, 2019, 11:50:39 PM
I doubt he was personally involved in production and direction, but his appearances on set no doubt were a great morale boost and quite inspirational.
What I am worried about is some combination of franchise fatigue (waning fan interest), resting on one's laurels (waning production creativity/effort), and talent loss (skilled actors retiring from the MCU and getting subpar replacements)
The way I see it, after Spider-Man: Far From Home, the Russo Brothers have finished telling the story they wanted to tell. Now it's a matter of whether or not Disney can come up with another story that is worth sticking around for. I have my doubts, but I won't knock it before it happens. Everyone and their mother is trying to copy their cinematic universe thing, and none of them have been able to pull it off. Looking at you, DC. So for Marvel to keep this up after their main brains have left would be impressive.
Of course, we do have Gunn back for Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3. I'm confident that, at least, will be good.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 17, 2019, 11:50:39 PM
What I am worried about is some combination of franchise fatigue (waning fan interest), resting on one's laurels (waning production creativity/effort), and talent loss (skilled actors retiring from the MCU and getting subpar replacements)
Fan wise, every franchise, TV series, and even a genere to some extent can lose it's base of interest. More often than we would like, it happens when management runs the whole show into the ground in the name of maximizing profit while producing as little as possible. I think management is an important concept, but not all management is equal. And that's true for managing movie production to managing a warehouse or school system or entire country.
I felt my interest in superheroes flagging at one time, but then Marvel would come up with something new and draw me back in. I don't think this will last forever, but I'll always appreciate the movie phenomena that Marvel created, not only because I enjoyed the films, but also in just sitting back and watching how it captured the imagination of the world.
The idea that a comic book character is cardboard goes down as today's truth.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 18, 2019, 07:41:51 AM
The idea that a comic book character is cardboard goes down as today's truth.
(http://media.makeameme.org/created/pavlov-that-name-5cddae.jpg)
I just got back from Spider-Man: Far From Home. Spoiler-free version: I really liked it. The basic idea of the movie is Peter Parker is still a kid, and he wants to do normal kid stuff. However, his responsibilities as Spider-Man are getting in the way of that. Nick Fury pressures Peter into prioritizing his role as Spider-Man, while Mysterio encourages him to put heroics behind him for now, and to live life to the fullest.
It's been a long time since I've seen Mysterio in the 90s Spider-Man cartoon, and I've never read the comics. All I remember is his name and cool design. So while I'm sure the MCU version of him is different, I couldn't tell you how. He is an interesting character, however. They kinda did what I was expecting them to do with him, but they also kinda didn't. I'll say more in spoilers.
MJ was really surprising. In the first movie, they didn't even call her MJ until the end, and she felt nothing like the original character. Well, she's still nothing like the original MJ, but I no longer care. Honestly, MJ was not a very interesting character in the Raimi films. All she did was look pretty, get kidnapped, and make Tobey Maguire cry. In this movie, she's awkward, she's weird, and basically the opposite of everything MJ is supposed to be. But she's 100x more interesting, so I actually appreciate the lack of accuracy.
This should go without saying, but stay for the after credits scenes. The people in front of me left as soon as the credits started rolling, and I was tempted to ask them if this was their first Marvel movie. The second after credits scene doesn't seem very important, unless I missed something, but the first one... Oh my god. The people who walked out are going to be very confused when they see the next movie, because boy do they drop a bombshell in that scene.
[Spoiler=Spoiler Section]First, Mysterio. We all knew he was the bad guy. That much is obvious, even if you're unfamiliarwith the comics. I was expecting it to be revealed that the elemental monsters were his creation, created by magic to make him appear to be the hero when he defeats them. And I was kinda right, but it turns out Mysterio's magic was more the Ant Man card trick type of magic than the actual mystic Dr. Strange type magic. Was Mysterio's magic always fake, or was that an MCU change? I wasn't expecting that. I love how his backstory is complete bullshit, and they play it off as a joke. I love that kind of self-awareness in these films.
Now about the end credits scene. First Jay Jonah Jameson is finally in the MCU, and he's played by the same guy who played him in the Raimi films. I loved that cameo. But then, Spider-Man gets doxxed and blamed for the crimes of Mysterio. Goddamn, Marvel. How you gonna drop something that huge in an after credits scene? Everyone knows Peter Parker is Spider-Man now, AND he's a wanted criminal? Holy shit.[/spoiler]
[Spoiler=Addendum]I almost forgot to mention the fact that the students who survived the snap are several years older than the ones who didn't was acknowledged in the movie. I like that they did that for world building, but it also highlights the astronomical odds for all of the important characters to have been snapped away together, so they wouldn't have this huge age gap between them. Peter, MJ, Flash...uhh, that kid Peter is friends with, all of them just happened to be snapped away together. What are the chances?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]People talk like it's a surprise Spidey's classmates are around. Well duh! The ones that didn't get snapped are working for a living now. [/spoiler]
[spoiler]And why did EDITH do that? She let a teenager give control of her to a dubious character. [/spoiler]
Quote from: Munch on July 15, 2019, 03:35:36 AM
And you don't? Lol
No. And you cutting out the rest of my reply just to respond to this proves my point. I keep my mind open. I'm willing to be wrong. I do not twist peoples' words to suit my agenda. If I think you're wrong, I go into carefully worded detail to show you why I think you are wrong.
At least, all of that is true until I give up on a person's ability to reason. That's when I stop caring and only respond to mock. I haven't given up on you yet.
In other news, I heard on the radio that the next 007 will be played by a black woman. The alt-Right are going to have a fit. Now, they did say that this 007 is not James Bond, or a genderbent, race-changed version of him. This 007 will be an entirely new character, taking over for James after he retires. It makes sense to me. In the previous films, it was clear that James' age was catching up with him and he was losing his touch, so it makes sense for him to retire. It was that or they do a hard reboot to make him young again.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 18, 2019, 06:45:45 PMIn this movie, she's awkward, she's weird, and basically the opposite of everything MJ is supposed to be. But she's 100x more interesting, so I actually appreciate the lack of accuracy.
I love her little quirk of rattling off dark but true factoids at inappropriate times. The part where she says people used to be executed off the bridge that they're on by being drowned in water (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8c/bf/d8/8cbfd83a5d9a155c141d9963dfcd6506.jpg) got a dark chuckle out of me.
Also, she's generally a pretty genuine person, and I really respect that.
QuoteThe second after credits scene doesn't seem very important, unless I missed something
It is VERY important. Near as I can tell, it's setting up a Secret Wars and/or Secret Invasion movie. That's a very, very, very big deal.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 18, 2019, 08:14:37 PMIt is VERY important. Near as I can tell, it's setting up a Secret Wars and/or Secret Invasion movie. That's a very, very, very big deal.
How so?
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 18, 2019, 07:59:10 PM
In other news, I heard on the radio that the next 007 will be played by a black woman. The alt-Right are going to have a fit. Now, they did say that this 007 is not James Bond, or a genderbent, race-changed version of him. This 007 will be an entirely new character, taking over for James after he retires. It makes sense to me. In the previous films, it was clear that James' age was catching up with him and he was losing his touch, so it makes sense for him to retire. It was that or they do a hard reboot to make him young again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iFVNiP8oWg
Rowan Atkinson has us covered.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 18, 2019, 08:32:12 PM
How so?
Secret Wars is basically Marvel's top crossover event. And it featured your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man heavily.
Secret Invasion...well, let's just say that....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTdKKryO4uI
...HE LOVES YOU
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 18, 2019, 08:41:17 PM
Secret Wars is basically Marvel's top crossover event. And it featured your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man heavily.
Secret Invasion...well, let's just say that....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTdKKryO4uI
...HE LOVES YOU
[spoiler]But the Skrulls were established to be the good guys in Captain Marvel. They're refugees in the universe, just trying to stay alive. Why would they invade Earth? Also, why would Nick Fury be hanging out with them while they're planning to invade? From the way the end credits scene went, it looked like Fury was using the Skrulls to either give him time for a vacation or give him time to work on...whatever it is he's doing in space.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 18, 2019, 09:22:13 PM
[spoiler]But the Skrulls were established to be the good guys in Captain Marvel. They're refugees in the universe, just trying to stay alive. Why would they invade Earth? Also, why would Nick Fury be hanging out with them while they're planning to invade? From the way the end credits scene went, it looked like Fury was using the Skrulls to either give him time for a vacation or give him time to work on...whatever it is he's doing in space.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]
Some are good. Some are good in the comics, too. That didn't stop an invading cult of Skrulls from causing all kinds of trouble on Earth.
Fury is with some Skrulls working on some kind of secret project. You can bet it's somehow related to the Kree-Skrull war. Rest assured that the aftermath of this conflict will find its way to Earth.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 18, 2019, 07:59:10 PM
In other news, I heard on the radio that the next 007 will be played by a black woman. The alt-Right are going to have a fit. Now, they did say that this 007 is not James Bond, or a genderbent, race-changed version of him. This 007 will be an entirely new character, taking over for James after he retires. It makes sense to me. In the previous films, it was clear that James' age was catching up with him and he was losing his touch, so it makes sense for him to retire. It was that or they do a hard reboot to make him young again.
The "00" agents have always been replaced when the current one pulls the pin. Like "Chief of Staff", a job, not a person.
I've read that there were three "00" agents when the books started, then it grew to nine, with at least one of them becoming a bad guy.
"with at least one of them becoming a bad guy" as in Cambridge Five.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 19, 2019, 07:05:25 AM
The "00" agents have always been replaced when the current one pulls the pin. Like "Chief of Staff", a job, not a person.
I've read that there were three "00" agents when the books started, then it grew to nine, with at least one of them becoming a bad guy.
I always forget that there were books these movies were based on. We're probably well beyond the point that the books leave off on, though. The style has changed so much since the beginning. We no longer have goofy villains like the guy with the steel framed hat, who can decapitate you if he throws it at you, or the guy with metal teeth who could bite through anything, or the woman who could squeeze you to death with her legs (death by snoo snoo?). Just about every character, aside from maybe Moneypenny, has either died or retired already.
Also, I'm not sure if this is the same in the books, but I believe 006 was the one who turned evil in Goldeneye. It was the only time I could remember there ever being another 00 agent.
Wasn't the villain in Skyfall, an ex-00 agent?
Quote from: Baruch on July 19, 2019, 01:23:44 PM
Wasn't the villain in Skyfall, an ex-00 agent?
I don't remember him being assigned a number, but you might be right. I remember something about him being sent on a mission as a spy, and feeling betrayed by how things went down. That's one movie where the villain actually gets what he wants.
This movie might be pretty good. The cast is high quality, and the story sounds interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6AaSMfXHbA
I was hoping it was based on a series I recently read by Stephen Baxter (Proxima and Ultima), but apparently it's different. Still looks good, though.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7TkIQV3W9kk
Hoping this works out better then the TV part 2
006 was indeed the rogue agent in one movie.
Ad Astra movie, updated version of Joseph Conrad's "Heart Of Darkness" according to note in Wiki entry.
Oh, OK, that was good too. I thought it might be from the Baxter book because they had a ship named Ad Astra, which means "to the stars."
"Per ardua ad astra" is a Latin phrase meaning "through adversity to the stars," so a character in the book named the planet at Proxima Centuri "Per Ardua," to go with the Ad Astra.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtSd844cI7U
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/023/768/upload.png)
Quote from: Munch on July 19, 2019, 07:40:13 PM
[spoiler]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtSd844cI7U
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/023/768/upload.png)[/spoiler]
I don't get why it has so many dislikes.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 19, 2019, 08:35:53 PM
I don't get why it has so many dislikes.
fact that its so ugly looking, that its another CGI nightmare, which today is the cheapest form of creativity
Quote from: Munch on July 19, 2019, 08:44:38 PM
fact that its so ugly looking, that its another CGI nightmare, which today is the cheapest form of creativity
IDK man, doesn't seem so bad to me. Seemed like just some tame liveaction movie version of Cats by Webber.
Okay. If they're going to CGI the thing to death, why make the characters look like people in cat costumes when you could just as easily just make them look like cats? If the goal was to make it look like the play it's based on, why not use real costumes? The decision to purposefully use CGI to make the characters look like people trying to look like cats is just bizarre.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 19, 2019, 08:35:53 PM
I don't get why it has so many dislikes.
Uncanny valley. People say that the CGI looks horrible, but it's not. It's actually very good - not quite photorealistic though, so it feels very, very wrong. If you notice in the trailer reactions, a common reaction is disgust, which is exactly how people react to uncanny valley things.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 19, 2019, 10:56:18 PM
Okay. If they're going to CGI the thing to death, why make the characters look like people in cat costumes when you could just as easily just make them look like cats? If the goal was to make it look like the play it's based on, why not use real costumes? The decision to purposefully use CGI to make the characters look like people trying to look like cats is just bizarre.
Breaking the Fifth Wall? Still, it is Cats, a musical. I like it anyway ;-)
I noticed this notation regarding the movie Hellboy at my Redbox website. I struggled with it because I couldn't believe there was such a movie Association. I think it was hard to understand because some words are capitalized that might normally not be. Also, it's 1:00 AM:
Rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America for Bloody Horror Violence
A-heh. Re: the Cats trailer... I read that last as 'Directed by Tobe Hooper'... now THAT would be something completely different!
And, I'm clearly overdue for new glasses. XD
'Logan' (from the X-men character Wolverine). Apparently ailing and no longer healing in real time from wounds (as shown by scars and wounds and barely functioning). He dies, Xavier dies.
I don't understand the timeline. This is in the near future but another movie has them both alive in the future.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 05:24:37 AM
'Logan' (from the X-men character Wolverine). Apparently ailing and no longer healing in real time from wounds (as shown by scars and wounds and barely functioning). He dies, Xavier dies.
I don't understand the timeline. This is in the near future but another movie has them both alive in the future.
Some think it's a non-canon alternative future. In the comics this movie took inspiration from, the series he was called old man Logan, in which he was manipulated by mystero into killed the X-Men, which screwed him up and forced him into exile, living out his days alone.
But yeah just look at the movie Logan as an alternative future like if things happened a certain way.
Quote from: Munch on July 20, 2019, 05:32:57 AM
Some think it's a non-canon alternative future. In the comics this movie took inspiration from, the series he was called old man Logan, in which he was manipulated by mystero into killed the X-Men, which screwed him up and forced him into exile, living out his days alone.
But yeah just look at the movie Logan as an alternative future like if things happened a certain way.
Thank you. I read the Marvel "comics" for 20 years but was way too poor for a decade to keep up and then it was all graphic novels. I can well imagine an issue or 2 about Logan as an ailing guy.. The gaps drive me nuts sometimes. BTW, when you say "mystero", you don't mean Spiderman's "Mysterio", right?
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 10:01:58 AM
Thank you. I read the Marvel "comics" for 20 years but was way too poor for a decade to keep up and then it was all graphic novels. I can well imagine an issue or 2 about Logan as an ailing guy.. The gaps drive me nuts sometimes. BTW, when you say "mystero", you don't mean Spiderman's "Mysterio", right?
mystero in the new spiderman movie is the mystero owned by marvel studios, in the x-men movie franchise it was detached from the marvel studio movies, so they didn't really state what logan did in the movie that caused him to go down the path he was on, but we can assume it was something as bad as the death of the x-men.
In the comic version of old man logan, yeah, it was That mystero, who joined up with a bunch of other villains to take on the x-men.
Since Marvel characters typically live in the same universe (except in movies, where legal stuff limits them that way), there are a lot of times a villain associated with one hero interacts with another.
Quote from: Munch on July 20, 2019, 11:34:57 AM
mystero in the new spiderman movie is the mystero owned by marvel studios, in the x-men movie franchise it was detached from the marvel studio movies, so they didn't really state what logan did in the movie that caused him to go down the path he was on, but we can assume it was something as bad as the death of the x-men.
In the comic version of old man logan, yeah, it was That mystero, who joined up with a bunch of other villains to take on the x-men.
OK, so "Mysterio" the Marvel Universe movie special effects guy and Spiderman villain of the comic books, is the same as "Mystero" in the new movie? Forgive me asking twice. I'm still not sure. And don't worry about spoilers, by the time I see it free on TV, I'll know all the details I bother to learn.
Aside from all that. I was rather moved by that girl Laura? with the Wolverine claws on hands AND feet who called him "Daddy" at the end and moved the Cross to an X. I didn't see the whole movie all at once, so parts of it are missing.
Quote from: Munch on July 19, 2019, 08:44:38 PM
fact that its so ugly looking, that its another CGI nightmare, which today is the cheapest form of creativity
Gotta see that one.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 20, 2019, 12:36:31 PM
Gotta see that one.
In the sense your expecting to be entertained or in the sense your expecting it to be hilariously bad in the 'so bad it's good' category.
I only watch 'so bad it's good' movies if it's free online or bargin bin cheap dvd
Quote from: Munch on July 20, 2019, 02:14:09 PM
In the sense your expecting to be entertained or in the sense your expecting it to be hilariously bad in the 'so bad it's good' category.
I only watch 'so bad it's good' movies if it's free online or bargin bin cheap dvd
There are some movies best watched for specific scenes. 'Aliens' after Ripley gets in the mech suit and when she leans over the edge in Aliens3 (for example). I could mention several from LOTR but I won't. There are some movies I only watch for the ending.
I'm not into "famous films" for the whole glory.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 04:03:52 PM
There are some movies best watched for specific scenes. 'Aliens' after Ripley gets in the mech suit and when she leans over the edge in Aliens3 (for example). I could mention several from LOTR but I won't. There are some movies I only watch for the ending.
I'm not into "famous films" for the whole glory.
Yeah I saw you say, so do you only watch most films in bits and pieces? I admit there are times watching a movie where I feel like fast forwarding through areas of it, but sometimes I feel doing that can take away a lot of impact certain scenes have.
For example you mentioned lord of the rings, one of my favourite scenes in it was in return of the king where samwise and frodo are climbing mount Doom, and frodo has all but given up, having Sam tell him "come on Mr frodo, I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you!".
This moment still makes me weep to this day, because of the context of the moment. Frodo and Sam had been through everything together, frodo held the weight of the one ring, until he was nearly consumed by it, but same time samwise held the weight of being there beside him through everything, moments we see all throughout the three movies leading up to that moment, his determination to help frodo to the end, and the impact is more felt because we saw all that through the three films.
Sometimes the sum of the whole gives greater meaning to the smaller moments
That is why I love Youtube. Snippets. My next marriage will be to Youtube. If a guy can marry his smartphone, I can marry Youtube.
Quote from: Munch on July 20, 2019, 04:35:01 PM
Yeah I saw you say, so do you only watch most films in bits and pieces? I admit there are times watching a movie where I feel like fast forwarding through areas of it, but sometimes I feel doing that can take away a lot of impact certain scenes have.
For example you mentioned lord of the rings, one of my favourite scenes in it was in return of the king where samwise and frodo are climbing mount Doom, and frodo has all but given up, having Sam tell him "come on Mr frodo, I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you!".
This moment still makes me weep to this day, because of the context of the moment. Frodo and Sam had been through everything together, frodo held the weight of the one ring, until he was nearly consumed by it, but same time samwise held the weight of being there beside him through everything, moments we see all throughout the three movies leading up to that moment, his determination to help frodo to the end, and the impact is more felt because we saw all that through the three films.
Sometimes the sum of the whole gives greater meaning to the smaller moments
I sometimes watch movies I have seen before in bits. But sometimes I am conflicted by opposing new ones vs sports and miss parts. I'm not good at recording for later viewing.
Munch, the scene you described is a very powerful one and is figuratively dripping with meaning. Sam can't be The Ring Bearer, but he can be the bearer of the bearer of The Ring. I have always thought that Sam is the True Hero of the story. Even Frodo failed at the end under the Power of The Ring...
Other story/movie moments of great meaning to me...
Eowyn and Merry killing the Nazgul Witch-Lord of Numenorea: He could not "be killed by Man" but neither Eowyn not Merry were. IIRC Merry's sword "undid the undead sinews of his body", and Eowyn killed his then-mortal body in great pain. It could be read otherwise, but it took both of them to do it in my mind.
I also am deeply moved by Galdriel's refusal of the offerred Ring at The Mirror. The movie reflected the book well on that part.
And I was impressed by the movie Fall Of Sauron, The Ride Of The Rohirrim, and the Ents.
I think it was the first movie I saw that was faithful to the originating book (OK, it was Glorfindal at the ford), but they did a really good job of it. I read the books long before and I've read the Silmarillion and couple others. The Creation story impresses even me.
I think the movie botched the aftermath though. They could have given SOME time to the harm to The Shire and Saurman's death. But that is a quibble from a purist.
Did you ever read 'Ender's Game'?
PS, I sometimes forget to "like" people as often as they deserve. I try to make up for it later...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 04:03:52 PM
There are some movies best watched for specific scenes.
Yeah, like this scene from My Name Is Nobody:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNOn63T56dg
I love this, and it's a really good movie.
The movie did miss out on some fan favorite moments in the books and thats understandable, I suppose they had to make the decisions on what to cut out to make the movies compact enough for a movie going audience, like the tom bombadil moments, kinda like they had to do with Stephen kings It and all extended details he had in that, like an indepth look at what It actually is and the thing with Maturin, pretty much cut from the movie.
as for ender's game, no I will not ever read that or any adaptations of it, Orson Scott Card can fuck right off.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 20, 2019, 05:31:14 PM
Yeah, like this scene from My Name Is Nobody:
I love this, and it's a really good movie.
I loved the Nobody movies but I didn't remember that scene.
Here's something I'd like to see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11TzXCWnUao
Quote from: SGOS on July 20, 2019, 01:06:45 AM
I noticed this notation regarding the movie Hellboy at my Redbox website. I struggled with it because I couldn't believe there was such a movie Association. I think it was hard to understand because some words are capitalized that might normally not be. Also, it's 1:00 AM:
Rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America for Bloody Horror Violence
The MPAA? Oh it's real alright.
It's the reason why a lot of movies were toned down to be PG-13 rather than R.
This rating system produces a lot of oddities like this:
(https://media.wired.com/photos/5b4e7cbf774f6c0b5552bc88/master/w_400,c_limit/cheezburger.png)
I want Atheistforums.com to get our own unique rating ;-)
Natalie Portman announced as the new Thor.
I'm meh about this, not because "OmG fEmAlE tHoR!!!" but her character didn't really scream... Thor... to me.
(https://i.redd.it/b9ecj0qhmkb31.jpg)
Quote from: Shiranu on July 21, 2019, 12:43:35 AM
Natalie Portman announced as the new Thor.
I'm meh about this, not because "OmG fEmAlE tHoR!!!" but her character didn't really scream... Thor... to me.
Wait, what? But what happened to the original Thor? It's not like he died or anything. And didn't Natalie Portman play Thor's girlfriend in the earlier movies?
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 08:03:27 PM
I want Atheistforums.com to get our own unique rating ;-)
There's always likes.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 21, 2019, 10:04:31 AM
Wait, what? But what happened to the original Thor? It's not like he died or anything. And didn't Natalie Portman play Thor's girlfriend in the earlier movies?
In the comics Jane foster, Thor's on and off girlfriend is the one they make female Thor into, so by comic book continuity they are following that.
However, female Thor comics tanked and they had to cancel the series because nobody was buying the comics
Apparently that wasn't enough of a message for why making female Thor a movie might be the worst idea, you know, after hiring an sjw to play Captain marvel.
'progressives' don't buy comics, and as these ridiculous 'progressive' marvel character reimaginings have shown, these ideas won't win people over.
I liked the ending of Endgame where Thor passed the torch to that plucky Valkyrie and previous drunk. Natalie Portman? I'm in love with her, so I'm open, but not convinced. So will she no longer be the ex Jane Foster, and what happens to that other chick that was to become the new Thor? Does Portman just assume a new character? This role switching is more disturbing to me than the gender issue. Should Robert Downy Jr. become the next Captain America? I don't mind suspending my disbelief for science fiction, but the switching of roles kind of tests my limitations.
Quote from: SGOS on July 21, 2019, 12:05:39 PM
I liked the ending of Endgame where Thor passed the torch to that plucky Valkyrie and previous drunk. Natalie Portman? I'm in love with her, so I'm open, but not convinced. So will she no longer be the ex Jane Foster, and what happens to that other chick that was to become the new Thor? Does Portman just assume a new character? This role switching is more disturbing to me than the gender issue. Should Robert Downy Jr. become the next Captain America? I don't mind suspending my disbelief for science fiction, but the switching of roles kind of tests my limitations.
Taking character who have been that character doe decades, and then just race/gender swapping them out tends to piss most normal people off. This is why female thor comics tanked, infact its why most of marvel comics lineup in the last few years have been doing so badly because they keep doing this.
Also, race/gender swapping characters is just showing how creativity bankrupt someone is, to not make there own new characters, but instead ride off the back of pre-established ones, giving them no real identity.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/03/marvel-executive-says-emphasis-on-diversity-may-have-alienated-readers
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GtbtJMjgNZI
Thor is in space at the moment, with the Guardians of the Galaxy. How is Jane Foster supposed to get Thor's powers? Is she going to space? Also, wasn't it established that Thor's powers were from himself, not the hammer? But passing off the hammer gives them his powers? Doesn't make any sense. Wait. Is female Thor going to be in a movie, or just one of those spinoff shows with questionable canonicity?
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 21, 2019, 03:42:20 PM
Thor is in space at the moment, with the Guardians of the Galaxy. How is Jane Foster supposed to get Thor's powers? Is she going to space? Also, wasn't it established that Thor's powers were from himself, not the hammer? But passing off the hammer gives them his powers? Doesn't make any sense. Wait. Is female Thor going to be in a movie, or just one of those spinoff shows with questionable canonicity?
Their trying to push phase 4 MCU as being super inclusive to representation (something more important then story) so they aren't really going to care about correct continuity or plot holes
Quote from: Munch on July 21, 2019, 04:20:47 PM
Their trying to push phase 4 MCU as being super inclusive to representation (something more important then story) so they aren't really going to care about correct continuity or plot holes
Yeah, but is this for a movie or a spinoff? I know they're doing a Loki spinoff, and a Winter Soldier / Falcon (I think) spinoff for their new streaming service no one asked for. Those shows seem to be for the stories no one will see on the big screen. So if that is where fem Thor is going, no big deal.
It's hard to imagine Natalie Portman wielding Thor's hammer. Now, a whip; I could get off on that.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 21, 2019, 07:03:38 PM
Yeah, but is this for a movie or a spinoff? I know they're doing a Loki spinoff, and a Winter Soldier / Falcon (I think) spinoff for their new streaming service no one asked for. Those shows seem to be for the stories no one will see on the big screen. So if that is where fem Thor is going, no big deal.
I doubt they would have presented the lineup of up coming movies at comiccon in the same grouping if they weren't aiming to make them movies. I mean sure the whole loki spinoff thing and the while alternative realities thing could be a possibility, but given the main leads for prominent roles in the MCU are retiring now doubt they'd do a miles morales thing with these franchises.
Quote from: SGOS on July 21, 2019, 07:11:54 PM
It's hard to imagine Natalie Portman wielding Thor's hammer.
She could do the Marvel workout circuit, really get ripped.
(https://orig00.deviantart.net/2454/f/2015/071/6/1/muscular_natalie_portman_3_by_edinaus-d8lgifk.jpg)
QuoteNow, a whip; I could get off on that.
I bet you could. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Quote from: Shiranu on July 21, 2019, 12:43:35 AM
Natalie Portman announced as the new Thor.
I'm meh about this, not because "OmG fEmAlE tHoR!!!" but her character didn't really scream... Thor... to me.
"Lady Thor"
Quote from: Munch on July 23, 2019, 10:39:52 AM
"Tits Thor"
The last person who tried to kill me was PMSing. Just sayin'.
Quote from: Baruch on July 23, 2019, 09:49:59 AM
Thunder Thighs
Portman only ways 48 kg. No thunder to those thighs.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 23, 2019, 04:56:52 PM
Portman only ways 48 kg. No thunder to those thighs.
Thank god for CGI and body suites, yes?
Marvel Phase 4:
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/EsZujKjVw-b8Qm-nGGnAeJtDHlE=/0x0:4000x2401/1220x813/filters:focal(1680x881:2320x1521):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/64773901/1163272717.jpg.5.jpg)
Guardians of the Galaxy 3 will be 2022 or later. :(
Out of these, I'm most pumped for Black Widow, Mister Doctor, and What If. What If sounds particularly promising.
For those of you who don't know, Marvel's What If comics took pivotal moments in comics history and took them in a completely different direction. And it gave writers a license to just go completely nuts with a story, knowing full well that none of it would be canon. They also highlight the stakes by showing in excruciating detail exactly what happens when the heroes lose. It's not pretty.
So you'd get crazy stuff like Tony Stark piloting a cross between a Battletech Mech and an Evangelion Angel while fighting Magneto to the death.
Or three vignettes of War Machine confronting the Living Laser and that goes three completely different ways (I loved this one because it showed that combat isn't necessarily the best way of dealing with a crisis where combat looks like the only reasonable option)
And I don't care what anyone says, Iron Man and Doctor Doom stuck in Arthurian legend was *$&*ing lit, son. Despite the insane concept, that characterization was magnifique, yo. Okay, I'll stop now.
But they weren't all winners. Some of these stories were dumb (https://imgix.ranker.com/user_node_img/50067/1001325785/original/what-if-wolverine-was-lord-of-the-vampires-photo-u1?w=650&q=50&fm=pjpg&fit=crop&crop=faces) and kinda illogical (https://imgix.ranker.com/user_node_img/50067/1001325782/original/what-if-dazzler-had-become-the-herald-of-galactus-photo-u1?w=650&q=60&fm=pjpg&fit=crop&crop=faces%22) and did I mention dumb (https://imgix.ranker.com/user_node_img/50067/1001325797/original/what-if-the-world-knew-daredevil-is-blind-photo-u1?w=650&q=60&fm=pjpg&fit=crop&crop=faces%22)?
Given the epic moments of the MCU, particularly certain events involving the Infinity Stones, there's a lot of potential here for some truly massive plot twists and new characters. 'Nuff said!
Only thing that looks interesting in that lineup is the what if, because what if was a concept in marvel to tell alternative tales on stories and their outcomes, so if their clever their bring back fav favourites for a one off movie like ironman or cap.
Since Marvel has the X-Men back, they could do a What-If where Thanos and Deadpool meet. I understand those two have a bit of a rivalry in the comics, although Lady Death doesn't exist in the MCU.
I think I'm seeing a pattern in that picture, though. Did you notice that half of them have the Disney logo, and half don't? I think the ones with the Disney logo will be shows on Disney's streaming service. I know at least that Loki is definitely going to be one of those shows. Can't really think of anything else the Disney logo-ed ones would have in common. So Black Widow, Eternals, Shang-Chi, Doctor Strange 2, and Fem Thor are the movies of phase four. And The Falcon / Winter Soldier, Wanda Vision, Loki, What If, and Hawkeye are all spin-off shows. Part of me kinda hopes the shows suck so I don't have to get a streaming service to watch them. lol
What If actually makes more sense in a broken up, episodic format, than a two hour movie. This way, each episode could be its own separate scenario, and they don't have to worry about building a single cohesive story. However, a show is likely to get less funding than a movie, so it's a double edged sword.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 24, 2019, 12:52:55 AMHowever, a show is likely to get less funding than a movie, so it's a double edged sword.
I prefer to think of it as perfectly balanced.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 24, 2019, 12:52:55 AM
Since Marvel has the X-Men back, they could do a What-If where Thanos and Deadpool meet. I understand those two have a bit of a rivalry in the comics, although Lady Death doesn't exist in the MCU.
I think I'm seeing a pattern in that picture, though. Did you notice that half of them have the Disney logo, and half don't? I think the ones with the Disney logo will be shows on Disney's streaming service. I know at least that Loki is definitely going to be one of those shows. Can't really think of anything else the Disney logo-ed ones would have in common. So Black Widow, Eternals, Shang-Chi, Doctor Strange 2, and Fem Thor are the movies of phase four. And The Falcon / Winter Soldier, Wanda Vision, Loki, What If, and Hawkeye are all spin-off shows. Part of me kinda hopes the shows suck so I don't have to get a streaming service to watch them. lol
What If actually makes more sense in a broken up, episodic format, than a two hour movie. This way, each episode could be its own separate scenario, and they don't have to worry about building a single cohesive story. However, a show is likely to get less funding than a movie, so it's a double edged sword.
marvel already screwed the pooch on that when they kept celestial beings out of the movieverse continuity. Thanos without his worship of mistress death leaves a void, it what made the whole thanos vs deadpool thing work.
I wonder how far away we're from AI generating a complete novel movie with only a few training data.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 25, 2019, 09:22:39 AM
I wonder how far away we're from AI generating a complete novel movie with only a few training data.
Three, maybe four, parsecs.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 25, 2019, 09:22:39 AM
I wonder how far away we're from AI generating a complete novel movie with only a few training data.
We already have whales that do that. They push colored balls into various holes in their aquarium, executives interpret the result (if they can't make sense of it, they just remake something), and that's how we get this year's top movies.
Here comes one now.
Brad Pitt
Astronaut
Search for
Father
Earth
Threatened
jennifer love hewitt
gravy
boat
detective
paris
scientology
bread with a piece of mold on it
Quote from: Munch on July 24, 2019, 09:46:09 PM
marvel already screwed the pooch on that when they kept celestial beings out of the movieverse continuity. Thanos without his worship of mistress death leaves a void, it what made the whole thanos vs deadpool thing work.
Eh. Personally, I like the MCU interpretation of Thanos. Comic book Thanos seems goofy by comparison. I don't think the character would have left as much of an impact, knowing he was trying to get some action with Lady Death.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 25, 2019, 09:22:39 AM
I wonder how far away we're from AI generating a complete novel movie with only a few training data.
Can be done now. if you accept low quality. A blow up doll is OK as a girl friend, if you can't get the real thing. I suspect on financial reasons, everything will be CGI and AI (with visual and audio skins (digitized real actors who have given up their brand)). Like how Hollywood went to reality shows after the screen writer's strike. You don't have to pay, or give residuals to digital people.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 25, 2019, 02:07:22 PM
Eh. Personally, I like the MCU interpretation of Thanos. Comic book Thanos seems goofy by comparison. I don't think the character would have left as much of an impact, knowing he was trying to get some action with Lady Death.
thats just on the comic book writers. It could easily be written in a more serious tone of thanos doing all he did to appease death herself, first as a demonstration of his devotion, then outright just forsaking all life. The movieverse version was okay, but just didn't feel like thanos having this ra's al ghul style of character.
The IT reboot, part 1.
Not sure if it is actually less scary than the miniseries, or if that is because I watched that as a child.
I remember it being more unsettling and less,... Cartoonish.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 25, 2019, 05:38:30 PM
The IT reboot, part 1.
Not sure if it is actually less scary than the miniseries, or if that is because I watched that as a child.
I remember it being more unsettling and less,... Cartoonish.
Things are scarier as kids. I saw the original as a kid and was scared, but rewatching it now it's pretty goofy, especially the second part.
The first version just annoyed me. But then I didn't finish the book.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 25, 2019, 06:37:50 PM
The first version just annoyed me. But then I didn't finish the book.
to be fair thats a big ass book.
I still like aspects of the original, the idea of children being tormented by a creature only they can see, the parents being oblivious to it, it creates a level of fear someone at those ages could relate to. I think thats why the first part always struck me as being better, its like the kid actors in it put everything into those roles, where as the adult actors in the second part were just playing it like a sitcom
Quote from: Munch on July 25, 2019, 07:14:10 PM
to be fair thats a big ass book.
I still like aspects of the original, the idea of children being tormented by a creature only they can see, the parents being oblivious to it, it creates a level of fear someone at those ages could relate to. I think thats why the first part always struck me as being better, its like the kid actors in it put everything into those roles, where as the adult actors in the second part were just playing it like a sitcom
I quit at the lumberjack scene. Just didn't scare me.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 25, 2019, 02:07:22 PM
Eh. Personally, I like the MCU interpretation of Thanos. Comic book Thanos seems goofy by comparison. I don't think the character would have left as much of an impact, knowing he was trying to get some action with Lady Death.
Imo, comic book Thanos had a lot more depth to him than meets the eye.
His name (and a great deal of his characterization) is based on Freud's conception of Eros (life instinct) and Thanatos (death instinct) [note: Freud did not give a name to second one, that was done by a colleague]
Ever experience the call of the void (https://www.medicaldaily.com/high-place-phenomeon-suicide-ideation-cognitive-dissonance-378029)? That's Thanatos.
Eros/Starfox is a very loving, cooperative, peaceable guy. Thanos is his polar opposite. Instead of loving, he is nihilistic. Instead of cooperative, he is conflict-loving. Instead of life-affirming, he is death-seeking. What better way to show this than to make him literally in love with Death?
Famously, and I wish the comics had stuck firmly to this (before he sired more kids than Ghengis Khan), Thanos flatly stated: "Thanos does not create". That's a hell of a motto. And it's true, as a purely destructive force, Thanos can only destroy what already exists - he can never truly create anything.
On second thought, maybe comics Thanos was a little goofy (https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--3ncnYxlm--/c_fit,dpr_2.0,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/rvskl1sie3iwb8ydkrjl.jpg)...
Anyway, here's why MCU Thanos is noticeably different from comics Thanos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkNQoqsh8ko
Basically, to be a better foil for Tony Stark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyAC8JOeiNw
the summery is, some sjws are trying to push to make spiderman gay now, and have even attacked a guy calling them out of their bullshit claiming he's a homophobe, despite him being bi-sexual.
A very good point this guy made on his twitter,
Quote"being gay isn't an element you just "introduce." It's not hair color or contacts or a fashion change. It's who the person is attracted to, and the accepted position is that a person is born that way, not that they choose it."
Stan Lee himself said before he died that spiderman is not gay, because him being straight is an integral part of his character, his relationship with characters like Mary Jane or Felicia Hardy or other women in his life.
Now speaking as someone who had always liked fan works and fan art of established characters, lets say wolverine, who is a very macho heterosexual character (he's had sex with countless women), and those fan works making him gay, because its naughty and fun, and deviates from the norm. I don't suddenly think wolverine is totally gay now because someone wrote a fan work about him and cyclops going down on each other. I like the character in the comics and cartoon and movies enough to respect the creators decision over decades of work in who that character is to not see it deviated from in the cannon story.
This is what pissed me off about how in current marvel, they decided it was okay to make Iceman, one of the original x-men, suddenly gay, using some weird timeline alteration story of icemans past self just suddenly opening up about being gay, and this made older iceman realise 'oh wait I am gay!' as if someone flicked the gay switch on the back of his head.
This is just insulting to me, because instead of creating characters whos sexuality is a part of who they are since the beginning, like spiderman, or lets say tracer from overwatch who was established gay since near the beginning of her introduction, instead these cheap cunts are just forcing their identity politics onto characters because its easier then making their own up and just upending the characters longevity.
Munch, don't go to the Great Friend of Europe ... Iran. They force gay men to have sex changes there. That is how they do identity politics. They don't change comic characters, they change actual people.
Quote from: Baruch on July 26, 2019, 10:30:50 PM
Munch, don't go to the Great Friend of Europe ... Iran. They force gay men to have sex changes there. That is how they do identity politics. They don't change comic characters, they change actual people.
Maybe that's why certain folks in the west with their identity politics think they can include others from those regions in the same inclusive boat along with the LGBT community.
Anyway getting back to more movie based subjects.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KTbOiqDRl2I
That awkward moment when what was generally panned as an extremely vapid and over-the-top action movie was actually a pretty deep and artistic meta-play about lobotomy and how society is completely fine with depictions outrageous violence and abuse of women but, the moment you bring sexuality into it, they flip their shit and it's no longer acceptable and must be censored.
Or maybe CinemaWins is just really, really good at extracting meaning where there is none, but I'm not sold on that. The attention to detail in this movie would suggest there was suppose to be detail behind it.
Never watched it because of it's horrible reviews... but honestly, the action looks entertaining and it has sorta that "B film" appeal to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEKsTY8vuC0
Quote from: Shiranu on July 28, 2019, 05:28:26 PM
That awkward moment when what was generally panned as an extremely vapid and over-the-top action movie was actually a pretty deep and artistic meta-play about lobotomy and how society is completely fine with depictions outrageous violence and abuse of women but, the moment you bring sexuality into it, they flip their shit and it's no longer acceptable and must be censored.
Or maybe CinemaWins is just really, really good at extracting meaning where there is none, but I'm not sold on that. The attention to detail in this movie would suggest there was suppose to be detail behind it.
Never watched it because of it's horrible reviews... but honestly, the action looks entertaining and it has sorta that "B film" appeal to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEKsTY8vuC0
It sucks.
I figured all that by my onsies. But I do like "Everything Great About..." He has some good insight. And he doesn't whinge.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 28, 2019, 06:49:09 PM
It sucks.
Eh, wouldn't be the first movie that sucks that I enjoyed. *Shrug*
I'm incredibly easy to please when it comes to movies though.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 28, 2019, 09:31:48 PM
Eh, wouldn't be the first movie that sucks that I enjoyed. *Shrug*
I'm incredibly easy to please when it comes to movies though.
So you felt ... Blair Witch Project ... cost too much to make? ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2019, 10:51:56 PM
So you felt ... Blair Witch Project ... cost too much to make? ;-)
Imo, that was a perfect budget for what they were trying to pull off: three people lost in the woods, freaky stuff happens, at least one person dies. You don't need a big budget for that. Just literally have the actors camp in the woods and give 'em some filming equipment. What better way to film sleep deprivation and frustration than to show it in natura? If they tried to glitz it up with hairstylists and CGI, it probably would have come across as inauthentic and the movie would've tanked hard.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 28, 2019, 09:31:48 PM
Eh, wouldn't be the first movie that sucks that I enjoyed. *Shrug*
I'm incredibly easy to please when it comes to movies though.
Then by all means watch it.
At your own peril ;)
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 28, 2019, 11:18:48 PM
Imo, that was a perfect budget for what they were trying to pull off: three people lost in the woods, freaky stuff happens, at least one person dies. You don't need a big budget for that. Just literally have the actors camp in the woods and give 'em some filming equipment. What better way to film sleep deprivation and frustration than to show it in natura? If they tried to glitz it up with hairstylists and CGI, it probably would have come across as inauthentic and the movie would've tanked hard.
Giant Japanese robots cost extra!
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 23, 2019, 09:44:20 PM
Out of these, I'm most pumped for Black Widow, Mister Doctor, and What If. What If sounds particularly promising.
For those of you who don't know, Marvel's What If comics took pivotal moments in comics history and took them in a completely different direction. And it gave writers a license to just go completely nuts with a story, knowing full well that none of it would be canon. They also highlight the stakes by showing in excruciating detail exactly what happens when the heroes lose. It's not pretty.
Okay, this is the first MCU entry I might actually entertain the notion of going to see. Depends on which particular What If(s) they go for -- and whether they do an anthology-style feature (which I think is more sensible) or just focus on one story.
"Alita: Battle Angel". Went to be before it ended. Very predictable "River Tam effect" movie.
Quote from: trdsf on July 29, 2019, 06:51:47 AM
Okay, this is the first MCU entry I might actually entertain the notion of going to see. Depends on which particular What If(s) they go for -- and whether they do an anthology-style feature (which I think is more sensible) or just focus on one story.
My guess is anthology. A seies of vignettes rather than a whole movie dedicated to one alternate scenario.
Though, I have to ask, wont it be confusing to watch the what-if scenario without watching original scenario? Whenever I do that in the comics, I find it difficult to piece together what happened and what's different this time around. Sometimes, it's pretty straight forward. Sometimes, I don't know half the characters or what they're trying to do so when someone buys the farm, I don't really know how to feel about it.
The movies are pretty famous, so not a whole lot of risk there, but there could be a lot of easter eggs that more casual fans might miss out on.
There are a lot of "X things you missed in (the latest MCU offering" videos on Youtube right now.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 29, 2019, 04:04:45 PM
My guess is anthology. A seies of vignettes rather than a whole movie dedicated to one alternate scenario.
Though, I have to ask, wont it be confusing to watch the what-if scenario without watching original scenario? Whenever I do that in the comics, I find it difficult to piece together what happened and what's different this time around. Sometimes, it's pretty straight forward. Sometimes, I don't know half the characters or what they're trying to do so when someone buys the farm, I don't really know how to feel about it.
The movies are pretty famous, so not a whole lot of risk there, but there could be a lot of easter eggs that more casual fans might miss out on.
Yeah, that could be the only downside, if they do stories that are movie-canon rather than canon-canon. I'll wait and see.
I could be talked into 'Master of Kung Fu', but only if Doug Moench was on the writing team, and I don't think he is.
For Tarantino fans, Once Upon a Time... is an excellent film. I'd rate it his number 2, just under Inglorious. He's the Woody Allen of crime and violence. Sometimes his movies are wonderfully creative, and sometimes they are complete flops. And I can never predict what he's going to do next. Avoid the reviews and see it unspoiled. Let it unfold. Knowing too much about it will spoil it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 29, 2019, 09:10:09 AM
"Alita: Battle Angel". Went to be before it ended. Very predictable "River Tam effect" movie.
agree, not very good. Left it open for a sequel......oh joy of joys.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 29, 2019, 09:10:09 AM
"Alita: Battle Angel". Went to be before it ended. Very predictable "River Tam effect" movie.
I liked it, but not the ending. A bad ending does little to create interest in a sequel, when a good ending could create even more interest. MCU got away with it in the Infinity Wars, but that was made for a very dedicated audience that took years to cultivate.
Today I receive "Quatermass and the Pit." Been more than fifty years but I still remember that one. Double feature at the drive-in as "20,000,000 years to Earth" with "One Million BC."
Quote from: aitm on July 30, 2019, 08:42:43 AM
agree, not very good. Left it open for a sequel......oh joy of joys.
Isn't it based on a longer manga series? They kinda had to leave it open. Doesn't mean they'll adapt the entire series, but they have to acknowledge that the story doesn't end where they left it.
Quote from: SGOS on July 30, 2019, 07:15:45 AM
For Tarantino fans, Once Upon a Time... is an excellent film. I'd rate it his number 2, just under Inglorious. He's the Woody Allen of crime and violence. Sometimes his movies are wonderfully creative, and sometimes they are complete flops. And I can never predict what he's going to do next. Avoid the reviews and see it unspoiled. Let it unfold. Knowing too much about it will spoil it.
Loved that movie. The music was great.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 30, 2019, 11:10:56 AM
Today I receive "Quatermass and the Pit." Been more than fifty years but I still remember that one. Double feature at the drive-in as "20,000,000 years to Earth" with "One Million BC."
Ohhhh, I haven't seen any of those in *ages*! I'd especially like to see Quatermass again. I remember that from one of the sci-fi weeks on the afternoon movie (with 'Dialing for Dollars'!), along with 'When Worlds Collide', 'Crack in the World' and 'From Hell it Came!'.
Man, do I miss local programming. 'The Big Show (https://vintagetoledotv.com/wtoltv-11-movies-on-the-big-show)' (the above-mentioned afternoon movie) was a wonderful cinematic education; they ran everything from silents to (then-)recent releases, and everything from Ed Wood to Orson Welles.
Got it on Amazon.
Quote from: Munch on July 21, 2019, 11:27:15 AM
In the comics Jane foster, Thor's on and off girlfriend is the one they make female Thor into, so by comic book continuity they are following that.
However, female Thor comics tanked and they had to cancel the series because nobody was buying the comics
Apparently that wasn't enough of a message for why making female Thor a movie might be the worst idea, you know, after hiring an sjw to play Captain marvel.
'progressives' don't buy comics, and as these ridiculous 'progressive' marvel character reimaginings have shown, these ideas won't win people over.
I reply as an old comic book readers starting in 1960 and a reader of myths... There are some things that should not change. Thor shouldn't be a woman. Nor should Captain Marvel. There is a history there. That said, let there be more female heros. I have some favorites. I always thought Jean Grey would be more than in the old comics. I loved Mantis. Scarlett Witch was a comer. Sue Storm grew. Mystique and Rogue are powerful.
Let there be new female heros rather than transfer them into male characters.
You what 2 movies I can watch almost any day? 'The Incredibles' and 'Hancock'. I love all the Incredibles. Mr and Elastigirl re great and I loved seeing Dash and Violet grow into their powers. Everytime I see Dash run on water, I crack up. But to me, Elastigirl (hey, I didn't name her) and Violet are great.
'Hancock' (which I watched again for about the 10th time last night) is endlessly fascinating. An amnesiac superhero who lives (rather miserably) alone and causes utter destruction when he stops crimes, he is the antithesis of standard superheroism though not any more destructive then the standard ones are. The first time I saw the movie, I was both confused and awed at him.
As the story developed, and I saw there was a missing history to his life, I could not turn away. When Mary threw him out of her house and showed her own power, I was stunned. The plot had been that he was the one and only superhero in the world. So, after some obligatory fighting and destruction on par with any Marvel movie, they look around and see all the damage they have caused. And pause...
Later, when Hancock is actually injured by a simple bullet, we see that something is going wrong. In the hospital, Mary tells Hancock what they are. They are the last of some odd paired creations by ancient aliens designed to protect Earth. Hancock is The Protector. Mary doesn't say exactly what her purpose is, but it is either a builder of ancient cities or a controller of natural events, I think. She seemed to say she was NOT a "Protector".
When Mary is at Hancock's hospital bedside and telling him who they are and explaining the scars on his body, I cry. It is so moving. When she tells him that, when they are together, they weaken. And for a reason. That they might live and love and grow old together and die. I thought that was a bit hokey at first (why be created to die?) but after a few viewings, I come to the conclusion that immortality is not for forever (Tolkien's elves idea of the "gift to men" that they would die of age and even the Norse gods in Marvel and myth die).
As Mary and Hancock are both dying from the injuries that their closeness are causing, Hancock finally throws himself out a high window. He ain't dead yet... Falling to the street below, he gets a little distance from Mary and gains a little strength. And her heartbeat starts again. The further he jumps, the more they both recover.
I would like to see a prequel, showing more about their origins, past lives, etc, but that would be difficult. Most of 'Hancock' revolves around what we (and he) DOESN'T know about himself and why he is so bizarre in his behavior. A prequel would be more like a standard superhero movie if the creators are not careful.
It could be done. 'Prometheus' was an amazing prequel to 'Alien'. But it couldn't be "Hancock and Mary Kick Butt". There would be the other pairs, the creators, the purpose, and how the others died and why and what THEIR purposes were (if Hancock is "The Protector" what were the others?).
So those are the 2 movies I am watching. Waiting for Incredibles2 on a night where I want to sit for 2 hours...
The comics are not sacred.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 01, 2019, 06:08:31 AM
The comics are not sacred.
GASP!!! How can the actual origins, plotlines, and contradictions of the comic books (if ever there was a poor term) be challenged in this day of movies? I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
I miss the "comic" books... I miss the authority of the origins. I don't like it when Hollywood (wherever that is these days) messes with my memories.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 06:28:23 AM
GASP!!! How can the actual origins, plotlines, and contradictions of the comic books (if ever there was a poor term) be challenged in this day of movies? I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
I miss the "comic" books... I miss the authority of the origins. I don't like it when Hollywood (wherever that is these days) messes with my memories.
Sorry, but when I read
Bullard of the Space Patrol it was the end of my comic book days. I didn't know scifi as a genre even existed before then.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 01, 2019, 06:49:07 AM
Sorry, but when I read Bullard of the Space Patrol it was the end of my comic book days. I didn't know scifi as a genre even existed before then.
I had to look that up. And it still brought no memories. And I vaguely remember Gerald Mc Boing-Boing and Tom Terrific!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:59:38 AM
I reply as an old comic book readers starting in 1960 and a reader of myths... There are some things that should not change. Thor shouldn't be a woman. Nor should Captain Marvel. There is a history there. That said, let there be more female heros. I have some favorites. I always thought Jean Grey would be more than in the old comics. I loved Mantis. Scarlett Witch was a comer. Sue Storm grew. Mystique and Rogue are powerful.
Let there be new female heros rather than transfer them into male characters.
You what 2 movies I can watch almost any day? 'The Incredibles' and 'Hancock'. I love all the Incredibles. Mr and Elastigirl re great and I loved seeing Dash and Violet grow into their powers. Everytime I see Dash run on water, I crack up. But to me, Elastigirl (hey, I didn't name her) and Violet are great.
'Hancock' (which I watched again for about the 10th time last night) is endlessly fascinating. An amnesiac superhero who lives (rather miserably) alone and causes utter destruction when he stops crimes, he is the antithesis of standard superheroism though not any more destructive then the standard ones are. The first time I saw the movie, I was both confused and awed at him.
As the story developed, and I saw there was a missing history to his life, I could not turn away. When Mary threw him out of her house and showed her own power, I was stunned. The plot had been that he was the one and only superhero in the world. So, after some obligatory fighting and destruction on par with any Marvel movie, they look around and see all the damage they have caused. And pause...
Later, when Hancock is actually injured by a simple bullet, we see that something is going wrong. In the hospital, Mary tells Hancock what they are. They are the last of some odd paired creations by ancient aliens designed to protect Earth. Hancock is The Protector. Mary doesn't say exactly what her purpose is, but it is either a builder of ancient cities or a controller of natural events, I think. She seemed to say she was NOT a "Protector".
When Mary is at Hancock's hospital bedside and telling him who they are and explaining the scars on his body, I cry. It is so moving. When she tells him that, when they are together, they weaken. And for a reason. That they might live and love and grow old together and die. I thought that was a bit hokey at first (why be created to die?) but after a few viewings, I come to the conclusion that immortality is not for forever (Tolkien's elves idea of the "gift to men" that they would die of age and even the Norse gods in Marvel and myth die).
As Mary and Hancock are both dying from the injuries that their closeness are causing, Hancock finally throws himself out a high window. He ain't dead yet... Falling to the street below, he gets a little distance from Mary and gains a little strength. And her heartbeat starts again. The further he jumps, the more they both recover.
I would like to see a prequel, showing more about their origins, past lives, etc, but that would be difficult. Most of 'Hancock' revolves around what we (and he) DOESN'T know about himself and why he is so bizarre in his behavior. A prequel would be more like a standard superhero movie if the creators are not careful.
It could be done. 'Prometheus' was an amazing prequel to 'Alien'. But it couldn't be "Hancock and Mary Kick Butt". There would be the other pairs, the creators, the purpose, and how the others died and why and what THEIR purposes were (if Hancock is "The Protector" what were the others?).
So those are the 2 movies I am watching. Waiting for Incredibles2 on a night where I want to sit for 2 hours...
I am completely on board with female leads. Some of my fav movie and gaming characters are women, Ripley, Lara croft, coraline, Wonder Woman, Maria (sound of music), Dorothy Gale, Eowyn, Sarah Conner, these are all strong leads with dynamic and differing characters, but most of all their unique and not just playing off someone else's status or forcing agendas.
Quote from: Munch on August 01, 2019, 01:14:23 PM
I am completely on board with female leads. Some of my fav movie and gaming characters are women, Ripley, Lara croft, coraline, Wonder Woman, Maria (sound of music), Dorothy Gale, Eowyn, Sarah Conner, these are all strong leads with dynamic and differing characters, but most of all their unique and not just playing off someone else's status or forcing agendas.
I agree and that is a better list than I could come up with. I can understand that I didn't think of Dorothy Gale and Maria (the most beautiful sound that I ever heard, Maria), but I am surprised that I didn't think of Ripley or Eowyn. Both profound heroes in my mind.
When I think of 'Alien', itsnot the ending that comes to mind but the moment the gate raises and she comes out in the warehouse loader outfit. Because at that moment, she didn't know if it would work, but it was all she had and she went with it.
And in LOTR, it isn't the end of Sauron or the Ring that I look for (though it is close), but Eowyn pulling off her helmet to challenge the Nazgul King. Merry's dagger "unknit the undead sinews" or something like that and Eowyn dealt a thrust through the face. "No man could kill him", but a Hobbit and a woman did.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:59:38 AM
Let there be new female heros rather than transfer them into male characters.
Bingo! That sums it up for me. I love women superheroes. The so called fairer sex tearing the heads off bank robbers and rapists is very appealing. Love Wonder Woman (the one character that put's DC ahead of Marvel on gender equality). There's Red Witch and Black widow that deserve more attention. Even revenge films where a woman hunts down her betrayers, and wipes the floor with them before she kills them off one after another are great fun. Captain Marvel is OK, because I understand the DC restraining order over intellectual property, but changing Thor to a woman makes little sense. Actual Norse mythology is what it is. Maybe just magically transfer Thor's powers to Jane Foster, and make her the supreme ruler of Asgard, but call her Queen Jane of the New Realm or something. This wouldn't be disrespectful to either gender, mythology, or the MCU, while still being empowering to modern women, if in fact this is what this whole gender reassignment is supposed to accomplish. And you've already got some lesser women heroes with potentially interesting origin stories that have not been elevated to their full capacity for no other reason than Marvel just hasn't. But that could easily be added in or fixed without getting rid of established characters.
Now I haven't seen the next Thor movie. Maybe Disney can pull this off without disturbing fan's sense of continuity. But it's going to be challenging, and maybe even potentially harmful to the franchise too.
How about this? Thor realizes that his life has been unfulfilled because he finally recognizes that for the last thousand years, he's been a woman trapped in a man's body. He undergoes reconstructive surgery and resumes his role as leader of his people?
Or:
In order to take revenge for being denied the throne, Loki changes Thor into a woman, but Thor remains unaffected by Loki's diabolical plot, kills Loki (I never liked that asshole much anyway), and learns to live with the change, but somehow get's his old eye back because I'm not that turned on my one eyed women.
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2019, 02:16:21 PM
How about this? Thor realizes that his life has been unfulfilled because he finally recognizes that for the last thousand years, he's been a woman trapped in a man's body. He undergoes reconstructive surgery and resumes his role as leader of his people?
Or:
In order to take revenge for being denied the throne, Loki changes Thor into a woman, but Thor remains unaffected by Loki's diabolical plot, kills Loki (I never liked that asshole much anyway), and learns to live with the change, but somehow get's his old eye back because I'm not that turned on my one eyed women.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f0/b2/96/f0b296722d6e2bd1f4ddb44352e8e3c9.jpg)
Have to say, she don't do it for me either.
Actually, nobody in this manga, really, I think it's the over-the-topness.
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2019, 01:57:05 PM
Bingo! That sums it up for me. I love women superheroes. The so called fairer sex tearing the heads off bank robbers and rapists is very appealing. Love Wonder Woman (the one character that put's DC ahead of Marvel on gender equality). There's Red Witch and Black widow that deserve more attention. Even revenge films where a woman hunts down her betrayers, and wipes the floor with them before she kills them off one after another are great fun. Captain Marvel is OK, because I understand the DC restraining order over intellectual property, but changing Thor to a woman makes little sense. Actual Norse mythology is what it is. Maybe just magically transfer Thor's powers to Jane Foster, and make her the supreme ruler of Asgard, but call her Queen Jane of the New Realm or something. This wouldn't be disrespectful to either gender, mythology, or the MCU, while still being empowering to modern women, if in fact this is what this whole gender reassignment is supposed to accomplish. And you've already got some lesser women heroes with potentially interesting origin stories that have not been elevated to their full capacity for no other reason than Marvel just hasn't. But that could easily be added in or fixed without getting rid of established characters.
Now I haven't seen the next Thor movie. Maybe Disney can pull this off without disturbing fan's sense of continuity. But it's going to be challenging, and maybe even potentially harmful to the franchise too.
I think they will get away with it because the only ones who remember that Dr Don Blake originally became Thor by hitting his cane on a cave wall are annoying old farts like me.
Interesting this comes out, right after I read the comments about it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Cp1R5u-B4
I'm still waiting for Infinity War to come on cable free. I hate movie theaters. And I hate paying for movies. I'm waiting for Incredibles2 but that might actually be available. Gotta check that.
It's always easier to change the gender rather than create a new one. As they are mostly male, they are turning them into female one by one to profit from the comic book movies era before it ends. They are only doing it for money, only money and people insist to see it from a gender war polemic. LOL It's kids watch these movies the most. When the heroes are familiar, parents choose them to bring/let their kids to watch it. Hype is much easier.
When they made Supergirl, I was a little kid. They made a Supergirl, because Superman was in and they expected it would make money because of superman. There weren't SJWs or these identity politics then.
Now, it makes more money than ever. Why wouldn't they make them? They will make a pac woman movie. A friday the 13th with a female Jason, a female Freddy Kruger...etc. So many material. LOOL
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 05, 2019, 04:20:13 PM
It's always easier to change the gender rather than create a new one. As they are mostly male, they are turning them into female one by one to profit from the comic book movies era before it ends. They are only doing it for money, only money and people insist to see it from a gender war polemic. LOL It's kids watch these movies the most. When the heroes are familiar, parents choose them to bring/let their kids to watch it. Hype is much easier.
When they made Supergirl, I was a little kid. They made a Supergirl, because Superman was in and they expected it would make money because of superman. There weren't SJWs or these identity politics then.
Now, it makes more money than ever. Why wouldn't they make them? They will make a pac woman movie. A friday the 13th with a female Jason, a female Freddy Kruger...etc. So many material. LOOL
I sadly agree. It is the name "Thor" that sells tickets, not that the Thor of myth was male. And I think it is probably a Good Thing that young women have more forceful characters to admire that look like them.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 02:27:45 PM
I'm still waiting for Infinity War to come on cable free. I hate movie theaters. And I hate paying for movies.
Stop waiting and go look.
QuoteI'm waiting for Incredibles2 but that might actually be available. Gotta check that.
At least as good as the first one. "Jack Jack vs. the trash panda" equals "Dash's Run" for me.
Hobbs and Shaw 4/10
Not Duane Johnson's best movie. Action, high speed chases, and wise cracks throughout, but not that creative.
Quote from: SGOS on August 05, 2019, 07:14:00 PM
Hobbs and Shaw 4/10
Not Duane Johnson's best movie. Action, high speed chases, and wise cracks throughout, but not that creative.
Wasn't hoping for anything else from them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hiB7pE9qank
Summery, race bending characters is stupid. It's cheap because rather then developing pre existing black characters, they take the cheap route of race changing characters, all just to force that diversity quota to appeal to idiots who have no connection to the source material
Green Book - 9/10
Viggo Mortensen is fat and plays an Italian hardball driving a black pianist through the deep south during the 60ies. Oh, and it won an Oscar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC-_Gon2p9M
Driving Ms Daisy
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 05, 2019, 05:51:42 PM
Stop waiting and go look. At least as good as the first one. "Jack Jack vs. the trash panda" equals "Dash's Run" for me.
OK, OK.. Infinity Wars sometime some.
But "Jack Jack vs the Trash Panda"? I have to watch that tomorrow night for sure (today is Thursday here). I'll need some cooked ground meat. I have tortilla chips, salsa, and cheap cheese.
*Heavy sigh*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDj8Y2K0ODA
Who asked for this? I'll admit, it looks a lot better than the first one based on the trailer, but does every terrible movie really need to get a sequel?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 11:54:40 AM
OK, OK.. Infinity Wars sometime some.
But "Jack Jack vs the Trash Panda"? I have to watch that tomorrow night for sure (today is Thursday here). I'll need some cooked ground meat. I have tortilla chips, salsa, and cheap cheese.
Take a pound of ground beef. Brown it. Drain if you wish. Then add a jar of salsa. Simmer for five minutes. Instant taco meat.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 11, 2019, 01:09:28 PM
*Heavy sigh*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDj8Y2K0ODA
Who asked for this? I'll admit, it looks a lot better than the first one based on the trailer, but does every terrible movie really need to get a sequel?
I asked the exact same question about movies like madagascar sequels, or movies like minions, or the emoji movie. I've been forced to sit through that shit when babysitting my nephews, and all i wish for is for them to watch cartoons of quality, like into the spiderverse, or coraline.
Thing with me is, or anyone in my generation group, I grew up on cartoons, its not like from my mothers generation where cartoons were rare things you only see in the cinema as a kid and then seeing some black and white kids show on the black and white tv. i always get the impression from that generation cartoons were just only ever thought of as just for kids and not really for adults.
I actually grew up watching saturday morning cartoons, and having loads of vhs tapes of my fav cartoon shows and animated movies, so I have a real love on for animation, from disney classics to its renaissance era, to clay-mations like wallace and gromit, to japanese animations like from Hayao Miyazaki.
So its not like I look at movies like the one you linked or minions or the emoji movie and just think their garbage because their cartoons, I just think those particular movies are garbage on their own, and a slap in the face to decent animated movies. They also fall into the catagory of 'stupid movies because kids are stupid' mentality. Fuck these people.
Movies like theses are like those parents who never want their children exposed to anything potentially challenging for them, like playing sports incase they might fall over and scrape their knee, or hanging out with other kids incase they get exposed to something outside their sphere.
"Hobbs and Shaw". Great fun.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 11, 2019, 01:54:53 PM
Take a pound of ground beef. Brown it. Drain if you wish. Then add a jar of salsa. Simmer for five minutes. Instant taco meat.
I find your lack of onions and peppers disturbing.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 11, 2019, 09:58:20 PM
I find your lack of onions and peppers disturbing.
You're buying the wrong salsa. Chunky salsa FTW.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 11, 2019, 10:08:19 PM
You're buying the wrong salsa. Chunky salsa FTW.
1) bottled salsa rarely has enough onions and peppers
2) generic chunky salsa is basically the mexican food equivalent of yellow mustard
3) YMMV, but I like less tomato and more of a pico de gallo-like salsa, which is far more oniony
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 11, 2019, 01:54:53 PM
Take a pound of ground beef. Brown it. Drain if you wish. Then add a jar of salsa. Simmer for five minutes. Instant taco meat.
I want some chips and cheese with that. And dumped in a bowl. With a spoonful of sour cream, a few spoonfuls of minced hot peppers, and some minced onion sprinkled on top. Keep that green goo away please, though.
Batman vs Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Read the comic it was based on first, as a Tmnt (and batman) fan.
In many ways, the movie did it better, though the comic is definitely worth a read.
But the lighter tone worked for 90% of the film, dropping April and Casey (though I like those characters too) was also a good way to get the comics into one feature film and keep the story flowing, and the more comic-y appearance made for a better mix of turtles-batman universe. By the way, dropping the different worlds thing, in this instance, worked too. It was fine in the comics, but it needed to go to make the film flow. So good job.
Minor gripes? Damian Wayne is too be more broody and less prone to jokes (and laughing with jokes), imho. Donatello, my favorite turtle, had a non-pleasing design. (And he didn't get enough spotlight to shine. He hardly ever does.)
But real good fighting scenes. Dark enough without going too dark. Good banter. Hilarious jokes and visual gags. Solid animation all around and a great deal of respect for the two franchises.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 11, 2019, 10:22:01 PM
1) bottled salsa rarely has enough onions and peppers
2) generic chunky salsa is basically the mexican food equivalent of yellow mustard
3) YMMV, but I like less tomato and more of a pico de gallo-like salsa, which is far more oniony
There was nothing in my quickie recipe that said you couldn't customize. The basic vehicle is ready for passengers.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 03:41:35 AM
I want some chips and cheese with that. And dumped in a bowl. With a spoonful of sour cream, a few spoonfuls of minced hot peppers, and some minced onion sprinkled on top. Keep that green goo away please, though.
Guck-e-moley? Looks like snot.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 14, 2019, 06:44:55 AM
Guck-e-moley? Looks like snot.
Not if you make it fresh. Food that isn't fresh is just decaying plant matter are animal corpses.
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 08:37:08 AM
Not if you make it fresh.
Yes, it does, even fresh.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 14, 2019, 09:04:50 AM
Yes, it does, even fresh.
How about sour cream. That is good on Mexican things too.
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 02:07:46 PM
How about sour cream. That is good on Mexican things too.
And some black olives? I'm beginning to think of Taco Bell Nachos Grande...BTW, its "Taco Bell" because the creators name was Bell... Just watched a series of shows on foods.
Taco Hell, you mean.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 15, 2019, 01:07:33 PM
Taco Hell, you mean.
Hey, I LIKE Nachos Bell Grande! I cant make them myself right. Buy them about once a year...
https://blogchef.net/nachos-bell-grande-recipe/
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 15, 2019, 01:26:17 PM
https://blogchef.net/nachos-bell-grande-recipe/
Yeah its the taco seasoning. I just can't get it right on my own. Its like making a Big Mac.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 01:33:07 PM
Yeah its the taco seasoning. I just can't get it right on my own. Its like making a Big Mac.
https://domesticsuperhero.com/homemade-taco-seasoning/
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 15, 2019, 01:40:29 PM
https://domesticsuperhero.com/homemade-taco-seasoning/
OK, OK, I'll try it!
Actually, thanks.
Would you like to learn how to make a shrimp roll? I've gotten good at those...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 14, 2019, 06:44:55 AM
Guck-e-moley? Looks like snot.
Maybe it's just my generation's tastes (millennial) but I LOVE guac. And black olives. And onions. And any and all peppers. And onions galore.
My bro likes his tacos with beef, shredded cheese, and a light dolup of salsa. Irreconcilable differences.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 15, 2019, 02:53:13 PM
Maybe it's just my generation's tastes (millennial) but I LOVE guac. And black olives. And onions. And any and all peppers. And onions galore.
My bro likes his tacos with beef, shredded cheese, and a light dolup of salsa. Irreconcilable differences.
Love all but the g-poo...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 02:44:34 PM
Would you like to learn how to make a shrimp roll?
no
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 20, 2019, 11:12:58 AM
La repeat.
Well, I finally got shrimp rolls right. And that's not easy. I'll give the Nachos Bell Grande another shot. Your Taco Seasoning looks pretty good.
In movie news, there's going to be a Matrix 4.
Whoa.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 20, 2019, 07:29:44 PM
In movie news, there's going to be a Matrix 4.
Whoa.
There are movies I haven't followed. I'm not even sure what Matrix 1 was about. And no, I don't care.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 07:41:17 PM
There are movies I haven't followed. I'm not even sure what Matrix 1 was about. And no, I don't care.
It's about machines that are too stupid to use cows for batteries. Or some animal that doesn't revolt.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 20, 2019, 07:43:47 PM
It's about machines that are too stupid to use cows for batteries. Or some animal that doesn't revolt.
They can't the machines are woke, no fat shaming allowed ;-)
https://youtu.be/IYomswXLYQ8
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/EverlastingBrilliantCapybara-size_restricted.gif)
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 20, 2019, 07:29:44 PM
In movie news, there's going to be a Matrix 4.
Whoa.
How? What would it even be about? The war is over. Neo is dead. The agents are deleted. Are the robots just going to decide not to keep their word?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 07:41:17 PM
There are movies I haven't followed. I'm not even sure what Matrix 1 was about.
Glad you asked. It's basically the allegory of the cave with robots thrown in.
It's about conformity vs non-conformity, predeterminism vs choice, it's even a little about technology and whether or not we should shun new techology, embrace it, or try to find some sort of synthesis between old and new. It's really fascinating stuff!
QuoteAnd no, I don't care.
:''''''(
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2019, 08:26:25 PM
How? What would it even be about? The war is over. Neo is dead. The agents are deleted. Are the robots just going to decide not to keep their word?
It's not completely wrapped up.
Neo *might* be dead, but he was plugged into the machine city, so we'll see if some small fragment if him survived.
And there is only a fragile cease-fire between the humans and the machines. The Matrix is still up and running, the only difference is that the machines no longer violently suppress redpills. The machines may have found a loophole in that agreement to use *other* means to lessen that without resorting to violence. *gestating...*
Both the machines and humans will be faced with hardliners who hate the truce and want to resume hostilities.
Additionally, there could be an outside threat to both that we haven't seen yet...
Im waiting to see Incredibles 2 and Avengers;Infinity War. I din't pay for movies . The popcorn is bad and the teens are noisey and the chairs are stiscky, I like my TV Chair and fridge.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 09:26:23 PM
Im waiting to see Incredibles 2 and Avengers;Infinity War. I din't pay for movies . The popcorn is bad and the teens are noisey and the chairs are stiscky, I like my TV Chair and fridge.
Infinity War is out on DVD, and the Matrix has been out on DVD since almost the beginning of DVDs.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 20, 2019, 09:22:00 PMAdditionally, there could be an outside threat to both that we haven't seen yet...
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/183/103/alens.jpg)
(God, I hope not. lol)
It's possible. But less Martian, more Crystalline Entity.
But the real focus isn't the aliens, it's the pressure that threat exerts, which forces the machines and humans to form a more symbiotic relationship out of sheer desperation.
Think about how things were in Europe before and after the Black Death. Now think about something like that times 10^2
Lion King 2019 followed the classic 95 percent. Beyonce had to give it a shitty song. The movie had not the magic it does in the classic.
4.5/10
Sci fi from the mid 80s ... I enjoyed it years ago ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvLsByWh13o
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 09:26:23 PM
Im waiting to see Incredibles 2 and Avengers;Infinity War.
Incredibles 2 is a worthy sequel. Wait for Endgame to come out in a mode you approve of and watch the set back-to-back, a five hour marathon.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 07:41:17 PM
There are movies I haven't followed. I'm not even sure what Matrix 1 was about. And no, I don't care.
I suppose you can survive without seeing the Matrix, and I don't think it's necessary to see II and III, but the Matrix at it's time, resonated with viewers on something people were thinking about, but Hollywood had never articulated so vividly before. Today many sci fi movies are built on the concept of the Matrix, The Thirteenth Floor being one I would highly recommend.
If you watched the Matrix today, it may strike you as "just another....", but way back when, it was the first of it's kind, although I think it still holds up well on its own today. Also, there are some interesting characters that helped make the movie. I don't think I'd ever noticed Hugo Weaving before the Matrix, but you will never forget him after seeing the Matrix. Mr. Anderson, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson will never forget him anyway, nor will will the name "Anderson" ever sound the same way to you again.
Meh. The Matrix was contrived, the plot was a bit lame, and the action was cartoonish. Other than that it wasn't much.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 20, 2019, 09:13:22 PM
Glad you asked. It's basically the allegory of the cave with robots thrown in.
It's about conformity vs non-conformity, predeterminism vs choice, it's even a little about technology and whether or not we should shun new techology, embrace it, or try to find some sort of synthesis between old and new. It's really fascinating stuff!
:''''''(
It's also a statement about transgenderism, which makes sense given the directors transgenderism.
The Matrix is honestly a masterpiece of cinematography, and looking back at the second and third one's through the lens of, "How does this movie speak on a philosophical level" rather than, "OO GUNS! SLOW MO! COOL!!!!", they are actually pretty deep movies as well. They just didn't follow the ethos of, "Show me, don't tell me" like the first one did, and it shows.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2019, 08:15:41 PM
https://youtu.be/IYomswXLYQ8
I love this, it just further confirms how bad the next phase of the MCU will be, with killing off or swapping out major marvel heros with more 'woke progressive' forced narrative.
Of course Spiderman, a little white boy, wasn't going to survive in it.
Holy mother of identity politics.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 21, 2019, 08:12:50 AM
Meh. The Matrix was contrived, the plot was a bit lame, and the action was cartoonish. Other than that it wasn't much.
(http://media.giphy.com/media/G6sJqVpD1U4jC/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Shiranu on August 21, 2019, 02:34:38 PMThe Matrix is honestly a masterpiece of cinematography, and looking back at the second and third one's through the lens of, "How does this movie speak on a philosophical level" rather than, "OO GUNS! SLOW MO! COOL!!!!", they are actually pretty deep movies as well.
I'll be honest, I really loved the bullet time and kung fu. The security checkpoint scene blew my...err...mind.
But the lore is really fascinating. I actually sympathize with the machines on some level, since they were cruelly treated, but obviously, they went too far, humans are no longer a real threat to them, so they can be lenient and at the very least, give them their own virtual world without an intelligent machine presence.
I didn't think about it from a transgender angle until extremely recently, but that makes sense. It always struck me as odd that people's Matrix personas weren't all that different from how they are in reality. Though I suppose it would confuse the audience too much if two different actors play the same character.
Quote"Show me, don't tell me" like the first one did, and it shows.
Vis-a-vis concordiantly erudite dialeticism. I thought I was such an idiot for not be able to understand that the first time around.
I've gotta say though, I really enjoyed the Merovingian.
Quote from: Munch on August 21, 2019, 04:43:19 PM
I love this, it just further confirms how bad the next phase of the MCU will be, with killing off or swapping out major marvel heros with more 'woke progressive' forced narrative.
Of course Spiderman, a little white boy, wasn't going to survive in it.
What the fuck does a squabble between Sony and Disney over how they share the cut of the earnings from Spider-Man movies have to do with "woke progressives?" You're just completely obsessed with your SJW boogieman narrative, aren't you?
MiB: International - 6/10
Nothing too fancy. Pretty much just boilerplate story-telling.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 21, 2019, 05:00:55 PM
(http://media.giphy.com/media/G6sJqVpD1U4jC/giphy.gif)
First, I love that gif. Second, his opinion on comic book movies clearly disqualifies his opinion on any other movie so it's whatever ;).
Quote from: Shiranu on August 21, 2019, 04:47:07 PM
Holy mother of identity politics.
Coming from you my dear, I consider that a compliment. *tips hat*
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 21, 2019, 05:38:46 PM
What the fuck does a squabble between Sony and Disney over how they share the cut of the earnings from Spider-Man movies have to do with "woke progressives?" You're just completely obsessed with your SJW boogieman narrative, aren't you?
When you live through seeing your fav comic book characters upended by wokeness to the point of it near bankrupting many comic titles, and the threat of these things destroying a once good industry, you tend to look at the progression of the movieverse going in the same direction and the same mistakes being made with heavy cynicism
QuoteComing from you my dear, I consider that a compliment. *tips hat*
If you dislike something someone does, and you do the same thing to the point where even that person is aghast at how stupidly far you took it, that's hardly something to take pride in.
Of course, you have always been the biggest player of identity politics here so it's not all that shocking you took it that far... but even though you always know it's possible, it's still batshit to see it actually voiced.
QuoteWhen you live through seeing your fav comic book characters upended by wokeness to the point of it near bankrupting many comic titles, and the threat of these things destroying a once good industry, you tend to look at the progression of the movieverse going in the same direction and the same mistakes being made with heavy cynicism
Let me sum that up for you....
"I don't care about reality because it doesn't agree with my hurt feelings, so it's wrong and I'm right."
Comic books were failing long before "woke" culture.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 21, 2019, 05:12:43 PM
I'll be honest, I really loved the bullet time and kung fu.
I pass on Kung fu movies. I don't even read the synopsis when one shows up. Certain names associated with the art of Kung fu get rejected out of hand also. The Matrix was worthwhile for other reasons. To me it's not even a Kung fu movie, although I realize that Kenau Reeves built much of his reputation as a Kung fu kind of guy, so I guess that had to be part of the movie, but I don't think it was really necessary.
Maybe it's a generational thing for me. My childhood fantasies involved judo. No one I knew ever heard of Kung fu. I remember it being explained to me when it became fashionable. I said, "Well isn't that just judo?" I was corrected by my playmate, a self identified authority on the subject. He said, "No, no, it's completely different," as he went on to explain the finer points, none of which I can remember. It just seemed like judo. Still does, but it seems like it has more shouting.
I was born during the last days of WWII, and I cut my teeth on Saturday afternoon war hero films at the local theater, which were basically just propaganda films starring John Wayne. I remember wondering with my playmates, if a judo guy and a wrestler guy had a fight, who would win? Somewhere around the age of 7, my fascination with the art of judo was squashed, along with any potential fascination with any other forms of the marshal arts, when a kid two years older laid it all out for me and my friends in the alley behind my house. He said, "All that judo stuff is just junk. That's the reason we beat the Japs, cause the old American one-two always beats that judo crap." I think he probably got this from his father, who was actually in the war. Anyway, I didn't question him, because he was almost ten, which in my mind qualified him as an adult, and it never occurred to me that the atom bomb or the potential alternative of fire bombing all of Japan's major cities had anything to do with the outcome of the war.
Quote from: Munch on August 21, 2019, 04:43:19 PM
I love this, it just further confirms how bad the next phase of the MCU will be, with killing off or swapping out major marvel heros with more 'woke progressive' forced narrative.
Of course Spiderman, a little white boy, wasn't going to survive in it.
The Culture Progressives won't be happy until every boy is turned into a transgendered, African-Hispanic, Muslim terrorist in a burkha, wielding a pink plastic nerf AK-47 ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 21, 2019, 08:02:07 PM
The Culture Progressives won't be happy until every boy is turned into a transgendered, African-Hispanic, Muslim terrorist in a burkha, wielding a pink plastic nerf AK-47 ;-)
Please don't feed his delusions.
Quote from: SGOS on August 21, 2019, 07:34:50 PMI remember wondering with my playmates, if a judo guy and a wrestler guy had a fight, who would win?
A question for the ages.
I would assume that a master martial artist would have the advantage since a lot of basic martial arts moves focus on intercepting basic incoming blows and turning them aside.
Personally, I would like to learn taijiquan (tai chi) sometime. It seems fluid and elegant - more defensive and lower strength requirements than other martial arts. There's something supremely gratifying in seeing a 20-year-old lunge at an 80-year-old and the aged defender just grabs his attacker's wrist and twists, spinning his attacker off balance and helpless.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 21, 2019, 08:28:49 PMThere's something supremely gratifying in seeing a 20-year-old lunge at an 80-year-old and the aged defender just grabs his attacker's wrist and twists, spinning his attacker off balance and helpless.
Budokan, 1983. Awesome to watch.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 21, 2019, 08:13:59 PM
Please don't feed his delusions.
You may have matured past being a cadre of the Woke World Revolution ... but there are always more 20 somethings where you came from ;-)
Identity politics is a real thing. And I have the wrong identity according to the Left. They can make as many Blair Witch Projects as they like.
But I wouldn't even rape that Gillette commercial (borrowed from Sargon of Akkad).
Anyone see "War of the Arrows" ... from 2012. Warning, low-testosterone suffers won't like this one.
(https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/68286057_2381526895452435_553614043139538944_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQk-edvdd3TwYG7oimZsD74UwwJdrUHC8JPHhJsH1ZcxYDg9jb0BACPHtBGSAPfysM9bmqcyOnB2q0tICxGgIeEv&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=4d9aa8a5b6640119acdf52feeef9cfcd&oe=5DD37277)
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2019, 02:21:53 PM
(https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/68286057_2381526895452435_553614043139538944_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQk-edvdd3TwYG7oimZsD74UwwJdrUHC8JPHhJsH1ZcxYDg9jb0BACPHtBGSAPfysM9bmqcyOnB2q0tICxGgIeEv&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=4d9aa8a5b6640119acdf52feeef9cfcd&oe=5DD37277)
For real. Buy out the company and shut down everything not Spider-Man related. Go full EA on those jerkwads.
Quote from: Baruch on August 22, 2019, 08:38:19 AM
You may have matured past being a cadre of the Woke World Revolution ... but there are always more 20 somethings where you came from ;-)
Identity politics is a real thing. And I have the wrong identity according to the Left. They can make as many Blair Witch Projects as they like.
But I wouldn't even rape that Gillette commercial (borrowed from Sargon of Akkad).
Anyone see "War of the Arrows" ... from 2012. Warning, low-testosterone suffers won't like this one.
Again, what do your delusions have to do with anything? I post something about Sony and Disney fighting over Spider-Man, and you two go on a mindless rant about identity politics and how the left hate white people. Seriously, WTF are you smoking?
From an article about the ongoing Sony-Disney dispute:
QuoteFeige is the producer often thought to be the mastermind behind the massive success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Sony's representative echoed that, saying Sony was "grateful for his help and guidance and appreciate the path he has helped put us on, which we will continue.
Press x to doubt.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2019, 03:39:20 PM
Again, what do your delusions have to do with anything? I post something about Sony and Disney fighting over Spider-Man, and you two go on a mindless rant about identity politics and how the left hate white people. Seriously, WTF are you smoking?
Maybe because Hollywood is a communist shit hole? (now that Clint has retired) I play off Munch, because I like him.
Personally I don't care about artistic integrity. They can have Palestinian bombers (human and anime) play all the Hollywood roles for all I care.
I like the new kid Spiderman, but they can change him out, as often as they did the Batman.
I am not injecting politics into Hollywood, Hollywood is.
Quote from: Baruch on August 22, 2019, 05:30:06 PMMaybe because Hollywood is a communist shit hole? (now that Clint has retired)
This is a matter of capitalism, not communism. For such a smart guy, you say some really stupid things.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2019, 06:24:31 PMFor such a smart guy, you say some really stupid things.
If it quacks like a duck...
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2019, 06:24:31 PM
This is a matter of capitalism, not communism. For such a smart guy, you say some really stupid things.
Ah ... but then the Rothschilds were backing Lenin then?
Money is universal.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 22, 2019, 08:20:56 PM
If it quacks like a duck...
I am proud of my webbed feet ;-)
A friend took me out to see Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark.
4/10. Very predictable, very generic, jumpscare-heavy mess. The main characters got very little characterization, so I'm not too broken up about any deaths. And it had the audacity to sequel-bait at the end, which obviously isn't going to happen.
The only good thing is that it tried very hard to tie itself to the source material, and I give them some credit for that.
Quote from: Baruch on August 22, 2019, 05:30:06 PM
Maybe because Hollywood is a communist shit hole? (now that Clint has retired) I play off Munch, because I like him.
Personally I don't care about artistic integrity. They can have Palestinian bombers (human and anime) play all the Hollywood roles for all I care.
I like the new kid Spiderman, but they can change him out, as often as they did the Batman.
I am not injecting politics into Hollywood, Hollywood is.
Again, this is literally about money.
I get that Hollywood has some really stupid social political leanings, and should be called on it when they go to far with it, but this is literally just Sony wanting more money for a franchise. It's really not any deeper than that.
Making it out to be some grand conspiracy only makes the actual conspiracies seem less believable.
So for money we could get all of Hollywood to just ... go away? How much??
Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2019, 11:02:28 PM
So for money we could get all of Hollywood to just ... go away? How much??
I think your asking the wrong question.
It's not how much, it's how little.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 23, 2019, 11:05:15 PM
I think your asking the wrong question.
It's not how much, it's how little.
Darn. Don't have my Monopoly game anymore ;-(
When it comes to big stores, movie studios, actors, and athletes, I don't really care much about their views. The product or skill is their important thing.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 23, 2019, 10:38:07 PM
Again, this is literally about money.
I get that Hollywood has some really stupid social political leanings, and should be called on it when they go to far with it, but this is literally just Sony wanting more money for a franchise. It's really not any deeper than that.
Making it out to be some grand conspiracy only makes the actual conspiracies seem less believable.
Actually, I think it's Disney that asked for more money. They decided they wanted to get a 50/50 split, and Sony's like, "Nah. If you're not happy with our arrangement, we'll go back to making our own movies." It is annoying that Spider-Man is under constant threat of being pulled out of the MCU, but at the same time, Disney is just getting way too big. They own everything.
From some explanation I read about what's up with Sony and Disney:
QuoteSo as a combination of both studios believing their partnership to be not all that valuable, yet still expecting a sizable stake in any renewed agreement, of course things couldn’t work out. To fans, and plenty of industry experts though, it’s obvious that both studios should reach a compromise. Tom Holland’s Spider-Man, for better or worse, has been tied to the Marvel Cinematic Universe since his inception. Removing that aspect of the character is tantamount to a full-on reboot. Not to mention the sweeping changes to this series’ creative team if a deal isn’t reached. Contrary to previous reports, Jon Watts is not signed on to make more Spider-Man films, and aside from Tom Holland, it’s unclear which members of the cast have contracts with Marvel or with Sony. Holland himself is still signed for two more films though.
I like good movies. So who doesn't? I really don't take much interest in the quarrels of multi billion dollar enterprises. From my position of little or no consequence in the big scheme of things, I'm just happy when a good film comes my way. Fuck Disney and fuck Sony. The Marvel Universe wasn't their idea, anyway. Now that Stan Lee is dead, the vultures are picking over his bones. They can do whatever they want with whatever characters they choose. If this all goes to shit, I won't pay to see their movies. If they still make good movies, I'll buy tickets. Beyond that, I've got other things to do with in my life.
People will vote with their feet.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 09:53:21 AM
So what movies?
What I meant was that people will go to movies that appeal to them.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 24, 2019, 11:21:23 AM
What I meant was that people will go to movies that appeal to them.
Well, I didn't mean that people would beat feet in the middle of most movies. Quite frankly, most are pretty good these days. Though I DO see an uptick in horror movies (which bore me).
Not the one I watched but the one I probably WILL watch later today or tomorrow. Incredibles2 is down to $2.99 on Fios so I will rent it
I bet I don't like it as much as the original.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 11:27:13 AM
Well, I didn't mean that people would beat feet in the middle of most movies. Quite frankly, most are pretty good these days. Though I DO see an uptick in horror movies (which bore me).
History is real life horror. Many Millennials love Trump-The Presidency better than Jason XII.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 11:27:13 AM
Well, I didn't mean that people would beat feet in the middle of most movies. Quite frankly, most are pretty good these days. Though I DO see an uptick in horror movies (which bore me).
I didn't say that was what you meant.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 11:37:47 AM
Not the one I watched but the one I probably WILL watch later today or tomorrow. Incredibles2 is down to $2.99 on Fios so I will rent it
I bet I don't like it as much as the original.
Jack-Jack vs. the trash panda.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 24, 2019, 12:06:32 PM
I didn't say that was what you meant.
And I equally didn't mean that you said so. I just find horror movies somewhat silly. I did admire the early Halloween movies interesting due to the creative ways people were killed. But that ended when the psychiatrist "filcked the bic" among the oxygen tanks. It was done after that.
'Alien' scared the spit out of me though. I was in the 2nd group on opening night in NYC. The first viewers came out pasty-faced and my friend and I both said "Oh Crap". I still have a T shirt that says "Here Jonsie" and I won't wear it...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 09:09:09 PM
And I equally didn't mean that you said so. I just find horror movies somewhat silly. I did admire the early Halloween movies interesting due to the creative ways people were killed. But that ended when the psychiatrist "filcked the bic" among the oxygen tanks. It was done after that.
'Alien' scared the spit out of me though. I was in the 2nd group on opening night in NYC. The first viewers came out pasty-faced and my friend and I both said "Oh Crap". I still have a T shirt that says "Here Jonsie" and I won't wear it...
i have never watched any of the Alien movies. When the first one came out, I saw after-market the comic book that covered the story-line in a store window. Scared the hell of me!
Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 11:08:03 PM
i have never watched any of the Alien movies. When the first one came out, I saw after-market the comic book that covered the story-line in a store window. Scared the hell of me!
The first one had the advantage of not seeming to have a sequel built-in. Plus, at the time, the audience had the thought that the Alien was the victim. I distinctly remember every follicle raising when I saw the first drop of acid fall. Atheist or not, it was an O M G moment.
It was several years before I could watch the moviw with eyes wide open. BTW, I loved watching 'Prometheus" some years ago. I went "HEY", this is a prequel!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 11:29:33 PM
The first one had the advantage of not seeming to have a sequel built-in. Plus, at the time, the audience had the thought that the Alien was the victim. I distinctly remember every follicle raising when I saw the first drop of acid fall. Atheist or not, it was an O M G moment.
It was several years before I could watch the moviw with eyes wide open. BTW, I loved watching 'Prometheus" some years ago. I went "HEY", this is a prequel!
Alien is my favorite horror movie.
My dad always tells an amusing tale. He skipped class to go watch it in the cinema. He was the only one, apart from one other, who sat at the front, in the entire room.
He was scared shitless, made worse by the lack of others in a large, dark room.
He never played hookey again.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 09:09:09 PM
'Alien' scared the spit out of me though. I was in the 2nd group on opening night in NYC. The first viewers came out pasty-faced and my friend and I both said "Oh Crap". I still have a T shirt that says "Here Jonsie" and I won't wear it...
"Alien" was a tech. flick with murders.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 25, 2019, 02:22:53 AM
Alien is my favorite horror movie.
My dad always tells an amusing tale. He skipped class to go watch it in the cinema. He was the only one, apart from one other, who sat at the front, in the entire room.
He was scared shitless, made worse by the lack of others in a large, dark room.
He never played hookey again.
Yeah, it was all unexpected. I can't express enough how we first-nighters responded. I've nentioned that the first audience all came out pasty-faced, but maybe not HOW pasty-faced. They were in actual shock. Some actually said "don't go in there". Some staggerred as the walked out.
I was not expecting any greater surprise than a typical horror movie or even something routinely outer-spacey, so I didn't have any reason to exaggerate my opinion of the emerging audience. But I had never saw such a reaction.
I only had nightmares about 2 movies before and that was 'The Crawling Eye' then I was a child and 'The Triffids' which only came to bother me later when I had to take out the trash under overhanging shrubs at night at 10.
I never have bad dreams about earthly monsters. I don't believe in them. But we don't know what is out there in other places. THAT came to bother me a great deal. The Alien came to represent that concern.
I've seen dead people from car accidents and I saw the police shoot a guy on the street once (justifiably) from just a few feet away.
But nothing scared the shit out of me like the first watching of 'Alien'. Because they might be out there. We MIGHT be the meanest bastards in the universe. Or not. And it doesn't take much of a difference to lose.
We know that from our own history. A slight difference in lethal skills and one side or the other wins. Suppose there is a 10% difference? Your toast.
I regret the Voyager information. I want to think that any intelligent species will mean well, but our own experience says not.
I'm not silly enough to worry about Galactus or Thanos. What I AM worried about is something like the 'Alien', a mindless predator. Because if there are a lot of intelligences "out there" one is going to be nasty...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfsFV7VGBzI
Angsty predator teens will save us ...
Tolkein 2019
8/10
It was pretty good but it needed more magic
Have to see that one.
"Godzilla: King of Monsters". Look, folks, it has "Godzilla" AND "Monsters" in the title. If you're tied to a seat in the theater, you have a right to complain. Otherwise, just enjoy the over-the-top daikaiju stuff.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 27, 2019, 06:36:10 PM
Have to see that one.
"Godzilla: King of Monsters". Look, folks, it has "Godzilla" AND "Monsters" in the title. If you're tied to a seat in the theater, you have a right to complain. Otherwise, just enjoy the over-the-top daikaiju stuff.
Earthly monster movies like Godzilla are not my cup of tea (with exceptions*). I just can't "suspend my disbelief" for them.
* The original King Kong was great for the emotional aspect, and the remake and I saw the brontosaurus stapede while buying a new TV and it blew my socks off. Plus Jurassic Park seeing the dinosaur CGIs...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAGVQLHvwOY
This movies is going to be incredible. Maybe Dark Knight quality.
Also, there's a theory going around that this joker is not The Joker, but a sort of proto-joker, an inspiration for the real Mistah J. I subscribe to this theory.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 27, 2019, 11:22:35 PM
Earthly monster movies like Godzilla are not my cup of tea (with exceptions*). I just can't "suspend my disbelief" for them.
* The original King Kong was great for the emotional aspect, and the remake and I saw the brontosaurus stapede while buying a new TV and it blew my socks off. Plus Jurassic Park seeing the dinosaur CGIs...
I love Big Bug Movies, so daikaiju aren't that much of a stretch. I'm watching "THEM" right now.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 28, 2019, 07:41:00 PM
I love Big Bug Movies, so daikaiju aren't that much of a stretch. I'm watching "THEM" right now.
The one with Whitmore in it?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 28, 2019, 09:10:02 PM
The one with Whitmore in it?
Yep. I screwed up the chronology, running "Them" before "The Thing From Another World." Can you tell me why?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 27, 2019, 06:36:10 PM
Have to see that one.
"Godzilla: King of Monsters". Look, folks, it has "Godzilla" AND "Monsters" in the title. If you're tied to a seat in the theater, you have a right to complain. Otherwise, just enjoy the over-the-top daikaiju stuff.
Saw that movie yesterday. The amount of silliness going on was too much for my tastes - 5/10.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 29, 2019, 06:30:19 AM
Saw that movie yesterday. The amount of silliness going on was too much for my tastes - 5/10.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
It said "Godzilla" in the title.
It said "Monsters" in the title.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 29, 2019, 06:24:53 AM
Yep. I screwed up the chronology, running "Them" before "The Thing From Another World." Can you tell me why?
If I remember right (becoming more problematical each day) Thing came before Them.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 29, 2019, 08:59:52 AM
If I remember right (becoming more problematical each day) Thing came before Them.
Yeah, but there's a more important sequence to consider.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 29, 2019, 09:32:35 AM
Yeah, but there's a more important sequence to consider.
Okay, ya got me---what's that?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 29, 2019, 10:11:34 AM
Okay, ya got me---what's that?
James Arness was The Thing from Another World, aka the walking carrot. In "Them" he was an FBI agent, you could actually see his face. Shortly after that movie came out, while playing a Greek warrior in a play, Arness was spotted by agent Charles K. Feldman, who represented John Wayne. Feldman introduced Arness to Wayne, who put the self-described 6' 6" actor under personal contract. Arness played several roles over the next few years for and with Wayne, whom he considered a mentor. In 1955, Wayne recommended Arness for the lead role of Matt Dillon in the TV series Gunsmoke (1955).
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 29, 2019, 10:20:34 AM
James Arness was The Thing from Another World, aka the walking carrot. In "Them" he was an FBI agent, you could actually see his face. Shortly after that movie came out, while playing a Greek warrior in a play, Arness was spotted by agent Charles K. Feldman, who represented John Wayne. Feldman introduced Arness to Wayne, who put the self-described 6' 6" actor under personal contract. Arness played several roles over the next few years for and with Wayne, whom he considered a mentor. In 1955, Wayne recommended Arness for the lead role of Matt Dillon in the TV series Gunsmoke (1955).
I liked Arness and Gunsmoke--both listened to it on radio (with William Conrad as Dillon) and on TV. Conrad's voice was good as Dillon but his physical presence wasn't Dillon-like. Arness was perfect. And I had not realized his back-story--thanks.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 29, 2019, 06:39:07 AM
It said "Godzilla" in the title.
It said "Monsters" in the title.
Sure, but an airplane the size of a small village? Come on.
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 29, 2019, 01:13:50 PM
Sure, but an airplane the size of a small village? Come on.
You went to a movie touted as being about the Monsterverse and expected some tinge of reality?
I am re-watching "Van Helsing", and I forgot how fucking amazing this movie is.
Is it shitty? Yeah. Is it cheesy? Yep. But is it a proper movie? Hell yes, and it's fun in bursts. It's got a certain realness to it, even with all the CGI, that nearly all modern movies lack.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 29, 2019, 07:41:36 PM
I am re-watching "Van Helsing", and I forgot how fucking amazing this movie is.
Is it shitty? Yeah. Is it cheesy? Yep. But is it a proper movie? Hell yes, and it's fun in bursts. It's got a certain realness to it, even with all the CGI, that nearly all modern movies lack.
And Faramir makes a great monk/savant.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 29, 2019, 07:41:36 PM
I am re-watching "Van Helsing", and I forgot how fucking amazing this movie is.
Is it shitty? Yeah. Is it cheesy? Yep. But is it a proper movie? Hell yes, and it's fun in bursts. It's got a certain realness to it, even with all the CGI, that nearly all modern movies lack.
Hugh jackman with long hair was a match made in heaven.
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-08/2/12/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-01/sub-buzz-6667-1501689657-3.jpg?downsize=700%3A%2A&output-quality=auto&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto&output-format=auto&downsize=360:*)
The movie itself was trashy fun, like a carnival, but it wasn't ashamed to do what it did, so I enjoyed it.
also my boyfriend has a thing for werewolves, so he enjoyed it.
(https://data.whicdn.com/images/288069305/original.gif)
Quote from: Shiranu on August 29, 2019, 07:41:36 PM
I am re-watching "Van Helsing", and I forgot how fucking amazing this movie is.
Is it shitty? Yeah. Is it cheesy? Yep. But is it a proper movie? Hell yes, and it's fun in bursts. It's got a certain realness to it, even with all the CGI, that nearly all modern movies lack.
It really is glorious schlock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1mOeuI8JOs
It's one of those rare series that has such stylistic flair, such charisma, so drenched in the rule of cool, that it's good on that basis alone.
Its use of nazis is pretty interesting to me when I found out that werewolves are somehow associated both with nazis and vampires. Or maybe I'm overthinking it and the animators just needed disposable goons whose deaths no one would be upset about.
Also, do Japanese animators know all that much about Christianity? Japan was only partially Christianized, and it's something like 2% nowadays. There are a hell of a lot of crosses and angels and halos in animation, but very little of actual Christian doctrine. I wonder sometimes if they're aware of it and opted not to use it (understandable) or just have very little idea about it.
*edit - damnit, I'm just now noticing the "Van" in your post. :(
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 29, 2019, 07:46:40 PM
And Faramir makes a great monk/savant.
It took me so long to know that was him. I kept on knowing he looked familiar, but couldn't figure it out.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 29, 2019, 08:51:30 PM
It really is glorious schlock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1mOeuI8JOs
It's one of those rare series that has such stylistic flair, such charisma, so drenched in the rule of cool, that it's good on that basis alone.
Its use of nazis is pretty interesting to me when I found out that werewolves are somehow associated both with nazis and vampires. Or maybe I'm overthinking it and the animators just needed disposable goons whose deaths no one would be upset about.
Also, do Japanese animators know all that much about Christianity? Japan was only partially Christianized, and it's something like 2% nowadays. There are a hell of a lot of crosses and angels and halos in animation, but very little of actual Christian doctrine. I wonder sometimes if they're aware of it and opted not to use it (understandable) or just have very little idea about it.
*edit - damnit, I'm just now noticing the "Van" in your post. :(
Helsing Is also one of my all-time favorite series as well.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 29, 2019, 09:49:24 PM
It took me so long to know that was him. I kept on knowing he looked familiar, but couldn't figure it out.
An actor with more than one string in his bow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TROA_0RxZmM
I actually really liked the part with the Merovingian, though the part with the cake was stupid imo. And the kiss. And some of the fighting. But it was really great for like 1-2 minutes.
But yeah, Reloaded was saddled with a shitton of exposition with very little character agency. You could maybe make a case for that since the exposition is needed to set up the grand finale and the limited character agency is necessary to make the characters seemed trapped, but I don't buy it.
Even something as simple as a small heist inside the matrix where Neo and crew make choices (even something as simple as going left or right down a hallway) and their adversary anticipates and trounces them would have done wonders for this film.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 29, 2019, 10:20:34 AM
James Arness was The Thing from Another World, aka the walking carrot. In "Them" he was an FBI agent, you could actually see his face. Shortly after that movie came out, while playing a Greek warrior in a play, Arness was spotted by agent Charles K. Feldman, who represented John Wayne. Feldman introduced Arness to Wayne, who put the self-described 6' 6" actor under personal contract. Arness played several roles over the next few years for and with Wayne, whom he considered a mentor. In 1955, Wayne recommended Arness for the lead role of Matt Dillon in the TV series Gunsmoke (1955).
I knew it was Arness, but I was too late to the discussion....
I watch minor supporting roles in plays and movies in the credits (back when you could actually read them and tapes and DVDs let you slow down that part). You get some real surprises.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2019, 01:57:35 AM
I knew it was Arness, but I was too late to the discussion....
I watch minor supporting roles in plays and movies in the credits (back when you could actually read them and tapes and DVDs let you slow down that part). You get some real surprises.
Like Leonard Nimoy in "THEM", uncredited.
John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum - 7/10
More deaths and melee fighting than in the 2 previous movies. You get what's on the tin; a thin story, and loads of excessive violence.
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 31, 2019, 05:39:15 PM
John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum - 7/10
More deaths and melee fighting than in the 2 previous movies. You get what's on the tin; a thin story, and loads of excessive violence.
Been a while since I saw someone beat to death with a book.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 31, 2019, 06:03:38 PM
Been a while since I saw someone beat to death with a book.
Unless piled around their feet and set aflame...
Joker has 87% on Rotten Tomatoes. Looks like my first impressions were right and this is shaping up to be a great movie!
It's funny, when I saw suicide squad, I thought the joker had been ruined so badly that it'd take ages to recover. Yet, a few short years later, here we are.
The absurdity of it all makes me want to laugh...
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 01, 2019, 08:23:19 AM
It's funny, when I saw suicide squad, I thought the joker had been ruined so badly that it'd take ages to recover. Yet, a few short years later, here we are.
The Joker was so nondescript and unimportant in Suicide Squad, that I watched the movie three times before it dawned on me who this character was. He just seemed like some guy without any special talents as a super villain, and I couldn't figure out why he was added to the squad. Like maybe they just needed some guy that Harley Quinn could go ga ga over. "Oh, wait! He's the Joker? WTF?" Superman and Batman are DC's standbys. When they try to expand their universe, things don't seem to work as well, with the exception of Wonder Woman.
Quote from: SGOS on September 01, 2019, 09:29:29 AM
Suicide Squad,
I watched the movie three times
(https://media.giphy.com/media/457NTDOuMmDfO/giphy.gif)
Mooched off of my parents' Netflix account, and saw two movies with my brother.
1. Megamind - The trailer failed to capture my attention, so I initially dismissed it. But I heard from friends that it was a good movie, so I gave it a shot. I liked it. It was an interesting spin on the typical superhero vs supervillain story. Without giving away too much, imagine a supervillain who gets everything he wanted. What would he do with himself? That question is pretty much the basis of the entire movie. Pretty good. Would recommend.
2. Ralph Breaks the Internet - I hate lazy sequel cash grabs, either copy/pasting the previous movies or just having no reason to exist. When I heard about this movie, I was concerned it would turn out to be one of those, and I'd heard mixed reviews. Now that I've seen it, I'm like, "WTF? How did this get mixed reviews?" In my opinion, this sequel is even better than the first movie, and the first was pretty great. It's hilarious, and animated excellently. When the characters are in control of themselves, their movements are extremely lifelike. When characters are controlled by players in the real world, the way the characters jump and turn around looks just like how you'd expect them to move in an actual video game. The story also naturally builds off the story of the last one, focusing on the friendship of Ralph and Vanellope, with a theme of change and acceptance. High recommendation.
What if your choice of hero/villain is wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHE8EhOW994
Quote from: SGOS on September 01, 2019, 09:29:29 AMI watched the movie three times
(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Finding-Neverland.jpg)
Red Joan, only watched because of Judith Dench(sp?) Not nearly as good as I hope and once again the sound levels made it difficult to follow the conversations, so much that I had no problem taking a RR break and not seemingly miss anything. Nice ending, truthful, she [spoiler] saved the world by giving he russians the same weapons (a-bomb design) so all the biggies would not have a large war again[/spoiler]
Quote from: aitm on September 02, 2019, 08:55:56 AM
Red Joan, only watched because of Judith Dench(sp?) Not nearly as good as I hope and once again the sound levels made it difficult to follow the conversations, so much that I had no problem taking a RR break and not seemingly miss anything. Nice ending, truthful, she [spoiler] saved the world by giving he russians the same weapons (a-bomb design) so all the biggies would not have a large war again[/spoiler]
So she was basically a Rosenberg?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Joan
Quote from: aitm on September 02, 2019, 08:55:56 AM
Red Joan, only watched because of Judith Dench(sp?) Not nearly as good as I hope and once again the sound levels made it difficult to follow the conversations, so much that I had no problem taking a RR break and not seemingly miss anything. Nice ending, truthful, she [spoiler] saved the world by giving he russians the same weapons (a-bomb design) so all the biggies would not have a large war again[/spoiler]
In my defense, it's got Margo Robbie.
I have no idea how aitm's spoiler got included in my post.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 02, 2019, 01:46:43 AM
Mooched off of my parents' Netflix account, and saw two movies with my brother.
1. Megamind - The trailer failed to capture my attention, so I initially dismissed it. But I heard from friends that it was a good movie, so I gave it a shot. I liked it. It was an interesting spin on the typical superhero vs supervillain story. Without giving away too much, imagine a supervillain who gets everything he wanted. What would he do with himself? That question is pretty much the basis of the entire movie. Pretty good. Would recommend.
2. Ralph Breaks the Internet - I hate lazy sequel cash grabs, either copy/pasting the previous movies or just having no reason to exist. When I heard about this movie, I was concerned it would turn out to be one of those, and I'd heard mixed reviews. Now that I've seen it, I'm like, "WTF? How did this get mixed reviews?" In my opinion, this sequel is even better than the first movie, and the first was pretty great. It's hilarious, and animated excellently. When the characters are in control of themselves, their movements are extremely lifelike. When characters are controlled by players in the real world, the way the characters jump and turn around looks just like how you'd expect them to move in an actual video game. The story also naturally builds off the story of the last one, focusing on the friendship of Ralph and Vanellope, with a theme of change and acceptance. High recommendation.
Loved megamind, hoping Ralph 2 will be great too.
Thanks for giving me hope. Heard it wasn't good.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 02, 2019, 01:46:43 AM
Mooched off of my parents' Netflix account, and saw two movies with my brother.
1. Megamind - The trailer failed to capture my attention, so I initially dismissed it. But I heard from friends that it was a good movie, so I gave it a shot. I liked it. It was an interesting spin on the typical superhero vs supervillain story. Without giving away too much, imagine a supervillain who gets everything he wanted. What would he do with himself? That question is pretty much the basis of the entire movie. Pretty good. Would recommend.
2. Ralph Breaks the Internet - I hate lazy sequel cash grabs, either copy/pasting the previous movies or just having no reason to exist. When I heard about this movie, I was concerned it would turn out to be one of those, and I'd heard mixed reviews. Now that I've seen it, I'm like, "WTF? How did this get mixed reviews?" In my opinion, this sequel is even better than the first movie, and the first was pretty great. It's hilarious, and animated excellently. When the characters are in control of themselves, their movements are extremely lifelike. When characters are controlled by players in the real world, the way the characters jump and turn around looks just like how you'd expect them to move in an actual video game. The story also naturally builds off the story of the last one, focusing on the friendship of Ralph and Vanellope, with a theme of change and acceptance. High recommendation.
I loved Megamind! You got a hint that he could have been a Good Guy from the start just bumped off course, but saw how he didn't and then finally was.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 02, 2019, 09:15:18 AM
So she was basically a Rosenberg?
In the movie there was a scene where the british Pm I believe stated that Britain had to have the bomb before the yanks got it or "the bloody yanks will want to rule the world". Don't know how much truth is in that but in the mid 40's hell. And as far as the Rosenberg thing goes, at the time Russia was our ally as well, maybe not as trusting, but if your willing to sacrifice a few more million of your "allies" to prevent them from having the device, it's seems like another way to perpetuate a war only using everyone else to do the killing for you and set back and watch.
Quote from: aitm on September 03, 2019, 10:02:38 AM
In the movie there was a scene where the british Pm I believe stated that Britain had to have the bomb before the yanks got it or "the bloody yanks will want to rule the world". Don't know how much truth is in that but in the mid 40's hell. And as far as the Rosenberg thing goes, at the time Russia was our ally as well, maybe not as trusting, but if your willing to sacrifice a few more million of your "allies" to prevent them from having the device, it's seems like another way to perpetuate a war only using everyone else to do the killing for you and set back and watch.
Churchill cooperated with FDR on the building of the bomb. "Tube Alloys" was the British codename for the project, "The Manhattan Engineering District" (shortened to "The Manhattan Project" in common parlance.) When the British realized how much the damn thing would cost they agreed to share all their information in exchange for the finished technology.
Quote from: aitm on September 03, 2019, 10:02:38 AM
In the movie there was a scene where the british Pm I believe stated that Britain had to have the bomb before the yanks got it or "the bloody yanks will want to rule the world". Don't know how much truth is in that but in the mid 40's hell. And as far as the Rosenberg thing goes, at the time Russia was our ally as well, maybe not as trusting, but if your willing to sacrifice a few more million of your "allies" to prevent them from having the device, it's seems like another way to perpetuate a war only using everyone else to do the killing for you and set back and watch.
Exactly true. The US worked to limit propagation of nuclear weapons to GB in general, and to France in particular. Of course sharing this technology with the Soviet Union was never seriously considered. The British POV on nuclear weapon development ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vAX7EujOYI
Didn't realize that the Brits had split the atom before the Germans (but Lithium not Uranium).
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 03, 2019, 11:25:34 AM
Churchill cooperated with FDR on the building of the bomb. "Tube Alloys" was the British codename for the project, "The Manhattan Engineering District" (shortened to "The Manhattan Project" in common parlance.) When the British realized how much the damn thing would cost they agreed to share all their information in exchange for the finished technology.
Correct, but we also shared a common STD ... Soviet spies. To exclude France, it meant excluding the daughter of Madame Curie and her son-in-law. This is why it was imperative to steal the German nuclear reactor prototype out of S Germany, which was in the French occupation zone.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 03, 2019, 11:25:34 AM
Churchill cooperated with FDR on the building of the bomb. "Tube Alloys" was the British codename for the project, "The Manhattan Engineering District" (shortened to "The Manhattan Project" in common parlance.) When the British realized how much the damn thing would cost they agreed to share all their information in exchange for the finished technology.
I think that could stand some evidence. Not that it wouldn't surprise me to be true, but I never heard of it before. I'm interested.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 03, 2019, 12:26:28 PM
I think that could stand some evidence. Not that it wouldn't surprise me to be true, but I never heard of it before. I'm interested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys
First wiki,
then challenge.
If you can't make fun of Germans, then you are Jewish ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL4McUzXfFI
Since I hate the whole 'live action' Disney remake thing, I decided to treat myself to the actual quality thing their based on, in this case the lion king (never owned a copy strangely). It's as good as anyone has said it is, great story, wonderful animation and songs and voice acting. I really see no faults in this movie that required a remake of it. 10/10
I also got it's sequel lion king 2 simbas pride, having heard its one of the actually good Disney sequels. The animation isn't as breathtaking as the original, but it really is a pretty good story. Following a more Romeo and Juliet story where as the original was more hamlet. This one really is worth a watch if you like the original. 8/10.
Quote from: Munch on September 04, 2019, 05:24:06 AM
Since I hate the whole 'live action' Disney remake thing, I decided to treat myself to the actual quality thing their based on, in this case the lion king (never owned a copy strangely). It's as good as anyone has said it is, great story, wonderful animation and songs and voice acting. I really see no faults in this movie that required a remake of it. 10/10
I also got it's sequel lion king 2 simbas pride, having heard its one of the actually good Disney sequels. The animation isn't as breathtaking as the original, but it really is a pretty good story. Following a more Romeo and Juliet story where as the original was more hamlet. This one really is worth a watch if you like the original. 8/10.
I learned from the Nostalgia Critic that The Lion King (and its sequel) got some subtle changes each time it was rereleased. For instance, they animated Rafiki when he holds Simba up, while he was static in the original. And they removed the infamous SFX/SEX thing from the cloud of dust Simba makes when he lays down.
https://lionking.fandom.com/wiki/The_Lion_King_series_re-release_changes
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 04, 2019, 10:51:05 AM
I learned from the Nostalgia Critic that The Lion King (and its sequel) got some subtle changes each time it was rereleased. For instance, they animated Rafiki when he holds Simba up, while he was static in the original. And they removed the infamous SFX/SEX thing from the cloud of dust Simba makes when he lays down.
https://lionking.fandom.com/wiki/The_Lion_King_series_re-release_changes
Guessing they also removed the penis tower from the little mermaid box art too. Shameless.
(https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/8320082.jpg)
Quote from: Munch on September 04, 2019, 04:45:17 PM
Guessing they also removed the penis tower from the little mermaid box art too. Shameless.
(https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/8320082.jpg)
Shameless to have it or shameless to remove it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 04, 2019, 05:35:51 PM
Shameless to have it or shameless to remove it.
They knew what they were doing, the internet never forgets
Quote from: Munch on September 04, 2019, 05:42:31 PM
They knew what they were doing, the internet never forgets
Isn't everyone in Hollywood gay? Not that I mind. It is Roman Polanski that offends.
I have a theory - a film theory - that almost everything that happens in the movie Kick-Ass is not a true account of events, but the titular character's delusional fantasies and hallucinations.
What really happened: Dave bought a ski suit, tried to stop grand theft auto, got stabbed and went into a coma.
In the hospital, he imagines he stumbled across three guys beating up a defenseless guy and fought them off, which then went viral and got hundreds of friend requests. None of that really happened. After Dave gets out of the hospital, he imagines various people in his daily life (mostly from school or the comics shop) as thugs, superheroes, supervillains, etc. He came up with Red Mist when Chris D'Amico was checking out a Spider-Man comic (specifically, issue 66) and the red glare from a stoplight was on the comic.
Dave is physically on the mend but mentally unwell, slipping into and out of heroic fantasy as a form of escapism and as a way to avoid coming to terms with the fact that he utterly failed as a superhero. Hit Girl and Big Daddy are 100% wish fulfillment for him.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 03, 2019, 12:28:03 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys
First wiki, then challenge.
Thank you for the link. I suspect most of it is true.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 06, 2019, 11:09:29 PM
Thank you for the link. I suspect most of it is true.
But did you watch the British video I provided on this?
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 04, 2019, 11:06:38 PM
I have a theory - a film theory - that almost everything that happens in the movie Kick-Ass is not a true account of events, but the titular character's delusional fantasies and hallucinations.
What really happened: Dave bought a ski suit, tried to stop grand theft auto, got stabbed and went into a coma.
In the hospital, he imagines he stumbled across three guys beating up a defenseless guy and fought them off, which then went viral and got hundreds of friend requests. None of that really happened. After Dave gets out of the hospital, he imagines various people in his daily life (mostly from school or the comics shop) as thugs, superheroes, supervillains, etc. He came up with Red Mist when Chris D'Amico was checking out a Spider-Man comic (specifically, issue 66) and the red glare from a stoplight was on the comic.
Dave is physically on the mend but mentally unwell, slipping into and out of heroic fantasy as a form of escapism and as a way to avoid coming to terms with the fact that he utterly failed as a superhero. Hit Girl and Big Daddy are 100% wish fulfillment for him.
Never having seen the movie...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 06, 2019, 11:09:29 PM
Thank you for the link. I suspect most of it is true.
Richard Rhodes,
The Making of the Atomic Bomb
Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2019, 12:28:16 AM
Never having seen the movie...
If you like the superhero genre at all, you absolutely have to see it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 07, 2019, 07:00:59 AM
If you like the superhero genre at all, you absolutely have to see it.
Looked it up. What part of it is "superhero"?
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 07, 2019, 07:00:59 AM
If you like the superhero genre at all, you absolutely have to see it.
I enjoy the genre, watching "Justice League" right now. "Kick-ass", five minutes.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 07, 2019, 07:20:28 AM
I enjoy the genre, watching "Justice League" right now. "Kick-ass", five minutes.
Glad you are enjoying that movie and I have to admit Hollywood does well with even DC characters (loved the movie Green Lantern who was really one of the lamest characters ever created in comicdom). And in fairness, Ant Man had to be the lamest character Marvel ever created...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2019, 07:27:52 AM
Ant Man had to be the lamest character Marvel ever created...
Maybe as a concept. The same for Guardians of the Galaxy. But what Marvel created from those concepts, as lame as they might be, was wonderful fantasy. It's all about the execution. If someone described the basic premise of the Hobbit, could you visualize it as a masterpiece that would capture the imagination of adults?
Quote from: SGOS on September 07, 2019, 07:43:55 AM
Maybe as a concept. The same for Guardians of the Galaxy. But what Marvel created from those concepts, as lame as they might be, was wonderful fantasy. It's all about the execution. If someone described the basic premise of the Hobbit, could you visualize it as a masterpiece that would capture the imagination of adults?
I don't like Guardians of the Galaxy. The entire team just doesn't fit together. If I never hear "I am am Groot" again, I will be pleased. Groot is Jar Jar Binks Stupid squared.
On the other hand, I immediately understood the idea of a Hobbit. And, speaking of Groot, of Ents.
The Guardians are a crowd of dysfunctional people who are a rolling trainwreck. Fun to watch.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 07, 2019, 08:10:05 AM
The Guardians are a crowd of dysfunctional people who are a rolling trainwreck. Fun to watch.
and thats what makes it so good. a group of misfits and outlaws coming together in a team and playing off each other.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2019, 07:57:58 AM
I don't like Guardians of the Galaxy. The entire team just doesn't fit together. If I never hear "I am am Groot" again, I will be pleased. Groot is Jar Jar Binks Stupid squared.
On the other hand, I immediately understood the idea of a Hobbit. And, speaking of Groot, of Ents.
Proof you are twisted. Chubby Checkers much? I have only seen the clips of these movies, but very funny indeed.
Quote from: Munch on September 07, 2019, 11:01:06 AM
and thats what makes it so good. a group of misfits and outlaws coming together in a team and playing off each other.
Better than The Suicide Squad? I think so, The Suicide Squad takes itself too seriously IMHO.
Quote from: Munch on September 07, 2019, 11:01:06 AM
and thats what makes it so good. a group of misfits and outlaws coming together in a team and playing off each other.
Yep, and Thor, now that he's captain ( ;) ), should have some fun with them. But this will be his swan song, I hear.
Quote from: Baruch on September 07, 2019, 11:16:44 AM
Better than The Suicide Squad? I think so, The Suicide Squad takes itself too seriously IMHO.
Suicide Squad has a buttload of issues. Taking itself seriously is the least of its problems.
I liked Suicide Squad. But it wasn't good. I liked Harley Quinn. I think she could be my fave female villain.
I would rather spend a year cleaning up elephant dung then watching suicide squad. If anyone wants a proper adaptation of it, just see this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHYSYsc_Aj0
Goes with a massive pet peeve I have about movie makers still believing live action will be better then animated. Fuck these people, best spiderman movie to come out of late, animated. Best adaptation of suicide squad, animated. Live action lion king because its better when animated look photo realistic? fuck you animated original still beats you.
I like her!
Quote from: Munch on September 07, 2019, 12:25:04 PM
I would rather spend a year cleaning up elephant dung then watching suicide squad. If anyone wants a proper adaptation of it, just see this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHYSYsc_Aj0
Goes with a massive pet peeve I have about movie makers still believing live action will be better then animated. Fuck these people, best spiderman movie to come out of late, animated. Best adaptation of suicide squad, animated. Live action lion king because its better when animated look photo realistic? fuck you animated original still beats you.
Animated DC universe is simply swell.
Seen a lot of the movies, they easily average out on an A-.
(or is it a B+?, 8.5 out of 10 easy)
Quote from: Munch on September 07, 2019, 12:25:04 PMGoes with a massive pet peeve I have about movie makers still believing live action will be better then animated. Fuck these people, best spiderman movie to come out of late, animated. Best adaptation of suicide squad, animated. Live action lion king because its better when animated look photo realistic? fuck you animated original still beats you.
I agree, but sadly, animated rarely has anywhere near the budget of life-action movies (and also nowhere near the audience. Sure, the suicide squad animated version is good, but how many people have seen it? How many people have seen the live action?
I've talked with Star Wars fans sometimes (I'm talking people wearing a Star Wars t-shirt or similar identifier) and I swear to IPU, the instant I mention anything not from the main 9 movies these people recoil. We'll talk about how awesome the battle of Hoth or the battle at Geonosis was, and I'll mention the battles at Umbara and it's like a record scratch. Dafuq.
How many of you who are fans of animated features have complained about CGI?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 07, 2019, 08:21:23 PM
How many of you who are fans of animated features have complained about CGI?
I generally don't mention it, but if it's distractingly awful, I'll have a word or two about it. But most movies where the effects are noticeably bad typically have other, far more critical problems.
Why? Are you about to hatch some weird gotcha?
Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2019, 07:57:58 AM
I don't like Guardians of the Galaxy. The entire team just doesn't fit together.
That's the point. No one on that team belongs. They're all misfits. And it's a small miracle they all don't just kill each other. But somehow, they manage to find just enough common ground to develop some sort of bond. And eventually, they really are like family. That's good stuff!
QuoteIf I never hear "I am am Groot" again, I will be pleased. Groot is Jar Jar Binks Stupid squared.
(http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/guardians-of-the-galaxy-groot-horified-shocked-wtf-14198927380.gif)
He's not literally telling you his name, Cap. Listen to the tone, not the words. Same deal with Chewbacca and R2D2.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2019, 07:19:46 AM
Looked it up. What part of it is "superhero"?
Kick-Ass is partially a tribute to the superhero genre and partially a deconstruction. And the cherry on top is that it came out right at a time when superhero movies were exploding in popularity.
Same with the first deadpool movie, which people seemed to like a lot because it deconstructed the superhero movie troops while playing to the four wall breaking of the main character as good as in the comics.
A great time for metahumor, given the wealth of targets back then.
It was also pretty interesting how a mostly selfish guy can end up doing a lot of good in his idiotic quest for a face lift.
So, I saw IT chapters 1&2 recently.
Basically just a fuckton of jumpscares (the laziest of scares), which bored me or disgusted me more than anything else. It (IT) was boringly predictable imo.
I can't put my finger on exactly why, but this movie pales in comparison to the original, just like Willy Wonka. A big part of that is that Tim Curry's Pennywise drew you in with his charm then went straight to 11, while this Pennywise is always disturbing, which got old quick.
Also, and I know this is a trivial point, but FLASHLIGHTS AREN'T GREEN! (well, not normally)
And another thing, does no one in this shit-kicking town call the cops for anything? You can straight up go queer bashing right outside of the county fair and none of these assholes get the dime dropped on them? Dafuq is wrong with these people!?
Imo, the best scene in that whole movie was the chinese restaurant scene (possibly also the ending, which was pretty moving). Coincidentally, those are also the scenes without IT.
And I dunno what's wrong with me, but I will spend movie night with the fairer sex picking the movie and it absolutely will NOT go according to the stereotype of jumping into each other's arms. Instead, I'd be traumatized and trying to not throw up and she's perfectly content. The exact opposite of sexy and exciting.
I really need to change how I approach this and either refuse outright or find some common ground that's a lot more tolerable.
Quote from: Munch on September 07, 2019, 12:25:04 PM
I would rather spend a year cleaning up elephant dung then watching suicide squad. If anyone wants a proper adaptation of it, just see this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHYSYsc_Aj0
Goes with a massive pet peeve I have about movie makers still believing live action will be better then animated. Fuck these people, best spiderman movie to come out of late, animated. Best adaptation of suicide squad, animated. Live action lion king because its better when animated look photo realistic? fuck you animated original still beats you.
Hmm. I hadn't heard of this one before, so I found the movie on YouTube and rented it. Not bad. Funny how most of the cast is the same as in the live action film. Except no fire bender or...whoever that guy who could climb walls was named. And Killer Shark? There's a Shark and a Croc? They're practically the same character, except one is more expendable. lol. And that was one thing that bothered me. Most of the Suicide Squad is made up of characters nobody has heard of so the writers could have the option of killing them off. You can't kill a character as important as Harley, so you've gotta have characters the audience doesn't feel too attached to. I also found it a bit annoying how often the female characters were bare chested. Unnecessary sexualization seems to be a pattern in these more recent animated DC films. Other than that, it was an okay film. Glad I watched it, but probably wouldn't watch it a second time.
I got carried away at the Redbox and among other films, I rented The Utah Cabin Murders. Supposedly this really happened. I don't know if it's a good movie, because I could only watch about 10%. Early on in the film, a mother and daughter are having a discussion about religion, because the grown daughter had left the church, disgusted with all the hypocrisy and money grubbing that goes on in religion in general. OK, OK, I agree, but this sounded like a set up for some future fuzzy where daughter sees the light and accepts Jesus as her savior, and I'm thinking, "Could this be a backdoor attempt to use Hollywood to save my soul?" I mean it's THE UTAH CABIN MURDERS for crying out loud.
So I fast forwarded to the middle of the film, where one of the psychos is chasing one of the girls in the family who escaped from the cabin through the woods. He's just behind her and the filmography shows him slowly gaining on her. There's lots of shots of running feet: Now hers. Then his. Now hers again. Suddenly, she stops because she's out of breath, but somehow the psycho is nowhere around. She's on the lookout though, and she's looking all around except right behind her. Why doesn't she look behind? "Look behind you, Dummy!" Then the psycho comes out of the woods. He's right behind her, but takes forever to get to her, while she surveys the woods in front of her, even though he was always behind her. He grabs her shoulder, and she turns around and slams him a good one right in the face, and he's out cold lying on the snow having dropped his knife about two feet from where he's lying. She doesn't pick up the knife, nor does she kick it away, but just walks around him with her feet always within 12 inches of his hands. Now even when Cassius Clay sent Sonny Liston to the mat, Liston was still able to get up. OK, he laid there kind of rolling around before they helped him up, but the psycho is out cold, until he suddenly wakes up with a start and grabs her by the legs. He was probably just taking a rest, because he overpowers her with new vigor, like he just got up from a power nap.
I turned off the movie and took it back to Redbox. What is wrong with these people? Someone, please watch the movie, and tell me if it was any good.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 07, 2019, 10:03:03 PM
So, I saw IT chapters 1&2 recently.
Basically just a fuckton of jumpscares (the laziest of scares), which bored me or disgusted me more than anything else. It (IT) was boringly predictable imo.
I can't put my finger on exactly why, but this movie pales in comparison to the original
Thanks, I've been thinking about going to that movie on Tuesday, because the original had some undefinable quality about it that put it a little above the rest of the genre. My worry is that a sequel might not try to recapture the uniqueness of the first and just end up with scenarios taken from a list of Hollywood jump scares. Too bad, but not surprising.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 07, 2019, 08:36:03 PM
He's not literally telling you his name, Cap. Listen to the tone, not the words. Same deal with Chewbacca and R2D2.
When he says "I am Groot" to Rocket just before he dusts he's saying "I love you" according to the Rousseau brothers.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 08, 2019, 06:14:11 AM
When he says "I am Groot" to Rocket just before he dusts he's saying "I love you" according to the Rousseau brothers.
Actually, that one time he said, "We are Groot."
Quote from: SGOS on September 08, 2019, 05:39:27 AM
I got carried away at the Redbox and among other films, I rented The Utah Cabin Murders. Supposedly this really happened. I don't know if it's a good movie, because I could only watch about 10%. Early on in the film, a mother and daughter are having a discussion about religion, because the grown daughter had left the church, disgusted with all the hypocrisy and money grubbing that goes on in religion in general. OK, OK, I agree, but this sounded like a set up for some future fuzzy where daughter sees the light and accepts Jesus as her savior, and I'm thinking, "Could this be a backdoor attempt to use Hollywood to save my soul?" I mean it's THE UTAH CABIN MURDERS for crying out loud.
So I fast forwarded to the middle of the film, where one of the psychos is chasing one of the girls in the family who escaped from the cabin through the woods. He's just behind her and the filmography shows him slowly gaining on her. There's lots of shots of running feet: Now hers. Then his. Now hers again. Suddenly, she stops because she's out of breath, but somehow the psycho is nowhere around. She's on the lookout though, and she's looking all around except right behind her. Why doesn't she look behind? "Look behind you, Dummy!" Then the psycho comes out of the woods. He's right behind her, but takes forever to get to her, while she surveys the woods in front of her, even though he was always behind her. He grabs her shoulder, and she turns around and slams him a good one right in the face, and he's out cold lying on the snow having dropped his knife about two feet from where he's lying. She doesn't pick up the knife, nor does she kick it away, but just walks around him with her feet always within 12 inches of his hands. Now even when Cassius Clay sent Sonny Liston to the mat, Liston was still able to get up. OK, he laid there kind of rolling around before they helped him up, but the psycho is out cold, until he suddenly wakes up with a start and grabs her by the legs. He was probably just taking a rest, because he overpowers her with new vigor, like he just got up from a power nap.
I turned off the movie and took it back to Redbox. What is wrong with these people? Someone, please watch the movie, and tell me if it was any good.
I can't watch these things, either. And something that always gripes me to no end, is where the girl running gets caught, they struggle and she somehow gets a weapon or brick or something and gets in a lucky hit or two and the monster/psycho goes down The girl then throws the weapon down and starts running. Why the fuck did she not just keep bashing the monster until it was only a bloody pulp? ??? And I see this play out in many more instances than just horror or monster movies. Then the monster/psycho gathers himself and the chase is on--again. Irritating as hell!!!
First clip is where I am moving to ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4MXPIpj5sA
Watching this again. Eat your jealous hearts out.
Quote from: Baruch on September 08, 2019, 01:02:01 PM
First clip is where I am moving to ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4MXPIpj5sA
Watching this again. Eat your jealous hearts out.
First thing I need to know, how is the internet connection there?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 08, 2019, 01:43:58 PM
First thing I need to know, how is the internet connection there?
I will be in town, not in a hogan ;-) But in a pinch I can always ask the Kachinas.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 08, 2019, 11:15:14 AM
Actually, that one time he said, "We are Groot."
In Infinity War, it was "I am Groot". "We are Groot" was Guardians of the Galaxy.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 08, 2019, 08:02:53 PM
In Infinity War, it was "I am Groot". "We are Groot" was Guardians of the Galaxy.
Groot had seen the US miniseries, Roots?
Just saw It chapter 2 today.
The good points first. The adult cast in this were really good, I especially loved Isaiah Mustafa and Jay Ryan (why Mustafa hasn't been in more prominent roles is beyond me), but overall I loved the chemistry with the adult cast, it felt like these really were the adult versions of the kids from chapter 1. Bill Skarsgård as pennywise was incredible again, had a couple chilling moments with him I loved.
I think some of the problems that weighed against this movie however were as something Chris Stuckmann said in his review of it. What worked so well in the first chapter, is something that didn't work as well in the second chapter, and that was in the first chapter, because the perspective of the movie was from that of a group of children going up against a lovecraftian monster, that gave a lot more tension, from the childrens perspective and fear they had for what they were faced with.
The adults from their perspective, they had already been though all that, and now are grown up, having lived lives, and you would think the fears children have would be different to the fears adults have, and that would come out in what It/pennywise did with them.
Another issue is the pacing of the movie. It the novel is a massive book, with a loooot of lore added by stephen king, that made everything else in the book work as a narrative. Because the book had so much detail in it, the movie had to cut out a lot of that, and so there are things in this movie that feel like plotholes or plotpoints that deserved more explanation. And yet with the near 3 hour run time, it felt like details were put into things that could have been used to better flesh out other things, like explaining what IT is, the ritual and its origins, further backstory on derrys legacy and pennywise what he was doing.
Of course like say an adaptation needs to cut out a lot of stuff to make it work sometimes, and for the most part it did. I really wanted to know what they would face at the end of this, because I remember how pissed off people were at the end of the TV movie in the second half and the giant spider thing. This thing did have the giant spider, but it was felt more like the movie makers did that very tongue in cheek in homage to the original, while still showing what It really looked like.
Overall, I liked the movie, the pacing was off in places but it didn't feel it dragged as badly as some people say, but the problems like say where the fear aspect didn't work as well with the adults as it did with the children, I felt it could have used some more fleshing out in places, but the actors and performances were really good, and this one didn't feel like a bunch of daytime TV stars coming into a role and messing it up.
overall 7/10. Not as good as the first chapter, but for sure a ton better in the tv movie second half from the 80s, due to the actors.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 07, 2019, 08:10:05 AM
The Guardians are a crowd of dysfunctional people who are a rolling trainwreck. Fun to watch.
Yes I do like the racoon. And "trainwreck" is a good description. I just hate Groot.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2019, 03:27:20 AM
Yes I do like the racoon. And "trainwreck" is a good description.
Please! "Trash panda." Show some respect.
QuoteI just hate Groot.
Vin Diesel did the voice for Groot to make his children happy. I can forgive almost anything with that motivation.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 11, 2019, 06:49:14 AM
Please! "Trash panda." Show some respect. Vin Diesel did the voice for Groot to make his children happy. I can forgive almost anything with that motivation.
Van who? The purpose of doing the voice has little to do with the viewers of the movie. I seldom recognize the voices. I did see an ad recently and realized "hey, that was Bob from 'Bob's Burgers'.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2019, 07:28:21 AM
Van who? The purpose of doing the voice has little to do with the viewers of the movie.
I agree with that puzzling statement.
QuoteI seldom recognize the voices. I did see an ad recently and realized "hey, that was Bob from 'Bob's Burgers'.
I like to back track artists. Like "Nagini" in the latest "Fantastic Beasts", movie. Claudia Kim was the Korean scientist in "Age of Ultron" and the seer in "Dark Tower." It's a game Boss Lady and I play, "hey, who's that?" "Oh, it's a (regularly seen) face."
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 11, 2019, 07:57:23 AM
I agree with that puzzling statement.I like to back track artists. Like "Nagini" in the latest "Fantastic Beasts", movie. Claudia Kim was the Korean scientist in "Age of Ultron" and the seer in "Dark Tower." It's a game Boss Lady and I play, "hey, who's that?" "Oh, it's a (regularly seen) face."
Who, what? ;)
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2019, 08:02:31 AM
Who, what? ;)
Godzilla is the kind of guy who memorizes baseball stats, only not that. Autistic symptom. I am nothing like that ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSyr_vJ5t3k
Looking forward to this one.
Quote from: Baruch on September 11, 2019, 11:27:21 AM
Godzilla is the kind of guy who memorizes baseball stats, only not that. Autistic symptom. I am nothing like that ...
Everyone has a focus and a talent. Yours seems to be language. Which is why I TRY to engage you about that. And MY talent is absorbing general information, and Gawdzilasamas is... well I'll let him say.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2019, 12:59:52 PM
Everyone has a focus and a talent. Yours seems to be language. Which is why I TRY to engage you about that. And MY talent is absorbing general information, and Gawdzilasamas is... well I'll let him say.
I don't watch baseball or other stupid things, like Baruch.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 11, 2019, 01:05:51 PM
I don't watch baseball or other stupid things, like Baruch.
Ha ... I think it is Cavebear and MikeCL who are the baseball mavens.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 11, 2019, 01:05:51 PM
I don't watch baseball or other stupid things, like Baruch.
Well I sure understand things like not watching football, soccer, tennis, etc. I generally would rather DO something than watch it. But baseball? Thats the time I visit my cat-blogging friends. Nothing happens for a while and I happily visit. And when something DOES they replay it! Its perfect.
Now, that may SEEM like soccer, but in soccer nothing EVER happens. Baseball is the only sport to not-quite-watch!
AND, I might add, everyone KNOWS they could play baseball. Even the pro batters just swing stupid, right?
;)
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2019, 02:45:01 PM
Now, that may SEEM like soccer, but in soccer nothing EVER happens.
Mhm mhm
*sharpens axe*
Mhm
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 11, 2019, 02:52:09 PM
Mhm mhm
*sharpens axe*
Mhm
Well what is the lowest scoring sport in general? Soccer. YAWN. Football has too much scoring and don't even ASK about basketball. Baseball is perfect.
So is that why the tour de France doesn't interest me? You hardly ever see the cyclists score a goal.
On the other hand, in an adequate game of golf, you see nine 'goalsn per adequate participant. For some reason, i' ll still take a good football match over that.
Honestly though, I understand not liking a sport. But baseball bores the hell out of me. And American football lacks, to me, what football offers in term of 'long play'. Too many short bursts of action.
To each their own?
*continues to sharpen axe*
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 11, 2019, 03:31:43 PM
So is that why the tour de France doesn't interest me? You hardly ever see the cyclists score a goal.
On the other hand, in an adequate game of golf, you see nine 'goalsn per adequate participant. For some reason, i' ll still take a good football match over that.
Honestly though, I understand not liking a sport. But baseball bores the hell out of me. And American football lacks, to me, what football offers in term of 'long play'. Too many short bursts of action.
To each their own?
*continues to sharpen axe*
I can completely understand. You actually just want to watch players kick a ball around, You needen't be ashamed. You are just easily amused...
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 11, 2019, 03:31:43 PM
So is that why the tour de France doesn't interest me? You hardly ever see the cyclists score a goal.
On the other hand, in an adequate game of golf, you see nine 'goalsn per adequate participant. For some reason, i' ll still take a good football match over that.
Honestly though, I understand not liking a sport. But baseball bores the hell out of me. And American football lacks, to me, what football offers in term of 'long play'. Too many short bursts of action.
To each their own?
*continues to sharpen axe*
Stats people play against the team stats. I can't see the baseball much as it is hit, thrown etc.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2019, 03:42:34 PM
I can completely understand. You actually just want to watch players kick a ball around, You needen't be ashamed. You are just easily amused...
Well it is true. I am easily amused.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 11, 2019, 04:47:36 PM
Well it is true. I am easily amused.
Sure it isn't the men in shorts? ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on September 11, 2019, 04:53:46 PM
Sure it isn't the men in shorts? ;-)
No, it's just something about watching men get rough with some balls.
Can't put my finger on it.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 11, 2019, 04:47:36 PM
Well it is true. I am easily amused.
I meant Baruch...
But if you want to be easily amused, e4
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2019, 06:00:37 PM
I meant Baruch...
But if you want to be easily amused, e4
Strange, you replied it to me.
But that's okay, I can take joke.
Comes with being easily amused. :p
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 11, 2019, 06:29:46 PM
Strange, you replied it to me.
But that's okay, I can take joke.
As the computer guy said to the flying guy in Independence day, Oops?
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2019, 02:45:01 PM
Well I sure understand things like not watching football, soccer, tennis, etc. I generally would rather DO something than watch it. But baseball? Thats the time I visit my cat-blogging friends. Nothing happens for a while and I happily visit. And when something DOES they replay it! Its perfect.
Now, that may SEEM like soccer, but in soccer nothing EVER happens. Baseball is the only sport to not-quite-watch!
AND, I might add, everyone KNOWS they could play baseball. Even the pro batters just swing stupid, right?
;)
I used to try and explain/defend my addiction to baseball. I love everything about it. Especially the stats. As a kid I'd go over the stats in all kind of ways--and it did help me in my grammar school math classes. I loved collecting cards and interacting with others who did the same. to this day, I love baseball stats--called saber-metrics now, and they can be quite complicated. And I like watching it, rooting for and against teams/players. I realize that it is all basically fluff--but it is my fluff. And it keeps my interest. I belong to 3 and sometimes 4 baseball simulation leagues--I've been in one since '95. Great group of guys (48) and I've spent long hours/days/years on that league. Love it.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2019, 06:00:37 PM
I meant Baruch...
But if you want to be easily amused, e4
Never. There is nothing amusing about anything. It is Hell, all the way down.
I love Thor: Ragnarok.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on September 15, 2019, 03:58:46 AM
I love Thor: Ragnarok.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-TdAi4FW-Y
Jojo Rabbit extended trailer was better.
They need to do the same sendup for Stalin and his family.
Something that bugs me about the Star Wars sequels:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3udI6VTNQR8
These movies are narrowly focused on a few characters, lacking any sort of larger context. The audience isn't told anything about the strategic situation aside from the occassional text scroll.
Obviously, you don't want to go overboard, but it'd be nice to be able to gauge the relative power (and trends) of the factions, what their goals are, what their motivations are, how close they are to achieving their goals, and I'd also like to have some clue as to what the average person thinks about all of this.
We've been so short on details that I thought for sure that The Last Jedi was trying to villify both The Resistance and the First Order as people who have lost all perspective and seek only to refight the last war pointlessly and without meaning. If you've seen the ending fight of Gundam Wing, that's what I thought they were going for. Oh how wrong I was.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 15, 2019, 09:01:33 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-TdAi4FW-Y
That doesn't look bad, it looks funny actually. But why as a response at my love of Thor: Ragnarok? It was a good move for its genre and with its time in that franchise, a lamely funny, light one. It works. You can't have Thor going through a very interesting story. This is probably the only way to show him like a down to earth, fun loving silly-awkward 'man', as something different. What are they going to write for him? He is not Batman, he is a god king of some magical realm. I like Avengers, but these genre of comic book characters don't stretch much. It's is their nature, this is not Sandman.
What if they had made one with love story in it? With Portman's character or with some Valkyrie... OW
Same director, playing an imaginary Hitler.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 18, 2019, 06:31:43 AM
Same director, playing an imaginary Hitler.
Oh I see. Why didn't you say that up there,lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGcF4rV6D04
Festival Express needs to be in my top two music documentaries/concert films, but I am constitutionally incapable of demoting either The Grateful Dead Movie or The Last Waltz. Even better than the concert footage is the informal jams held by the musicians while traveling from venue to venue -- various members of the Grateful Dead, The Band, Janis Joplin and her group, Buddy Guy and his band, The Flying Burrito Brothers, New Riders of the Purple Sage, and Delaney & Bonnie, among others -- basically just fuckin' around and playing for the sheer joy of playing... as if a jam involving Jerry Garcia, Bob Weir, Rick Danko, Janis Joplin, and John Dawson could ever be "just fuckin' around".
So I have a tie for the three best concert films/music documentaries now.
Quote from: Baruch on September 11, 2019, 08:53:15 PM
Never. There is nothing amusing about anything. It is Hell, all the way down.
Did you go all the way down on Dante?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GapV9hLkKtM
I have no idea what this is, but I really want to see it.
Also, any translators in the house?
Quote from: trdsf on September 23, 2019, 07:04:54 PM
Festival Express needs to be in my top two music documentaries/concert films, but I am constitutionally incapable of demoting either The Grateful Dead Movie or The Last Waltz. Even better than the concert footage is the informal jams held by the musicians while traveling from venue to venue -- various members of the Grateful Dead, The Band, Janis Joplin and her group, Buddy Guy and his band, The Flying Burrito Brothers, New Riders of the Purple Sage, and Delaney & Bonnie, among others -- basically just fuckin' around and playing for the sheer joy of playing... as if a jam involving Jerry Garcia, Bob Weir, Rick Danko, Janis Joplin, and John Dawson could ever be "just fuckin' around".
So I have a tie for the three best concert films/music documentaries now.
The Almond Brothers had an album that included a song by Delaney and Bonnie that sounded totally unpolished, almost like they meant it to be that way. It sounded like two musicians sitting on the porch in the first attempt at putting a song together. I was captivated by the dissonance. If I could do the same song like that after 5 years of practice, it wouldn't be as good. I'd never heard of Delaney and Bonnie before or since then. The song was something about "Come on in my kitchen.... " (can't remember what else), but I just wanted to go in their kitchen and experience the cooking smells. Weird.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uzEH_Cy0ew
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 23, 2019, 07:18:13 PM
Did you go all the way down on Dante?
"With Dante" not "On Dante". i am not his girlfriend, Beatrice.
There are Four Levels ... Il Inferno, Il Purgatorio, Il Paradiso ... and lower than Hell, Il Pazzo (The Crazy)
Fairly old news, but it wasn't public until recently:
After Disney bought Star Wars, George Lucas had 3 story outlines for the potential next movie. Disney bought the outlines, but weren't contractually bound to use any of them. And sure enough, they didn't. Instead, they made The Force Awakens, which was pretty much A New Hope with new characters. Not exactly groundbreaking, but it wasn't a stinker either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udaKOdDdcD8
I actually completely disagree with almost everything said in the video.
I get that George was upset that he was basically appeased and then ignored as a creative. That's kinda messed up. But at the same time, Disney didn't make any guarantees for a reason. If they were dead set on George writing the thing, they would have committed. George should've read the writing on the wall and not taken getting snubbed so personally.
And the elephant in the room is this: who should control this thing creatively? Imho, George Lucas had his run, and it was a great run. Those 2 and a half movies were excellent. But obviously, the series fell into kind of a funk for a few years decades, at least in cinema. It was definitely time to give someone else the reins.
Obviously, I'm not super thrilled at what Disney has done with it, but I don't agree at all with this idea that Lucas should be in control in perpetuity. That's not how things work, and I'm thankful that's not how things work, otherwise we'd be seeing the cinematic equivalent of the Holiday Special meets Freddy Got Fingered meets Howard the Duck right now. Disney has a lot of flaws, but Greedo shooting first isn't one of them.
I thank George for his work and hope that someone else can breathe fresh new life into his creation. Star Wars is the sort of franchise that lasts from generation to generation and by necessity must pass on from master to apprentice. The best thing to do is to take a step back and let it happen.
Disney bought Lucas Flims for $4.05 billion. If Lucas thought he still had creative control over Star Wars, he was a fool. Part of me is curious to know what George Lucas' sequels would have looked like, but I'm 95% sure the rabid fanbase would have hated it just as much, if not more.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 25, 2019, 06:08:08 PM
Disney bought Lucas Flims for $4.05 billion. If Lucas thought he still had creative control over Star Wars, he was a fool. Part of me is curious to know what George Lucas' sequels would have looked like, but I'm 95% sure the rabid fanbase would have hated it just as much, if not more.
He needed to follow the original plan, while the Spice still flowed. 3 movies, 3 prequels, 3 postludes. So basically one movie ever 2 years, starting in 1977. He should have been done in 1993.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 25, 2019, 06:08:08 PM
Disney bought Lucas Flims for $4.05 billion. If Lucas thought he still had creative control over Star Wars, he was a fool. Part of me is curious to know what George Lucas' sequels would have looked like, but I'm 95% sure the rabid fanbase would have hated it just as much, if not more.
He thought he'd have more input, which I can kinda sympathize with and also don't sympathize with at all.
Some of his fans think he should retain creative control even after selling the IP, which I completely disagree with. "But he created my childhood". Yeah, and so what? You can't sell your house and then crash there to reminisce about the old days or shittalk the new owners' lousy barbecues. It's done, move on with your life.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 25, 2019, 09:26:40 PM
Some of his fans think he should retain creative control even after selling the IP, which I completely disagree with. "But he created my childhood". Yeah, and so what? You can't sell your house and then crash there to reminisce about the old days or shittalk the new owners' lousy barbecues. It's done, move on with your life.
Generally speaking, I'm a big fan of the original creator maintaining creative control. This has nothing to do with the fans, but the process of creation itself. I genuinely can't imagine selling off my creations lock, stock and barrel for any amount of money. I've lived with them in my head too long to trust anyone else with them. It'd be like selling my cat to a owners that can only promise they'll
try not to kill her.
Obsessing with anything is a bad idea. Sadly, it creeps up on people who aren't paying attention.
Quote from: trdsf on September 26, 2019, 02:58:15 AMI genuinely can't imagine selling off my creations lock, stock and barrel for any amount of money.
Me too. But a for some people, they earn a living doing just that. It must be great coming up with ideas that people like so much that they're willing to shell out serious cash for them. The only downside is that now they're no longer fully your ideas and you're no longer in complete control of how they're used - they could get shelved forever or modified heavily and you either have to be okay with that or seek another arrangement.
Moneyball.
I loved it. It's not a baseball game movie like they promise though. It is pretty bigger than sports.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on September 26, 2019, 02:26:15 PM
Moneyball.
I loved it. It's not a baseball game like they promise though. It is pretty bigger than sports.
Ordinarily, I don't find baseball very interesting. But I love this movie. I bought it for my private collection, and I've lost track of the times I watched it. It's not a baseball movie. It's a movie about managing baseball. Now that should seem even duller than watching a pitcher scratch his ass and adjust his cap for 45 minutes out of each game, but it's engaging on so many levels. The relationship between the manager and his geek assistant is utterly satisfying because all the jocks I've known had no respect for anyone like that in high school.
My favorite line is when they are recruiting that washed up catcher with the bum arm who says, "But I can't play first base," and the Manager says, "Oh, it's easy. We'll teach you," as he turns to his recruiter and says, "Tell him, Frank," to which Frank shakes his head and responds, "It's not easy. It's INCREDIBLY hard to play first Base."
I also think it was the most convincing role Brad Pitt has played in years. Not many people have talked about this film. Now you've got me all jacked up. I'm going to watch that movie again right now. Gotta go. Bye.
Edit: Yep, I enjoyed it one more time.
Quote from: SGOS on September 26, 2019, 08:54:20 PM
Ordinarily, I don't find baseball very interesting. But I love this movie. I bought it for my private collection, and I've lost track of the times I watched it. It's not a baseball movie. It's a movie about managing baseball. Now that should seem even duller than watching a pitcher scratch his ass and adjust his cap for 45 minutes out of each game, but it's engaging on so many levels. The relationship between the manager and his geek assistant is utterly satisfying because all the jocks I've known had no respect for anyone like that in high school.
My favorite line is when they are recruiting that washed up catcher with the bum arm who says, "But I can't play first base," and the Manager says, "Oh, it's easy. We'll teach you," as he turns to his recruiter and says, "Tell him, Frank," to which Frank shakes his head and responds, "It's not easy. It's INCREDIBLY hard to play first Base."
I also think it was the most convincing role Brad Pitt has played in years. Not many people have talked about this film. Now you've got me all jacked up. I'm going to watch that movie again right now. Gotta go. Bye.
Edit: Yep, I enjoyed it one more time.
I wanted to say that but forgot to type the word movie, lol. Edited.
It's a very underrated movie. I just didn't love the movie, I found the situation very philosophical and universal as in problem solving from the simplest level to the universal. Math-Philosophy-attempt for a paradigm shift in a field. While watching I realised that even this wasn't a true story but something written, they could only construct a story like this via baseball, not with any other team sport, but then I don't know anything about baseball and I don't need to get it in the movie.
I should learn about baseball though. The movie inspired me.
[spoiler]I loved a lot of things in lines and about Brand and Beane. But my fave part is the fact that he attempts to build a team to win and realises it is also an attempt to change the game and although he succeeds in a way, he refuses to go to a better team with millions and keeps trying to win the last game of the season. It's so good. And a true story. [/spoiler]
Quote from: drunkenshoe on September 27, 2019, 03:35:27 AM
they could only construct a story like this via baseball, not with any other team sport, but then I don't know anything about baseball and I don't need to get it in the movie.
Baseball makes a good background for the plot, especially since fans make such a big deal about statistics, probably more than other sports. What's odd is that this paradigm shift hadn't happened earlier, because the stats have always been there. I think it's partly because computers have become the "now." The movie, being from Hollywood, no doubt tends to de-emphasize some things and emphasize others to make the plot more dramatic. Stats have always had a place in recruiting. How could they not? And I'm sure there is still a lot of useless jabber in round table discussion that use ambiguous phrases like, "The boy's got heart," or "Yeah, but he's got a good swing."
Like, Pitt who needed a role like this, Jonah Hill did a stellar job, and needs to put this film in the file he takes to interviews. I never paid much attention to Jonah Hill before, but his true versatility really shows up in Moneyball.
You mean, like Robert Redford in The Natural?
Quote from: SGOS on September 27, 2019, 08:19:14 AM
Baseball makes a good background for the plot, especially since fans make such a big deal about statistics, probably more than other sports. What's odd is that this paradigm shift hadn't happened earlier, because the stats have always been there. I think it's partly because computers have become the "now." The movie, being from Hollywood, no doubt tends to de-emphasize some things and emphasize others to make the plot more dramatic. Stats have always had a place in recruiting. How could they not? And I'm sure there is still a lot of useless jabber in round table discussion that use ambiguous phrases like, "The boy's got heart," or "Yeah, but he's got a good swing."
Like, Pitt who needed a role like this, Jonah Hill did a stellar job, and needs to put this film in the file he takes to interviews. I never paid much attention to Jonah Hill before, but his true versatility really shows up in Moneyball.
Hard to find a bigger baseball fan than I am--followed it from '58 on. And I love stats--that's what drew me to the sport in the first place. Anyway, as odd as it seems, I have not read the book nor seen the movie. Why? Did not feel the need since I already knew what Beane was doing prior to the book or movie. So, it seemed it would be 'old hat'. But now, because of your and Shoe's take on it, I will have to see it.
Why is the baseball establishment so slow in accepting these 'new' stats? If nothing else, baseball is tradition. It is mom, apple pie and the flag. Baseball is riddled with scores of 'unwritten' rules and customs--just like our society. As an example the stat batting average(BA) was one of the first to be used and that was in the late 1800's. It was the gold standard. That was so until Branch Rickey developed some different ones in the in the '40's. But BA was still golden. The new type of stat, called 'sabermetrics' was introduced in the early 70's by Bill James. These measurements were slow to catch on, but their intent was to determine what stats really reflected on winning games. It attempted to answer questions about what the components of a win are and which are more important. Bill James now works for the Boston Red Sox and his 'sabermatrics' has taken over; Billy Beane was on of the first to use these new (and constantly improving) stats to drive his assessment of 'true' baseball skills. And it worked and now just about every team uses those type of stats. The BA is no longer golden--it really does not have much of a bearing on winning. Yet there are managers and players who still think it matters--it is tradition. There is still a hue and cry about the breaking down of tradition. The trouble is, that stats connect us with the old, old version of the game--it gives the illusion that the game is the same as it was back in the early 1900's. Tradition is the reason baseball is slow to change. And Beane was the first to really and openly use the new brand of stat. And it is still working for him.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 27, 2019, 09:26:31 AM
I have not read the book nor seen the movie. Why? Did not feel the need since I already knew what Beane was doing prior to the book or movie. So, it seemed it would be 'old hat'. But now, because of your and Shoe's take on it, I will have to see it.
Most of what you pointed out was covered in the movie. Much of it came in those printed addendums that scroll by during the credits, but they were all news to me. James Green was given credit in a couple of flash back scenes, but never having heard of him, I didn't pay much attention or even notice the scenes the first couple of times I watched the movie. The movie portrayed Green as some disregarded kook that worked in a bean canning factory. The movie played up the competition between the intuitive guys around the recruiting table vs the impartiality of computer data, making it seem like the "experts" of the time didn't think much of Green (or Billy Beane either). The professional relationship between Beane and Peter Brand (if there was such a person) has a visceral quality about it that is unforgettable.
Quote from: SGOS on September 27, 2019, 09:59:19 AM
Most of what you pointed out was covered in the movie. Much of it came in those printed addendums that scroll by during the credits, but they were all news to me. James Green was given credit in a couple of flash back scenes, but never having heard of him, I didn't pay much attention or even notice the scenes the first couple of times I watched the movie. The movie portrayed Green as some disregarded kook that worked in a bean canning factory. The movie played up the competition between the intuitive guys around the recruiting table vs the impartiality of computer data, making it seem like the "experts" of the time didn't think much of Green (or Billy Beane either). The professional relationship between Beane and Peter Brand (if there was such a person) has a visceral quality about it that is unforgettable.
I have always been a big fan of the new stats. I am fascinated by the history and development of the baseball stats. The push-pull of tradition and the new cutting edge is fun to watch and listen to. Will have to get the movie.
Quote from: SGOS on September 27, 2019, 08:19:14 AM
Baseball makes a good background for the plot, especially since fans make such a big deal about statistics, probably more than other sports. What's odd is that this paradigm shift hadn't happened earlier, because the stats have always been there. I think it's partly because computers have become the "now." The movie, being from Hollywood, no doubt tends to de-emphasize some things and emphasize others to make the plot more dramatic. Stats have always had a place in recruiting. How could they not? And I'm sure there is still a lot of useless jabber in round table discussion that use ambiguous phrases like, "The boy's got heart," or "Yeah, but he's got a good swing."
Like, Pitt who needed a role like this, Jonah Hill did a stellar job, and needs to put this film in the file he takes to interviews. I never paid much attention to Jonah Hill before, but his true versatility really shows up in Moneyball.
It seems to me that in baseball, there are more place for players' individuality. Also while they need to do four specific things, they can be really good in one and suck the other but can contribute. In other team games, it is always one thing done in different ways. Human character has a lot of to do with being good at ctaching or throwing, batting or running. May be I am being too romantic.
Oh I am sure the talk is still the same. Even in the other team sports talk. It's fine too. Exactly, how cold they not? I would, lol.
I like Jonah Hill from the beginning, he is talented. I've first seen him in Superbad, LOL. I always like that type of actors, they are usually the real ones. But men like Pitt will be always too clean cut and handsome for me. I don't like handsome, too famous actors, men or women. I don't want to remember the actor when watching the movie. I feel same with Dicaprio, though I like few of his jobs.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 27, 2019, 09:26:31 AM
Hard to find a bigger baseball fan than I am--followed it from '58 on. And I love stats--that's what drew me to the sport in the first place. Anyway, as odd as it seems, I have not read the book nor seen the movie. Why? Did not feel the need since I already knew what Beane was doing prior to the book or movie. So, it seemed it would be 'old hat'. But now, because of your and Shoe's take on it, I will have to see it.
Why is the baseball establishment so slow in accepting these 'new' stats? If nothing else, baseball is tradition. It is mom, apple pie and the flag. Baseball is riddled with scores of 'unwritten' rules and customs--just like our society. As an example the stat batting average(BA) was one of the first to be used and that was in the late 1800's. It was the gold standard. That was so until Branch Rickey developed some different ones in the in the '40's. But BA was still golden. The new type of stat, called 'sabermetrics' was introduced in the early 70's by Bill James. These measurements were slow to catch on, but their intent was to determine what stats really reflected on winning games. It attempted to answer questions about what the components of a win are and which are more important. Bill James now works for the Boston Red Sox and his 'sabermatrics' has taken over; Billy Beane was on of the first to use these new (and constantly improving) stats to drive his assessment of 'true' baseball skills. And it worked and now just about every team uses those type of stats. The BA is no longer golden--it really does not have much of a bearing on winning. Yet there are managers and players who still think it matters--it is tradition. There is still a hue and cry about the breaking down of tradition. The trouble is, that stats connect us with the old, old version of the game--it gives the illusion that the game is the same as it was back in the early 1900's. Tradition is the reason baseball is slow to change. And Beane was the first to really and openly use the new brand of stat. And it is still working for him.
That explains a lot, thanks.
James Green? Bill James? I'm not sure how I made James Green out of Bill James. I guess I need to watch the movie again, but I'll wait a couple of weeks.
I watched Batman Hush yesterday.
I usually prefer the dc animated movies more then their live action because they always seems a lot more faithful to the comics then the live action spectacles.
I hadn't however read any of the batman comics about the character Hush and who he is, but I read some notes about it, seemed like an intresting villain for batman to go up against that doesn't get the kind of stronger appeal, similar to the court of owls.
However, this movie was.. questionable in its approach. The animation was fine like the action sequences, however some of the still moments of them talking was very rigid, suffering from the anime problem of flapping mouth syndrome.
And the story felt pretty rushed, for a movie with just an hour and 20 minutes tried to push in a lot of plot that could have been done better in something like an animated series over several episodes.
[spoiler]Catwomans reform, mysterious assassin targeting batman and those he cares about, poison ivy controlling superman, other batman villains thrown in including joker which felt forced since he wasn't much to do with anything. The biggest plot hole in the end was revealed that Hush, who in the comics was known as Thomas Elliot, and we're meant to think the character Thomas Elliot in this movie would be revealed as Hush, it turned out Hush wasn't Elliot all along, but was instead the Riddler, Edward Nygma, and his reasons for becoming Hush was because after developing a brain tumor, Nygma wanted to find a cure, and looked to the lazarus pit to cure him, which ended up driving him nuts but also increased his intellect so much it allowed the riddler to deduce bruce wayne was batman, and so took his revenge on batman as bruce wayne.
[/spoiler]
The plot felt like there should be a much broader story to all this since the character Hush as been in several comics, so just revealing who Hush really was in the end made it feel like this movie was self contained and didn't leave anything open for further story to be continued.
Overall I'll give the film 6/10, good animation, action, voice acting and some fun moments, but I've seen better dc animated movies.
I have. Free cinema ticket I have to use by tonight.
It part 2 of once upon a time in hollywood?
Suggestions welcome
Aim to see the other in October, but my brother wanted to watch 'it part 2' then and my sister wanted to go watch the Tarantino flick then. S o I'll have to choose. Neither can make it tonight.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 30, 2019, 12:46:51 PM
I have. Free cinema ticket I have to use by tonight.
It part 2 of once upon a time in hollywood?
Suggestions welcome
Aim to see the other in October, but my brother wanted to watch 'it part 2' then and my sister wanted to go watch the Tarantino flick then. S o I'll have to choose. Neither can make it tonight.
I liked Once Upon a Time very much. I haven't seen It Part 2. Not knowing anything about Once Upon a Time would be the best way to see it, because the story unfolds and has surprises.
I enjoyed once upon a time.
Glad I knew who Sharon tate was though. As not everybody who I know does.
I wish I'd known in advance exactly who's been her murderers rather than just knowing it was the Manson family. But even with my bare bones knowledge of the murders, spaghetti western bfilms and 60's Hollywood it was swell. Think I missed a treasure trope of nods and Easter eggs though.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 01, 2019, 05:05:58 AM
I enjoyed once upon a time.
Glad I knew who Sharon tate was though. As not everybody who I know does.
I wish I'd known in advance exactly who's been her murderers rather than just knowing it was the Manson family. But even with my bare bones knowledge of the murders, spaghetti western bfilms and 60's Hollywood it was swell. Think I missed a treasure trope of nods and Easter eggs though.
There were a lot of players in the actual murders, and it's hard for me to remember them all. I don't think I had ever heard of Sharon Tate until she was murdered, and I wondered if the movie would be of much interest to Europeans. I was thinking it didn't seem like a Tarantino film at all until they visited that ranch in the desert and Brad Pit met that girl named Squeaky. Who would forget a name like that? It was at that point where I knew it was going to be more than just a buddy film about two actors.
Quote from: SGOS on October 01, 2019, 07:02:42 AM
There were a lot of players in the actual murders, and it's hard for me to remember them all. I don't think I had ever heard of Sharon Tate until she was murdered, and I wondered if the movie would be of much interest to Europeans. I was thinking it didn't seem like a Tarantino film at all until they visited that ranch in the desert and Brad Pit met that girl named Squeaky. Who would forget a name like that? It was at that point where I knew it was going to be more than just a buddy film about two actors.
Is everyone fascinated by the degeneracy in Hollywood, the drugs, the affairs, the tragedies? Not me. I was too young to know who she was too. Squeaky later tried to assassinate President Ford ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynette_Fromme
https://youtu.be/vZ3THjjZqjA
I'm really confused about what's going on with DC's extended cinematic universe. Are they giving up and just making standalone films now, or are some of them canon and others not?
So, if movies about superheroes aren't making enough money, let's glorify the super villains. What could possibly go wrong?
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 01, 2019, 07:12:38 PM
So, if movies about superheroes aren't making enough money, let's glorify the super villains. What could possibly go wrong?
Star Wars was a supervillain series. Only interesting character in the movies was a bad guy.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 01, 2019, 07:22:15 PM
Star Wars was a supervillain series. Only interesting character in the movies was a bad guy.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/l3fZJroOW8RAafbc4/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 01, 2019, 07:22:15 PM
Star Wars was a supervillain series. Only interesting character in the movies was a bad guy.
The villain is always the interesting character. Look at Professor Moriarty -- he played an active role in exactly one Holmes story (with mentions in one succeeding novel and five stories, most of which clearly after his death)... and yet he comes down to us as the epitome of the evil genius on the basis of just that. Not bad for only one direct appearance.
The villain is always the center of attention, but the villain's main job is really to serve as a foil to the hero - the villain is a failed hero, someone who could've been heroic, but character flaws or circumstance prevented a rise to glory or triggered a fall from grace.
Anakin/Luke, Moriarty/Holmes, Magneto/Professor X, Saruman/Gandalf, etc.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 01, 2019, 07:42:20 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/l3fZJroOW8RAafbc4/giphy.gif)
Fans complain about Rey being a Mary Sue, but Luke was such a bland character, especially in Episode VI. It's amazing how much people can forgive with a heaping helping of nostalgia.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 01, 2019, 08:36:47 PM
Fans complain about Rey being a Mary Sue, but Luke was such a bland character, especially in Episode VI. It's amazing how much people can forgive with a heaping helping of nostalgia.
I actually really like Luke's character ><
He had a character arc - he's a different character in all three movies. Young and naive in the first. Vengeful and impatient in the second. Older and wiser in the third.
He went on the classic hero's journey. He struggled and lost a lot along the way (his family, his mentor, Dak, his hand, etc) and he emerged victorious over both himself and over the Emperor. And he even did the impossible and successfully sought redemption in the blackest of hearts. He learned mercy and compassion - and that was crucial to his success.
Rey...how do I put this?...has not had quite the same arc.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 01, 2019, 09:01:10 PM
I actually really like Luke's character ><
He had a character arc - he's a different character in all three movies. Young and naive in the first. Vengeful and impatient in the second. Older and wiser in the third.
He went on the classic hero's journey. He struggled and lost a lot along the way (his family, his mentor, Dak, his hand, etc) and he emerged victorious over both himself and over the Emperor. And he even did the impossible and successfully sought redemption in the blackest of hearts. He learned mercy and compassion - and that was crucial to his success.
Rey...how do I put this?...has not had quite the same arc.
I love Mark Hamill, but I don't think Luke Skywalker was his best work. George Lucas' cheesy writing probably wasn't much help. I'd say his acting was probably best in the first movie, then the second had him trying to be dark and just coming off as silly. Then the third one made every character super cheesy. The arguments back and forth between him and Darth Sidius was just painful to listen to. It just made me go, "Just get to the lightsaber duel already!" IMO, Han Solo was the most interesting hero of the original prequels.
As for Rey, I'm not going to deny the Disney trilogy has a lot of problems. Rey's hero's journey is considerably weaker, with more of an emphasis on self-discovery than any higher purpose. But the presentation is better. That's the weird thing about the Disney sequels so far. Their writing is bad, but their execution is phenomenal. I don't know how, but they do a lot with such lazily written plots.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 01, 2019, 10:26:18 PMIMO, Han Solo was the most interesting hero of the original prequels.
Original...prequels? *raised eyebrow* Heh. Damn, this is getting convoluted.
And yeah, Han is interesting. (Though one wouldn't know from the Solo box office figures, solo uno zero, more like :P) From what I've heard, younger audiences sympathized more like Luke while older audiences sympathized more with Han.
QuoteRey's hero's journey is considerably weaker, with more of an emphasis on self-discovery than any higher purpose. But the presentation is better.
That's the weird thing about the Disney sequels so far. Their writing is bad, but their execution is phenomenal.
Completely agreed. That cave scene alone could've been brilliant. Instead, it's just a thing that happens that looks pretty cool, but doesn't really matter that much to the plot. Hopefully, JJ fixes things. Otherwise, the sequel trilogy plotline is going to look like a ball of yarn that a cougar played with.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 01, 2019, 10:51:15 PMCompletely agreed. That cave scene alone could've been brilliant. Instead, it's just a thing that happens that looks pretty cool, but doesn't really matter that much to the plot. Hopefully, JJ fixes things. Otherwise, the sequel trilogy plotline is going to look like a ball of yarn that a cougar played with.
There's a fan theory that, if true, could redeem that scene. The theory is that Rey was created via the Force, making her parents literally no one. This wouldn't be the first time this has happened, as I'm sure you know. Anakin didn't have a natural father, but Sidious created Anakin by using the Force to create life, after learning the ability from his master Plagueis. The problem with this theory is the timing. Who could have been around to create Rey? Sidious was dead. Vader could have learned how to do it, but he died too. Also, with Anakin, there was still a mother, so did someone take the art to a whole new level?
Quote from: trdsf on October 01, 2019, 08:07:11 PM
The villain is always the interesting character. Look at Professor Moriarty -- he played an active role in exactly one Holmes story (with mentions in one succeeding novel and five stories, most of which clearly after his death)... and yet he comes down to us as the epitome of the evil genius on the basis of just that. Not bad for only one direct appearance.
Not always true. Look at iron man 1 and 2, guardians of the galaxy and frozen. The villains in those were all very forgettable compared to the heroes
Quote from: Munch on October 02, 2019, 05:06:03 AM
Not always true. Look at iron man 1 and 2, guardians of the galaxy and frozen. The villains in those were all very forgettable compared to the heroes
If the villain is crap, like the golden lady, then you take what you can get.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 02, 2019, 05:37:14 AM
If the villain is crap, like the golden lady, then you take what you can get.
She wasn't the main villain, though! She wasn't even the secondary villain (the mutineers). She was just some asshole with a vindictive streak.
Generally the thinking is that a strong superhero requires a strong villain to make a story. I think audiences, readers, and writers want or follow that format. I recognize that, and it makes sense, but personally, I don't agree, but that's just me, I doubt if my needs would please audiences as much as the usual format. My thinking is that a superhero that struggles isn't that gifted and far less exciting, and I like it when they get totally kick ass. When superman get's exposed to Kryptonite, I start to nod off: "This shit again?"
Iron Man I had no super villain to fight, just a common terrorist, a creepy one at that, but a total asshole that needed to be given his come-uppence. And I was totally satisfied when that happened. Later Iron man is fighting giant iron whale skeletons that fly in the sky. Granted that's kind of clever, but they didn't creep me out. They were just objects to be destroyed.
Switching from villain quality to hero quality, I like heroes that are virtually indestructible. An example is Captain Marvel (at this point anyway). Later I'm sure they will introduce more formidable villains for her to fight because apparently they have to. To me Captain Marvel nears flawless perfection, she briefly appeared in the beginning of Endgame to establish herself as a hero with fearless confidence, while the rest of the Avengers were diddling around with their reservations (as they should have been), Thor recognized her value after he did his macho hammer thing that left her unimpressed. Also, Captain Marvel never got into a sullen funk, spending eons evaluating her worth in morose introspection. Then she was gone from the movie until a brief appearance at the end, disappointing audiences in doing so apparently, but that brief appearance made the movie about her, and it made it for me. In no time flat she cleaned up the mess of an epic unending battle between worn out humans, minor gods, and techno giants who could not stop an indestructible Titan, and She left me breathless.
Right or wrong or just different strokes, that's what I would like to see more of. But I fear it's not going to happen much.
anyway, just watched this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56FsSmUi0Yk&t=618s
I like Jeremy Jahns a lot, love his reviews.
This thing with george lucas and bob iger, it really comes off of no surprise at all, the nature of disney and its power over people.
And really it breaks down to I do feel sorry for lucas seeing the thing he made up being turned into something he didn't agree on, and having to sit there and see it upended is awful for any creator. But for disney, they are the beast with a thousand ends and it wasn't going to do anything else.
This is why, when I first heard how disney was buying marvel and star wars, while everyone else was celebrating how great it was to have such a rich and powerful company own these franchises, I was one of the ones who just thought... really? A evil massive corporation only invested in growing and expanding itself owns these things are you don't even question if this is a good thing or not?
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 02, 2019, 07:27:05 AM
She wasn't the main villain, though! She wasn't even the secondary villain (the mutineers). She was just some asshole with a vindictive streak.
But she was the carry-on villain.
Dowton Abbey 7/10
But this is from someone who loved the TV series. It was OK, but for me fell short of a series episode, which is kind of what it could have been. Viewers give it a 95%. I tried to catch an opening day matinee, but the line was too long to make it until long after the coming attractions started. I left mostly because I don't like crowded theaters. I looked at the line buying tickets, and I didn't see anyone younger than 50. It appears to be serving a niche group so that 95% is not from a typical audience. I wish I would have liked it more the way I did the movies that followed TV series like Stargate SG1 or Firefly. This wasn't as interesting as the series. I saw it on Tightwad Tuesday with less than 10 other people in the theater.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 02, 2019, 08:48:32 AM
But she was the carry-on villain.
She was the one who got the ball rolling and conflicts started, but that's pretty much it
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 02, 2019, 10:34:12 AM
She was the one who got the ball rolling and conflicts started, but that's pretty much it
So far.
Hereditary. Naah.
It started good and I thought oh it is about real things in disguise of supernatural. Or may be because I was looking for something so metaphorically realistic because I was told that it was very good for a few times, so the ending seemed so made up. Nope.
[spoiler]Apperantly, the entity in the movie is some sort of an evil god thing, people actually worship in real life, in what they call the occult and that is why it is supposed to be good? I have no idea. You get no idea of any entity or a cult until past the half of the movie. Actors are good, it is sutble than most movies that's good. However, it's a failure. It doesn't include any scary scenes either, nothing we haven't seen before. [/spoiler]
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 03, 2019, 01:49:12 PM
Hereditary. Naah.
It started good and I thought oh it is about real things in disguise of supernatural. Or may be because I was looking for something so metaphorically realistic because I was told that it was very good for a few times, so the ending seemed so made up. Nope.
[spoiler]Apperantly, the entity in the movie is some sort of an evil god thing, people actually worship in real life, in what they call the occult and that is why it is supposed to be good? I have no idea. You get no idea of any entity or a cult until past the half of the movie. Actors are good, it is sutble than most movies that's good. However, it's a failure. It doesn't include any scary scenes either, nothing we haven't seen before. [/spoiler]
I kind of agree in some of what you said.
[spoiler]The first half of the movie has strong elements of a more psychological tone, eerie character inactions, the bizarre and freaky mannerisms of the daughter, and the other family members, it gave it an unsettling tone. And that scene of what happens to the daughter and what follows still lingers with me.
If the movie kept to this kind of tone and made it just about this family coming undone by the events, it could have been an amazing psychological horror.
But the cult and possession part and the evil god needing a perfect host and floating headless corpses, the tone shift, the only reason that stuff might have been scary was because what came before was so unsettling.
That said, you could look at the movie as before and after the daughters death, going between the psychological to the supernatural, as a transition from a regular but messed up life, to that of the son breaking down and nothing making sense there after his sister's death?
[/spoiler]
Saying all this, what kind of supernatural horrors have you enjoyed ?
I agree. I stopped watching them long time ago, they are all the same. Nothing interesting. Every time people go 'this one is good' something like this happens. Or may be I have just don't like horror anymore.
JOKER 1🤡/1🤡
I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING!
Been hearing some good reviews of Joker, might go see it
Quote from: Munch on October 03, 2019, 10:22:36 PM
Been hearing some good reviews of Joker, might go see it
You absolutely should. Hell, I'm probably going to go again.
I seriously think Heath Ledger may have been topped. And I don't say that lightly.
Nothing against Heath, he was absolutely excellent for the screentime he had. But this one not only has Mr J in close focus, but him running the whole gamut of emotions and directing that leaves just enough to the imagination. Just phenomenal work.
I know there's kind of a slow start, but trust me, there's one hell of a payoff. Jeez louise, is there a payoff. If this movie doesn't win a ton of awards, I'm gonna go nuts!
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 03, 2019, 10:36:27 PM
I seriously think Heath Ledger may have been topped. And I don't say that lightly.
That's actually good news. But I don't think the roles are comparable.
Well least we can erase that horrible Jared Leto joker from our minds
I have never seen him as one, lol. I just liked the girl. But that joker had to be bad to balance if you ask me.
Joker is the villian with the most gravity in that universe. If you put a solid, Joker like Joker in there the whole thing would go out of balance.
You mean harleyquin?
Harley Quinn was just a way to get more boobies into the comics.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 04, 2019, 07:46:28 AM
Harley Quinn was just a way to get more boobies into the comics.
Well actually she begun in batman the animated series and was so popular she transferred to the comics and other media
Quote from: Munch on October 04, 2019, 08:04:33 AM
Well actually she begun in batman the animated series and was so popular she transferred to the comics and other media
Mere detail.
Quote from: Munch on October 04, 2019, 04:17:35 AM
Well least we can erase that horrible Jared Leto joker from our minds
Until Birds of Prey :P
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 04, 2019, 04:02:46 AM
That's actually good news. But I don't think the roles are comparable.
Yeah, they're really not the same sort of thing. Still, comparisons are inevitable.
One last thing about Joker:
Don't expect a typical superhero movie. This isn't even a superhero movie at all.
Everything is well written, but don't expect the movie to hold your hand or spell everything out for you. Not everything is going to make cents at first glance.
And this movie asks some very provocative questions but does not answer them, leaving some people confused about the message of the movie.
This is something I'll get into that later in the spoiler section, but suffice it to say you're not going into a lighthearted comic romp.
Hopefully, you'll have a good time watching it!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 04, 2019, 07:46:28 AM
Harley Quinn was just a way to get more boobies into the comics.
Oh yeah, because we female viewers are watching all those male superhero characters for their 'talents'. LOOL E. Also, forgot the 'great' story plot.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 04, 2019, 09:03:11 AM
One last thing about Joker:
Don't expect a typical superhero movie. This isn't even a superhero movie at all.
Everything is well written, but don't expect the movie to hold your hand or spell everything out for you. Not everything is going to make cents at first glance.
And this movie asks some very provocative questions but does not answer them, leaving some people confused about the message of the movie.
This is something I'll get into that later in the spoiler section, but suffice it to say you're not going into a lighthearted comic romp.
Hopefully, you'll have a good time watching it!
You keep building up my expectations, I hope I will enjoy it. If I can catch it in the theatre, still out of town.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 04, 2019, 09:06:07 AM
Oh yeah, because we female viewers are watching all those male superhero characters for their 'talents'. LOOL E. Also, forgot the 'great' story plot.
I actually love Harley enough as a character to have a keyring of her on my keys
I too share the eye candy reasoning of male hero's and villains, but the stories are good too.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 04, 2019, 08:35:04 AM
Mere detail.
I think Harley was created for the cartoon to give the Joker someone to interact with besides Batman. I find it funny how she has transcended her role as Joker's sidekick to become her own antihero/villain (depending on the story).
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 01, 2019, 09:01:10 PM
I actually really like Luke's character ><
He had a character arc - he's a different character in all three movies. Young and naive in the first. Vengeful and impatient in the second. Older and wiser in the third.
He went on the classic hero's journey. ...
And that was deliberate, considering Lucas literally sat down with a copy of Campbell's
The Hero with a Thousand Faces and his very explicit reliance on it when constructing the story arc.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 04, 2019, 09:03:11 AMDon't expect a typical superhero movie. This isn't even a superhero movie at all.
Everything is well written, but don't expect the movie to hold your hand or spell everything out for you. Not everything is going to make cents at first glance.
And this movie asks some very provocative questions but does not answer them, leaving some people confused about the message of the movie.
This is something I'll get into that later in the spoiler section, but suffice it to say you're not going into a lighthearted comic romp.
Hopefully, you'll have a good time watching it!
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 04, 2019, 09:07:59 AM
You keep building up my expectations, I hope I will enjoy it. If I can catch it in the theatre, still out of town.
Read, please
Every paragraph's first letter
And see something a lot of people
Definitely didn't notice before :wink:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU6eyvS_3A8
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 04, 2019, 07:46:28 AM
Harley Quinn was just a way to get more boobies into the comics.
If that's true, why did they bother with solid story arches, character development and making her a fleshed-out character rather than just eye-candy?
There are characters that are legitimately there just to look pretty. Harley Quinn ain't close to one.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 04, 2019, 10:04:54 PM
Read, please
Every paragraph's first letter
And see something a lot of people
Definitely didn't notice before :wink:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU6eyvS_3A8
Oh, lol.
Joker - 10/10
Definitely a slow burn of a movie, but once it ignites... lawrdy. And without that long stretch of slow, at times "boring" and uncomfortable build up, the payoff would not have felt so worth it nor been so easy to understand and relate to.
Much more a traditional movie than a modern movie.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 05, 2019, 03:17:44 PM
Joker - 10/10
Definitely a slow burn of a movie, but once it ignites... lawrdy. And without that long stretch of slow, at times "boring" and uncomfortable build up, the payoff would not have felt so worth it nor been so easy to understand and relate to.
Much more a traditional movie than a modern movie.
(https://data.whicdn.com/images/227032083/original.gif)
Also, I laughed at
really inappropriate times. There was a lot of super dark comedy in that one, and it tickled me in all the wrong ways.
I'm probably going to buy the movie and watch it over and over because there's this theory I want to try to test out and I need to go over this with a fine-tooth comb to see if I'm onto anything.
Cinematography? Or something more general. Is the popularity of macabre and horror a symptom of and underlying psychopathy or sociopathy? I have never quite got into this stuff.
The Wind That Shakes the Barley - 9.7/10
Staring Cillian Murphy, it takes place during the Irish War of Independence and ends during the Irish Civil War. It's one of the few films that has addressed what was, and still remains, a very open wound for Ireland.
The good guys are not always good, and the bad guys are sometimes their brothers and friends... particularly once the film focuses on the Civil War. If I had one complaint it would be that the film does not focus enough on the pro-treaty Free Republic party enough despite having a main character on their side (and I say that as someone who fully believes the IRA were still on the right side of history at that point of the war).
Obviously, the British do not deserve to have their side of the story glorified or explained; they were in the wrong from the beginning. However the Free Republic soldiers were Irish citizens, many of whom who had been fighting on the side of the IRA up until the truce, and I don't feel the movie did a good enough job of making us sympathize with them.
Complications with the Irish business. Irish revolutionaries were siding with enemies of Britain during wartime. A war that the US was on the same side as the British. So Irish cynicism doesn't impress me. However, Ireland was more of an armed neutral during WW II, which as less sociopathic. Since then, Ireland has tried to be a peace maker nation. Even better.
Sully, great story, but not meant for film. Maybe a documentary, rather.
Good acting all around, believable, but that does not a good view make.
5.5/10
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 06, 2019, 11:22:18 AM
Sully, great story, but not meant for film. Maybe a documentary, rather.
Good acting all around, believable, but that does not a good view make.
5.5/10
Good double feature with "Deepwater Horizon".
https://youtu.be/xU1ffHa47YY
This review of the Disney remakes goes into another aspect of the shallow nature of the films. Attempting to "fix" the original films to show how much they've matured since then. They're not a big corporation trying to get all your money. They get you.
Also, Jasmine becomes the Sultan in the remake of Aladdin? WTF?
Ironically, what I find problematic about the original Aladdin is how they portrayed a foreign culture as "barbaric." Even the princess, who grew up in that culture and knew nothing else refused to participate in her own norms. It just seems convenient for an American company to present another culture as inferior to theirs. Of course, I can overlook this because the movie is good enough quality to make up for it. Plus, it is a product of the times. But then here comes the remake, and they double down on the theme of "individualism = good, collectivism = bad" by ending it with a female sultan. Down with the patriarchy, or something.
Gonna go see the 1986 flop, "No Retreat, No Surrender" tonight. But it's okay, Joel and the 'Bots will be there to soften the blow. Yay for MST3K Live on Tour!
Quote from: trdsf on October 06, 2019, 03:48:51 PM
Gonna go see the 1986 flop, "No Retreat, No Surrender" tonight.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/F7JTns2BXH1Is/giphy.gif)
The movie was fucking awful. The riffing was absolutely top notch -- Joel and company absolutely hit it out of the park. If you're a MSTie, and it's coming anywhere near you (https://mst3klive.com), go. Especially since this is Joel's final tour, at least in the theater seat... although it was strongly hinted this is not the last tour for the show. There may be a new host coming...
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 06, 2019, 06:09:03 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/F7JTns2BXH1Is/giphy.gif)
Curiously enough, this scene was cut... but then, it pretty much riffs itself.
(https://i.redd.it/83eqa3kkq3r31.jpg)
*blind seething rage*
I'm typing this because angrish has temporarily robbed me of the ability to speak.
Guardians of the Galaxy. I loved it. I want Rocket and Groot and Quill's gear and the ship. As soon as possible please.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 07, 2019, 03:42:38 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy. I loved it. I want Rocket and Groot and Quill's gear and the ship. As soon as possible please.
Drax may only be in one more movie. He's pushing 50 and staying in that shape is getting very hard.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 07, 2019, 12:25:31 PM
*blind seething rage*
I'm typing this because angrish has temporarily robbed me of the ability to speak.
You starting to see now the impact the social justice mindset has on people? It creates the same mental blocks for rationality that religion creates
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 07, 2019, 03:42:38 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy. I loved it. I want Rocket and Groot and Quill's gear and the ship. As soon as possible please.
Did Groot have gear? Can't remember him using any.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGT-55_XYAA09pB?format=jpg&name=medium)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGT-58qWsAALsSm?format=jpg&name=medium)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGT-58pWoAEqFVW?format=jpg&name=medium)
the irony that the very context of what this movie is saying is just further highlighted by these moronic articles being published. This movie exists today because of people like this.
Quote from: Munch on October 07, 2019, 05:27:34 PM
Did Groot have gear? Can't remember him using any.
LOL, I meant I want Quill's gear and Groot and Rocket, themselves.
This just in: IT Chapter 1 and 2 glorifies spooky clowns terrorizing and murdering children.
Godzilla seeks to normalize giant lizards leveling entire cities in battles with giant insects.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory supports candy-based child abuse.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 08, 2019, 03:29:21 PM
This just in: IT Chapter 1 and 2 glorifies spooky clowns terrorizing and murdering children.
Godzilla seeks to normalize giant lizards leveling entire cities in battles with giant insects.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory supports candy-based child abuse.
Well the reaction to pennywise killing a gay man in the sequel offended enough people at the shock that he wasn't a gay ally after all.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 08, 2019, 02:59:42 PM
LOL, I meant I want Quill's gear and Groot and Rocket, themselves.
Rocket had an impressive collection of artificial eyes and prosthetic limbs.
"Oh, I'll get that arm!"
Quote from: Munch on October 08, 2019, 03:52:31 PM
Well the reaction to pennywise killing a gay man in the sequel offended enough people at the shock that he wasn't a gay ally after all.
I'm confused. Gay men can't die in a movie?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 08, 2019, 03:58:00 PM
I'm confused. Gay men can't die in a movie?
And penny wise was a gay ally? The interdimensional horror man slaughtering beast beyond comprehension? That's who you want gays to be associated with?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 08, 2019, 03:58:00 PM
I'm confused. Gay men can't die in a movie?
https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/lgbtq-activists-outraged-because-pennywise-from-it-chapter-two-isnt-a-gay-ally/
https://www.out.com/film/2019/9/07/pennywise-surprisingly-anti-queer-it-chaper-two
For context after the first movie came out.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/09/12/were-not-clowning-around-pennywise-from-it-is-the-new-gay-icon-for-2017/
Apparently these morons didn't read even footnotes on the IT novel about what he does in that.
Don't chase links.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 08, 2019, 05:28:37 PM
Don't chase links.
Okay, but gay men can die in a movie, it's just that in this case people assumed an evil other dimentional being disguised as a clown was somehow a gay icon in 2017, but ended up in shock when he eats a gay man's heart out in the sequel. If they actually read a summery of the book they'd at least have known that was going to happen in part 2.
Well, killing off the gay guy has become sort of an overused trope. There's a tendency to see those characters as expendable. Basically the new "black guy dies first."
Quote from: Munch on October 08, 2019, 05:34:29 PM
Okay, but gay men can die in a movie, it's just that in this case people assumed an evil other dimentional being disguised as a clown was somehow a gay icon in 2017, but ended up in shock when he eats a gay man's heart out in the sequel. If they actually read a summery of the book they'd at least have known that was going to happen in part 2.
"The more you know, the less you blow."
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 08, 2019, 05:38:08 PM
Well, killing off the gay guy has become sort of an overused trope. There's a tendency to see those characters as expendable. Basically the new "black guy dies first."
But this wasn't THE gay guy, it was his friend. IIRC. Only seen the second part once.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 08, 2019, 05:38:08 PM
Well, killing off the gay guy has become sort of an overused trope. There's a tendency to see those characters as expendable. Basically the new "black guy dies first."
Bury Your Gays (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BuryYourGays)
Monty Python: "Bring out your fabulous!!!"
I thought the Joker was one of the better films DC has put out in a long time. It's an unusual movie, but it is engaging. Origin stories are always of interest to me too. Well done, DC.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 08, 2019, 05:38:08 PM
Well, killing off the gay guy has become sort of an overused trope. There's a tendency to see those characters as expendable. Basically the new "black guy dies first."
in this case, as it happened in the book that was written decades ago, you can let that one slide for the sake of paying homage. also maybe the director did it knowing it would have that reaction, rather the leaving it out.
Frankenstein 1931 and Others
So I was walking by the movie isle in Walmart, and found a release of 8 films called the "Original Frankenstein Legacy Collection: All Eight Films" $5 for the whole set, and they are rendered in like new film quality, probably much better than the originals, with subtitles too. I'd seen most of them of course, some uncountable times as they were shown almost weekly when television first came out. Besides the original, The Bride of, Son of, Ghost of, House of, and Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, also included is The House of Dracula, and what I'm looking forward to the most, Abbot and Costelo Meet Frankenstein. I've watched three tonight, and trying not to watch another so I can stretch them out a bit.
They bring back nostolgic memories of the old time monster movies, which were thought to be scary, but they are not at all. Mel Brooks humorous satire isn't much funnier than the original, but it's not because of any attempt at humor in the original. It's because of the clumsy theatrics. This is old school acting by actors who were taught to look like they were acting, rather than to just seem natural. From start to finish, the actors seem like they are in constant competition with each other to see who can be the most theatrical and melodramatic. Good grief, film as come a long way since when actors had canned theater devices like shielding one's eyes with a forearm in the face of gruesome horror, the quicker the shielding, supposedly the more gruesome the horror, but it's still just the monster spinning around in one place trying to figure out which direction he wants to go. The women are constantly screaming, and everyone is running around with either a torch or a pitchfork, as the monster stalks around in an awkward Nazi goose step. I'm finding it great fun.
(https://i.redd.it/gzeomgvcksr31.jpg)
God I hate critics. It's "controversial" because its themes struck a nerve and some people hate that they got called out.
And now they're confusing movie quality with whether or not they like its message - essentially punishing the movie because they don't like its tone.
These people are awful.
As a community, it seems to me that professional critics are limited by unspoken rules. I even googled this one time to try and understand why the over all community of critics is so often wrong. And much of what I read, I agreed with, but perhaps that's confirmation bias on my part. On the other hand, much of what I read felt like I was being lectured to by the community of critics who viewed me as just another schmots in the community of schmotses, composed of subhumans who are not professional critics.
But they did state quite clearly that political correctness played a big role in reviews by critics. I get that, since I consider political correctness to be just another word for "what most people believe," and it should be part of the job of the professional critic to reflect what most people believe... or should it? But that doesn't explain why Rotten Tomatoes comes up with scores of 15% from critics, while audiences score the same movie at 96%. Something in the formula is wrong. The articles tried to explain away these differences, but I didn't find them convincing.
Now last I looked, critics put Joker at 68%, which is the lower end of fresh, but very low for DC or Marvel. For movies in general, that's not taking it off the table by any means. Audiences gave it a 90%, which is maybe a little low for the current successful movies founded on comic books, but it's still very good overall.
In my opinion, Joker is edgy, but I like edgy. It made me uncomfortable at times, but I like that too. It made me more uncomfortable than a good horror flick, because fiction that it is, it was all too real. I know people like that, misanthropes who fail in society, but regain their self respect by becoming the worst of the worst, instead of the best of the best. Seeing that in a comic book based film hits too close to home. It tells us what's wrong with the society we actually live in. But should that discredit a film? Maybe, but it doesn't for me. I liked it because I couldn't stop watching, couldn't doze off for a quick snooze in a dark empty theater. It was gripping.
Would I recommend it? Maybe; Certainly if you want to be informed. Should you like it? I don't really care. I'm buying the DVD when it comes out, and I'll be looking forward to DCs next Batman movie to see how they develop the Joker further. And now with my knowledge of his backstory, I'll expect him to be creepier than ever before.
Quote from: SGOS on October 11, 2019, 08:11:15 AMBut they did state quite clearly that political correctness played a big role in reviews by critics. I get that, since I consider political correctness to be just another word for "what most people believe,"
I 100% agree with this. Political correctness is just another word for what most people believe.
Quoteand it should be part of the job of the professional critic to reflect what most people believe... or should it?
I 100% disagree with this.
Critics should do far more than just be a mirror for the general public's views (and arguably, they don't even get that right since there's often such a wide gulf between critics' and viewers' opinions). Imo, critics should serve as expert appraisers - thoroughly examining a work and determining the quality of its various elements - writing, acting, directing, music, setwork, etc - and then judging the overall quality of the finished product. There's naturally a lot of room for subjectivity, but there must be some objective criteria for quality otherwise no one would agree on anything - Batman and Robin would be seen as just as deserving of awards as Dark Knight.
QuoteBut that doesn't explain why Rotten Tomatoes comes up with scores of 15% from critics, while audiences score the same movie at 96%. Something in the formula is wrong.
Exactly. And this happens over and over again. Something is seriously wrong with this process.
And apparently a big part of this process is prejudging a film, judging it by its genre, judging it by its perceived audience, judging it by whether or not it makes the reviewer uncomfortable, judging it by whether or not it's politically correct, etc.
My question (and a question shared by Arthur): who gets to decide what's right and who gets to decide what's funny?
QuoteIn my opinion, Joker is edgy, but I like edgy. It made me uncomfortable at times, but I like that too. It made me more uncomfortable than a good horror flick, because fiction that it is, it was all too real. I know people like that, misanthropes who fail in society, but regain their self respect by becoming the worst of the worst, instead of the best of the best. Seeing that in a comic book based film hits too close to home. It tells us what's wrong with the society we actually live in. But should that discredit a film? Maybe, but it doesn't for me. I liked it because I couldn't stop watching, couldn't doze off for a quick snooze in a dark empty theater. It was gripping.
Exactly. Decent art is entertaining. Fantastic art is both entertaining and speaks to something true (https://fsmedia.imgix.net/bb/80/e3/77/3a24/4268/992a/83e6af88743d/robert-ford-and-the-man-in-black-meet.png).
Imho, and I know I'll get flak for this statement - true art makes you uncomfortable.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 11, 2019, 09:02:08 AM
Imho, and I know I'll get flak for this statement - true art makes you uncomfortable.
I agree 100%. And I will expand that to all art--photos, paintings, movies, books (especially SciFi for me), sand creations, etc. Good art is good to look at; great art is art that strikes something deeper than 'good' within us--and that is personal.
Those that can't do, criticize.
Looking at the now famous painting of Kramer, the wife says, "This man disgusts me," and the husband replies, "I loath him," and then adds, "I must have this painting," and his wife agrees. Apparently good art can also be completely benign. Just Andy Warhol:
(https://www.moma.org/d/assets/W1siZiIsIjIwMTUvMTAvMjEvOTY0aWFsdm96Yl9zb3VwY2FuLmpwZyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ/soupcan.jpg?sha=e843175621e5dc6c)
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
There's a scene in Ironman II where Potts and Stark argue about a "painting" that is a white background and a single rectangle of black on that. Apparently it was "important". Suckers.
Quote from: SGOS on October 11, 2019, 09:30:27 AM
Looking at the now famous painting of Kramer, the wife says, "This man disgusts me," and the husband replies, "I loath him," and then adds, "I must have this painting," and his wife agrees. Apparently good art can also be completely benign. Just Andy Warhol:
(https://www.moma.org/d/assets/W1siZiIsIjIwMTUvMTAvMjEvOTY0aWFsdm96Yl9zb3VwY2FuLmpwZyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ/soupcan.jpg?sha=e843175621e5dc6c)
I like Warhol's work--it's fun to look at. But that's it. Fun. Nothing deeper (at least for me). But that's okay--I'm not being critical, just stating a personal opinion. Nothing wrong with fun art.
At least he didn't stick cigarette butts to it.
Just came from seeing Joker.
Dammit.. that was such a deep dive. I literally came from the cinema and just started looking at society itself as it was shown in the movie, as anarchy just waiting to boil over.
I dunno what else to say that hasn't already, but fuck it, I wanna give my thoughts.
[spoiler]Phoenix first off was fantastic, I dunno if theres ever been a take on the joker that you felt so sympathetic for, that even when he does gruesome things, you both are shocked and yet feel sympathy for him doing it. There was no one he killed in the movie that didn't deserve it.
The way it put a lens on the things showing the dregs of society compared to the wealthy elites and just how all this slowly broke down the main character, there was so much you could apply to todays society though this movie, and why its so corrupt and unsympathetic that of course it would break anyone down before they snap. This made the anarchy that follows all the more understandable.
I also think this twist of showing Thomas Wayne as a massive pos, making his death have more meaning and more satisfying then any other batman storyline has ever done.
This was a masterful movie. Maybe I'd say this isn't my most favorite take on the joker, but from a character study and his role in the movies world, is was incredible how it all worked. [/spoiler]
Two things I thought after coming from the movie.
1: While I want to say if this movie doesn't get an oscar, its a crime, but same time I don't give a shit about the oscars or academy awards anymore, so if they don't pick it it won't surprise me, given the messages in this movie, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.
2: Why are overly sensitive morons online complaining about this? There is literally nothing in this movie they have to target it for, theres no more violence in it then you'd have in something like reservoir dogs or any mob based film, so where is the hate for it coming from?
Either way, this movie left its mark. 9.5/10
I haven't watched the Academy Awards for years. Most of the time I don't know who won what, nor do I care. When I was younger, I had a mild interest in them, and I think I did enjoy some, perhaps many, of the movies that won something or other. But there are some movies on the top of my list that were never nominated, and there are movies on the bottom of my list that have won big. Sometimes I might agree and sometimes not, but mostly I don't care either way. I suspect it's done mostly to create interest in movies and fill the theaters. But I'm already interested in movies, so I don't need anyone to hype them to me.
I know I've posted a fair few of these videos, but this one is probably the most important. Like it or not, Avengers was a generational, cultural-defining moment that I think very few forms of media (or even other cultural events) can match. I think even Lord of the Rings looks puny in comparison.
It's a three part series, with the first two focused on the film itself and what makes certain parts great. The third part, the conclusion, where he will really dive into the cultural and meaningful significance of the movie comes out next Friday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qd8PkLHwt
the links busted on that video
Ingrid Goes West.
Independent movie. Realistic, disturbing. Some kind of horror.
Brought myself some Halloween goodies, some classics like shining and poltergeist, and newer ones like first season of Americans horror stories and ghost stories
Quote from: Munch on October 11, 2019, 04:09:49 PM
the links busted on that video
Weird, I've been having issues with youtube not wanting to link lately. Try this again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qd8PkLHwts&t=5s
Quote from: SGOS on October 11, 2019, 02:39:30 PM
I haven't watched the Academy Awards for years. Most of the time I don't know who won what, nor do I care. When I was younger, I had a mild interest in them, and I think I did enjoy some, perhaps many, of the movies that won something or other. But there are some movies on the top of my list that were never nominated, and there are movies on the bottom of my list that have won big. Sometimes I might agree and sometimes not, but mostly I don't care either way. I suspect it's done mostly to create interest in movies and fill the theaters. But I'm already interested in movies, so I don't need anyone to hype them to me.
The awards are a joke. They're less about the movies themselves and more about the actors and filmmakers kissing enough ass. That the makers of The Shape of Water weren't laughed off the stage speaks volumes about how detached from reality they are.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 11, 2019, 08:46:44 PM
The awards are a joke. They're less about the movies themselves and more about the actors and filmmakers kissing enough ass. That the makers of The Shape of Water weren't laughed off the stage speaks volumes about how detached from reality they are.
I realized this was the case when they ignored brokeback mountain for the academy awards in favor of Crash. Who the fuck even remembers Crash? I tried a few more after that but realized the pretentious nature of these award shows just discredits the art of film making itself.
Joker. Joker/Joker
This is the top of the genre based on the comic book characters and that's it. Don't expect anything better. I was sure that my expectations being so high, I will find it OK the most. I cried. It's...perfect. It's fucking zeitgeist.
I had a small medical operation today earlier (foot) and had mom with me. She knows about the movie and that I didn't want to miss it on big screen. We are going back home from the opreation and she keeps telling me off that I need to go and rest while I am giving puppy eyes, bitching her to come with me to the movie -we are walking, I am limping in pain- and she is sure she'll be bored and sleep AND I need to sit down blah blah... (Pathetic scene)
Well, now Joker has a 72 year old fan. She loved it and the last Joker she remembers is Jack Nicholson. (I explained a lot.)Now she wants to see the Batman series, but she'll be bored this time,lol.
It amazes me really, that a character like the joker, can have such a strong cultural relevance today, maybe more then ever before, yet the character has been around in peoples ethos for decades. At this stage he's almost become more popular then batman himself
Yeah. Offfff...he is fucking amaaaazing. I already loved Joaquin Phoenix as an actor, now he is somewhere up in the clouds.
The Lion King (2019) - meh/10
Liked the old animated movie more than this CGI version. The script and scenes are basically CGI copies of the original.
The Joker has always seemed central to Batman during my lifetime, but he always seemed like one of several oddball villains that were more oddball than threatening. Until Heath Ledger. Heath Ledger brought the Joker to the central stage, and he did it with gusto, but it wasn't all about Ledger either. Some writers decided to make the Joker a real badass for a change. It was the first time I felt revolted by a Batman joker, and now he's in my head for good. We could debate whether Ledger or Phoenix was the better Joker, but I don't think I'd know which side of the debate I'd want to be on.
Quote from: SGOS on October 16, 2019, 05:39:15 AM
The Joker has always seemed central to Batman during my lifetime, but he always seemed like one of several oddball villains that were more oddball than threatening. Until Heath Ledger. Heath Ledger brought the Joker to the central stage, and he did it with gusto, but it wasn't all about Ledger either. Some writers decided to make the Joker a real badass for a change. It was the first time I felt revolted by a Batman joker, and now he's in my head for good. We could debate whether Ledger or Phoenix was the better Joker, but I don't think I'd know which side of the debate I'd want to be on.
That's the thing with the joker, there have been several different portrayals of him over the years, all different in their respected ways, so it creates many different ways of looking at him. I myself realised how much of an intimidating villain he was thanks to Mark Hamills portrayed him in the animated series in the 90s. After that was ledger's Joker that did it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FK332cDUh8U
It was this animated series that sold me on the joker as character, before that I only had the old Adam west batman series joker, and Jack Nicholsons take.
Quote from: SGOS on October 16, 2019, 05:39:15 AM
The Joker has always seemed central to Batman during my lifetime, but he always seemed like one of several oddball villains that were more oddball than threatening.
I dunno, Mark Hamill's Joker in the Batman animated series, while still somewhat campy, was definitely more menacing than campy.
Two words: joker fish.
QuoteSome writers decided to make the Joker a real badass for a change.
Agreed. And by the same token, Jared Leto's joker was so poorly written that no actor could have saved it. No one can say such infamous lines as "hunka hunka" without coming across as silly.
Imo, they should've revealed him to be a brainwashed Robin.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 16, 2019, 07:19:36 AM
I dunno, Mark Hamill's Joker in the Batman animated series, while still somewhat campy, was definitely more menacing than campy.
Not just that, but his take in mask of the phantasm was so sinister, and in this movie he actually killed people as opposed to nearly killing people in the animated show.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3OqQokqg1vg
This to me has always been the best archetype of the Joker, it combines the comedic elements where he could be goofing around like a cartoon character one minute, and the next he's pulling a knife and stabbing someone while laughing about it.
I'm not familiar with any of the animations. I've never watched one, but I'll take your word for it.
Quote from: Munch on October 07, 2019, 05:25:01 PM
You starting to see now the impact the social justice mindset has on people? It creates the same mental blocks for rationality that religion creates
SJWs are anarchists more than Marxist (See Extinction Rebellion reclassification). Specifically anarcho-syndicalists ... as we saw over 100 years ago in French political history. France, the moldy cheese that keeps on giving.
Gone back to old films. Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes (saw most of these, but classics). Peter Lorre as Mr Moto (I only ever saw one of these, 50 years ago). Sidney Toler as Charlie Chan. They made lots of good films, 1935-1945. Look Ma ... no CGI!
Quote from: SGOS on October 16, 2019, 08:46:46 AM
I'm not familiar with any of the animations. I've never watched one, but I'll take your word for it.
Really should check out the series if it ever appears on Netflix, one of the best cartoons of the 90s
The Art of Self Defense
This made it to the theaters as limited release a couple of months ago. It sounded interesting to me, but I think the nearest theater it played was 150 miles away from me, but it is now out on DVD. I'm hesitant to recommend it, because I'm not sure everyone will enjoy it as much as I did. The plot didn't follow any common Hollywood format, which is always interesting to me. It's moderately violent, and Jesse Eisenberg is usually a good bet. Jesse is beaten up by muggers and joins a karate class, but then all sorts of unexpected things start to happen.
I give it a 9/10
Quote from: Munch on October 16, 2019, 08:23:20 AMThis to me has always been the best archetype of the Joker, it combines the comedic elements where he could be goofing around like a cartoon character one minute, and the next he's pulling a knife and stabbing someone while laughing about it.
It's not the murder you have to watch out for - he has a rather corrupting presence. He's more likely to get in your head and really do some damage than to off you. And he can either scale it up for city-wide carnage or scale it down for a truly unforgettable bad day.
The Laundromat
Guys you should watch this. It's not long. It's a documentary like movie about the tax laws in the US, based on real events. It's not like movie-movie, it is like the Big Short. Ratings are bad, but of course it would be. It's not a claim of art.
Apperantly, it was sued to be removed from Netflix, but of course it was rejected by the judge.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 21, 2019, 02:45:10 AM
The Laundromat
Guys you should watch this.
It has a cast of good actors, but I don't subscribe to Netflix, and Amazon doesn't even list it a something that's going to come out on DVD. It probably will, of course, and I'll buy or rent it then. The Big Short, both the book and the movie, are excellent.
Rotten Tomatoes seems to be removing archives and content from their coverage of movies and focusing on the current Box Office, and some of their links that used to lead to useful information are now coming up as blank screens. I don't know if they are reorganizing their format, or if they just decided to reduce services. This has been happening over the last month. As an aid for my purposes, I'm finding it be 60% useless. I'm now using IMDb most of the time to choose movies.
Quote from: SGOS on October 21, 2019, 08:39:50 AMAs an aid for my purposes, I'm finding it be 60% useless. I'm now using IMDb most of the time to choose movies.
Same. Their scores tend to more closely match audience scores, which is good. RT is fast becoming the Yelp of movie reviews - less a straight reflection of the public's views than an attempt to manipulate the public's views. Mind the gap!
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 21, 2019, 09:04:20 AM
RT is fast becoming the Yelp of movie reviews - less a straight reflection of the public's views than an attempt to manipulate the public's views.
OMG, the Yelp horror. When Google redirects me to Yelp, I always feel flim flamed. I look up local roofing contractors, and I am given an incomplete list of a few local general contractors, but also some from other states. I sometimes end up driving around nearby towns looking for signs of body shops, dentists, and home heating sales and installation services, instead of using the net. I ended up getting a new roof this summer by being redirected from one busy contractor's office to others, until I finally got one I felt like I could trust.
How can it be that local competing businesses can be a better source of directions to other businesses than some source that passes itself off as a comprehensive list? I think Yelp makes money by charging business to be on Yelp, and Google makes money by charging Yelp to be on Google. In the meantime, totally overlooking the needs of users and what they are using the internet for. And the internet turns into a 24 hour advertising channel for people that want to look at commercials.
Oh, you want to buy a jar of rubber cement? How about buying this set of dishes from Walmart instead? Or this leash for your dog that has blinking lights on it?
Quote from: SGOS on October 21, 2019, 09:55:24 AM
OMG, the Yelp horror. When Google redirects me to Yelp, I always feel flim flamed. I look up local roofing contractors, and I am given an incomplete list of a few local general contractors, but also some from other states. I sometimes end up driving around nearby towns looking for signs of body shops, dentists, and home heating sales and installation services, instead of using the net. I ended up getting a new roof this summer by being redirected from one busy contractor's office to others, until I finally got one I felt like I could trust.
How can it be that local competing businesses can be a better source of directions to other businesses than some source that passes itself off as a comprehensive list? I think Yelp makes money by charging business to be on Yelp, and Google makes money by charging Yelp to be on Google. In the meantime, totally overlooking the needs of users and what they are using the internet for. And the internet turns into a 24 hour advertising channel for people that want to look at commercials.
Oh, you want to buy a jar of rubber cement? How about buying this set of dishes from Walmart instead? Or this leash for your dog that has blinking lights on it?
How about Angie's List?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XApJJu0q8R0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFvEt6VbhLg&t=10s
lol, this is amazing. I remember reading about all the edgy shit leto did on the set of suicide squad, trying to be like someone like Daniel day Lewis, but just only pissing off everyone, and then getting pretentious to their reactions, and having some of his scenes cut from suicide squad.
I feel people really need to just cut his version of the joker from any lineup of jokers we've had, because him attempting to ruin Joaquin Phoenix's role just shows his lack of self awareness on how shit a version he was.
Far as I'm concerned, the lineup goes.
(https://i.imgur.com/j2cdmxu.jpg)
which probably explains a lot about letos self image, being the only bad one in a line of of good versions.
Now that we know who the Joker is going to be, who is the next Batman?
Quote from: SGOS on October 25, 2019, 05:58:50 PM
Now that we know who the Joker is going to be, who is the next Batman?
A transexual Hispanic dwarf ;-)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9QbXwCoV2oQ
Good look at the problem with how women are portrayed in modern movies and TV, how today they strip women of any feminine qualities in an attempt to compete with male roles, but in an ironic twist make women as toxic as the 'toxic masculinity' many progressives today accuse men of being.
This is why characters like Ripley still stand today as how to write a strong woman
It is difficult to be hard ass and not break a nail ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHihAPr2Rc
As individuals, I support liberty. When we generalize to all men, all women etc ... there are reasonable stereotypes, but always people who violate the stereotype.
So how to portray women? Why do we have theater, movies, TV? For escapism or realism? I prefer feminine women in real life, but hard ass women have their value as well. Hard to find a woman who is both. I find those in fiction only.
John Rhys-Davies as a tank.
Quote from: SGOS on October 25, 2019, 05:58:50 PM
Now that we know who the Joker is going to be, who is the next Batman?
Gilbert Gottfried. The hero we deserve, but not the one we need right now.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 28, 2019, 08:09:16 AM
Gilbert Gottfried. The hero we deserve, but not the one we need right now.
I'm quite sure you must be joking. I googled him because I didn't know who that was.
(https://s26643.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Gilbert-Gottfried.jpg)
Apparently he has some history with Adam West, but he was always one of those comedians that I wished would just go away.
Quote from: SGOS on October 28, 2019, 08:50:04 AM
I'm quite sure you must be joking. I googled him because I didn't know who that was.
Dam.. that's like someone never having heard of the concept of cringe
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjc0u3hRL2Q
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yIGBWR5W43M
"concept of cringe"
Eh?
I knew him when I saw him. I just never knew his name.
Quote from: Munch on October 28, 2019, 04:29:17 PM
Dam.. that's like someone never having heard of the concept of cringe
(https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/a/a8/ten_thousand.png)
Given the sheer number of people, tons of people are learning/experiencing something for the first time every day.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 28, 2019, 09:32:25 PM
(https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/a/a8/ten_thousand.png)
Given the sheer number of people, tons of people are learning/experiencing something for the first time every day.
oh so true, people do learn new things every day.
But then there are things people never learn, like how all religious belief and political belief is just based not on anything real, important or tangible, but on the human primate mind going back millions of years unchanging in its group think, leaving people unable to progress beyond the same bullshit one generation onto the next.
Quote from: Munch on October 28, 2019, 10:43:42 PM
oh so true, people do learn new things every day.
But then there are things people never learn, like how all religious belief and political belief is just based not on anything real, important or tangible, but on the human primate mind going back millions of years unchanging in its group think, leaving people unable to progress beyond the same bullshit one generation onto the next.
Most people operate on a combination of personal experience and what people around them are saying (it is known) and what they wish to be so, not logic or empiricism. Plus, these sorts of beliefs are generally not falsifiable anyway. So I understand your frustration.
There have been some positive developments (compare and contrast with just 60 years ago, let alone 600) so things are slowly but surely coming around, albeit with some pretty serious slip-ups and a worrying general backsliding.
Quote from: Munch on October 28, 2019, 10:43:42 PM
oh so true, people do learn new things every day.
But then there are things people never learn, like how all religious belief and political belief is just based not on anything real, important or tangible, but on the human primate mind going back millions of years unchanging in its group think, leaving people unable to progress beyond the same bullshit one generation onto the next.
I wish the Dem tribe still put a bone thru their nose and wore animal skins. Makes them easier to identify on the street.
General backsliding ... worst general ever!
The Fanatic
imdb scores are all over the place from both critics and users ranging from worst ever to very good. The metascore is 17. I don't know what that is since I'm new to idbm. I think that's a bad score. But having said that...
I could not look away. John Travolta plays an autistic man obsessed with a horror film star. This may be the most interesting thing about the film. I've never seen Travolta do a character study this unusual before, and it turns out he's quite good at it. He reminds me of Lenny in Of Mice and Men. The plot is simple, but not highly predictable. I almost didn't rent it, but I was totally surprised and happy that I did. I thought I would mention it here, because for me, everything about it was unexpected.
Lion king (cgi version)
Had to sit watching this thing because it was one of the films my brother gave for the nephews to watch while I babysat them.
I'll say this, the cgi is impressive, sometimes photo realistic, at some points it looked like a nature documentary.
But that was it's only plus, which in fact made the movie worse. All my brain kept going to was how expressive and emotional the original animated film was, you could tell what emotions the characters had at any given moment, something these cgi mock ups were incapable of.
The cgi backgrounds were fine but again, compared to the vibrant artwork of the backgrounds in the original it just didnt have any substance.
Same goes for the singing, they had a couple of the original songs but even then they were shallow takes on the original lacking substance.
It's like they took the original, suckes out 80% of the life, colour and vibrancy from it, slapped on a cgi face lift and released it to the public.
Fucking awful, I hate that this was how my nephews were introduced to the lion king.
1/10
Quote from: Munch on October 30, 2019, 02:22:38 PM
Lion king (cgi version)
1/10
I would have scored it a little higher, but not much. It's strange that so much money was sunk into cgi, but very little in the script. I think it would be worthwhile for children however.
Quote from: SGOS on October 30, 2019, 02:34:21 PM
I would have scored it a little higher, but not much. It's strange that so much money was sunk into cgi, but very little in the script. I think it would be worthwhile for children however.
I feel children are being robbed of something better by these cgi mock ups
I feel like buying my nephews the originals, lion king, beauty and the besst, sleeping beauty, little mermaid, Cinderella, just to show them in comparison which is better
Quote from: Munch on October 30, 2019, 02:39:32 PM
I feel children are being robbed of something better by these cgi mock ups
I feel like buying my nephews the originals, lion king, beauty and the besst, sleeping beauty, little mermaid, Cinderella, just to show them in comparison which is better
It would be interesting to see which they prefer. I have a nostalgia for the old Disney classics done with the original hand drawn animation. I'm not sure children today would think they are better. I think the Pixar technology is brilliant, but I'd like to see some of it done the old way. But it may just be an age thing that keeps me from embracing the newer "better" stuff.
QuoteBut it may just be an age thing that keeps me from embracing the newer "better" stuff.
I would say, other than perhaps voice acting, it is objectively not better. The medium they chose, of quasi-realistic CGI, is simply a less effective tool at conveying animal emotions than stylized animation.
Knowing.
Interesting idea. Shitty execution.
Underworld. 6.5/10
Solid idea, meh execution. It's the poster child of style over substance, which is a shame because it seemed to have some real talent going for it.
I don't hate it, it's just kinda disappointing.
A vampire VS werewolf war should be riveting, instead it's kinda average. Serious pacing issues for sure. There's also a lot of stupid generic action movie stuff going on - limitless ammo clips, shooting the floor to drop down, attacked from the roof while in a car, it's just a fleshwound (semi-justified), and bizarrely, getting kidnapped and spirited away in a car and the kidnappers blast the radio (I guess they needed a way to make the soundtrack in-universe for some reason?)
All this nonsense makes me yearn for the good ol' days of Vampire the Masquerade. So much lore and creativity. So fascinating. Quite the opposite from this movie.
Took me a while to figure out where it was filmed. Kind of tips you off to why it's that way.
Terminator: Dark Fate 7/10
If you liked Terminator 2, just go ahead and watch that. Much better movie. Review over.
But in all honesty, this movie is to Terminator 2 what The Force Awakens was to A New Hope. A mix of old and new characters, same roles, almost identical story beats. It's the film equivalent of a remix.
Don't get me wrong, this movie isn't horrible, but it absolutely does not live up to the hype. Almost everything in this movie is something we've already seen before.
I liked seeing Sarah Conner again, though she was pretty one dimensional in this one. Almost all the characters are one dimensional. And they might as well have had a cardboard cutout of Schwarzenegger for all he did in the movie.
And I swear to the Seven, the dialogue was straight out of Game of Thrones Season 8 - really brief, stilted lines with no emotion behind them. Showing that clip from Terminator 2 in Dark Fate was a big mistake because it really highlights the disparity between these old but resonate monologues and the new, utterly forgettable lines. Follow me if you want to continue vital functioning.
A couple things that really irked me:
[spoiler]The T-1000 spontaneously developing a conscience. Makes zero sense. How? Why? Someone tell the Westworld techs that it's that easy to make robots like people. I'm sure Anthony Hopkins will be thrilled.
Legion is imitation Skynet. And we know little and less about Legion, which is really annoying. The only thing I know for sure about Legion is that it uses near-identical Terminator robots as Skynet (and even calls them Terminators!) despite these Terminators never actually being used as infiltrators in the future. Then why make these robots look human? They're humanoid robots with tentacles *coughRiftborncough* in the future, despite not needing to take a human form at all. And in the past, the Terminator can just shapeshift to look human, so I don't see why its base form needs to be humanoid at all. *shrugs*[/spoiler]
Every review I've seen about dark fate says the same thing, the acting is good, special effects are fine, but the story is utter garbage and shits all over fans of terminator 2.
Reports are the movies lost $120 million, and they are now cancelling the franchise
Good god. Way to ruin a franchise. Should have left it alone after Terminator 2, but they got to have that sweet, sweet sequel money. At least Terminator 3 looked like it was building up to something interesting, but they failed to deliver after that.
Terminator 3 was so forgettable that all I remember is that there was a female T-1000 against Arnie. That's it. I can recite whole scenes verbatim from Terminator 2. And I didn't even bother to see any of the movies between Terminator 3 and Dark Fate.
And as for Dark Fate, it's fading fast and not even a photo would help me remember.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 04, 2019, 11:47:13 PM
Terminator 3 was so forgettable that all I remember is that there was a female T-1000 against Arnie. That's it. I can recite whole scenes verbatim from Terminator 2. And I didn't even bother to see any of the movies between Terminator 3 and Dark Fate.
And as for Dark Fate, it's fading fast and not even a photo would help me remember.
So you're saying that Dark Fate's fate is to the dark recesses of your mind?
I actually remember liking Terminator 3 alright. But I was more excited to finally see what the war between humans and robots would look like, as well as why this one person named John Conner was so damn important. The following movie was not what I was expecting, and it ends with John Conner being saved yet again, without showing why he was important to the survival of the humans.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 05, 2019, 12:30:07 AM
So you're saying that Dark Fate's fate is to the dark recesses of your mind?
I actually remember liking Terminator 3 alright. But I was more excited to finally see what the war between humans and robots would look like, as well as why this one person named John Conner was so damn important. The following movie was not what I was expecting, and it ends with John Conner being saved yet again, without showing why he was important to the survival of the humans.
"Because he's John fucking Connor. Duh!"
Dark fate makes me think of X-Men days of future past, but the opposite. With DOFP, it was designed to correct certain features that people didn't like about previous X-Men movies, invoking time travel before X-Men 3 last stand, which everyone hated, and managed to erase that train wreck off the X-Men timeline, as well as make a good movie, one that tied in the other X-Men franchise first class.
People didn't mind this because audiences were so unhappy with last stand they were happy to see it erased.
That's something the writers of dark fate didn't seem to get, because terminator 2 was a loved classic and it ended perfectly well with set up for the future. But now dark fate has managed to ruin that movies ending in a poor attempt to reboot the franchise. John Connor was built up for so long as humanities saviour, that audiences wanted see him achieve what he was building up to.
But in the director saying "Pff, fuck that, we need a new thing instead of actually completing this long build up! And it's gonna be completely out of left field!" They ended up alienating long term fans, and by fucking up so bad they quit the projects continuing, alienating new possible fans
Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger just feels so shoehorned in at this stage, just because his role as the bad and good t-800 was popular in the past, doesn't give reason to keep reusing him as this now age version of the original android
There will be no Butlerian Jihad. There are no giant worms on Arrakis.
Didn't they turn John Conner into a Terminator in the last movie or some stupid shit like that? I remember the trailer spoiling that twist, and I was like, "Well, I don't need to see the movie any more." What is with this fetish they have for removing John Conner from the plot? From what I heard of Dark Fate... Well, I should spoiler tag this just in case anyone actually wants to watch the movie.
[Spoiler]John Conner is killed off in the first few minutes of the film. Not only did this completely defeat the entire point of the first three movies, keeping John Conner alive long enough to do...whatever he does. But all they do with such a risky move is replace John with another character who has to be protected. It's completely unjustified.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 05, 2019, 10:22:37 AM
Didn't they turn John Conner into a Terminator in the last movie or some stupid shit like that? I remember the trailer spoiling that twist, and I was like, "Well, I don't need to see the movie any more." What is with this fetish they have for removing John Conner from the plot? From what I heard of Dark Fate... Well, I should spoiler tag this just in case anyone actually wants to watch the movie.
[Spoiler]John Conner is killed off in the first few minutes of the film. Not only did this completely defeat the entire point of the first three movies, keeping John Conner alive long enough to do...whatever he does. But all they do with such a risky move is replace John with another character who has to be protected. It's completely unjustified.[/spoiler]
I was in a video store today and brought myself copies of terminator 1 and 2 on Blu-ray on sale, and when I got to the checkout the cashier noticed what was buying and asked "Oh are you going to see the new movie, I'm going to see it soon". I put on a smiled and said "well, I heard a few things about it, but don't want to spoil it" and just thought you poor bastard, that'll be £13 wasted.
I brought the originals as a reminder of good movies before they were ruined.
James Cameron is now like Steven Spielberg, or George Lucas, people who made something amazing in the past, but are now incapable of recapturing that magic they once did.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6TxhozK2toE
Thinking more on it, and just going flat out spoilers here don't care much for if someones not seen it, there is something that really pisses me off about dark fate, from the plot summery.
I can say in the same way how I felt about the alien series (alien and aliens), in the same way terminator 1 and 2 are amazing movies, but for two different reasons. The first movie was a straight up horror movie, the horror being a creature that resembled something human but had no humanity to it coming after the main character, who was just trying to protect herself and her unborn child, it was really creepy for its time.
The second movie however, while it had some horror elements with the t-1000, it was more an action movie with horror elements in it. But more then that, one of the best things I felt for in the movie was the relationship between john connor and the t-800, sent to protect him from the t-1000, and how by altering the chip in his head allowed the t-800 to process human emotion and learn, allowing john to form a close bond with him like a father figure. This is what made the t-800s sacrifice in the end of the movie all the more meaningful, because of that bond made with john connor, the fact a machine was able to understand human emotions, why they cry, just made it all the more heart felt.
Dark fate however, just fucks with all this. Starting off with having a t-800 that looked the same as the t-800 John saw as a father figure just show up and kill him, the fact it just happened with no build up, leaves that ending scene in T2 feeling less meaningful. But more then that, when it gets to later in the movie, then the new t-800 is now posing as a regular human, with a wife and adopted child, and working a regular job, this t-800 saying how he feels regret at killing John.. where the fuck did that come from? The whole emotional connection john built with the t-800 in T2 was built off of them changing that T-800s chip to allow him to learn, thus making the growth between him and john all the more meaningful. But here, for no bloody reason this new T-800 just now lives a human life and feels regret for killing john 'Just because', without reason why he now feels human emotion, no build up, nothing.
This movie just strips away at a movie I loved when younger, taking elements from it, and just making those elements into something brittle and vapid. I'm glad they lost so much money and cancelled the franchise.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 05, 2019, 10:22:37 AM[Spoiler]John Conner is killed off in the first few minutes of the film. Not only did this completely defeat the entire point of the first three movies, keeping John Conner alive long enough to do...whatever he does. But all they do with such a risky move is replace John with another character who has to be protected. It's completely unjustified.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I kinda like the idea that the good guys finally prevailed and successfully averted this dark future. It gives a nice blank slate to change things up and do something different.
And what did the writers do with this golden opportunity? They did the same damn thing all over again with different names. Off-brand skynet, off-brand terminator, off-brand John Conner, same ol' terminator vs terminator face off. Not only is that boring af, but it makes the whole success of John/Sarah Conner completely pointless.
It'd be like in Star Wars, the Empire gets defeated but then there's some off-brand Empire that comes in and fights the off-brand Rebels. Do you have any idea how uninteresting that'd be?? No one in their right mind would be excited to buy a ticket to an unimaginative shitshow like that.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 16, 2019, 08:29:46 PM
It's not the murder you have to watch out for - he has a rather corrupting presence. He's more likely to get in your head and really do some damage than to off you. And he can either scale it up for city-wide carnage or scale it down for a truly unforgettable bad day.
And of course, murder ends the torment while psychological scarring is forever.
Quote from: trdsf on November 06, 2019, 08:32:21 PM
And of course, murder ends the torment while psychological scarring is forever.
The joker often didn't care if people lived or died, it was really down to how he could mess with them before he killed them. Even harlequin who he manipulated into being infatuated with him he saw as just something to throw away when he was bored of her. Batman has often been the exception because he enjoyed the eternal struggle with him.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OovKTBO4aQs
Midsommar: 9/10.
Made me uncomfortable, fucked with my brain a few times, but overall not as good as the director's previous work on Annihilation. Still, a really fucking good movie to watch while your baked.
Burning Man redux, no?
(https://i.redd.it/02yyombnmbx31.jpg)
wtf did they do the fred, velma and daphne?
scooby and shaggy look fine
The new Midway ... 9/10. Main problem is there is too much to cover from June 41 to June 42 to make a watchable movie. But it did hit all the high points. Actual documentaries cover the actual combat/leadership problems better of course, but miss the human element. Most of the characters in the movie were real people, like the movie Gettysburg. It would take a movie as long as Gettysburg to do the events justice.
No, this is better than Pearl Harbor or even the 1976 Midway movie.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 07, 2019, 02:35:06 AM
Midsommar: 9/10.
Made me uncomfortable, fucked with my brain a few times, but overall not as good as the director's previous work on Annihilation. Still, a really fucking good movie to watch while your baked.
I liked Midsommar a lot, but it's not as good in the re-watch because so much of it depends on the surprises. Annihilation is a better re-watch, because the shimmer never seems to get old for me. Both leave you trying to make some sense out of what you just saw. I liked that, but I'd give Midsommar the higher score, because it had a stronger emotional effect on me. There's something creepy in the juxtaposition of the innocent and the hideous.
I was down in the Big Easy last week, so I'm catching up on the movies I missed, both at the Redbox and box office, and I've got some choices to make for tomorrow's "Tightwad Tuesday" at the theaters. I'm passing on the Terminator after reading the responses here, and even though I own the original trilogy, I never thought that highly of the series. Dr. Sleep may be interesting, although like Terminator, I never understood the fuss about the Shining. Without Marvel and DC dominating the theaters every month, I'm going back into my old laid back theater going mode. There's just nothing happening that I can't live without. Sure, I'll go to the movies because that's what I do, but not with the high level of excited anticipation when there is a Marvel or DC "happening." I've seen Joker twice so I won't see that again until it comes out on DVD.
Motherless Brooklyn is catching my attention, because it's an Edward Norton project, and I cannot remember a Norton movie that I didn't like. It may have a film noir aspect that for unknown reasons always interests me. I may not know what I'm going to see until I get there. I'm not sure why I wrote this. It's just coffee thoughts early in the morning.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X-CEkmSwQUc
This is insane, and I love it.
A comic book based movie, with a limited budget, without over the top or any CGI, and a limited cast, without appealing to China's hyper sensitive restrictions, has become the most popular and profitable (by comparison) comic book movie of all time.
Quote from: Munch on November 11, 2019, 07:22:46 AM
This is insane, and I love it.
A comic book based movie, with a limited budget, without over the top or any CGI, and a limited cast, without appealing to China's hyper sensitive restrictions, has become the most popular and profitable (by comparison) comic book movie of all time.
I read that at some entertainment site and had exactly the same reaction. And it's from DC after a couple of dismal failures to boot. I would have expected it to be Marvel, but here's to the underdog! Well done!
I have a friend you occasionally goes to the movies. He has somewhat unusual tastes, and is rather snobbish about the fact he never saw a Marvel or DC movie of recent years. Recent years means to me "after the release of Iron Man I," which in my mind, marks the turning point in in a new movie era.
Anyway he gave me a call and asked if I had seen Joker, because he was thinking about going to it. I was astonished that he was even interested. I tried not to play it up because I didn't want to meet with his usual disinterest in anything that was popular with the masses, although I did mention that I thought it was brilliant. A week later, he called me and said he just came back from Joker and raved about the film, getting into details like photography and music, things that I didn't pay a lot of attention to myself.
This Joker thing is a phenomenon. I don't understand it. I didn't understand the wide interest in superheroes either, even though I was mesmerized by them personally. But it's about time.
Welcome to the Clown World of anarcho-syndicalism.
Quote from: Munch on November 11, 2019, 07:22:46 AM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X-CEkmSwQUc
This is insane, and I love it.
A comic book based movie, with a limited budget, without over the top or any CGI, and a limited cast, without appealing to China's hyper sensitive restrictions, has become the most popular and profitable (by comparison) comic book movie of all time.
The crazy thing about this is that I absolutely
love this movie (I've seen it three times!) - I love the camera work, I love the acting, I love the drab setwork, I love the music, I love the dark and disturbing tone, I love the surface-level plot, I love the hidden plot, I love the social/political message, I love the unreliable narration, etc. I love all of that stuff and I am absolutely amazed this ever saw the light of day, let alone became the #1 R-rated movie this year.
But both the people I've seen it with (I went alone one time) did not like it much at all. One only understood the surface-level plot and apparently wanted it to be more upbeat (dafuq?!) and the other wanted more of a traditional superhero movie where the Joker is fighting Bats. Both of them showed up for the Joker and didn't seem to care much Arthur. Apparently, a poor, downtrodden sod isn't much of a crowdpleaser. I'm sorely tempted to inform them that that's the point. A major theme is man's poor treatment of man and Arthur Fleck is a sort of everyman, albeit mentally deranged.
You saw it three times? I saw it twice. The only movie I saw three times at the theater was Dr. Strange.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 11, 2019, 07:12:46 PM
The crazy thing about this is that I absolutely love this movie (I've seen it three times!) - I love the camera work, I love the acting, I love the drab setwork, I love the music, I love the dark and disturbing tone, I love the surface-level plot, I love the hidden plot, I love the social/political message, I love the unreliable narration, etc. I love all of that stuff and I am absolutely amazed this ever saw the light of day, let alone became the #1 R-rated movie this year.
But both the people I've seen it with (I went alone one time) did not like it much at all. One only understood the surface-level plot and apparently wanted it to be more upbeat (dafuq?!) and the other wanted more of a traditional superhero movie where the Joker is fighting Bats. Both of them showed up for the Joker and didn't seem to care much Arthur. Apparently, a poor, downtrodden sod isn't much of a crowdpleaser. I'm sorely tempted to inform them that that's the point. A major theme is man's poor treatment of man and Arthur Fleck is a sort of everyman, albeit mentally deranged.
I was having a talk with a friend of mine who also saw the movie and loved it, about the theme of it and what it represented. I then brought up how back in the 90s, for me anyway, one of the best animated cartoons I'd ever seen and to this day is still one of the best, was batman the animated series from that time.
What made the show work wasn't big grand battles against villains like doomsday or darkseid or overarching plots that went on episode to episode, infact most of the batman animated series was episodic, so everything was self contained. What made the series so good, was how deep and developed it made its characters with clever writing.
The series did a lot not just for how it developed batman, but how it developed his villains. These weren't the goofy adam west era batman villains who were just one note bad guys committing crimes. In this series it showed the development of many of its villains, how they became what they were, how their beliefs and motivations drove them and what mattered to them.
The best story was that of mr freeze, who in the comics started as a goofy cartoon villain with ice based powers committing crimes. In this series, they made him into a broken man who despite his attempts to save his wife, had that taken away from him and changed into something inhuman, with only a vendetta left to motivate him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V956de8QyM
This is what i loved about this series, and I think why many others thought the same, because it didn't just make foes for batman to face, but made them into fleshed out people with depth and meaning.
This is what made the Joker movie so strong, because much like how in batman the animated series it gave his villains a deeper look into how they became what they did, this movie did the same for the joker, and you end up understanding his motivation and reasoning why he went down the path he did.
Quote from: SGOS on November 11, 2019, 09:23:08 PM
You saw it three times? I saw it twice. The only movie I saw three times at the theater was Dr. Strange.
You know how Black Panther was a big hit and people went wild with it, overjoyed at finally getting on-screen representation? I get that now.
Wanna hear a knock-knock joke?
So Suri gets to make racist comments. I thought that was funny.
Quote from: SGOS on November 11, 2019, 09:23:08 PM
You saw it three times? I saw it twice. The only movie I saw three times at the theater was Dr. Strange.
Only ever saw a in-theater movie 3 times ... first Star Wars movie. Dating myself, yet you are older than me.
Yeah, I like to see fictional heroes, not fictional psychopaths.
The young turks review of Joker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5Qm4XyDjAk
These social justice idiots (and if you have ever had any doubts about someone else being called a social justice warrior, let this video be an example of what one is like), who are incapable of seeing the nuance, the characterization, the relatability of someone being driven insane by what society has made him into, because all these fuckwits on TYT can see if the colour of the guys skin. Because a white man couldn't possibly ever go though what the main character in the movie went though.
This is sick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-8k-o_ofDw
"From the makers of Inside Out, Up, and--"
Oh, boy. It's one of those crying movies.
(http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/persons/510504/510504_v9_bc.jpg)
Gugu Mbatha-Raw
Yes, she's attractive, but I never paid much attention to her until I accidentally stumbled on her name this morning. Now I can't get her name out of my head even though I can't pronounce it. I don't even know how many syllables are in "Mbatha."
They probably dropped the apostrophe. Joy M'Batha is a Swedish rapper.
Swedish rapper.
:sigh:
Quote from: SGOS on November 15, 2019, 08:43:10 AM
(http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/persons/510504/510504_v9_bc.jpg)
Gugu Mbatha-Raw
Yes, she's attractive, but I never paid much attention to her until I accidentally stumbled on her name this morning. Now I can't get her name out of my head even though I can't pronounce it. I don't even know how many syllables are in "Mbatha."
Easy way to remember.
Gugu - sounds like Googoo, the stereotypical sound a baby makes
Mbatha - mmm, bath water
Raw - someone forgot the lube
Pretty girl. In Bantu languages, Mb and Nd are common starting consonants. No apostrophe. You use an apostrophe, when you colloquially remove a vowel that is normally there. Like ... don't.
I found a pronunciation audio that makes Mbatha into maybe two syllables, or maybe two and a half. OK I know that's impossible but you may see what I mean:
https://www.howtopronounce.com/gugu-mbatha-raw/
two or 2 1/2: Emmbath a'
Probably three: Emmb' ath a'
Without my hearing aids it sounds like two. With them it's three.
The apostrophe is a "glottal stop" IIRC. So you nailed it with 2.5.
Swahili for example was originally written in Arabic letters. Here is the variant Romanization of the resulting sound ....
ـب‎ ـبـ‎ بـ‎ ب‎ b p mb mp bw pw mbw mpw
Typical of non-European languages, the Romanization can vary by author.
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood 10/10
This blew me away, partly because it's just a good movie, and partly because it was not what I was expecting at all. I saw it cold, reading nothing other than it's overall critical review scores. I'd leave Mr. Rogers' biggest fans at home. The movie is not directed at preschoolers at all. It was also creatively executed, unusually so.
Quote from: SGOS on November 22, 2019, 03:17:19 PM
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood 10/10
This blew me away, partly because it's just a good movie, and partly because it was not what I was expecting at all. I saw it cold, reading nothing other than it's overall critical review scores. I'd leave Mr. Rogers' biggest fans at home. The movie is not directed at preschoolers at all. It was also creatively executed, unusually so.
I've been wanting to see that. Fred Rogers was a rare example of a just plain decent man. And, along with Charles Schulz, responsible for making me a bit of a jazz fan -- the music on his show was performed live on the set (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Costa).
Frozen 2 was very good.
Olaf was straight savage, which was a bit bizarre, but he's always been a bit odd.
I won't spoil anything, but suffice it to say that just like the first movie, a rare few characters are straight outta Game of Thrones, which is kinda weird in such a high fantasy family-friendly setting.
This movie is filled with meme-able material, especially crossover memes with Avatar the Last Airbender, Game of Thrones, and even Infinity War. Looking forward for those spicy memes!
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 22, 2019, 09:23:00 PM
Frozen 2 was very good.
That's next on my list. I thought Frozen 1 was good. Does the sequel do it justice?
Reviews I've seen haven't been as kind to the sequel, so I don't know what to think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHkFQSCOjLM
Guys, don't pick on children's movies.
Quote from: SGOS on November 23, 2019, 09:56:44 AM
That's next on my list. I thought Frozen 1 was good. Does the sequel do it justice?
I saw both of them on the same day. I liked the second one more.
Maybe the songs were better in the first one, but the overall story was much better in the second one.
Why does everything Disney make have to be a musical?
The Book of Eli - 8/10
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 23, 2019, 08:15:57 PM
The Book of Eli - 8/10
I'm not sure I'd rate a movie about a guy memorizing the Bible that high.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 23, 2019, 09:26:53 PM
I'm not sure I'd rate a movie about a guy memorizing the Bible that high.
I looked at it like any other post-apocalyptic movie. It could have been The Hobbit he memorized for all I care.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 23, 2019, 09:33:09 PM
I looked at it like any other post-apocalyptic movie. It could have been The Hobbit he memorized for all I care.
It was a clever script and well executed I thought, even with the Biblical angle.
I liked Book of Eli, but that Bible stuff was sooooo fucking stupid. The main villain wants the Bible so he can use it to control people. Apparently it never crossed his mind that he could just start his own religion? What makes the Bible so special, especially to a villain who apparently never even read it, in a world where nearly no one has read it?
And we're supposed to believe that the protagonist memorized every word from the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation? Not only that, but he still believes in it after that?
About to light up and watch Minority Report for the first time. Heard it's pretty good.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 23, 2019, 09:33:09 PM
I looked at it like any other post-apocalyptic movie. It could have been The Hobbit he memorized for all I care.
You don't have hundreds of lunatic relatives going "SEE!!!!"
I kept thinking that the devout would believe this movie to be inspired by God. And I made the same notations as Blackleaf, and Gawdzilla, but I still thought it was scripted well enough to overcome the religious message enough that I actually puzzled about whether it was religious at all. Hiding the content of the book for so long throughout the movie was done very well. I didn't see that coming at all. Additionally, the message that some asshole guy wanted the Bible so he could control people seems like a good message to include in the film. Sure the good guys got the Bible in the end, but that changes the balance of power. Now the little people can become the assholes and rise up and smite the wicked (Praise Allah), and of course, control the masses in the bargain. Doesn't sound that far fetched when I look at it that way.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 24, 2019, 12:59:14 AM
About to light up and watch Minority Report for the first time. Heard it's pretty good.
The concept is great, the execution... it's pretty much the Signs of its time.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 24, 2019, 08:17:39 AM
The concept is great, the execution... it's pretty much the Signs of its time.
I kept getting distracted by the "case scenarios". The minority report scenario was used to Clancey's "Sum of All Fears".
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) - 9/10
Pretty solid story given its genre. Entertaining too.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 27, 2019, 06:46:24 PM
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) - 9/10
Pretty solid story given its genre. Entertaining too.
The sequel comes out soon? Dec. 13th.
Official Secrets 10/10
(http://images.amcnetworks.com/ifccenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/official_secrets_1280.jpg)
I'm not sure if this played in theaters. It was just released on DVD, so it's probably being streamed. I got it from Redbox. Tony Blair colluded with the Bush Administration to take Britain to war in Iraq, based on Bush's fake intelligence. A woman working for a British intelligence agency intercepted a memo documenting the false propaganda being put out by the US Government, and also used in Britain. She leaked it to the Observer, and created a shit storm. This is an aspect of the deception I was not familiar with because it didn't make it to the American media. Maybe it did, but if so, I missed it. Not knowing how this played out, the film kept me on the edge of my seat. I just finished the movie 10 minutes ago, and I'm still experiencing an intense visceral reaction.
PM Tony Blair is even more hated in GB than President George W Bush is hated in the US. Perfidious Britain taught the US well.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TUeY2aPTLWo
This could be an interesting movie, depending how the premise goes. Is it purely about helping three psychologically torn men regaining their sanity, or will it becomes a religious message by the end?
What, no cross reference to Last Temptation Of Christ? Everything is mental, including messiahs. But atheists only believe in superior technology from the Gamma Quadrant. That is their psychosomatic crutch. That aliens will come and turn the election to Corbyn or Hillary.
Quote from: Munch on November 29, 2019, 05:46:22 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TUeY2aPTLWo
This could be an interesting movie, depending how the premise goes. Is it purely about helping three psychologically torn men regaining their sanity, or will it becomes a religious message by the end?
Given the trailer, it probably will have some softball "spirit of the human soul" bs.
I saw Shawshank Redemption again - 10/10
Truly a masterpiece.
Let me throw Fried Green Tomatoes at you---I loved it 11/10. And I like it that much each time I see it. The story, writing and acting is what I hope to see in every movie I watch, but seldom get.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 01, 2019, 10:04:18 AM
Let me throw Fried Green Tomatoes at you---I loved it 11/10. And I like it that much each time I see it. The story, writing and acting is what I hope to see in every movie I watch, but seldom get.
"I see Paris, I see France..."
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 01, 2019, 11:46:11 AM
"I see Paris, I see France..."
Ha! You can't see my underpants--I'm not wearing any!
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 01, 2019, 12:13:29 PM
Ha! You can't see my underpants--I'm not wearing any!
"I see Mike's baby elephant."
Knives Out 7/10
Not a big fan of Murder She Wrote or Homes and Watson. I can never see the clues, and when they are explained I still puzzle to understand them, but it's fun to watch the theatrical flamboyance of the genius detective in such murder mysteries who amazes everyone in the story with his keen sense of observation as you wait for the final 10 minutes of the film where he announces, "So you see, Mr. Green, it had to be you!" Daniel Craig did it pretty well, although I'm not sure he was the best choice of character.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 01, 2019, 12:13:29 PM
Ha! You can't see my underpants--I'm not wearing any!
No true Scotsman ... in kilt?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 01, 2019, 05:04:04 PM
"I see Mike's baby elephant."
since you are a male that is all you will see--no fully grown elephant for you!!
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 01, 2019, 07:20:11 PM
since you are a male that is all you will see--no fully grown elephant for you!!
Ooooh, the big strong hunk is exclusionary. :batseyes:
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 02, 2019, 07:36:46 AM
Ooooh, the big strong hunk is exclusionary. :batseyes:
Indubitably
Unlike some of you, I have no desire to care in order which Star Wars movie is a pre-quel, or in the proper order. I just watch em for fun.
If this concerns you, you are welcome to list them in the supposed order they should be for future consideration.
Thank you.
Honestly I've never much card for space based fantasies overall, the only one I'll rewatch is spaceballs because it mocks the genre, or alien/aliens because it's more about survival horror then about being in space.
Quote from: Munch on December 07, 2019, 05:02:04 PM
Honestly I've never much card for space based fantasies overall, the only one I'll rewatch is spaceballs because it mocks the genre, or alien/aliens because it's more about survival horror then about being in space.
Nobody can hear you scream (shitty movie) in outer space ...
Quote from: aitm on December 07, 2019, 04:41:38 PM
Unlike some of you, I have no desire to care in order which Star Wars movie is a pre-quel, or in the proper order. I just watch em for fun.
If this concerns you, you are welcome to list them in the supposed order they should be for future consideration.
Thank you.
Heretic? Straining at gnats and swallowing camels, and then complaining about the taste, is required.
Quote from: Munch on December 07, 2019, 05:02:04 PM
Honestly I've never much card for space based fantasies overall, the only one I'll rewatch is spaceballs because it mocks the genre, or alien/aliens because it's more about survival horror then about being in space.
I'm not a fan of "long string of murders" movies.
Quote from: aitm on December 07, 2019, 04:41:38 PM
Unlike some of you, I have no desire to care in order which Star Wars movie is a pre-quel, or in the proper order. I just watch em for fun.
Ummm...good for you?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 07, 2019, 05:51:15 PM
I'm not a fan of "long string of murders" movies.
That's a surprisingly large portion of movies. Murder mysteries, action/adventure, scifi, horror, fantasy, drama, war documentaries, etc.
I think the only completely safe genres might be rom coms and films geared at children. Quite the enviable catalogue, no doubt.
The original Terminator movie...
First time seeing it, really really enjoyed it. The animations of the Terminator was fucking "amazing", in a corny and yet still hella cool way. Looked straight outta some music videos I've seen... and honestly I really enjoyed it. The clay-masks on the damaged Arnold mask was great as well.
It was good-bad enough that it didn't bother me and had a very fun feel to it. I liked it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 07, 2019, 07:08:49 PM
That's a surprisingly large portion of movies. Murder mysteries, action/adventure, scifi, horror, fantasy, drama, war documentaries, etc.
I think the only completely safe genres might be rom coms and films geared at children. Quite the enviable catalogue, no doubt.
You're estimation of me is silly. I'm talking about the Alien monster movies. None of those people had a chance against that creature until pure chance gave one of them a break. I watch war movies, cop movies, adventure movies, I just don't like one tedious and inevitable death after another.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 07, 2019, 07:25:28 PM
You're estimation of me is silly. I'm talking about the Alien monster movies. None of those people had a chance against that creature until pure chance gave one of them a break. I watch war movies, cop movies, adventure movies, I just don't like one tedious and inevitable death after another.
So...violence in alien monster movies is unacceptable but violence in war and cop movies is acceptable?
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 07, 2019, 07:50:19 PM
So...violence in alien monster movies is unacceptable but violence in war and cop movies is acceptable?
My personal Rule of So is that when a response starts with "SO..." the statement should be examined for a strawman argument.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 07, 2019, 05:50:44 PM
Heretic? Straining at gnats and swallowing camels, and then complaining about the taste, is required.
You’re taking points from Baruch....I have no idea what you mean.
Quote from: aitm on December 08, 2019, 08:03:48 AM
You’re taking points from Baruch....I have no idea what you mean.
I was mocking the howdareyouists, people who act like anyone who has expressed a favorable opinion of Epis 1-3 is a child murderer or worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK8FHdFluOQ
The trailer doesn't look bad. But ugh... Another Disney remake. And where is Mushu? Is he cut out of the movie?
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 12, 2019, 01:17:05 AM
The trailer doesn't look bad. But ugh... Another Disney remake. And where is Mushu? Is he cut out of the movie?
A silly cartoon dragon in a urban serious remake of a Disney classic? Pff, who needs silly cartoon characters when Disney's trying to do it's take on Dancing Tiger Hidden Dragon.
Disney doing funny cartoon characters, what a novel idea XD
Game of Thrones executive producers to make a Lovecraft movie (https://variety.com/2019/film/news/lovecraft-movie-david-benioff-db-weiss-game-of-thrones-1203434988/)
I can't be certain, since there are a LOT of comics under Lovecraft's name, but I think I've read the comic they're looking to adapt. It's great, though I'm sure Lovecraft himself would spin in his grave about it.
The comic paints HP Lovecraft as a young child discovering the Necronomicon, and thereafter the line between this world and some nightmarish otherworld is blurred. He'll talk to someone and he'll see their nightmarish doppleganger for a few seconds, but no one else will. Or he'll visit a mental hospital in Providence and he's in Arkham Asylum. Basically, he sees really traumatic stuff that messes with his ability to distinguish reality from "fiction" (it's not really fiction). As you might guess, this has taken quite a toll on his personal and professional life. But he writes a flurry of stories before his untimely death, works which reveal the existence of this nightmarish realm to the world, but mask it as fiction. And his last trick was inserting magic phrases in the stories, seemingly mad cultist chants, which in actually, help ward our world against the invaders. And the more people who recite it the more powerful the effect - so the popularity of his work ensures the protection of our world!
Lovecraft would probably hate this take on his life because it undermines his talent as a writer (crafting fiction is hard work, yo), paints him as a lunatic (he wasn't), and a practitioner of magic (also negatory)
In the words of Anthony Hopkins: "Everything in this world is magic, except to the magician."
Lovecraft's stories seem real to the audience, but they aren't, least of all to the guy who wrote and rewrote and rewrote them!
Anyway, Lovecraft would spin in his grave doubly quickly with D&D on the case. A perfectionist and own worst critic meets the guy who writes his essay on the bus and hands it in with a shit-eating grin on his face, now there's a horror story! A real Odyssey on Red River situation.
Quote from: Munch on December 12, 2019, 04:58:49 AM
A silly cartoon dragon in a urban serious remake of a Disney classic? Pff, who needs silly cartoon characters when Disney's trying to do it's take on Dancing Tiger Hidden Dragon.
Disney doing funny cartoon characters, what a novel idea XD
Didn't stop them from doing Iago in the Aladdin remake. A common trend in these movies are a copy/paste of the plot, with random weird changes here and there, a sprinkle of unnecessary new stuff that adds nothing to the overall plot, and a lack of colors. Iago was still in Aladdin's remake because he was in the original, but they sucked out his personality and color and made him bland. That's what I was expecting for Mushu.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 12, 2019, 11:14:21 PM
Didn't stop them from doing Iago in the Aladdin remake. A common trend in these movies are a copy/paste of the plot, with random weird changes here and there, a sprinkle of unnecessary new stuff that adds nothing to the overall plot, and a lack of colors. Iago was still in Aladdin's remake because he was in the original, but they sucked out his personality and color and made him bland. That's what I was expecting for Mushu.
That sums up all these remakes in a nutshell.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 12, 2019, 01:17:05 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK8FHdFluOQ
The trailer doesn't look bad. But ugh... Another Disney remake. And where is Mushu? Is he cut out of the movie?
Forget Mushu, I want to know why the fuck they're using katanas. Don't get me wrong, some Chinese swords somewhat resembled katanas, but the sword Mulan's dad briefly uses in the trailer is clearly a katana. China. Did. Not. Use. Katanas. (╯°□°)╯︵ â"»â"â"»
Richard Jewell 8/10
Has not been a big hit at the box office, although here it missed the weekend opening for some reason. It was unusually well attended when I saw it. I've never been a fan of Clint Eastwood films. Play Misty for Me was about his only film I enjoyed. As a director, Eastwood is about as subtle as a sledge hammer, and nuance is not one of his strengths. He overcame some of that weakness in this film, but only slightly. Professional critics claimed he didn't get deep enough into the character. I disagree, but maybe there was more than what I remembered. This actual event took place so long ago that I didn't remember much about it. I remember an onslaught of media attention (which is all the media cares about), but I could not recollect the outcome of the event. How could I not remember the outcome of such a colossal event? Poor memory? Or did the media just not bother to spend as much time on the less than spectacular conclusion because it did not bolster enough ad sales? About all I remembered was the original hype and "Richard Jewell = Paul Blart; Mall Cop Loser."
[Spoiler function does not work]
I had no recollection of the FBI actually apprehending the real criminal involved in the bombing. Turns out the guy actually had a name, but I had to find that out from Wikipedia.
[End Spoiler]
Hijiri, I have a Luger (WWI vintage) and a panzerschreck (with a training load). I doubt the Chinese would throw away a good sword simply because it was made in the land of the rising sun.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 18, 2019, 06:27:59 AM
Hijiri, I have a Luger (WWI vintage) and a panzerschreck (with a training load). I doubt the Chinese would throw away a good sword simply because it was made in the land of the rising sun.
The movie should have used titanium katanas ;-)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 18, 2019, 06:27:59 AM
Hijiri, I have a Luger (WWI vintage) and a panzerschreck (with a training load). I doubt the Chinese would throw away a good sword simply because it was made in the land of the rising sun.
Actually they might. Japan never submitted to China as a tributary, and because of that they weren't allowed to have formal trade relations. If you got caught with something that had clearly been made in Japan, it could land you in some trouble. Not to mention katanas at the time were made with inferior metal compared to Chinese swords, so there's simply no reason a Chinese soldier would want to use it over something made locally.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 18, 2019, 12:08:05 PM
Actually they might. Japan never submitted to China as a tributary, and because of that they weren't allowed to have formal trade relations. If you got caught with something that had clearly been made in Japan, it could land you in some trouble. Not to mention katanas at the time were made with inferior metal compared to Chinese swords, so there's simply no reason a Chinese soldier would want to use it over something made locally.
You find a washed up junk, beached after a taifun. Everybody's dead. But there's all this really cool stuff on board. Stuff that now belongs to the Emperor. If you toss it in the ocean the officials will have your balls. The cargo winds up in the Forbidden City. It might get gifted out from there.
(https://i.redd.it/2dki5mm17e541.png)
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 18, 2019, 06:27:52 PM
(https://i.redd.it/2dki5mm17e541.png)
I saw reviews of it, from people like Jeremy Jahns and others.
[spoiler]lets just say they all thought it was a mess, the pacing is terrible, they try to cram 4 hours of movie into a 2 hour run time. They fucked up so much with characters in the last movies they had to substitute for new ones in this one, and the writing is just awful with constant expositions to rush the story along and the characters are just negative to one another all the time for no reason. Ray is also now a massively overpowered mary sue who can't be beaten, so it removes any tension that could be in the film, something that wasn't a problem in something like return of the jedi[/spoiler]
At this stage, I've already stopped caring. I saw the first one in 2015 force awakens, thought it was alright but used to much of the original movies as copy paste plot points. Didn't see last jedi thought the plot summery and what went on with the production was shit, so i'm not wasting my time with this one either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRuQzlVjOSM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_8xGwgA97w&t=203s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6NSsr6WN50
This movie broke reviewers..
Quote from: Munch on December 20, 2019, 08:54:03 PM
This movie broke reviewers..
It bombed with critics at Rotten Tomatoes too. But audiences seem to think it was OK. Not great, but OK. I won't bother with it at the theaters, but I'll probably rent the DVD. I may or may not watch the whole thing.
Cats got a 65% audience rating. I suspect the other 35% didn't know what they were going to see. I watched the 1998 with a couple of dance majors, their running commentary helped me enjoy it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 21, 2019, 12:34:10 PM
Cats got a 65% audience rating. I suspect the other 35% didn't know what they were going to see. I watched the 1998 with a couple of dance majors, their running commentary helped me enjoy it.
My ex saw the original stage production. I'd never seen her that moved by such an event. I may like the movie... or not. The trailer as clever as the human to cats makeovers was interesting, but nothing else grabbed my attention.
Quote from: SGOS on December 21, 2019, 04:24:40 PM
My ex saw the original stage production. I'd never seen her that moved by such an event. I may like the movie... or not. The trailer as clever as the human to cats makeovers was interesting, but nothing else grabbed my attention.
I'm sneaking out to see it Monday morning. If it does the stage production justice I'll be happy.
Quote from: Munch on December 20, 2019, 08:54:03 PMThis movie broke reviewers..
The trailer broke me. I thought it was an elaborate joke at first.
Shrek 2.
I've not watched this movie in a decade, but remembered it fondly. I'm surprised really at just how well it holds up today as much as it did then. The animation quality might no be on par with the quality of something like toy story 4 today, but the humor, fast pace slapstick and action is still really fun, and the actors performances in it is still a lot of fun, especially jennifer saunders as the fairy godmother.
Quote from: Munch on December 30, 2019, 01:47:28 PM
Shrek 2.
I've not watched this movie in a decade, but remembered it fondly. I'm surprised really at just how well it holds up today as much as it did then. The animation quality might no be on par with the quality of something like toy story 4 today, but the humor, fast pace slapstick and action is still really fun, and the actors performances in it is still a lot of fun, especially jennifer saunders as the fairy godmother.
Just don't be a gay villain like Prince Charming ;-)
Rise of Skywalker. 8/10. That's how much of the plot made sense.
And it's probably the best of the Sequel trilogy loosely-connected movies, too.
A new hope, taking the gf through the star wars franchise one installment at a time, for her first time.
Movie aged well, even despite the added cgi that looks off.
Uncut Gems
92% at Rotten Tomatoes
54% audience reaction
I wouldn't rate it because I can't explain why I liked it so much. I understand the audience reaction. It's one weird flick. As a comedian, I never thought highly of Adam Sandler. He reminds me of me trying to be funny when I was in 4th grade. As a comedian he's weird, although playing a straight role he was praised highly for Punch Drunk Love, a movie I didn't care for at all. He's deadly serious throughout Uncut Gems, but he is still weird in an extremely annoying way. Basically, he acts like a total fuckup, but you're never sure if he actually is. I got annoyed so much that I times I wanted to leave, even if he was getting beaten up. But I couldn't leave. When the movie was over, I finally understood the movie. I think it was well written without any highly observable plot holes, and far enough away from Hollywood's most common formulas to be worthy of praise for creativity.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 01, 2020, 12:32:43 PM
A new hope, taking the gf through the star wars franchise one installment at a time, for her first time.
Movie aged well, even despite the added cgi that looks off.
I'm waiting for the point when they re-release Goonies in cinemas with cgi added, like one eyed willy being a cgi character and a high definition version of the truffle shuffle
What would movies look like without CGI these days? "Ten Commandments"? That Red Sea parting was soooo realistic.
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - 7/10
It was entertaining.
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 01, 2020, 06:19:37 PM
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - 7/10
It was entertaining.
Same look and feel?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 01, 2020, 06:33:09 PM
Same look and feel?
It's a different story than the first, but it has the same vibe.
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 01, 2020, 06:51:47 PM
It's a different story than the first, but it has the same vibe.
Yeah, not recapitulating the original is good. On my list. T/Y
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 01, 2020, 06:04:43 PM
What would movies look like without CGI these days? "Ten Commandments"? That Red Sea parting was soooo realistic.
movies did fine without cgi for a long time. CGI can be good when used right and make some really nice designs when used creatively, for example the movie Klaus, or the toy story franchise.
But in using cgi for everything and forgoing things like practical effects, movies lost a visceral quality they use to have.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 01, 2020, 10:42:24 PM
LOL
Show me where the cgi was in Shawshank redemption, or green mile, or citizen Kane, or Schindler's list.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 01, 2020, 06:04:43 PM
What would movies look like without CGI these days? "Ten Commandments"? That Red Sea parting was soooo realistic.
I always assumed that people really got shot or stabbed before CGI. That and the backgrounds to literally every shot were matt paintings.
Quote from: Munch on January 01, 2020, 10:57:43 PM
Show me where the cgi was in Shawshank redemption, or green mile, or citizen Kane, or Schindler's list.
Why would I need to do that?
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 01, 2020, 11:25:56 PM
I always assumed that people really got shot or stabbed before CGI. That and the backgrounds to literally every shot were matt paintings.
I guess the Parting of the Red Sea is something nobody these days recalls.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 02, 2020, 05:39:01 AM
I guess the Parting of the Red Sea is something nobody these days recalls.
Sooo because some old movies used paintings as backgrounds there's been nothing between those times and today's green screen effects that compared?
If the Red Sea could actually part, Hollywood could make it happen. It's just cheaper to use CGI. I think the Red Sea did actually part once around 5,400 years ago. Who would lie about such a thing?
Cgi has its place, but if someone decides instead of creating a realistic set piece with models and buildings and houses, and instead just makes it all in green screen cgi, then of course it won't have the same visceral feel to a real location.
Little Women
Well received by critics, but I walked out half way through. Maybe it's a chick flick. In reality, I rather like women. I just didn't like those women. Maybe there was some sort of redemption at the end. I hope so. I just couldn't last that long.
Quote from: Munch on January 02, 2020, 06:08:44 AM
Sooo because some old movies used paintings as backgrounds there's been nothing between those times and today's green screen effects that compared?
My Rule of So says that when a response begins with "So" (or "Sooo") the response should be checked for strawman arguments.
Quote from: Munch on January 02, 2020, 07:15:04 AM
Cgi has its place, but if someone decides instead of creating a realistic set piece with models and buildings and houses, and instead just makes it all in green screen cgi, then of course it won't have the same visceral feel to a real location.
I agree. Bad CGI is as bad as poor modeling.
Badland
I rented this at the box. Take the first 10 cowboy movie cliche's you think of and try to make a serious movie out of it. Be prepared for more cliche's because someone must have cataloged all there were to make this film. Sometimes I laughed. Other times I was embarrassed. I was embarrassed for the actors who were directed to perform the cliche's while trying to be serious. It's so bad, it's worth watching. Well, maybe not. Do you like really bad films? Is there a Bad Movies Genre? You could drink a shot every time you spot a cliche'. You would blackout after 30 minutes.
Have you seen "Cowboys vs. Zombies"?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 02, 2020, 07:54:49 AM
I agree. Bad CGI is as bad as poor modeling.
That's what I've been saying, we can't just dismiss older methods of filmmaking if it's done well, and same time believe all modern versions of filmmaking is better by default. It's like the difference between traditional animation and modern day cgi animations, cgi can produce some quality work, but something is lost when it's just always cgi animation all the time now, something the director is the movie Klaus seemed to understand when he combined both methods to make a visually pleasing film
No, I don't even remember the name. If it came out after Cowboys and Aliens, I probably avoided it. Was it done with tongue in cheek, or were they trying to be serious? Well, I suppose all zombie movies have to be tongue in cheek, so I probably have to see it.
Quote from: SGOS on January 02, 2020, 07:10:04 AM
If the Red Sea could actually part, Hollywood could make it happen. It's just cheaper to use CGI. I think the Red Sea did actually part once around 5,400 years ago. Who would lie about such a thing?
Initial effect of a tsunami, at a shoreline. The water recedes and people get curious. Then the water returns in a big way.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 01, 2020, 06:04:43 PM
What would movies look like without CGI these days? "Ten Commandments"? That Red Sea parting was soooo realistic.
You could do better in 1956, I know you could. Like a music critic who can't plan an instrument?
Quote from: SGOS on January 02, 2020, 08:28:26 AM
No, I don't even remember the name. If it came out after Cowboys and Aliens, I probably avoided it. Was it done with tongue in cheek, or were they trying to be serious? Well, I suppose all zombie movies have to be tongue in cheek, so I probably have to see it.
I liked Cowboys and Aliens ... and the similar reboot of Howard Carter of Mars.
Quote from: Munch on January 02, 2020, 08:16:37 AM
That's what I've been saying, we can't just dismiss older methods of filmmaking if it's done well, and same time believe all modern versions of filmmaking is better by default. It's like the difference between traditional animation and modern day cgi animations, cgi can produce some quality work, but something is lost when it's just always cgi animation all the time now, something the director is the movie Klaus seemed to understand when he combined both methods to make a visually pleasing film
Please filter that bath water, there's an infant in there somewhere.
Quote from: SGOS on January 02, 2020, 08:28:26 AM
No, I don't even remember the name. If it came out after Cowboys and Aliens, I probably avoided it. Was it done with tongue in cheek, or were they trying to be serious? Well, I suppose all zombie movies have to be tongue in cheek, so I probably have to see it.
It came out slightly before C&A, and was simply hilarious. Not sure of that's what they were going for, however.
The empire strikes back.
GF had to double check: "What, really?" When the big revelation came out.
Though she didn't respond as much I had expected.
Great film, still. It's odd though. I always found it to be the best star wars film out there. And I still do.
But really, a new hope is much closer to this than I had previously thought. It is the ultimate sequel and set up to the end of the OT.
But a new hope somehow feels bigger than this. Even though this has much better pacing. Which puts it slightly on top.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 02, 2020, 03:57:44 PM
The empire strikes back.
GF had to double check: "What, really?" When the big revelation came out.
Was this recently? If so, that's a deliciously rare treat.
Frozen 2 - 9/10
I don't get the hate this movie gets. It has a classical Disney movie feel to it of an unraveling story and it doesn't play for woke points or anything. Or at least not any I could notice.
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 02, 2020, 07:54:52 PM
Frozen 2 - 9/10
I don't get the hate this movie gets. It has a classical Disney movie feel to it of an unraveling story and it doesn't play for woke points or anything. Or at least not any I could notice.
Maybe that's why it received hate.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 02, 2020, 03:57:44 PMGreat film, still. It's odd though. I always found it to be the best star wars film out there. And I still do.
But really, a new hope is much closer to this than I had previously thought. It is the ultimate sequel and set up to the end of the OT.
But a new hope somehow feels bigger than this. Even though this has much better pacing. Which puts it slightly on top.
Empire Strikes Back or A New Hope as the best Star Wars movie? I admit, that's a tough one for me. A New Hope had the classic hero's journey with a complete character arc, an amazing supporting cast, and an iconic climax. The beginning might be a little "boring" but imo it's necessary to set up the juxtaposition of Luke's simple rustic life with his life in the Rebellion.
Meanwhile, Empire Strikes Back was a hell of a gutpunch and introduced a lot of the darker themes of Star Wars, as well as the iconic Hoth battle and the fan-favorite bounty hunter Boba Fett. Overall, I think Empire has a narrow lead.
Now that all 9 (plus two prequels) movies are complete, I've seen a lot of people post rankings. Here is my ranking.
1) Empire Strikes Back
2) A New Hope
3) Return of the Jedi
4) Rogue One
5) Rise of Skywalker
6) Force Awakens
7) Revenge of the Sith
8) Attack of the Clones
9) The Last Jedi
10) Phantom Menace
(Solo excluded because unseen)
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 02, 2020, 07:35:57 PM
Was this recently? If so, that's a deliciously rare treat.
Yes, just last night. I knew it was coming too.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 02, 2020, 08:33:29 PM
Empire Strikes Back or A New Hope as the best Star Wars movie? I admit, that's a tough one for me. A New Hope had the classic hero's journey with a complete character arc, an amazing supporting cast, and an iconic climax. The beginning might be a little "boring" but imo it's necessary to set up the juxtaposition of Luke's simple rustic life with his life in the Rebellion.
Meanwhile, Empire Strikes Back was a hell of a gutpunch and introduced a lot of the darker themes of Star Wars, as well as the iconic Hoth battle and the fan-favorite bounty hunter Boba Fett. Overall, I think Empire has a narrow lead.
Now that all 9 (plus two prequels) movies are complete, I've seen a lot of people post rankings. Here is my ranking.
1) Empire Strikes Back
2) A New Hope
3) Return of the Jedi
4) Rogue One
5) Rise of Skywalker
6) Force Awakens
7) Revenge of the Sith
8) Attack of the Clones
9) The Last Jedi
10) Phantom Menace
(Solo excluded because unseen)
Solo would be about 15th on that list.
Freaks 9/10
Feels like a horror flick with he traditional creepy old house, an ice cream truck that lures children to their doom (or is it something else), and demon like supernatural powers that possesses humans and murders them, but described as science fiction in at least one review. As the movie ended I found myself puzzling over what genre it was. It differed from most horror films in that it has an intensely interesting and creative plot, but its creep factor was beyond most science fiction. Whatever classification it falls under, it had my attention. I'm getting this one for my private collection. I'm looking forward to watching it again. It may be of interest to some movie fans here.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 02, 2020, 08:33:29 PM
Empire Strikes Back or A New Hope as the best Star Wars movie? I admit, that's a tough one for me. A New Hope had the classic hero's journey with a complete character arc, an amazing supporting cast, and an iconic climax. The beginning might be a little "boring" but imo it's necessary to set up the juxtaposition of Luke's simple rustic life with his life in the Rebellion.
Meanwhile, Empire Strikes Back was a hell of a gutpunch and introduced a lot of the darker themes of Star Wars, as well as the iconic Hoth battle and the fan-favorite bounty hunter Boba Fett. Overall, I think Empire has a narrow lead.
Now that all 9 (plus two prequels) movies are complete, I've seen a lot of people post rankings. Here is my ranking.
1) Empire Strikes Back
2) A New Hope
3) Return of the Jedi
4) Rogue One
5) Rise of Skywalker
6) Force Awakens
7) Revenge of the Sith
8) Attack of the Clones
9) The Last Jedi
10) Phantom Menace
(Solo excluded because unseen)
Gonna keep this spoiler free.
Okay, so I just came back from The rise of the Skywalker. Went to watch it with my sister in the cinema. She liked it. Had, I think, a bit of a crush on one of the actors involved. She enjoyed it.
And me? I know this might be an unpopular opinion... But I liked it too. I had fun watching it. It was entertaining. Was it the best star wars film? Hell no. My sis and I agreed on that immeadiately. Was it the best in it's own trilogy? Fuckno. Could it have been better, you're goddamn right it could have been. But all in all, I don't think it should get as much crap as it does. IMHO.
Now that I've seen all the films, except for Solo, I have come to a personal conclusion though. I like the sequel trilogy movies more than the prequel trilogy's movies. Honestly. The only 'blemish' on the original trilogy is that it can be rather slow paced at times, like a lot of movies from that time. Not really a blemish as part of it, I think, is because we are simply spoiled by modern cinema's high-pace action.
The prequel trilogy, however, somehow kept that slow pace, only speeding up immensly in short bursts. The sequel trilogy fully embraced the high velocity and went the extra mile. It really is much more of a modern visit to the star wars universe. Does that make the movies better? Not per se, but they do make 'em more enjoyable if you just go in to have fun. If you don't keep them to the 'STAR WARS-standard', they are quite enjoyable, much more than the prequels. Again, to me. Plus, for all that they do wrong, the sequels do touch on something I miss dearly in the prequels. Namely the atmosphere of the OT. The despair, the fighting a lost battle against all odds. The prequels, ironically the only saga where in the end the good guys actually lose, for the most part feels like the opposite. With golden times, the jedi at their peak, foes consisting of stupid droids, ... And with technology at it's shiny peak abound as well. I know that's one of the goals of the PT. To show a much better time before the empire. But in the OT and in the ST, you see scars of war everywhere. Broken ships, abandoned settlements, Ruins of civilisations unable to function under a barren stretched out corrupt empire; collapsed under the weight of their failing intergalactic infrastructure... You see outdated tech being used in a vein effort, simply because it's all that's left. And that's part of the charm the PT, nor the clone wars, could , for me, ever truly capture. Also, apart from a few actors, the acting in the ST is better than in the PT.
Now with all that said: Yes, I prefer the movies, per movie, of the ST over the PT. The movies, as movies, not as part of the STAR WARS saga or as an arch, work better: per movie. That's the key.
But! And this is a BIG but: i think the PT arch is more worthwhile than the ST. It might be strange to say, but the movies of the PT are on the whole, worse. But their story and what they add to the lore and the story and worldbuilding of the franchise as a whole, is worth so much more than the sequals. It works more as an arch, because throughout the three films of the PT there is a clear vision of where the story should go. That cohesiveness is lost in the sequals. It's also not fun to see where a lot of the characters of the OT end up. Their send-offs... some are better than others, but none are what they should be. And the PT is indeed repetitive. It's the OT in a new jacket. Flashier. Faster. Better graphics. But it's not something new. It's often , apart from the atmosphere as described above, unsuccesful in it's homage because unlike the PT, which also tried to rhyme with the OT, the ST brings little new to the table.
Anyway, time for my top ten, excluding solo
1) The empire strikes back.
2) A new hope
3) Return of the Jedi
4) The force awakens.
5) Rogue One
6) Revenge of the Sith
7) The last jedi
8) The rise of Skywalker
9) The phantom menace
10) The attack of the clones
With the addition that I don't remember much of the attack of the clones, simply that I was bored out of my mind and only enjoyed obi wan, dooku and palpatine. Will give it a go soon, probably, as the gf wants to continue watching the star wars saga.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 03, 2020, 06:58:01 PMI like the sequel trilogy movies more than the prequel trilogy's movies.
Absolutely. While the prequels have their moments - I do appreciate the big battle setpieces and the space opera courtly intrigue - a huge amount of it was just really stupid "are you an angel?"-type lines and a glaringly tedious shot-reverse-shot with a bunch of ugly CGI in the background. While the EU has done a lot to flesh out a lot of prequel characters - the films are absolutely not good and do not deserve to be romanticized.
QuoteThe sequel trilogy fully embraced the high velocity and went the extra mile. It really is much more of a modern visit to the star wars universe.
I agree and disagree with that. JJ certainly has a tendency to have people running around a lot to make a film "exciting" *coughStarTrekcough* and imo, that does help speed things up, but it also doesn't give the audience a chance to breathe or process anything emotionally. That's only a good thing in small doses.
And I chaffe at the implication that JJ's eccentricity is tantamount to "modern" filmmaking. Series like the Mandalorian as well as hugely successful modern films like the Joker do NOT follow that style and do just fine.
QuoteDoes that make the movies better? Not per se, but they do make 'em more enjoyable if you just go in to have fun.
This is absolutely JJ's mo. I will say this about him - and I'll leave it to the audience decide if this is a begrudging compliment or savage insult - he pumps out excellent popcorn movies.
QuotePlus, for all that they do wrong, the sequels do touch on something I miss dearly in the prequels. Namely the atmosphere of the OT. The despair, the fighting a lost battle against all odds. The prequels, ironically the only saga where in the end the good guys actually lose, for the most part feels like the opposite.
I 100% agree.
QuoteBut! And this is a BIG but: i think the PT arch is more worthwhile than the ST. It might be strange to say, but the movies of the PT are on the whole, worse. But their story and what they add to the lore and the story and worldbuilding of the franchise as a whole, is worth so much more than the sequals.
Yes, the worldbuilding was by far the best thing about the prequels.
QuoteWith the addition that I don't remember much of the attack of the clones, simply that I was bored out of my mind and only enjoyed obi wan, dooku and palpatine. Will give it a go soon, probably, as the gf wants to continue watching the star wars saga.
My standout memory of attack of the clones and the only reason I rated it as highly as I did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkwdAl7sroQ
Quote from: SGOS on January 03, 2020, 02:36:22 PM
Freaks 9/10
Feels like a horror flick with he traditional creepy old house, an ice cream truck that lures children to their doom (or is it something else), and demon like supernatural powers that possesses humans and murders them, but described as science fiction in at least one review. As the movie ended I found myself puzzling over what genre it was. It differed from most horror films in that it has an intensely interesting and creative plot, but its creep factor was beyond most science fiction. Whatever classification it falls under, it had my attention. I'm getting this one for my private collection. I'm looking forward to watching it again. It may be of interest to some movie fans here.
Just saw it. Would recommend too.
Battle of Geonosis was cool. Too bad they had to fuck it up with all that CGI bullshit.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 04, 2020, 07:22:48 AM
Battle of Geonosis was cool. Too bad they had to fuck it up with all that CGI bullshit.
But I thought cgi was the best thing ever!
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 04, 2020, 06:18:05 AM
Just saw it. Would recommend too.
Good, I wondered if others would enjoy it too.
Quote from: Munch on January 04, 2020, 08:13:01 AM
But I thought cgi was the best thing ever!
If you say so.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 04, 2020, 08:31:26 AM
If you say so.
Gozira is cgi, except when he is a Japanese man in a rubber suit ;-)
Quote from: Munch on January 01, 2020, 10:57:43 PM
Show me where the cgi was in Shawshank redemption, or green mile, or citizen Kane, or Schindler's list.
Funny thing is, until 2001 and Star Wars, Citizen Kane was one of the most effects-heavy movies made. Welles pushed every border there was -- although his effects were used to compose a shot to forward the visual component and emotional feel of the story.
Today effects are
instead of the story.
You should resolutely refuse to go shows you don't like.
Quote from: trdsf on January 05, 2020, 12:00:04 PM
Funny thing is, until 2001 and Star Wars, Citizen Kane was one of the most effects-heavy movies made. Welles pushed every border there was -- although his effects were used to compose a shot to forward the visual component and emotional feel of the story.
Today effects are instead of the story.
Yeah. Practical effects were harder to pull off, but when done right were very effective and left their mark. Good cinematography comes down to directors using what they have and using it well, look at something like who Framed Roger rabbit, the cinematography in that movie is fantastic, the real world blending with the animation timeless, and because of the effort put into it, it became rewarding.
With cgi replacing many methods of practical effects and animation, unless directors are prepared to put the effort in, then it just looks cheap and poorly put together, especially when people know it can be used far better.
The way gollum was used in something like lord of the rings, especially in return of the king, it was so well done that people loved the portrayal. It was a case of less is more, because they used practical effects along with cgi to make things stand out more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MpfM7Mb7AE
I feel now I would class Ricky Gervais as a British national treasure on par with Stephen Fry and Ian Mckellen after his final speech at the golden globes.
The best kind of humor, is one stepped in truths people don't want to hear.
I like actors, playing their parts. I don't need to look under the IT or Joker makeup.
Quote from: Baruch on January 06, 2020, 08:11:12 PM
I like actors, playing their parts. I don't need to look under the IT or Jocker makeup.
indeed. I can enjoy actors and what they do, I just don't feel its appropriate to use their platforms in the way they've been doing for years now to spread political messages, because as he said, they really haven't got a clue. Like when you have someone like benedict cumberbatch making some big statement about bringing more refugees in, but won't open it own doors to several of his mansions to them, apparently because he had a baby.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/857507/Benedict-Cumberbatch-housing-Syrian-refugees-Government-rejects-20-000-migrants-EU
Gervais is right, these people need to stfu, just accept their awards and don't get preachy on stage when their not prepared to follow in kind.
A Monster Calls - 8/10
A decent movie dealing with loss, in a peculiar way.
The Endless - 5/10
Discount HP Lovecraftian story.
Darkest Hour - 9.5/10
Gary Oldman portrays Winston Churchill pretty good.
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 09, 2020, 05:28:56 AM
Darkest Hour - 9.5/10
Gary Oldman portrays Winston Churchill pretty good.
Almost in tears at one point. "He armed the English language and sent it into battle."
Bad guy was ahistorical, but I guess we needed that.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 09, 2020, 05:52:48 AM
Almost in tears at one point. "He armed the English language and sent it into battle."
Bad guy was ahistorical, but I guess we needed that.
Chamberlain and Halifax were useless toffs.
Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2020, 06:05:39 AM
Chamberlain and Halifax were useless toffs.
When Lord Lothian died WSC chose Halifax to babysit Roosevelt. That's not a post for useless toffs.
I enjoyed that film, and then rented a couple of others on the subject. I found it interesting that Churchill was so unpopular as a leader, yet so quickly recognized as the man for the job when England had it's back to the wall. If it's true, I'd like to understand that dynamic better. I guess certain leadership qualities emerge in changing political environments; That makes sense. Who could have imagined the rise of Hitler before it happened? He became a popular choice during German hardship, but should have been recognized as a madman from his writings when he was in prison, but desperate people just handed him power.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 09, 2020, 06:46:15 AM
When Lord Lothian died WSC chose Halifax to babysit Roosevelt. That's not a post for useless toffs.
You appeaser you! ;-) He should have had Halifax thrown from the roof of Parliament, like in Yes Minister.
Quote from: SGOS on January 09, 2020, 09:28:10 AM
I enjoyed that film, and then rented a couple of others on the subject. I found it interesting that Churchill was so unpopular as a leader, yet so quickly recognized as the man for the job when England had it's back to the wall. If it's true, I'd like to understand that dynamic better. I guess certain leadership qualities emerge in changing political environments; That makes sense. Who could have imagined the rise of Hitler before it happened? He became a popular choice during German hardship, but should have been recognized as a madman from his writings when he was in prison, but desperate people just handed him power.
WSC was a tough nut, and, as the saying goes, "when things get tough you call in the bastards". (Attributed to George Catlett Marshall.)
(https://i.redd.it/lpmjxspil5a41.jpg)
The most iconic scenes of all 9 movies.
"1917" Ohmygod/Holyfuck.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 12, 2020, 01:43:30 PM
(https://i.redd.it/lpmjxspil5a41.jpg)
The most iconic scenes of all 9 movies.
needed to be more symbolic:
(https://i.imgur.com/ug7tCvA.jpg)
Amazing theory I came across that might bear some truth to it, if anyone ever saw the movies in question. I loved the two Hellboy movies by Guillermo del Toro, both his directing and ron perlman as hellboy is one of my favorite combinations of armor and director (something the new hellboy movie recently failed to capture).
There was also a movie he made in 2006, pan's labyrinth, which became one of my all time top 10 favorite movies. What was questionable about the movie was if what happened in it were real or not, the harsh real world and the fantasy world the main character visited, if the fantasy was real or in her imagination, as a coping method for all the horrible things happening to her.
Del Toro came out and said in an intervew a few years back that the fantasy elements of pan's labyrinth were real, despite the ambiguity of it.
Whats interesting about this is the theory that the world of pan's labyrinth is the same world that hellboy exists in, because as someone pointed out many concepts and assets were very close to each other, designs, art, set pieces, even character concepts were very similar. And being both these worlds were from the same mind as del toro its possible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/19ji54/hellboy_moviepans_labyrinth_unified_spoilers_if/
Am sad del toro couldn't make a trilogy.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 12, 2020, 02:03:22 PM
"1917" Ohmygod/Holyfuck.
One continuous shot, and incredulity that any protagonist survived. Sure, I just happened to be standing there when a biplane crashed on top of me ;-)
Quote from: Munch on January 12, 2020, 07:37:23 PM
Amazing theory I came across that might bear some truth to it, if anyone ever saw the movies in question. I loved the two Hellboy movies by Guillermo del Toro, both his directing and ron perlman as hellboy is one of my favorite combinations of armor and director (something the new hellboy movie recently failed to capture).
There was also a movie he made in 2006, pan's labyrinth, which became one of my all time top 10 favorite movies. What was questionable about the movie was if what happened in it were real or not, the harsh real world and the fantasy world the main character visited, if the fantasy was real or in her imagination, as a coping method for all the horrible things happening to her.
Del Toro came out and said in an intervew a few years back that the fantasy elements of pan's labyrinth were real, despite the ambiguity of it.
Whats interesting about this is the theory that the world of pan's labyrinth is the same world that hellboy exists in, because as someone pointed out many concepts and assets were very close to each other, designs, art, set pieces, even character concepts were very similar. And being both these worlds were from the same mind as del toro its possible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/19ji54/hellboy_moviepans_labyrinth_unified_spoilers_if/
Am sad del toro couldn't make a trilogy.
Not the same as Labyrinth (1986).
My daughter and I enjoyed that one, very dark. Anglos know nothing of what it is like to be Spanish. The brutality, the underlying paganism.
Quote from: Baruch on January 13, 2020, 04:19:01 AM
One continuous shot, and incredulity that any protagonist survived. Sure, I just happened to be standing there when a biplane crashed on top of me ;-)
I've been "sole survivor" twice, so I've given up on thinking anything is unlikely. You're born, shit happens, you die.
Saw info on The Prestige (2006) ... an interesting movie, with a cameo by Nicola Tesla.
JEXI
Sophomoric, gross, and inappropriate. Rotten reviews at Rotten Tomatoes (11% from critics, but 71% from audiences). I never looked at audience reviews until a minute ago, so I feel somewhat vindicated. I had avoided this in theaters because of the reviews, but now out on DVD, I got a coupon for a freebee, which I do quite often at Redbox, so I chose this. To be honest, I've always had an affinity for movies where a guy has an intimate relationship with his computer. I must have seen this plot line at least 3 times, and they're usually kind of cute, but enjoyable, so that pushed me into the rental too. I was totally surprised. The movie drags when the main character leaves his phone behind, as the movie must slow down to make space for some shallow observations about the human condition, but embarrassingly, when he has his phone with him, I'm in nonstop stitches, kind of like the stream of punchlines in the old Airplane movies. JEXI is actually an app for the iPhone that replaces Siri, I guess. But Jexi is a search engine and convenience app that is somewhere between a manic looneytoon and a paranoid psychotic. I'm pretty sure it will make you laugh if you're not uptight about being grossed out. Think MAD Magazine from the 1950s.
Terminator: Dark Fate - 9/10
The swan song of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator franchise, basically. It was entertaining, albeit slightly predictable as they used most of the tropes from the 2nd and 3rd movies. And I'm a sucker for nostalgia.
I can't wait to wait to see that.
The last stand
Dumb action flick with predictable humor and cliche characters up the wazoo.
But I'll give it this much. It works. It was mind-numbingly fun to watch. I liked it.
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 25, 2020, 05:32:36 AM
Terminator: Dark Fate - 9/10
The swan song of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator franchise, basically. It was entertaining, albeit slightly predictable as they used most of the tropes from the 2nd and 3rd movies. And I'm a sucker for nostalgia.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/l3q2K5jinAlChoCLS/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 28, 2020, 07:01:56 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/l3q2K5jinAlChoCLS/giphy.gif)
When I was a teenager, I watched Terminator 2 some 17 times.
1917 - 8/10. Minor inaccuracies, stitched together yarns from the Great War. Otherwise pretty realistic. Europe committed suicide, for no good reason at all. And the gift kept on giving until 1991 (fall of Bolshevism). US occupation of W Europe still not ended. Time for the US to get out. Let the French and Germans fight again, so we can make money selling popcorn again.
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 28, 2020, 07:37:58 PM
When I was a teenager, I watched Terminator 2 some 17 times.
So did I, maybe more, I owned it on vhs, dvd and now blueray. Which is why the way they fucked it up with dark fate leaves a taint on the first two movies that's hard to wash off.
I watched Dark Fate last night. I enjoyed it more than any of the others. I was never a big Terminator fan in the past. All I remember about the first one was heroes being chased by an indestructible robot, but no real plot. Granted, this was an oversight on my part, because Terminator movies most definitely have a plot, and as a fan of time travel movies, I'm not sure why I didn't feel the plot was worth remembering. In watching this last one with a critical eye, I think maybe it's because the series emphasizes action over story. I do enjoy action, fiery explosions, and car chases until they become gratuitous. I found my interest fading during action scenes that dragged on, punctuated by short periods of unnecessary philosophical brooding, which almost seemed like they were added to give a chance for the special effects team to catch up. Yet the film was still interesting, and keeping track of the time travel paradoxes warrants another viewing to understand what I consider the more important part of the film.
As a side note, I don't think Arnold Schwarzenegger is at his best when he tries to be serious. I think his best film was True Lies, where he does funny satire on his own usual film persona. His sense of humor is seldom tapped, and I think that's when I enjoy him the most.
Watched joker.
Loved joker.
I watched Joker the other night, too. I thought it was pretty interesting. Made me think about the lack of proper mental health care available which is still a problem.
Quote from: LoriPinkAngel on January 31, 2020, 03:25:45 PM
I watched Joker the other night, too. I thought it was pretty interesting. Made me think about the lack of proper mental health care available which is still a problem.
Yeah, I like that theme, and it's very inkeeping with the batman mythos
What perfect timing, as this was just released this morning :P.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBkHr8lPQrA
Hope to go see latest Star Wars with daughter. She will watch for the feminism. I will watch because I like women.
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2020, 05:19:17 PM
Hope to go see latest Star Wars with daughter. She will watch for the feminism. I will watch because I like women.
Oh yeah. I haven't given my thoughts on The Rise of Skywalker yet. Hard to say much without spoilers, but going into it, I expected the movie to essentially backtrack on most of the things the previous numbered film, The Last Jedi, did with its controversial plot. Heck, the title itself sounded like it was going to undo one of the big reveals of the previous movie. Who were Rey's parents? No one important. Or were they? With Luke dead, which Skywalker could possibly be rising? Leia? Doubtful, since we know what happened to Carrie Fisher. Ben? He's a Solo, not a Skywalker. That only leaves one likely candidate.
To some extent, it kinda was what I was expecting. They gave Kylo Ren his mask back, re-opened the question of Rey's parentage, and sort of brought back the evil emperor, although in a different form. The execution was different than I was expecting, though.
[spoiler]So Rey is a Palpatine? Apparently, there were clues left behind since the first film that this was what they were going for, and they were subtle enough that most people didn't notice. And those who did noticed were dismissed because that idea just sounded too stupid to be true. So did the director of The Last Jedi not get the memo? Watching the trilogy does not give many the impression that this trilogy was planned from the start. I'm fairly certain most of it was made up as they went, which is really frustrating and does not make for good, internally consistent storytelling.
But if Rey is a Palpatine, then who is the Skywalker the title refers to? Well, that is apparently also Rey. Luke and Leia sort of adopt Rey into their family. Or perhaps more accurately, Rey takes the name Skywalker as a sign of respect to Luke and Leia. That wasn't what I was expecting, but it's fine. There's something that bothers me about the heritage of Rey, though. The Last Jedi's answer was more satisfying, I think. Sure, fans speculated about which popular Star Wars character she could be secretly related to, but no answer could have been satisfying, except none-of-the-above. Rey being related to no one means she was her own person. Her skills were not inherited from someone else. She rose from literally nothing into one of the universe's most powerful (living) people. When we see that random kid using the Force to move a broom to his hand, that reinforced the message that one's heritage does not determine their destiny. And then the next movie contradicted that, making Rey related to a powerful Sith lord. Great.
It's no so much that Rey being related to Palpatine is stupid. It's a perfectly fine idea for Palpatine to have a secret heir. The guy had all kinds of contingency plans in the case of his untimely death. The First Order, in fact, was literally his
first order post mortem.
Which brings me to my next point. The emperor. When I saw that first trailer and heard Palpatine's laugh, I was actually kind of excited to see Ian McDiarmid's usual hammy performance. But I was very disappointed. This was the most serious we've ever seen the character. I understand why. They wanted him to be this creepy, barely human creature hanging on to life. But he was just so bland.
Also, if I understand the movie correctly, the movie suggests that Sith literally live on in their students when they are slain by them. This would explain why Sith bother to teach another person everything they know. I mean, why have an apprentice? Why not keep the power for yourself, especially when you know from previous experience that the student will eventually surpass you and murder you. Well, turns out raising an apprentice is sort of a method of achieving immortality. When you get old, you shed your old body and possess your apprentice's body, passing your power onto them to become incrementally stronger with each generation. It also explains why Sith only have one student. I actually really like this idea.
Lastly, there's the Final Order. So apparently, the emperor had secretly been building an army while he was pretending to be dead. I don't know how he did this, or where he got the man power, but he just shows up with a ton of ships equipped with canons capable of destroying planets. Basically, each ship was a smaller, more efficient Death Star. I believe this is a concept taken from the extended universe. He uses these to hold the entire universe hostage. Not a bad way to up the level of threat, but still, the question of where dafuq all this stuff came from just nags at me. Also, the Sith Troopers people were talking about? Turned out to be just another pallet swap. Called it.
Random other thoughts: The writers clearly didn't know what to do with Finn. He's just along for the ride. He had so much potential, as the first turncoat Stormtrooper of the series, just flushed down the toilet. The movie tries to make us thing that Rey joining the Dark Side was actually a possibility. That vision of evil Rey with the double-bladed lightsaber? WTF? Nobody's taking that seriously. I do like how they handle Leia's death in this movie. She kind of dies voluntarily so that she can influence Ben via the Force, turning him to the good side. As the only person in the world left connecting Kylo Ren to Ben Solo, she succeeds. But she doesn't fade away into the Force until after Ben dies. She was waiting for her son to join her before crossing over. That is nice. Rey gets this cool new yellow lightsaber, made from the parts of her staff, but they don't give it to her until the end of the movie. This is supposedly the end of her story, so we may never even get to see her use the damn thing. Oh, and I can't forget the most important part of the movie: Chewbacca finally got his medal!
Overall, my opinion of the movie is: Meh. It's entertaining, but it has so many plot holes and contrivances. It had to wrap things up after the previous mix bags of the trilogy, so they probably did the best they could with what they had, but the trilogy as a whole did not leave me feeling satisfied. I can't put my finger on it, but it just feels shallow. Like it's missing something.
My favorite part about Rise of Skywalker:
[Spoiler]Palpatine - a guy whose face looks like a shriveled scrotum - got laid and has living posterity, while none of the Skywalkers or Solos or Kenobis did.
Certainly an unexpected turn for a guy whose life was dedicated to megavillainy and didn't seem to have any personal relations with anyone outside of work.
A certain Lannister would literally killed people to ensure that sort of genetic windfall.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 01, 2020, 12:56:49 AM
My favorite part about Rise of Skywalker:
[Spoiler]Palpatine - a guy whose face looks like a shriveled scrotum - got laid and has living posterity, while none of the Skywalkers or Solos or Kenobis did.
Certainly an unexpected turn for a guy whose life was dedicated to megavillainy and didn't seem to have any personal relations with anyone outside of work.
A certain Lannister would literally killed people to ensure that sort of genetic windfall.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]When you're rich and powerful, it doesn't matter how you look. Someone out there would want to have your child. What I find super interesting, though, is how Palpatine treats his family, compared to Anakin. Darth Vader was a heartless, evil monster, but he still wanted to have a relationship with his son. Palpatine just fucking murders his children because they wouldn't sacrifice his granddaughter to him in some ancient Sith ritual. Even by villain standards, that's cruel.
Also, something I forgot to mention. Is this...
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/d32c7dec817882626e79445a9cbe764b/36f34a620c8b3f71-ed/s640x960/5d9b04a2343c69274a9f8203a2b50c24c045bf3b.gif)
...possibly a subtle nod to his dad's shrug?
(https://img.cinemablend.com/filter:scale/quill/4/b/7/b/8/7/4b7b87b9d2858c888a5af105b131257845aa417c.jpg?mw=600)
Either way, that was one of my favorite scenes. The irony of the Knights of Ren finally appearing in the final movie of the trilogy to try to kill Kylo Ren is just great. We expected them to try to kill the good guys, but they don't get around to it until their leader becomes one of the good guys.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 01, 2020, 12:56:49 AM
My favorite part about Rise of Skywalker:
[Spoiler]Palpatine - a guy whose face looks like a shriveled scrotum - got laid and has living posterity, while none of the Skywalkers or Solos or Kenobis did.
Certainly an unexpected turn for a guy whose life was dedicated to megavillainy and didn't seem to have any personal relations with anyone outside of work.
A certain Lannister would literally killed people to ensure that sort of genetic windfall.[/spoiler]
Jeffry Epstein didn't kill himself. He was spirited away to a galaxy far far away.
Just watched black panther for the first time.
It was good. Not as amazing as I was lead to believe. But good.
The story was engaging enough. Often predictable, as is in these superhero films, but with enough twists and turns to once or twice take me off guard.
I'm not a big fan of 'ancient culture infused with supertechnology' however. Was the same reason, I think, why I wasn't a huge fan of the first two Thor films.
Would rank this above those two, I guess. And above the third iron man film. Maybe above Ant-man, though more likely on par with that.
Anyway, next up: infinity war! Looking forward to this one.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 03, 2020, 06:26:40 PMAnyway, next up: infinity war! Looking forward to this one.
Prepare yourself for a movie hitherto undreamt of. :)
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 03, 2020, 07:23:03 PM
Prepare yourself for a movie hitherto undreamt of. :)
And don't worry about the people in the airplanes.
Got to see the new Star Wars movie Sunday night with my daughter. I was impressed. Rate it 8/10 ... best of the final trilogy, one of the best of the 9 main movies. Movie critics are dateless boys stuck in their parent's basement! To find PC where it isn't, or to script PC as part of the story line ... is political activism, it isn't entertainment. The makers of the movie rediscovered the essential sense of humor that is part of this franchise, that was missing in the first two of the final trilogy. The storyline had twists (even non-canon), but much better done. A fitting final movie to the whole storyline. It was entertaining in an adult way.
Loved Kylo's "Hey!" when he faced the Knights.
But enquiring minds want to know, did they get there on the Knight Bus?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 04, 2020, 07:37:22 AM
Loved Kylo's "Hey!" when he faced the Knights.
But enquiring minds want to know, did they get there on the Knight Bus?
Emperor Palpatine was running a Knight Court ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 04, 2020, 07:57:29 AM
Emperor Palpatine was running a Knight Court ;-)
That was actually funny. What have you done with Baruch?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 04, 2020, 08:19:19 AM
That was actually funny. What have you done with Baruch?
Old Baruch is retired to the nursing home next to you ;-)
Yeah, if you take enough photos, some of them are good. Same thing with stand up comedy ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 04, 2020, 09:09:57 AM
Old Baruch is retired to the nursing home next to you ;-)
Yeah, if you take enough photos, some of them are good. Same thing with stand up comedy ;-)
You were wayyyyyy overdue.
It's surprising that DC Comics seems so lack luster in their competition with Marvel, only to have them come out with a masterpiece like Joker. I'm hoping this is a new direction in the appeal of DC films, but it's more likely just an accidental blip. I mentioned in the TV thread that I started getting DVD disks from Netflix, and started watching Gotham, which tops most of what DC puts out in the theaters IMO. Then I bought the entire Smallville series because I got a cheap used set, and there was a long wait for the first disk at netflicks. It's maybe a bit on the corny side, but the stories are engaging and great fun. I can watch 6 or 8 episodes at once, and quit only because I start to feel guilty about being a couch potato. Superman's parent's drive me nuts, because they seem like in the efforts to help, they make messes out of things. I'm starting to think that DC trails behind Marvel in the theater, because they've been directing their energy into TV series. I'm looking forward to Arrow and Krypton, and I just finished the first disk of The Flash, which I also liked a lot.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 04, 2020, 09:11:23 AM
You were wayyyyyy overdue.
Maybe your senility took hold ;-) They say simple minded people laugh a lot.
Quote from: Baruch on February 04, 2020, 11:18:54 AM
Maybe your senility took hold ;-) They say simple minded people laugh a lot.
Point.
You.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 04, 2020, 07:37:22 AM
Loved Kylo's "Hey!" when he faced the Knights.
But enquiring minds want to know, did they get there on the Knight Bus?
They move at the behest of plot. Not a moment quicker or slower.
Quote from: SGOS on February 04, 2020, 09:21:30 AMIt's surprising that DC Comics seems so lack luster in their competition with Marvel, only to have them come out with a masterpiece like Joker.
They did it before with Dark Knight. For them, success happens when they come up with a thoughtful, carefully-planned story and production/direction shows it a lot of love. When they try to just crank out a hit with little thought and fly by the seat of their pants (read: Justice League, Suicide Squad), they fail and hard.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 05, 2020, 12:24:17 AM
They did it before with Dark Knight. For them, success happens when they come up with a thoughtful, carefully-planned story and production/direction shows it a lot of love. When they try to just crank out a hit with little thought and fly by the seat of their pants (read: Justice League, Suicide Squad), they fail and hard.
Yep. There was a period where they thought "dark" and gritty was what made their films good, rather than actually well-made movies. Hopefully Joker will be a wakeup call on that.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 05, 2020, 12:17:11 AM
They move at the behest of plot. Not a moment quicker or slower.
Not a Harry Potter fan, I see.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 05, 2020, 12:24:17 AM
They did it before with Dark Knight. For them, success happens when they come up with a thoughtful, carefully-planned story and production/direction shows it a lot of love. When they try to just crank out a hit with little thought and fly by the seat of their pants (read: Justice League, Suicide Squad), they fail and hard.
Justice League and Suicide Squad suffered from a lot of leadership changes, if I'm not mistaken. They both turned out to be something entirely different than what was originally planned at the start of filming. Especially Suicide Squad. From how I understand it, Suicide Squad was a Frankenstein's Monster of clips thrown together into a blender to make a movie.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 05, 2020, 11:10:57 AM
Justice League and Suicide Squad suffered from a lot of leadership changes, if I'm not mistaken. They both turned out to be something entirely different than what was originally planned at the start of filming. Especially Suicide Squad. From how I understand it, Suicide Squad was a Frankenstein's Monster of clips thrown together into a blender to make a movie.
"That's okay, we'll fix it in Post."
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 05, 2020, 12:24:17 AM
They did it before with Dark Knight. For them, success happens when they come up with a thoughtful, carefully-planned story and production/direction shows it a lot of love. When they try to just crank out a hit with little thought and fly by the seat of their pants (read: Justice League, Suicide Squad), they fail and hard.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 05, 2020, 11:10:57 AM
Justice League and Suicide Squad suffered from a lot of leadership changes, if I'm not mistaken. They both turned out to be something entirely different than what was originally planned at the start of filming. Especially Suicide Squad. From how I understand it, Suicide Squad was a Frankenstein's Monster of clips thrown together into a blender to make a movie.
Yes, it's not like all their films bomb, and some are in the Marvel ballpark. They have great characters to offer, but it's hit or miss on production, script, and sometimes casting. I would add Wonder Woman to their list of good films, although I do have a couple of small things that bothered me, but I doubt anyone else would mind. Suicide Squad did seem like it was thrown together in haste. Justice League was enjoyable for the most part, but it wasn't Batman or Man of Steel quality.
Plus, the animated movies tend to rock.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 06, 2020, 12:51:20 AM
Plus, the animated movies tend to rock.
DC's animated features and series are usually top notch. I saw Gotham by gaslight recently, very fun take on the genre. Also been watching the new Harley Quinn series, very funny and a different but very effective take on the DC universe (where supervillains are treated with the same respect as the justice League)
The gf tapes a lot of movies.
Watching 'downsizing' right now.
Guys, I know we don't believe in the power of prayer... But please, please join me in praying for a quick end.
To the movie. Or my life, I don't care.
God, what is this movie.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 07, 2020, 03:29:55 PM
The gf tapes a lot of movies.
Watching 'downsizing' right now.
Guys, I know we don't believe in the power of prayer... But please, please join me in praying for a quick end.
To the movie. Or my life, I don't care.
God, what is this movie.
Aww it can't be that bad your resulting to prayer.
*Reads up IMDb viewers reviews*
Oh.. dear.
Okay, in psychology, they have this thing called going to your happy place. You need to practice the meditation of zoning out, that's the only way your survive this with brain cells intact
Quote from: Munch on February 07, 2020, 04:08:43 PM
Aww it can't be that bad your resulting to prayer.
*Reads up IMDb viewers reviews*
Oh.. dear.
Okay, in psychology, they have this thing called going to your happy place. You need to practice the meditation of zoning out, that's the only way your survive this with brain cells intact
I can't not brain prprally no more, Munch. Tell love I family them.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 07, 2020, 04:22:53 PM
I can't not brain prprally no more, Munch. Tell love I family them.
Here watch this, it might restore your faith in the world
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_l04INE-ll8&t=2059s
I appreciate the Alien call out in the first segment of the video. I have coloboma in both eyes, and it is more pronounced than that example. Been an oppressed minority all my life ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2020, 05:58:41 PM
I appreciate the Alien call out in the first segment of the video. I have coloboma in both eyes, and it is more pronounced than that example. Been an oppressed minority all my life ;-)
Cool. Do you have any distortion like the host described, like driving at night or similar?
Quote from: Munch on February 07, 2020, 06:31:55 PM
Cool. Do you have any distortion like the host described, like driving at night or similar?
Optics wants to be round, not oblong. So always had astigmatism. Astigmatism most pronounced at night looking at bright streetlights against a dark background.
After nearly going blind in both eyes 15 years ago, due to cataracts, I had both lenses replaced (but coloboma left as is). Now I am discriminated against for being a cyborg ;-) Close to this in both eyes ...
https://www.news-medical.net/health/Treating-and-Managing-Colobomas.aspx
This shows one-eye coloboma. Both my eyes are close to this, with both pupils tilting a bit inward at the bottom.
Since I squint, people don't always notice the bottom distortion, and if they do, are usually too polite to say anything. Otherwise I might eat their soul!
The Two Popes - 10/10
Amazing dialog, amazing cinematography, a very interesting story that doesn't shy away from Francis' checkered past in Argentina or Benedict's horrible handling of the child abuse scandal... Sir Anthony Hopkins does amazing, but honestly I think Pryce's Francis is even better.
Absolutely wonderful movie.
Yes, Pope Benedict did the right thing, at the end. That is unusual circumspection.
The ratings are still out on Pope Francis.
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing County - 9/10 the only reason I didn't give it a 10 is because the crime wasn't resolved even though that is realistic. It has humor, sadness, suspense and was very moving, everything I like in a movie.
Joys of corrupt small town America. Imagine what Washington DC is like?
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2020, 07:17:58 PM
Optics wants to be round, not oblong. So always had astigmatism. Astigmatism most pronounced at night looking at bright streetlights against a dark background.
After nearly going blind in both eyes 15 years ago, due to cataracts, I had both lenses replaced (but coloboma left as is). Now I am discriminated against for being a cyborg ;-) Close to this in both eyes ...
https://www.news-medical.net/health/Treating-and-Managing-Colobomas.aspx
This shows one-eye coloboma. Both my eyes are close to this, with both pupils tilting a bit inward at the bottom.
Since I squint, people don't always notice the bottom distortion, and if they do, are usually too polite to say anything. Otherwise I might eat their soul!
Well that explains why you see things so cockamamie! ðŸ˜
Quote from: aitm on February 09, 2020, 04:44:31 PM
Well that explains why you see things so cockamamie! ðŸ˜
Popeye squints ;-) Bluto underestimates him.
Been going through old posts and this one stood out to me:
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 02, 2019, 12:30:59 AM
There's a fan theory that, if true, could redeem that scene. The theory is that Rey was created via the Force, making her parents literally no one.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/854/474/02b.gif)
I've been trying to find my post where I said Joaquin Phoenix absolutely deserves an Oscar. I think that was just in my head.
Anyway, now that he's won an Oscar, I will now say that I predicted it all along. Hey, it's good enough for evangelicals.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 09, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
I've been trying to find my post where I said Joaquin Phoenix absolutely deserves an Oscar. I think that was just in my head.
Anyway, now that he's won an Oscar, I will now say that I predicted it all along. Hey, it's good enough for evangelicals.
Well, they do get off on predicting the past.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 09, 2020, 11:38:52 PM
Been going through old posts and this one stood out to me:
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 02, 2019, 12:30:59 AM
There's a fan theory that, if true, could redeem that scene. The theory is that Rey was created via the Force, making her parents literally no one.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/854/474/02b.gif)
Yeah, it's a bit odd, if you think about it. Her parents weren't nobodies. They were the emperor's own offspring. They themselves may have amounted to little. It would have made more sense to show Palpatine, but that would have ruined the surprise for the third movie, assuming the guy who did The Last Jedi even got the memo. I dunno. The trilogy just doesn't seem to fit together as well as the previous trilogies did.
The middle director hadn't seen the first one. Last director had to fix that shit.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 10, 2020, 12:23:08 PM
The middle director hadn't seen the first one. Last director had to fix that shit.
in other words its a convoluted mess by lazy hacks.
Quote from: Munch on February 10, 2020, 12:40:16 PM
in other words its a convoluted mess by lazy hacks.
In Hollywood, those who live by celluloid, die by celluloid.
Quote from: Munch on February 10, 2020, 12:40:16 PM
in other words its a convoluted mess by lazy hacks.
If that's how you want to read the situation.
They fired all the good script writers, during the Hollywood writer's strike 2007-2008. That was the rise of reality TV, and Trump.
I don't know if I would call them lazy, but certainly without any real direction for the series or respect for the final product & the fandom it belongs to.
Saw the results of the Oscars. I won't watch these award shows anymore for the reasons Ricky Gervais said at the globes, because it's just this pageantry of out of touch cretins using it as a platform to spout their hypocritical bullshit.
Despite that, I am glad Joaquin phoenix got the one for best actor, only because in this pageantry it as least gives the movie that longevity status to the world. However him using the award so he could spout his whole bit about veganism was very cringeworthy, like every other celebrity. Seriously just accept the award, thank your agent, fellow actors and director, your family, the get off the dam stage. We get it Joaquin, cows have a shit time of it, you aren't gonna change that though since your just a celebrity and the milk trade is an industry.
I await celebrities to join with that professor, that wants human extinction, to solve Climate Change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUUYPQs5XBg
the women in this summed it up perfectly. 1:01.16 they summed up the speech Phoenix gave and how it just comes off as elitist crap between a group of elitists telling the everyday men and women on the lower throws of society how to live, while they with their millions have no day to day pressure of just surviving.
The fact phoenix bleats on about how bad it is what becomes of cows, he seems to overlook how alternatives to milk for the everyday person is far more expensive, something he wouldn't have a problem with buying, while everyday people can't afford the same amount of milk as almond milk.
Whats really staggered me most about this, is seeing joker, the film has the main character being someone who on the lower end of society was driven mad by his circumstances and how the upper elites looked down on people, how the character of Arthur Fleck was a man who idolized celebrities and wanted to climb up from where he was because of that belief in those above him, and yet the story has him going insane, but also realizing those on the upper crust of society don't give a shit about those on the lower ends, which causes him to start anarchy in gothem against the establishment.
Phoenix's character of Arthur Fleck couldn't be further from how phoenix is himself as seen at the oscars, being a celebrity who looks down on the lower end of society and living in a bubble for what the everyday person lives like. You would Think he'd have learned from his own movie experience and not come off like a hypocritical douchebag kissing high movie societies asses.
This sadly tainted my viewing of Joker. I can't look at the movie the same way knowing how the main actor playing Arthur Fleck is the same kind of person Arthur Fleck would shoot.
Hollywood isn't American normality. Never was.
It's one of these things, how much do you personally separate the artist/writer/actor from the art/writing/role they play?
I've often said I loved the works of H.P Lovecraft, however if I was in a room with the man himself, I doubt I'd find pleasant conversation with him.
I've loved Arnold Schwarzenegger movies and characters he's played, I grew up on some of his films, however I tended to avoid the politics and how he acted outside of his films maybe because I had this fan driven desire to imagine what he was like more then what he really acted like at times.
Living in a much more cynical time now and everything being online in an instant it's harder to separate these things then it was decades ago.
I hope actors separate from their roles. However I fear that politicians don't ... the politician they are playing (for PR) is who they are ... ayeee!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7990327/amp/I-tried-warn-Ricky-Gervais-hits-stars-preaching-Oscars-ceremony.html
Ricky hit back saying he warned them not to get preachy, pretty much telling them since it would backfire.
Like say I didnt watch the Oscar's just listened to segments online, boy i didnt realize how preachy it was this year.
Quote from: Munch on February 10, 2020, 11:04:34 PM
Saw the results of the Oscars. I won't watch these award shows anymore for the reasons Ricky Gervais said at the globes, because it's just this pageantry of out of touch cretins using it as a platform to spout their hypocritical bullshit.
Despite that, I am glad Joaquin phoenix got the one for best actor, only because in this pageantry it as least gives the movie that longevity status to the world. However him using the award so he could spout his whole bit about veganism was very cringeworthy, like every other celebrity. Seriously just accept the award, thank your agent, fellow actors and director, your family, the get off the dam stage. We get it Joaquin, cows have a shit time of it, you aren't gonna change that though since your just a celebrity and the milk trade is an industry.
Triggered, snowflake?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGMYdalClU
Quote from: Munch on February 11, 2020, 05:10:39 PM
Trump wasn't impeached.
Not convicted after impeachment. But like the EU referenda, the Dems will impeach and impeach again, until they get the result they want. And there may be a court challenge to expunge the impeachment for being a partisan travesty, but that has never been tried before. Soros has many Euros to spend. Like Bloomberg in the US.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2020, 08:24:31 PM
Not convicted after impeachment. But like the EU referenda, the Dems will impeach and impeach again, until they get the result they want. And there may be a court challenge to expunge the impeachment for being a partisan travesty, but that has never been tried before. Soros has many Euros to spend. Like Bloomberg in the US.
just seems ironic a party calling itself democrats when they don't believe in democracy, rofl.
Quote from: Munch on February 11, 2020, 05:10:39 PM
Trump wasn't impeached.
And? You think that will upset me? Sorry. Ironically, I'm as triggered about things that actually matter as you are about what political opinions actors hold.
Quote from: Munch on February 11, 2020, 09:15:43 PM
just seems ironic a party calling itself democrats when they don't believe in democracy, rofl.
You think the Republicans wouldn't have attempted to impeach Obama if they actually had anything on him? Of course they would. The difference here is that Republicans actually have a criminal in office. Many of them know it, and have admitted it, but they will not convict someone on their own team, no matter how guilty they are.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 11, 2020, 10:12:57 PM
You think the Republicans wouldn't have attempted to impeach Obama if they actually had anything on him? Of course they would. The difference here is that Republicans actually have a criminal in office. Many of them know it, and have admitted it, but they will not convict someone on their own team, no matter how guilty they are.
Triggered, snowflake?
Ah, the mating call of the knuckle draggers.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 11, 2020, 10:12:57 PM
You think the Republicans wouldn't have attempted to impeach Obama if they actually had anything on him? Of course they would. The difference here is that Republicans actually have a criminal in office. Many of them know it, and have admitted it, but they will not convict someone on their own team, no matter how guilty they are.
Obama ... fake Nobel Peace Prize followed by new wars in 4 countries (Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen). Like George W and Tony Blair (PM) these are war crimes to be seen by The Hague, not the Senate. So yes, if the CIA approves of you, then you have nothing to worry about. Also it appears now, that Obama approved a partisan interference in the opposition party candidate, worse than Nixon ... and was willfully blind to the corruption and war profiteering of the Biden and Clinton families etc.
So why do Republicans do what they do? Total evil, spawn of Satan ... bwahaha. I don't know. I don't think you know either, except in your paranoia (and yes, I am very unhappy with the Demon-crats). Most historical events were driven by hysterical proletariat fed conspiracy theories by the political crocodiles.
And yes, voted for Obama twice. Never called for his impeachment myself (Independent), even though he did some things, I knew about then, that I didn't approve of.
Quote from: Munch on February 11, 2020, 09:15:43 PM
just seems ironic a party calling itself democrats when they don't believe in democracy, rofl.
Somewhat like Labour ;-(
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 12, 2020, 06:40:04 AM
Ah, the mating call of the knuckle draggers.
You mean the titanium katana carriers? ;-)
Birds of Prey
I'm amazed at the high grades from critics and audiences. Margo Robbie characterizes a psycho airhead bimbo. She really captures and exaggerates that personality type, and does it well. Robbie prances and flaunts a silly girlish personality with energy and enthusiasm, but for no purpose. I didn't wait for the movie to end and I was out of the theater after 45 minutes. I felt like I was watching a version of Suicide Squad, but without a plot.
Quote from: SGOS on February 12, 2020, 08:23:14 PM
Birds of Prey
I'm amazed at the high grades from critics and audiences. Margo Robbie characterizes a psycho airhead bimbo. She really captures and exaggerates that personality type, and does it well. Robbie prances and flaunts a silly girlish personality with energy and enthusiasm, but for no purpose. I didn't wait for the movie to end and I was out of the theater after 45 minutes. I felt like I was watching a version of Suicide Squad, but without a plot.
I've heard the same. let me ask, have you ever explored the character of harley quinn from other mediums, like cartoons, comics, games? I've been following the character for years since she first appeared in batman the animated series in the 90s, and she's been both consistent and had some retellings in how they portray her, kinda like spiderman.
I wasn't impressed at what I saw of her in suicide squad and I wasn't impressed at scenes and clips of this one either. There are dozens of far better portrayals of harley quinn in other mediums
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wYab6r3RKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLKWE1zLJGU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J064TI8WDKo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODsi-cSgPQ
When it comes to making a movie of a popular character, its pretty critical you hit the ground running. A movie can elevate a popular character or just make them seen as something not worthwhile to the general audiences that haven't invested in any other form of medium for the character. Can't expect all movie goers to have read comics and watched cartoons.
Quote from: SGOS on February 12, 2020, 08:23:14 PMI felt like I was watching a version of Suicide Squad, but without a plot.
So, Suicide Squad.
I've never seen Harley Quinn in any other medium, but I'm not that interested in getting involved with the genre on a deeper level. If I stuff anymore entertainment on my plate, I'd have to give up something else. I understand that comic book fans take the character development seriously, even finding fault when the modern films deviate too much from the original. I like most of the films as they are. Whether I need more background to like them more, I don't know. In my opinion, this was just an uninteresting film that was going nowhere when I left the theater. I'd never heard of he Guardians of the Galaxy before I saw that movie, and from the previews, I didn't think I would like the movies, whacky as they are, but standing alone without previous knowledge about the group, both Guardians were near masterpieces in my opinion. Harley might have potential, and maybe she's portrayed differently in other mediums. I might even be fascinated with her in other mediums, just not in the film. But I don't think my opinion is tainted by the character. Harley works well for me in small doses, and if Suicide Squad offered anything, it was Harley. This is just more about the film. I never got a sense that anything important was happening. Like Quinn, Joker is an unlikeable character too, but at least I felt compassion for him, because the movie was a well done character study, as well as a reflection of how society treats the less fortunate. Joker in Suicide Squad failed because of casting and script. I think it's about the film.
I've actually considered looking into the comics, something I missed as a kid, but it's would involve a commitment I'm not going to make considering all my other interests.
Quote from: SGOS on February 12, 2020, 10:01:39 PM
I've never seen Harley Quinn in any other medium, but I'm not that interested in getting involved with the genre on a deeper level. If I stuff anymore entertainment on my plate, I'd have to give up something else. I understand that comic book fans take the character development seriously, even finding fault when the modern films deviate too much from the original. I like most of the films as they are. Whether I need more background to like them more, I don't know. In my opinion, this was just an uninteresting film that was going nowhere when I left the theater. I'd never heard of he Guardians of the Galaxy before I saw that movie, and from the previews, I didn't think I would like the movies, whacky as they are, but standing alone without previous knowledge about the group, both Guardians were near masterpieces in my opinion. Harley might have potential, and maybe she's portrayed differently in other mediums. I might even be fascinated with her in other mediums, just not in the film. But I don't think my opinion is tainted by the character. Harley works well for me in small doses, and if Suicide Squad offered anything, it was Harley. This is just more about the film. I never got a sense that anything important was happening. Like Quinn, Joker is an unlikeable character too, but at least I felt compassion for him, because the movie was a well done character study, as well as a reflection of how society treats the less fortunate. Joker in Suicide Squad failed because of casting and script. I think it's about the film.
I've actually considered looking into the comics, something I missed as a kid, but it's would involve a commitment I'm not going to make considering all my other interests.
That's what's interesting, in most portrayals of the joker, he is meant to be seen as an unlikable monster. Infact since the introduction of Harley, her role was used to show just how twisted a son of a bitch he was, taking a psychiatrist in training and twisting her into being a lunatic like him, but then after doing so with lies and manipulation, abused her, causing her to become the poster child for Stockholm syndrome.
Really it's Harley's introduction into the batman mythos that grounded the joker as an irredeemable bastard not just in innocent victims he tortured but also in people he convinced to have feelings for. That's one of the roles she played for many years now, to be his punching bag and show how he used any form of psychological tricks to fuck with people.
The joker in the Joaquin phoenix movie isn't the same kind of joker who's been tormenting someone like Harley Quinn, because usually, the sympathy you have for anyone in the dynamic is usual Harley for being one of the jokers victims. In phoenix's joker role, the sympathy goes to him because of how his background is laid out, so the concept of Harley wouldn't fit as well with the Arthur fleck joker.
Quote from: SGOS on February 12, 2020, 10:01:39 PMI'd never heard of he Guardians of the Galaxy before I saw that movie, and from the previews, I didn't think I would like the movies, whacky as they are, but standing alone without previous knowledge about the group, both Guardians were near masterpieces in my opinion.
The GotG movies are not a perfect distillation of the source material (there are plenty of cut characters and the plot is very different), but they definitely captured the spirit of the series. That's about as good as one can hope for with an adaptation.
Imo, the comics do help flesh out the characters a little more and I love some of their plotlines (I could've lived without others, though), but the Guardians series dovetails into so many other comics that it's basically the comics equivalent of a wiki walk (reading articles referencing other articles until you're reading about Cosmic Latte at 4am. And is there really a difference between snow the color and white the color?)
In the film, you are told little about her involvement with the Joker, but it did mention almost in passing what you were told in Suicide Squad. And I could muster up some compassion on that account. Here she's at the same point of her psychological development as she was in SS. One possible rub for me was that I have known a number of women in actual life with that same personality, although not as exaggerated. These are usually rather immature high school age and the affect usually diminishes with age. Maybe this is what is meant by "Valley girl?", a popular and probably fake but cultivated persona of the 80s, designed to give the appearance of a shallow uninteresting person. I actually hold Margo Robbie in high regard for her ability to capture a fairly common, but not likeable personality. I didn't stay long enough to witness her actual emancipation, as the movie advertised, but I wasn't able to make it through the "fluff Harley" to get to that. My general rule of thumb behavior is that if a movie doesn't capture my interest in 30 minutes, I'm finished. I've taken some highly acclaimed films out of my player and stopped watching them, figuring something was going to happen, but not having the patience to see it through. Possibly my comments aren't warranted, since I didn't watch the whole film. I doubt that I'll watch it again when the DVD is out, however.
QuoteMaybe this is what is meant by "Valley girl?", a popular and probably fake but cultivated persona of the 80s, designed to give the appearance of a shallow uninteresting person.
Fake, you say? There are people out there very much like that. I've met them. The main mistake was making it a gendered rather than unisex term.
Imo, a big part of Harley Quinn's appeal (at least in her Batman animated series debut) is that she comes across as a ditzy, superficial person but we the audience get to see that she has hidden depths underneath that facade.
She's like a circus performer, putting on a big act in front of the crowd and a completely different person in front of the mirror, not unlike Joaquin Phoenix's Joker - just an inner goodness instead of an inner darkness.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 13, 2020, 03:16:59 PM
Fake, you say? There are people out there very much like that. I've met them. The main mistake was making it a gendered rather than unisex term.
Imo, a big part of Harley Quinn's draw (at least in her Batman animated series debut) is that she comes across as a ditzy, superficial person but we the audience get to see that she has a hidden depths underneath that facade. She's like a circus performer, putting on a big act in front of the crowd and a completely different person in front of the mirror, not unlike Joaquin Phoenix's Joker - just an inner goodness instead of an inner darkness.
In that series yeah, and in other incarnations. They also have done some pretty messed up alternative versions of her, like the gods and monsters alternative reality take on the justice League.
Valley girl isn't a joke. Well, she is, but the phenomenon was real enough. I lived in the Basin for years and pretty much tripped over them.
I always look at valley girls to be the north american version of the British chav.
It was just tribalism. "If you don't look and act like us you're an outcast." They wound up being a parody of themselves.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 14, 2020, 06:26:10 AM
It was just tribalism. "If you don't look and act like us you're an outcast." They wound up being a parody of themselves.
Thank you. This is exactly what I meant when I first made the comment that came out something like, "valley girls aren't real." The phenoenon is very real. The girls exist, but the girls are/were just wearing masks. Someone started it, and it became a fad.
Having said that, valley girl was the closest commonly used personality description that I could come up with to describe Harley Quinn, but the similarities are hardly a match. What does stick I think is that Harley wears a mask that outwardly says, "I don't care," and comic book fans familiar with her have pointed that out. I can buy that because I've seen it in real life and assume it's purpose is to create a barrier that covers... what? vulnerability? Didn't Trump's wife actually wear a coat that said, "I don't care," in actual letters? It's just a strange and often offensive thing that people do. It's kind of a eye rolling trip to observe it in Harley, but exaggerated as it is, I couldn't take it non stop after 45 minutes. One hour and forty-nine minutes would have sent me over the edge. Even though the movie is fantasy, it's possibly too close to home for me.
Quote from: Munch on February 13, 2020, 09:14:23 PM
I always look at valley girls to be the north american version of the British chav.
Wiggers would be a more like-for-like... valley girls generally come from money, whereas the chav (as far as I am aware) are generally from low-income communities.
Valley girl would be more whatever your "posh" stereotype is.
QuoteDidn't Trump's wife actually wear a coat that said, "I don't care," in actual letters?
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/melania-jacket-dont-care-do-you.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)
She wore that to the border when people still cared about children being separated from their families and thrown in cages.
Yes, we care about unaccompanied children (aka young prostitutes) and children with fake parents (aka with their pimps). No, invite all 7.5 billion people to the US, if they will only vote Dem. And give them free benefits, that even people born here don't get. And I am pro-Hispanic. Hispanics born here don't want all the non-US Hispanics to move here, either. Guess everyone is racist now.
I think I just want to see a movie where US valley girls and British chavs fight to see who'd win.
Quote from: Munch on February 14, 2020, 03:28:05 PM
I think I just want to see a movie where US valley girls and British chavs fight to see who'd win.
Like this ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG7WxuuMvnM
I was more thinking of a blood brawl, nothings more creative then planning your opponents demise in an arena of death
Quote from: Munch on February 14, 2020, 05:43:38 PM
I was more thinking of a blood brawl, nothings more creative then planning your opponents demise in an arena of death
"Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!". Beta males understandably fear alpha males. Alpha females follow alpha males, they never mate with beta males, except to keep them as gigolos.
Quote from: Munch on February 11, 2020, 10:49:01 PM
Triggered, snowflake?
Again, nope. I already knew how it was going to end. Now tell me more about how terrible it that an actor brought awareness to the highly inhumane practices of the meat industry?
Quote from: Munch on February 12, 2020, 10:41:15 PMThe joker in the Joaquin phoenix movie isn't the same kind of joker who's been tormenting someone like Harley Quinn, because usually, the sympathy you have for anyone in the dynamic is usual Harley for being one of the jokers victims. In phoenix's joker role, the sympathy goes to him because of how his background is laid out, so the concept of Harley wouldn't fit as well with the Arthur fleck joker.
Most of the people Arthur kills are people who were mean to him. Most of them. But remember, there is one exception. The woman he had this imaginary relationship with. She literally did nothing to him, but he walks in and murders her anyway.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 15, 2020, 10:09:39 AM
Again, nope. I already knew how it was going to end. Now tell me more about how terrible it that an actor brought awareness to the highly inhumane practices of the meat industry?
Are you vegetarian? Nothing wrong if you are.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 15, 2020, 10:22:56 AM
Most of the people Arthur kills are people who were mean to him. Most of them. But remember, there is one exception. The woman he had this imaginary relationship with. She literally did nothing to him, but he walks in and murders her anyway.
[spoiler]He was already unhinged by that point, and to him saw his imaginary relationship cracking apart, so in his mind probably thought killing her was wiping the slate clean. He killed his mother, doctor, star he idolised, and his riot got his father killed, so nothing was beyond him at that point.[/spoiler]
The shape of water.
Good flick. Charming. Great movie to watch with your gf, earn you some bonus points without having to sit through a mindnumbing romcom or musical. Instead you get a worthwhile ride, with good acting, consistent atmosphere and a universally understandeable and relateable story.
I give it 8 fishsticks out of 10.
Edit: You know what? Fuck it, 9 fishsticks.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 16, 2020, 05:26:33 AM
The shape of water.
Good flick. Charming. Great movie to watch with your gf, earn you some bonus points without having to sit through a mindnumbing romcom or musical. Instead you get a worthwhile ride, with good acting, consistent atmosphere and a universally understandeable and relateable story.
I give it 8 fishsticks out of 10.
Edit: You know what? Fuck it, 9 fishsticks.
I like that. Give me a bottle of catsup and I'm good to go!
Quote from: Baruch on February 15, 2020, 02:06:46 PM
Are you vegetarian? Nothing wrong if you are.
I used to be a pescatarian, but not any more. I don't want to give up meat. I want meat that comes from animals that are raised humanely, and not treated like objects. I do buy organic, pasture raised eggs, but I don't know how much more I can do. I don't think this is something that can be fixed by the every day person. There has to be enough pressure put on the government to do something about it, and I don't think most people care enough to make anything happen.
Watched All the President's Men, the first half of The Elegant Universe, and then the Rifftrax version of Manos: Hands of Fate. My DVD rack is a strange place.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 16, 2020, 10:22:57 AM
I used to be a pescatarian, but not any more. I don't want to give up meat. I want meat that comes from animals that are raised humanely, and not treated like objects. I do buy organic, pasture raised eggs, but I don't know how much more I can do. I don't think this is something that can be fixed by the every day person. There has to be enough pressure put on the government to do something about it, and I don't think most people care enough to make anything happen.
Only other method is having your own chickens. Your taste the difference when it's your own chickens laying them
Quote from: Munch on February 16, 2020, 03:32:28 PM
Only other method is having your own chickens. Your taste the difference when it's your own chickens laying them
Try feeding your chickens M&Ms sometime.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 16, 2020, 03:58:48 PM
Try feeding your chickens M&Ms sometime.
Shouldn't give chickens chocolate, Same as dogs
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 16, 2020, 10:22:57 AM
I used to be a pescatarian, but not any more. I don't want to give up meat. I want meat that comes from animals that are raised humanely, and not treated like objects. I do buy organic, pasture raised eggs, but I don't know how much more I can do. I don't think this is something that can be fixed by the every day person. There has to be enough pressure put on the government to do something about it, and I don't think most people care enough to make anything happen.
I accept self-chosen individual action, in whatever circumstances one is, in regard to your own diet. Freedom and intelligent dietetics. It is when we want authoritarian conformism that I get political hives. But then I don't believe in the efficacy of political action anymore.
Quote from: Munch on February 16, 2020, 04:09:16 PM
Shouldn't give chickens chocolate, Same as dogs
You are going to kill them eventually.
The chickens too.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 17, 2020, 05:28:41 AM
You are going to kill them eventually.
The chickens too.
If your only keeping them as pets and for eggs, then no, your want your chickens healthy. Even if you would view them as livestock, you'd still want them healthy
Quote from: Munch on February 17, 2020, 05:32:36 AM
If your only keeping them as pets and for eggs, then no, your want your chickens healthy. Even if you would view them as livestock, you'd still want them healthy
I've had dogs who loved chocolate. The chickens who don't do well with chocolate are still useful, if you add dumplings.
Chocolate, unless specially designed for them, is toxic to dogs.
(https://wvc.com.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/chocolate_toxicity_infograph.png)
Quote from: Munch on February 16, 2020, 03:32:28 PM
Only other method is having your own chickens. Your taste the difference when it's your own chickens laying them
Oh holy Bob, this is true. I have friends in rural Ohio who get eggs from a neighbor who raises chickens and there's just no comparison between farm fresh and grocery eggs.
Quote from: trdsf on February 17, 2020, 08:39:54 PM
Oh holy Bob, this is true. I have friends in rural Ohio who get eggs from a neighbor who raises chickens and there's just no comparison between farm fresh and grocery eggs.
same with honey. all the cornsyrup supermarkers dump into honey your never get a true taste of it unless you get it from a farmers market. My aunt in london kept bees, and was the best honey I ever tasted, also really good for allergies.
Sonic the Hedgehog. Solid 8/10. Never thought I'd see the day.
The reworked VFX are a huge improvement, a lot of the jokes landed, the acting is decent to scenery-chewing (hilarious!), and the movie overall felt fun.
Seriously, Jim Carrey is at peak performance here - comparable to how he was during The Mask or as the Joker in Batman Forever. Extremely goofy and over-the-top, but it somehow really works in this movie. (This movie is going to get memed to death, mark my words)
Structurally, this movie is VERY similar to Detective Pikachu. Let me know if you've seen this before: talking animal hero teams up with human sidekick, wacky high-jinks ensue, they defeat an evil mastermind while becoming good friends. Very predictable, but it's such an entertaining predictable that it's actually not a bad way to go.
Oh, and stick around for the mid-credits scene. It's a doozy.
[spoiler]Am I the only one who is super curious about the origin and full extent of sonic's powers? Because it seems to me like he was born that way, which makes me wonder about who exactly his parents were. And given his time-stopping Quicksilver-esqe powers, he has a LOT more powers at his disposal than mere speed.
For starters, extremely rapid reaction-time (to navigate so quickly and dodge incoming attacks) and somewhat superhuman durability (to not injure himself rapid acceleration/deceleration and survive impacts at high speed). And the time-stops appear to show an innate ability to manipulate the flow of time, which is basically an Infinity Stone-tier powerset.
And just how fast is Sonic? We see him at the beginning of the movie clocking in at a mere 300mph (134m/s or a little more than 1/3 the speed of sound), but imo, that's his just his low-end cruising speed. Later on, he moves so fast that he's practically invisible to casual onlookers. And after that, he goes from Montana to the Pacific ocean in 10 seconds flat. That's roughly 145,000 m/s (about half the speed of light).
Bottom line: He is a VERY fast guy. So fast, that I'm pretty sure he could cause sonic booms at will, causing shock waves with the potential to damage anything nearby. And those electrical discharges? Amazing! That sort of power - properly harnessed - would be a gamechanger for life on earth.
And let's talk about the insane utility of these teleportation rings. Those wouldn't just change life on Earth, those would fundamentally change mankind and its place in the cosmos! We could transport goods and people instantly to anywhere on Earth and beyond. We would make first contact (and second contact, and third contact...) in rapid succession. We would have access to alien technology, lifeforms, and raw resources literally overnight. The technological and social changes accompanying such a rapid discovery and exploration of new planets and peoples...it's mind-boggling. For the first time ever, it'd be possible for a vast chunk of humanity to live amongst the stars. It would make the Age of Discovery look like a infant walking from one corner of its room to the other. It would make all other technological eras look like cavemen fumbling with wooden spears. And that discovery is left completely untapped - just chilling out in the attic reading Flash comics. Such a waste![/spoiler]
I still have a hard time thinking of Jim Carrey as robotnik, but if he gives an entertaining performance then that's all that matters
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 17, 2020, 10:35:14 PM[spoiler]Am I the only one who is super curious about the origin and full extent of sonic's powers? Because it seems to me like he was born that way, which makes me wonder about who exactly his parents were. And given his time-stopping Quicksilver-esqe powers, he has a LOT more powers at his disposal than mere speed.
For starters, extremely rapid reaction-time (to navigate so quickly and dodge incoming attacks) and somewhat superhuman durability (to not injure himself rapid acceleration/deceleration and survive impacts at high speed). And the time-stops appear to show an innate ability to manipulate the flow of time, which is basically an Infinity Stone-tier powerset.
And just how fast is Sonic? We see him at the beginning of the movie clocking in at a mere 300mph (134m/s or a little more than 1/3 the speed of sound), but imo, that's his just his low-end cruising speed. Later on, he moves so fast that he's practically invisible to casual onlookers. And after that, he goes from Montana to the Pacific ocean in 10 seconds flat. That's roughly 145,000 m/s (about half the speed of light).
Bottom line: He is a fast, fast guy. So fast, that I'm pretty sure he could cause sonic booms at will, causing shock waves with the potential to damage anything nearby. And those electrical discharges? Amazing! That sort of power...properly harnessed, would be a gamechanger for life on earth.
And that's to say nothing of the insane utility of these teleportation rings. Those wouldn't just change life on Earth, those would fundamentally change mankind and its place in the cosmos. We could transport goods and people instantly to anywhere on Earth and beyond. We would make first contact (and second contact, and third contact...) in rapid succession. We would have access to alien technology, lifeforms, and raw resources literally overnight. The technological and social changes accompanying such a rapid discovery and exploration of new planets and peoples...it's mind-boggling. For the first time ever, it'd be possible for a vast chunk of humanity to live amongst the stars. It would make the Age of Discovery look like a infant walking from one corner of its room to the other. It would make all other technological eras look like cavemen fumbling with wooden spears. And that discovery is just chilling out in the attic reading Flash comics. Such a waste![/spoiler]
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm not going to spoiler tag my response. Sonic's speed is very inconsistent in various media. It tends to be much more exaggerated outside of the video games than within them. I don't know if Chaos Emeralds are in the movie (would be a sin, if they're not), but he can use them to become Super Sonic. In that form, his speed increases even further. Additionally, Sonic later learned Chaos Control from copying Shadow, which uses a single Chaos Emerald to manipulate time and space (teleporting or stopping time completely).
The warp rings also come from the games, though this is the first time they've been used this way. In the games, jumping through a giant ring would teleport you somewhere else, usually to separate dimensions. They've never, to my knowledge, been carried around in a shrunken form. Additionally, they've previously disappeared after a single use.
Quote from: Munch on February 17, 2020, 10:41:19 PM
I still have a hard time thinking of Jim Carrey as robotnik, but if he gives an entertaining performance then that's all that matters
It somehow really works. Jim Carrey as Dr Robotnik steals the show. Granted, he's a little more maniacal and obsessive now. The SatAM cartoon had him more like Dr Claw. So don't expect Dr Claw.
He's very condescending and sociopathic.
Superficial charm? Check.
Grandiose sense of self? Big check.
Callousness/lack of empathy? Check
Lack of remorse/shame/guilt? Unapologetic check.
Need for stimulation? Check.
And you also see in him a corrupted form of scientific curiosity. He genuinely wants to understand the unknown, but he has zero qualms about the repercussions of any of it. He might even be sadistic - though it's tough to tell if he's delighting in victory or in causing harm. There doesn't appear to be much of a distinction to him.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 17, 2020, 10:56:41 PM
It somehow really works. Jim Carrey as Dr Robotnik steals the show. Granted, he's a little more maniacal and obsessive now. The SatAM cartoon had him more like Dr Claw. So don't expect Dr Claw.
He's very condescending and sociopathic.
Superficial charm? Check.
Grandiose sense of self? Big check.
Callousness/lack of empathy? Check
Lack of remorse/shame/guilt? Unapologetic check.
Need for stimulation? Check.
And you also see in him a corrupted form of scientific curiosity. He genuinely wants to understand the unknown, but he has zero qualms about the repercussions of any of it. He might even be sadistic - though it's tough to tell if he's delighting in victory or in causing harm. There doesn't appear to be much of a distinction to him.
Like Sonic's speed, Eggman's personality is very inconsistent. In the Adventure era, he was much more malicious than he is now. The Eggman of Sonic Adventure 2 held Amy at gun point. Later games treat him as more of a comedy relief character, which I fucking hate. Everyone, even his own henchmen, treat Eggman like a complete joke.
But about Jim Carrey. The character is called Eggman. Because he's shaped like an egg. Jim Carrey does not fit that description. I thought they'd try to make him look fat with special effects and makeup, or at even have him as a CGI character like Sonic. But they didn't even try.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 17, 2020, 11:27:21 PMBut about Jim Carrey. The character is called Eggman. Because he's shaped like an egg. Jim Carrey does not fit that description. I thought they'd try to make him look fat with special effects and makeup, or at even have him as a CGI character like Sonic. But they didn't even try.
Ehh...don't make me spoil stuff but let's just say you definitely might want to stick around during the credits.
In this movie, Eggman is very competent and actually gets very, very close to winning. He's not a joke or a pushover. He doesn't target innocent people, but if innocent people have to get hurt for him to win, he has absolutely not qualms about pulling the trigger.
Neutral evil, imo:
"The neutral evil is an unscrupulous, self-serving character who is only out for himself. Power, glory, wealth, position, and anything that will make his life more comfortable is his goal. It matters not who gets caught in the middle, as long as he comes out smelling like a rose. This person will lie, cheat, and kill anyone to attain his personal goals."
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 17, 2020, 11:36:18 PMEhh...don't make me spoil stuff but let's just say you definitely might want to stick around during the credits.
I know. The trailer gave it away. From what I've heard, it's exactly what it looked like in the trailer. A teaser. The giant mushrooms in the background were a dead giveaway. Although, if this is supposed to be the movie's version of Sonic 1, it's odd that they'd skip straight to Sonic 3. Can't really blame them, since Sonic 2's story was basically the same as Sonic 1's, except with Tails and Super Sonic involved.
You know far more about this stuff than me, I just played the first game and watched the Saturday morning cartoon. So I couldn't tell you what they adapted or didn't adapt.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 18, 2020, 12:33:20 AM
You know far more about this stuff than me, I just played the first game and watched the Saturday morning cartoon. So I couldn't tell you what they adapted or didn't adapt.
The stories in the original games were pretty simple. Not much to adapt into a film. Sonic 3 (& Knuckles) has the most complicated story, and it's the only one showed in the game rather than just the instruction manual.
Sonic 1: Eggman captures Sonic's friends and uses them as a power source for his robots (called Badniks). He plans to use the Chaos Emeralds for evil...stuff.
Sonic 2: Tails meets Sonic and impresses him by spinning his helicopter butt to keep up with him. After collecting the Chaos Emeralds, they use Sonic's plane, the Tornado, to hitch a ride on Eggman's rocket, following him to the Death Egg (Eggman's Death Star). Sonic wins, the Death Star blows up, and Tails flies the Tornado to find Sonic re-enter the atmosphere as Super Sonic.
Sonic 3 (& Knuckles): The Death Egg apparently landed on Angel Island, a mysterious floating island in the sky. Eggman meets the island's only living resident, Knuckles the Echidna. He tells Knuckles that Sonic is the enemy. Knuckles, having never met either one before, is tricked, and he gets a sneak attack on Super Sonic, stealing his Chaos Emeralds. Sonic collects the emeralds again, and stops Eggman from launching the Death Egg back into space. Sonic then finds Knuckles' secret rings, which teleport to the Master Emerald altar. The Chaos Emeralds float away, becoming gigantic and taking their spots around the altar, transforming into the Super Emeralds. The Super Emeralds are gray and powerless at first, but Sonic reactivates each and unlocks Hyper Sonic, a form stronger than Super Sonic. Eggman steals the Master Emerald while Sonic and Knuckles fight, and Knuckles realizes he's been tricked. Without the power of the emerald, angel island falls into the ocean, but the Death Egg floats. Sonic defeats Eggman and returns the Master Emerald to Knuckles. Angel Island returns to the sky as Knuckles watches Sonic and Tails fly away on the Tornado. Knuckles also has his own story, taking place after, where a robotic Eggman, called an Eggrobo, basically repeats everything Eggman does in Sonic's story, but it ends with a different boss.
So yeah, the story is mainly get emeralds, beat Eggman.
Either way sonic isn't exactly the easiest thing to pull off story wise, they've made some baaaad sonic games and some with plots all over the place. But it they just took the premise of sonic and made their own interpretation of it that still turns out okay then I have no complaints them changing things up just to appeal to a general audience.
Quote from: Munch on February 18, 2020, 05:45:11 AM
Either way sonic isn't exactly the easiest thing to pull off story wise, they've made some baaaad sonic games and some with plots all over the place. But it they just took the premise of sonic and made their own interpretation of it that still turns out okay then I have no complaints them changing things up just to appeal to a general audience.
Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2 both have potential for a movie adaptation. The first expands on the history of Angel Island, Knuckles' ancestors, and the significance of the Master Emerald. In ancient times, Knuckles' ancestors raided the Chao for the power of the Chaos Emeralds, despite the pleas of the chief's daughter Tikal. Enraged by the violence, Chaos, the then guardian of the Master Emerald as well as the Chao, used the power of the emeralds to decimate the invading tribe. Tikal, uses the Master Emerald to seal herself and Chaos within the Master Emerald. For centuries, the echidna tribe guarded the Master Emerald, the land around it rising into the sky, to prevent Chaos from being unleashed on the world again. Years later, Knuckles continues to guard the Master Emerald as the only survivor, but he doesn't know why. The Master Emerald shatters, thanks to Eggman, and Chaos is released. Knuckles finds Chaos and the shattered emerald and becomes enraged, thinking the monster had destroyed the thing he swore his life to protect. Angel Island falls, merging with the land it originally came from. Eggman partners with Chaos, feeding him Chaos Emeralds, increasing his power. Eventually, however, Chaos goes rogue, turning on Eggman and taking the last emerald. He destroys an entire city, called Station Square, where Sonic comes to confront him. Tikal's spirit tells Sonic to seal Chaos within the repaired Master Emerald, but Sonic refuses, knowing that would only be a temporary solution. Sonic transforms into Super Sonic and fights Perfect Chaos, but just as Chaos seems defeated, he rises again. As an immortal being, he cannot be killed. However, with enough blows to the head, Chaos becomes pacified and returns to his normal form. Tikal appears in front of him, accompanied by the spirits of the Chao he used to protect. Tikal thanks Sonic, and she, the Chao, and Chaos float into the air, disappearing in a flash of light.
There's other stuff that happens too, but those are the main points. The Adventure games were a lot more plot heavy than most Sonic games, and they were actually competently written, unlike the stories to follow.
I admit, I like aspects of later sonic games and it's characters, sonic, tails and knuckles, and later characters like amy, rouge, silver, shadow, and further plots into robotniks past and family, it's always had potential to be a good story. Hey just seem to go between making something entertaining one minute, and flopping the next.
Anyway I'm glad the sonic movie is doing alright, and glad the film makers actually listened to criticism and made changes to improve on it.
Re-watching Silver Linings Playbook 8/10
Midway was very good. I missed it at the theater, and back then a lot of people dissed it because it was just a remake. I saw the one before just a few years ago, but I thought this one was much better. The photography was spectacular.
Quote from: SGOS on February 18, 2020, 07:36:19 PM
Midway was very good. I missed it at the theater, and back then a lot of people dissed it because it was just a remake. I saw the one before just a few years ago, but I thought this one was much better. The photography was spectacular.
Just got my copy from Amazon today. Fine tooth comb out.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 18, 2020, 08:34:26 PM
Just got my copy from Amazon today. Fine tooth comb out.
Movie covers too much action in first 6 months of America in the war. But that is what happened. Requires a mini-series. Minor technical errors, but much less of a Hollywood movie, almost documentary. The old version was a Hollywood movie. Of course this is a "sea-air" level retelling. The event doesn't make much sense, unless you take the all-seeing narrator POV ... because too many moving pieces on the board. But then nobody at the time, and not for decades later, could piece that all together. The Navy bureaucratically ultimately shafted Capt Rochefort, the key cryptanalyst.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 18, 2020, 01:27:05 AMSo yeah, the story is mainly get emeralds, beat Eggman.
Once I find all of the Emeralds, then I'll find the truth.
Quote from: Baruch on February 18, 2020, 10:25:54 PM
Movie covers too much action in first 6 months of America in the war. But that is what happened. Requires a mini-series. Minor technical errors, but much less of a Hollywood movie, almost documentary. The old version was a Hollywood movie. Of course this is a "sea-air" level retelling. The event doesn't make much sense, unless you take the all-seeing narrator POV ... because too many moving pieces on the board. But then nobody at the time, and not for decades later, could piece that all together. The Navy bureaucratically ultimately shafted Capt Rochefort, the key cryptanalyst.
I started studying WWII in 1965. I worked for the Naval History and Heritage Command for twenty years. So I'm curious what you think the Navy did to Rochefort?
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 18, 2020, 10:34:44 PM
Once I find all of the Emeralds, then I'll find the truth.
Well actually it's more like your go super Saiyan
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 19, 2020, 05:23:24 AM
I started studying WWII in 1965. I worked for the Naval History and Heritage Command for twenty years. So I'm curious what you think the Navy did to Rochefort?
He deserved greater rewards ... but he didn't fit the DC model of the politically connected officer. He got his greatest awards posthumously. This has happened with many brave men and women, who have done outstanding service, because ... petty assholes in the upper echelons. Some of those people were even guilty of wearing medals they never earned. Of course, at the time, the insight regarding the Japanese plans wasn't clear ... but post facto, no excuse.
Unless of course, you think that only the top officer should be rewarded, that Nimitz and McArthur are the only heroes in the Pacific? In my own case, contractors by law don't get any special notice (I got a commander's coin, illegally from the commander himself), and I was content that my GS boss got all public credit for our work. I don't slum for honors, but polite to accept the commander's appreciation. Captain Rochefort at the time, was not slumming for honors either, I can respect that.
Fantasy Island gets 10% from RT critics. I just had to mention this because I never understood that TV series. This is touted as horror, based on the old saw of "be careful what you wish for." It's actually not a bad premise, even while it's a worn out cliche', but apparently the whole thing is flawed.
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2020, 08:32:27 AM
He deserved greater rewards ... but he didn't fit the DC model of the politically connected officer. He got his greatest awards posthumously. This has happened with many brave men and women, who have done outstanding service, because ... petty assholes in the upper echelons. Some of those people were even guilty of wearing medals they never earned. Of course, at the time, the insight regarding the Japanese plans wasn't clear ... but post facto, no excuse.
Unless of course, you think that only the top officer should be rewarded, that Nimitz and McArthur are the only heroes in the Pacific? In my own case, contractors by law don't get any special notice (I got a commander's coin, illegally from the commander himself), and I was content that my GS boss got all public credit for our work. I don't slum for honors, but polite to accept the commander's appreciation. Captain Rochefort at the time, was not slumming for honors either, I can respect that.
Didn't take you long to get the strawmen in nice neat ranks.
Quote from: SGOS on February 19, 2020, 11:05:12 AM
Fantasy Island gets 10% from RT critics. I just had to mention this because I never understood that TV series. This is touted as horror, based on the old saw of "be careful what you wish for." It's actually not a bad premise, even while it's a worn out cliche', but apparently the whole thing is flawed.
I like the idea of a tropical paradise that is a honeytrap for people who become victims of their own desires or forced to confront the consequences of their bad behavior, however I prefer psychological intrigue to horror.
Quote from: SGOS on February 19, 2020, 11:05:12 AM
Fantasy Island gets 10% from RT critics. I just had to mention this because I never understood that TV series. This is touted as horror, based on the old saw of "be careful what you wish for." It's actually not a bad premise, even while it's a worn out cliche', but apparently the whole thing is flawed.
I saw this review, and yeah... I'm baffled how this movie even got greenlit, considering their previous project. Great premise, terrible implementation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aOdkuP_A-c
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 19, 2020, 11:07:52 AM
Didn't take you long to get the strawmen in nice neat ranks.
Don't understand. Are you saying the Pentagon's shit doesn't stink?
Baruch is seldom worth the click.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 19, 2020, 02:29:48 PM
Baruch is seldom worth the click.
Be careful old vet, shaving with that titanium katana ;-) Don't be the apocryphal martial arts Marine who knocked himself out accidentally, saluting ;-)
I couldn't be a Marine, I admitted to having bathed once.
Godzilla (2014)
I don't know what I expected... But I kind of expected more.
The special effects were impressive, I guess. But ... I don't know. It didn't hook me.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 20, 2020, 06:54:14 AM
Godzilla (2014)
I don't know what I expected... But I kind of expected more.
The special effects were impressive, I guess. But ... I don't know. It didn't hook me.
It's the restart of the Daikaiju universe. Kong: Skull Island sets up the spectrum of monsters.
[spoiler]Humans fighting the Mutos in "Godzilla" leads in to the human/kaiju alliance in "Godzilla: King of Monsters". [/spoiler]
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 20, 2020, 06:54:14 AM
Godzilla (2014)
I don't know what I expected... But I kind of expected more.
The special effects were impressive, I guess. But ... I don't know. It didn't hook me.
I'm from a generation that cut it's teeth on the original stop motion Godzilla being attacked by model airplanes sliding down sometimes visible wires. Just imagine 10 year old kids coming home from the Saturday Matinee laughing about how stupid that horror movie was. I've never been able to take Godzilla or Godzilla wannabes seriously since.
But there is one 2017 movie, Colossal, that I really enjoyed involving a similar creature starring Anne Hathaway as a hopeless drunk. Try to avoid reading about it beforehand, because it was fun watching the mystery unfold. I don't know if it even made it to theaters, and it's possible I'm alone on this one, but I really enjoyed it, bought it, and watched it three times already. I may pull it out again tonight now that I'm thinking about it. It's a unique story, poignant, hopeful, funny, maybe a little creepy, but in a "WTF? kind of way" to be taken too seriously. But it's got big monsters that smash buildings with people running in all directions. lol
QuoteI'm from a generation that cut it's teeth on the original stop motion Godzilla being attacked by model airplanes sliding down sometimes visible wires.
Which movie was that?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 20, 2020, 12:32:04 PM
Which movie was that?
Probably this one. Planes briefly show up at the end of the trailer, but the only appear for a second, and Godzilla may have been a hand puppet. I may have smudged a bunch of these primitive Sci Fi films of the 1950s together in my memory, however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKrj1ymJzmo
Quote from: SGOS on February 20, 2020, 02:28:03 PM
Probably this one. Planes briefly show up at the end of the trailer, but the only appear for a second, and Godzilla may have been a hand puppet. I may have smudged a bunch of these primitive Sci Fi films of the 1950s together in my memory, however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKrj1ymJzmo
They considered using stop action for the first Gojira movie, but it was going to take too much production time, so they went with the infamous rubber suit instead. There were some wire-guided JSDAF models, I think. I'd have to dig out my copy. If you haven't seen "Gojira" (not, not,
not the 1956 US release "Godzilla: King of Monsters" shown in your trailer) you be surprised at the differences. Or horrified.
Loved that first movie with Raymond Burr as the incredulous American reporter. I was horrified that Gojira had such bad manners, Japanese style. You don't stomp buildings and burn people with radioactive halitosis! Never even said "sumimasen".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2m0tAKVFWR4
I realized, why I forgot until just today I dunno, but 2019 caused me to do something on several occasions. After the release of terminator dark fate, out of revulsion to the story it was telling, I decided to buy terminator 1 and 2 and watch them instead of spending money on dark fate.
I did the same thing with lion king, brought the original on Blu-ray instead of wasting money on its hideous remake.
And did it again with the original X-Men movies 1 and 2 instead of seeing dark phoenix.
I'm wondering if there's some unspoken phenomenon going on here, release bad remakes or sequels to popular movies, to motivate people into buying the originals.
Quote from: Munch on February 23, 2020, 03:02:43 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2m0tAKVFWR4
I realized, why I forgot until just today I dunno, but 2019 caused me to do something on several occasions. After the release of terminator dark fate, out of revulsion to the story it was telling, I decided to buy terminator 1 and 2 and watch them instead of spending money on dark fate.
I did the same thing with lion king, brought the original on Blu-ray instead of wasting money on its hideous remake.
And did it again with the original X-Men movies 1 and 2 instead of seeing dark phoenix.
I'm wondering if there's some unspoken phenomenon going on here, release bad remakes or sequels to popular movies, to motivate people into buying the originals.
That does seem to be the fad in recent years. Even the "original" movies are often soft reboots, like with The Force Awakens. I guess the powers that be realized it was safer to invest in nostalgic properties than to do something new. And they're right. People are more likely to go to the movies for something that feels familiar, so why put the effort in for something original? But even if you are going to use nostalgic property, that doesn't mean you can't still put effort into creative writing or art direction. Detective Pikachu and Sonic were praised because they didn't phone it in. They used their source material as a starting point, not a final draft, unlike these millions of Disney remakes...
Schoenberg vs Beethoven. Schoenberg is more original, but people prefer Beethoven.
I saw the Sonic movie today, and oooooh man. I'm so glad it didn't turn out to be the complete dumpster fire I was expecting ever since I heard the words "Sonic" and "live-action" in the same sentence... Spoiler free version:
Pros: While I feel like Jim Carrey's role in the movie is a bit overhyped, he was entertaining to watch. The movie makes a ton of changes to the lore of Sonic, but honestly, they were good changes. Sticking strictly to the source material would not have likely lead to anything compelling. Sonic is a platformer, not an RPG. Except for that one time he was an RPG, but we don't talk about that. Sonic was surprisingly charming. Even when he was being annoying for a laugh, they didn't go so far that he actually started to get on my nerves. He's like a slightly mischievous, very hyperactive, innocent kid. I found the physical humor pretty amusing as well.
Cons: A bit cliched at times, but not nearly to the degree that the first trailer led me to believe it would be. God, how did they make such a terrible trailer? It's like they were trying to make it look bad. In particular, the opening should have just been cut out. It added nothing, and it's the same tired opening we've seen a million times. Like, seriously. Telling you what happens in the opening doesn't even qualify as a spoiler. The main character is doing a thing, the movie pauses, and the main character breaks the forth wall before rewinding back to the actual beginning of the plot. And the only time we hear forth wall breaking narration like that is when the story catches up, so it's just really out of place.
Spoiler stuff:
[spoiler]Sonic's power seems to have replaced the Chaos Emeralds. At least for now. No mention of any emeralds in this movie, although I suspect they're being saved for the sequel. Sonic has, in addition to his usual super speed, electromagnetic powers that he definitely does not have in the games. A tribe of echidnas attack young Sonic to try to steal his power, or something. Which means that Knuckles isn't the only one of his kind in this universe. Robotnik uses Sonic's quill to give his machines Sonic's super speed. Setting the pieces in motion for a mechanical counterpart to Sonic in the sequel...perhaps? Tails shows up in the midcredits scene, which I was not expecting. I thought they were going to show Knuckles, but I'm glad they didn't write Tails out of the story. Sonic and Tails are supposed to be best friends. From how I interpret the scene, it looks like Tails has been searching for Sonic ever since he left. So I guess that means they were childhood friends who ended up separated?
Now for predictions. My brother said there were seven worlds on Sonic's chart. I didn't get a good look at it, and I can't find a picture. However, the if true, the number seven is very unlikely to be a coincidence. That is the same number of Chaos Emeralds there are in the games. I suspect the next movie may have an Infinity Stones type situation, where the emeralds were scattered across worlds to keep them from being used for evil. Then Eggman finds an emerald on Mushroom Planet, uses it to escape, and searches for the others. Sonic will race to collect the rest of the emeralds before Robotnik, but Robotnik will inevitably get his hands on all of them and unveil Metal Sonic, powered by Sonic's quill. Sonic appears to be losing the battle, but he taps into the power of the Chaos Emeralds to become Super Sonic, and he decimates Metal Sonic and Robotnik. Maybe they'll even throw in a little Fleetway Comics inspiration and make Super Sonic evil by nature. But Sonic's friends snap him out of it, and he turns back to normal.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 24, 2020, 12:56:07 AMIn particular, the opening should have just been cut out. It added nothing, and it's the same tired opening we've seen a million times. Like, seriously. Telling you what happens in the opening doesn't even qualify as a spoiler. The main character is doing a thing, the movie pauses, and the main character breaks the forth wall before rewinding back to the actual beginning of the plot. And the only time we hear forth wall breaking narration like that is when the story catches up, so it's just really out of place.
Yeah, I dislike In Medias Res, and I especially dislike it when it's completely unnecessary. They would've been just fine starting with kid Sonic and working from there.
https://youtu.be/cnNyIqh4i0I
Must say in regards to the sonic movie, it's very satisfying to see what happens when developers actually listen to people's reactions, and go back and correct their mistakes, resulting in a better, more successful product then it would have been.
It kinda stands as the example of giving the audience what they want, by making sonic actually look like sonic as people wanted, it showed everyone the movies crew cared about getting things right and not just handwaving off complaints or blaming the fans when it didn't become a success, something which has been a constant in many movies of late.
We watched Parasite last night. I understand why it won Best Picture as it was effective on several different levels. Its social commentary that makes you think rather than preaching. It is also very funny.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
We watched Parasite last night. I understand why it won Best Picture as it was effective on several different levels. Its social commentary that makes you think rather than preaching. It is also very funny.
We round eyes don't get it. The Park family there is like the Kennedy family here. Technically, anyone not in food production or other bottom feeder economy ... is parasitic on those who are. Been true since agriculture was invented. Nomads and city dwellers preyed on farmers ... in the US it was Native Americans & bankers & nature vs farmers.
"Park Chung-hee, the third President of South Korea, was assassinated on October 26, 1979, during a dinner at the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) safehouse inside the Blue House presidential compound in Gangjeong-dong, Seoul, South Korea."
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2020, 05:12:30 PM
We round eyes don't get it. The Park family there is like the Kennedy family here. Technically, anyone not in food production or other bottom feeder economy ... is parasitic on those who are. Been true since agriculture was invented. Nomads and city dwellers preyed on farmers ... in the US it was Native Americans & bankers & nature vs farmers.
"Park Chung-hee, the third President of South Korea, was assassinated on October 26, 1979, during a dinner at the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) safehouse inside the Blue House presidential compound in Gangjeong-dong, Seoul, South Korea."
President Trump didn't like the movie. Of course, he didn't watch it because it involves either speaking Korean or, you know, reading. He prefers movies like
Gone With The Wind where the classes are distinct and color-coded.
https://youtu.be/ljkmb59UNwM
"Oh, a wise guy!"
Curly Howard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yscaDkzHqek
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2020, 06:00:55 PM
President Trump didn't like the movie. Of course, he didn't watch it because it involves either speaking Korean or, you know, reading. He prefers movies like Gone With The Wind where the classes are distinct and color-coded.
https://youtu.be/ljkmb59UNwM
Says you. He probably enjoyed Gangs Of New York ... he isn't from Birmingham Alabama.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0olElkmog-w
Pretty good sum up of Harley quinn as a character, and all the different incarnations. I've liked the character, as she was in the original batman the animated series, and really I just take most interpretations of her from that, being the manipulated and abused hence woman who grows as a character into her own, which surprisingly hasn't really happened until most recent.
They don't make gun mols and dames like they used to, eh Al?
I can't remember the last movie I saw. It's all kids' stuff nowadays.
Quote from: Gregory on February 28, 2020, 01:32:49 AM
I can't remember the last movie I saw. It's all kids' stuff nowadays.
"1917" is NOT for kids.
Quote from: Gregory on February 28, 2020, 01:32:49 AM
I can't remember the last movie I saw. It's all kids' stuff nowadays.
Strange statement. Yeah there are movies for kids, but there's plenty of movies not made for kids.
Also I find is kind of annoying when adults can't bring themselves to enjoy a well made movie that both adults and children can enjoy. I've watched the Harry potter franchise with both my mum and my nephew's
The original True Grit. Meh, John Wayne was never that good of an actor.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 28, 2020, 06:16:10 AM
It is if you're a child soldier.
Yep, E African child soldiers with AK-47 not a joke.
Most soldiers are 18-24 .. little better than kids. They call it "infantry" for a reason.
Quote from: Munch on February 28, 2020, 06:25:50 AM
Strange statement. Yeah there are movies for kids, but there's plenty of movies not made for kids.
Also I find is kind of annoying when adults can't bring themselves to enjoy a well made movie that both adults and children can enjoy. I've watched the Harry potter franchise with both my mum and my nephew's
My son and I read and watched the Harry Potter series as they came out and now he's 20 and we still re-watch them occasionally when we catch them on TV. They are very enjoyable films.
Quote from: Munch on February 28, 2020, 06:25:50 AM
Strange statement. Yeah there are movies for kids, but there's plenty of movies not made for kids.
Also I find is kind of annoying when adults can't bring themselves to enjoy a well made movie that both adults and children can enjoy. I've watched the Harry potter franchise with both my mum and my nephew's
Yeah. Rated G means General Audiences (suitable for practically everyone), so it's not like there's a maximum age for Disney films or anything. No one graduates from G, you can just watch a lot of other stuff plus (or minus) G.
This mentality that G is only for kids is the equivalent of saying that apple juice is only for kids.
Watched Superman Red Son.
I never read the graphic novel so only had a rough idea of the story concept, and was told this one edited the story slightly to make it more appealing for a television audience.
[spoiler]Basically it shows what would happen if instead of landing in a farm in smallville america, what if superman landed in russia in the 1940s and onward, how he became a living symbol of the communist regime under Joseph Stalin. It shows how he was manipulated into believing the communist regime was the greatest asset to humanity and that the american capitalist regime under president Luthor was a threat to people. And then superman discovers the gulags, and sees the real horrors of Stalins outlook, ending up killing him.
The twist goes that years later, after a conflict between the ideals luthor represents and supermans communist beliefs, it goes years later of supermans ideal world and what he called a utopia, despite the fact he's using mind control technology on convicts and criminals to make them into slaves of the state.
It pretty much brings into question a lot of social and political views, the differences between communism and capitalism, how the ideals like those of karl marx can be both productive and corrupt. I dunno how different the books ending was but this one seemed to paint every concept russia has to its political and social structure as bad even when in the hands of someone as pure as superman. [/spoiler]
Munch, check inbox. Let me know if the spoiler for Red Son made it to you. I don't see my message to you in my Sent Items.
Sent you a reply x
Saw the trailer for candy man. I mean, the trailer looked okay, acting might be okay, Tony Tod makes an appearance in it. I dunno though, it really just highlights how nobody has any fresh ideas anymore, why make this even?
The money men don't want to risk their money. Unimaginative seems safer. The box office proves this.
Avengers: Infinity War
I kinda knew how it was going to end. Though I think I would have predicted it somewhat, with so many main-characters dying.
But good. Truly good. Definitely one of the top-tier marvel movies. Perhaps a bit rushed, but how could it not with like 80 main characters or something.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 07, 2020, 06:21:39 PM
Avengers: Infinity War
I kinda knew how it was going to end. Though I think I would have predicted it somewhat, with so many main-characters dying.
But good. Truly good. Definitely one of the top-tier marvel movies. Perhaps a bit rushed, but how could it not with like 80 main characters or something.
This style is called "target rich environment" like when Asgard was flattened. Very American ... just go bomb the shit out of things, worry about the death toll later.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 07, 2020, 06:21:39 PM
Avengers: Infinity War
I kinda knew how it was going to end. Though I think I would have predicted it somewhat, with so many main-characters dying.
But good. Truly good. Definitely one of the top-tier marvel movies. Perhaps a bit rushed, but how could it not with like 80 main characters or something.
Yeah. One of my favorites. I've heard a few criticisms of it, mostly related to tactics and the most completely unrealistic thing ever: a grieving character doing something unwise. Never seen that in reality, ever.
Imho, Endgame was kind of a letdown for me (though still very good) because the frantic pacing of Infinity War clashed so much with Endgame. The tone just seemed off to me.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 07, 2020, 06:21:39 PM
Avengers: Infinity War
I kinda knew how it was going to end. Though I think I would have predicted it somewhat, with so many main-characters dying.
But good. Truly good. Definitely one of the top-tier marvel movies. Perhaps a bit rushed, but how could it not with like 80 main characters or something.
I got to sit down recently and watch both movies in one five hours run. Other than "Five Years Later" it was nicely contiguous.
Trailer for Black Widow which will be at theaters in May. I don't like thinking that Marvel is nothing but action, and it's probably hard to show human insight, vulnerabilities, and humor in trailers. I hope there will be more than just Scarlett Johansson kicking ass and taking names.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybji16u608U&mi_u=ee2028267755008758eed018dfefcad0acdbfa70
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 07, 2020, 09:45:46 PM
Imho, Endgame was kind of a letdown for me (though still very good) because the frantic pacing of Infinity War clashed so much with Endgame. The tone just seemed off to me.
I actually liked that about Endgame, because the big question in the previous cliff hanger was, as usual, "How the Hell are they going to get out of this?" I spent an inordinate amount of energy and thought coming up with possible scenarios, so I enjoyed the slowed down way the solution thoughtfully evolved. I thought it was appropriate because to me that was the main reason for Endgame, and the team struggling to find a solution almost had to be what the whole movie was about. Antman coming up with the solution was a total surprise. I never saw that coming. I enjoyed the action at the end, the way Capt Marvel returned after her hiatus while taking care of business in other parts of the galaxy. I'd almost forgotten she was a part of the movie, but it made her seem like the superhero of superheroes that saved the day. I'll be waiting for the next movie. Did I hear right that Brie Larson is going to be replaced with a different Capt Marvel actor?
Quote from: aitm on February 28, 2020, 07:45:03 AM
The original True Grit. Meh, John Wayne was never that good of an actor.
I always thought that too. He sure was popular. Maybe it was that post WWII macho image he always carried around.
Quote from: SGOS on March 09, 2020, 01:45:38 PM
Trailer for Black Widow which will be at theaters in May. I don't like thinking that Marvel is nothing but action, and it's probably hard to show human insight, vulnerabilities, and humor in trailers. I hope there will be more than just Scarlett Johansson kicking ass and taking names.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybji16u608U&mi_u=ee2028267755008758eed018dfefcad0acdbfa70
Dull movies make money?
Quote from: SGOS on March 09, 2020, 02:08:29 PM
I always thought that too. He sure was popular. Maybe it was that post WWII macho image he always carried around.
Ever see him in Stagecoach (1939) ... he was hot.
Quote from: SGOS on March 09, 2020, 01:45:38 PM
Trailer for Black Widow which will be at theaters in May. I don't like thinking that Marvel is nothing but action, and it's probably hard to show human insight, vulnerabilities, and humor in trailers. I hope there will be more than just Scarlett Johansson kicking ass and taking names.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybji16u608U&mi_u=ee2028267755008758eed018dfefcad0acdbfa70
Marvel actually has a pretty good tract record of producing emotionally moving and well-written characters, so I'm not too worried about that. I think it's probably more that action sells a movie more than anything so that's what they are going to focus on on the trailers.
Been thinking strangely about the wizard of oz, and it got me thinking of all the adaptations of the stories.
The 1939 classic is just cinema gold, I've rewatched it so many times and owned it on vhs, dvd and blue ray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njdreZRjvpc
Return to oz was also a classic for me, since it came out when I was still a child, and despite critic saying it was to dark for children, I really didn't feel that way about it then or now, I felt like it just added spookier elements you expect in a fantasy story. After all Grimms fairy tales wasn't exactly sunshine and rainbows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14EEGw_sdDQ
I've not seen wicked sadly, but would really like to one day soon, on at the west end in london.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR6sJO12FOQ
Oz the great and powerful, was.. something. I honestly only remember pieces of the movie. Most of it was pretty forgettable, and it sadly fell into that category of classic stories adapted into CGI blockbuster messes, like they did with Alice in wonderland (or what their doing with all disney remakes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhLaBpvS7os
Theres been a lot of other adaptations of the story, however for me one of my favorites as a child was surprising an anime adaptions they made into an ongoing series, made by company Panmedia, where they adapted many of the books. Looking back at it now, it surprised me how close to the original source material they made the series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIXaNfk1N9A
most kids wanted to watch transformers and he-man and ninja turtles, which I did, but I was one of the only kids i know who wanted to watch an anime adaptation of the wizard of oz.
Dunno what made me think about all this, just something nice about thinking of all the ways the same classic story has been retold.
1. Return to Oz I think is closest to the feel of the original stories. A Persian girl played the lead part.
2. What? No link to The Whiz? .... 1978, Michael Jackson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGtnHaEK66s
Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2020, 10:04:58 PM
1. Return to Oz I think is closest to the feel of the original stories. A Persian girl played the lead part.
2. What? No link to The Whiz? .... 1978, Michael Jackson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGtnHaEK66s
Fairuza Balk? sure she was from California. Though yeah, people give it criticism but I think they purposely went for a darker tone because some of the oz books had that, and didn't want to skip on it.
And yeah, saw the wiz once, it was certainly an adaptation, in similar way the muppets wizard of oz was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYnVCzwH3Mc
Oh, look. Another person complaining about a movie that isn't out yet (and doesn't even have a trailer) because it has a woman in it, and no movie ever stars a woman unless it's trying to shove feminism and diversity down our throats. Just like no movie stars a black person unless it's trying to forcibly remind us that black people exist, or any media portray gay/lesbian/trans people without having the secret, sneaky mission to shove an evil SWJ message in front of everyone's eyeballs. If only we could go back to the good old days, where straight white men (usually with blue eyes) were the stars of basically every movie, TV show, comic book, etc, and we didn't have to be constantly reminded that they weren't the only people who mattered.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 16, 2020, 01:13:21 PM
Oh, look. Another person complaining about a movie that isn't out yet (and doesn't even have a trailer) because it has a woman in it, and no movie ever stars a woman unless it's trying to shove feminism and diversity down our throats. Just like no movie stars a black person unless it's trying to forcibly remind us that black people exist, or any media portray gay/lesbian/trans people without having the secret, sneaky mission to shove an evil SWJ message in front of everyone's eyeballs. If only we could go back to the good old days, where straight white men (usually with blue eyes) were the stars of basically every movie, TV show, comic book, etc, and we didn't have to be constantly reminded that they weren't the only people who mattered.
Well, I could say your assuming right off that a woman is bound to work for the role based on your own agenda. I actually looked into the comics this movies going to be based on, and yes, they were intentionally pushing an agenda with female Thor, which is what made the sales of that comic tank.
But it isn't enough that another medium like a comic book failed, apparently no one's allowed to assume a production of something that was bad Willbe just as bad when made into a film, especially when it's based on said previous medium.
And don't pander the diversity bullshit of 'oh you hate it because a woman's in it!", Fuck off. Movies like wonder woman, alien/aliens, terminator 1 & 2, dragon tattoo, some of the best movies out their with strong female leads, and yet someone can't for a second criticise a production before release before it has a woman in it? Does it have it's woke shield up?
Female Thor, and a lot of shit coming out of marvel comics today is woke, pandering garbage. Rather then writing good stories and well rounded characters, the only thing that matters to marvel writers today is appealing to the woke generation. And comic sales are still failing today due to issues like this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vbdr3TuE78A
Instead of making the broad assumption of pulling the gender/race card, maybe actually look into why these kind of things matters to fans of these mediums
Extreme right need their own island. Extreme left do too, but a different island. Then they both should leave normal people alone, in movies, TV etc.
Quote from: Munch on March 16, 2020, 05:53:23 PM
Well, I could say your assuming right off that a woman is bound to work for the role based on your own agenda. I actually looked into the comics this movies going to be based on, and yes, they were intentionally pushing an agenda with female Thor, which is what made the sales of that comic tank.
But it isn't enough that another medium like a comic book failed, apparently no one's allowed to assume a production of something that was bad Willbe just as bad when made into a film, especially when it's based on said previous medium.
I haven't read the comic book fem Thor is based on. But even if I assume you're right, and those comics are hot garbage, that does not mean the movies will be garbage. One thing I've seen you complain about is how much of Thor was changed for the movies. The MCU in general, while following the comics as a guideline, has always done things its own way, and it's worked out very well. For instance, Thanos wasn't trying to impress the literal personification of death so he could make her his girlfriend like in the comics, and...I'm glad they didn't stay too close to the comics in that case.
Quote from: Munch on March 16, 2020, 05:53:23 PMAnd don't pander the diversity bullshit of 'oh you hate it because a woman's in it!", Fuck off. Movies like wonder woman, alien/aliens, terminator 1 & 2, dragon tattoo, some of the best movies out their with strong female leads, and yet someone can't for a second criticise a production before release before it has a woman in it? Does it have it's woke shield up?
Terminator 2 starred male characters, with Sarah as a supporting character, and she was basically the damsel in distress in Terminator 1. Wonder Woman, if you recall, also had a lot of easily offended meninists whining. Hell, Captain Marvel still has them whining, and it was fine. Not the best movie in the MCU, but far from the worst, and definitely not pushing some feminist agenda.
Quote from: Munch on March 16, 2020, 05:53:23 PMFemale Thor, and a lot of shit coming out of marvel comics today is woke, pandering garbage. Rather then writing good stories and well rounded characters, the only thing that matters to marvel writers today is appealing to the woke generation. And comic sales are still failing today due to issues like this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vbdr3TuE78A
Instead of making the broad assumption of pulling the gender/race card, maybe actually look into why these kind of things matters to fans of these mediums
How about we wait and see if the movie is actually any good before we assume anything? I mean, Jesus Christ. We just had a Sonic the Hedgehog movie come out, using the same basic premise as the Smurf movie, and it wasn't the total disaster everyone (including me) was expecting it to be. If a movie starring an animated character being pulled out of his original dimension and interacting with normal humans in live action can be good, anything can be good.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 17, 2020, 01:13:19 AMFor instance, Thanos wasn't trying to impress the literal personification of death so he could make her his girlfriend like in the comics, and...I'm glad they didn't stay too close to the comics in that case.
I actually really liked Thanos' comic motivation.
His consequentialist case for mass murder has some pretty glaring logical errors (culling to halt resource exhaustion is like scooping water out of a sinking ship - it doesn't change the fact that it's sinking, it just prolongs its sinking) - too glaring for someone as seemingly intelligent as Thanos - and casts consequentialism in general in a horrible light. You'd think a philosophy where considering the ramification of one's actions is paramount would hardly be suitable for cold-blooded murder.
His comics motivation at least makes sense - his insatiable appetite for power and his all-consuming need to destroy doesn't really make sense unless he's either completely insane or a devotee of Death. And that role gives him a more antiheroic side - it allows him to work alongside our heroes to save our universe from major threats on the grounds that those threats would threaten Death as well (threats like the Cancerverse)
And while I'm at it, I disliked how the Infinity Gems were used in the movies.
These gems aren't just powerups - they're the pillars on which our universe was built.
With them, you can literally do anything you can possibly conceive. You could change reality in a fundamental way. You could create a new person - mind, body, and soul - from scratch. You could raise up a non-sentient species (or inanimate objects) to full sentience. You could warp the linear flow of time similar to a dragonbreak. You could warp space itself to create an impossibly short bridge between distant worlds. You could create galaxies from scratch. You could bring back the dead. You could show everyone their future. You could make everyone experience their entire future and past all at once. You could mold this universe's timeline to any eventuality you desire.
Using such exquisite tools for something as banal and unimaginative as murder is so disgraceful and such a waste of potential that there aren't even words that could properly describe it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 17, 2020, 03:04:02 AM
I actually really liked Thanos' comic motivation.
His consequentialist case for mass murder has some pretty glaring logical errors (culling to halt resource exhaustion is like scooping water out of a sinking ship - it doesn't change the fact that it's sinking, it just prolongs its sinking) - too glaring for someone as seemingly intelligent as Thanos - and casts consequentialism in general in a horrible light. You'd think a philosophy where considering the ramification of one's actions is paramount would hardly be suitable for cold-blooded murder.
His comics motivation at least makes sense - his insatiable appetite for power and his all-consuming need to destroy doesn't really make sense unless he's either completely insane or an devotee of Death. And that role gives him a more antiheroic side - it allows him to work alongside our heroes to save our universe for major threats on the grounds that those threats would threaten Death as well (threats like the Cancerverse)
Know about the whale ship Essex? The real Moby Dick? So men in a long boat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. They literally draw straws, for killing one of them, so he can be eaten raw. Thanos should have eaten half the universe. Cthulhu.
And just seventy years later the populations would have returned to pre-snap levels.
You all might look at me funny for this, but I just watched solo, and I liked it.
Wouldn't have wanted to pay a cinematicket for it. But I really did like it.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 22, 2020, 03:48:46 AM
You all might look at me funny for this, but I just watched solo, and I liked it.
Wouldn't have wanted to pay a cinematicket for it. But I really did like it.
I'm generally accepting of comic book movies, I don't expect a silk purse.
But I can't sit through "Solo". Just annoys me for some reason. The same thing happens with Spiderman.
I saw solo with my buddy from Sweden when he visited. I wasnt really invested that much, however I'm not a massive star wars fan so I didnt have high expectations.
The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society 10/10
Not yet available on disk for Region 1 (USA and Canada) and has not been since its release over a year ago. I had to order it from the UK, with delivery by Royal Mail, which is as fast or faster than Amazon's penalized non Prime customers. One of my players allows me to switch regions 5 times, and I used one of those up. I'm not sure why this hasn't made it to North America. It's as good as any of that genre we produce over here. I'd call it a combination of Romance and WWII Historical Fiction. I learned something about the Nazi occupation of the Island of Guernsey, which I assume actually happened. The book has always been available in the US and many people have read it, which is how I heard about it. I understand it was also on Netflix Streaming.
Watched that new Netflix show,with Marky mark...don’t remember the name of it. Ugh.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 22, 2020, 04:43:18 AM
I'm generally accepting of comic book movies, I don't expect a silk purse.
But I can't sit through "Solo". Just annoys me for some reason. The same thing happens with Spiderman.
Is that you, Goblin? ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 22, 2020, 10:28:39 AM
Is that you, Goblin? ;-)
Not the Green Goblin. The Spiderman villains were on the low end of the comic book spectrum.
A review to a movie I haven't seen, but it makes sense from what I know.
Quote from: Munch on March 22, 2020, 07:46:05 AM
I saw solo with my buddy from Sweden when he visited. I wasnt really invested that much, however I'm not a massive star wars fan so I didnt have high expectations.
I didn't have high expectations either, hearing the movie get thrashed rather than praised.
Perhaps that helped me get a better impression. It's not a stellar movie by any account. But it's not bad.
I actually think that if this movie hadn't been part of star wars, it might be received better. You know, if the characters had different names. If chewie wasn't a wookie, if there wasn't a flash of a former sith in there, and if the millenium falcon had been any other ship, ... Or just simply if Star Wars didn't exist prior, I think people might've gone 'hmm, okay cool'. Not something groundbreaking or whatever... But I don't see where the fault lies with the movie itself as a story on its own.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 23, 2020, 03:31:53 AM
I didn't have high expectations either, hearing the movie get thrashed rather than praised.
Perhaps that helped me get a better impression. It's not a stellar movie by any account. But it's not bad.
I actually think that if this movie hadn't been part of star wars, it might be received better. You know, if the characters had different names. If chewie wasn't a wookie, if there wasn't a flash of a former sith in there, and if the millenium falcon had been any other ship, ... Or just simply if Star Wars didn't exist prior, I think people might've gone 'hmm, okay cool'. Not something groundbreaking or whatever... But I don't see where the fault lies with the movie itself as a story on its own.
Typecasting. Hence the book by Leonard Nimoy .. "I Am Not Spock".
Quote from: Baruch on March 23, 2020, 07:36:35 AM
Typecasting. Hence the book by Leonard Nimoy .. "I Am Not Spock".
And he never did anything else of note. He
was Spock, permanently.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 23, 2020, 07:40:06 AM
And he never did anything else of note. He was Spock, permanently.
Ahem. Civilization IV voice-overs. The voice of Galvatron in the Transformers movie. William Bell in Fringe.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 23, 2020, 07:40:06 AM
And he never did anything else of note. He was Spock, permanently.
He was a Jewish patriarch outside of acting life. Be nice, or I will post Nimoy singing "Bilbo Baggins" ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 23, 2020, 08:14:28 AM
Ahem. Civilization IV voice-overs. The voice of Galvatron in the Transformers movie. William Bell in Fringe.
Exactly.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 22, 2020, 03:48:46 AM
You all might look at me funny for this, but I just watched solo, and I liked it.
Wouldn't have wanted to pay a cinematicket for it. But I really did like it.
I found it extremely forgettable. That's all I can think to say about it. Just...bleh.
Rewatching the entire Marvel Saga in in-universe chronological order, just finished the first Iron Man... fuck, I forgot just how good this film was but more importantly I forgot just how much character growth Tony Stark went through over the 10-11 years of films.
Anyone who thinks these aren't "real cinema" or that they are just "comic movies" is, frankly, incapable of judging films and can be ignored (looking at your, Scorsese... you might be able to direct a film but that apparently doesn't mean you know how to enjoy them).
Tony hit bottom in "Civil War".
Quote from: Shiranu on March 30, 2020, 04:41:00 PM
Rewatching the entire Marvel Saga in in-universe chronological order, just finished the first Iron Man...
Chronological order as in: The order in which the movies were released OR in order of the time periods they represent?
I've seen them listed both ways. If you watched Iron Man first, it's the order in which the movies were released, I think. I've been thinking about going through them again, and I've wondered which way would be best. I missed the Hulk, which may have been released before Iron man. I went and bought a used copy, just to complete that part of the universe. Not sure if Hulk came before or after Iron man. I may have just skipped it, because I remembered a couple of previous Hulk moves that left me flat.
QuoteChronological order as in: The order in which the movies were released OR in order of the time periods they represent?
In-universe chronology, so starting with Cap., then Cap. Marvel, then Iron Man, etc. .
I really wanted to watch the T.V. series inbetween, but that's just too much of a commitment lol. And yeah, the Hulk movie is suppose to be... bleh... as well as a different actor playing Banner.
Quote from: SGOS on March 30, 2020, 07:49:03 PM
Chronological order as in: The order in which the movies were released OR in order of the time periods they represent?
I've seen them listed both ways. If you watched Iron Man first, it's the order in which the movies were released, I think. I've been thinking about going through them again, and I've wondered which way would be best. I missed the Hulk, which may have been released before Iron man. I went and bought a used copy, just to complete that part of the universe. Not sure if Hulk came before or after Iron man. I may have just skipped it, because I remembered a couple of previous Hulk moves that left me flat.
The Bana Hulk movie came out in 2003. Ironman in 2008.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 31, 2020, 03:46:06 AM
In-universe chronology, so starting with Cap., then Cap. Marvel, then Iron Man, etc. .
I really wanted to watch the T.V. series inbetween, but that's just too much of a commitment lol. And yeah, the Hulk movie is suppose to be... bleh... as well as a different actor playing Banner.
"Spiderman" came out in 2002.
For some odd personal reason, I always consider the Cinematic Universe series starting with Iron Man. Marvel put out some good stuff before that, things I didn't even realize were Marvel, but Iron man struck a new cord inside me, and that's when I started paying attention.
Quote from: SGOS on March 31, 2020, 08:54:08 AM
For some odd personal reason, I always consider the Cinematic Universe series starting with Iron Man. Marvel put out some good stuff before that, things I didn't even realize were Marvel, but Iron man struck a new cord inside me, and that's when I started paying attention.
The previous movies were rather lame. RDJ rang all the bells. He WAS the billionaire genius philanthropist playboy. (Black Widow concurs.)
Quote from: SGOS on March 31, 2020, 08:54:08 AM
For some odd personal reason, I always consider the Cinematic Universe series starting with Iron Man. Marvel put out some good stuff before that, things I didn't even realize were Marvel, but Iron man struck a new cord inside me, and that's when I started paying attention.
Pre-Iron Man, comic book movies were almost exclusively absolute flops. You had a few exceptions (MacQuire's Spiderman, Nolan's Batman Begins, the X-Men movies, Blade), but the overwhelming majority were just... bad movies, forgetfully bad movies.
I never noticed Blade was a Marvel.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 01, 2020, 05:58:43 AM
I never noticed Blade was a Marvel.
In all honesty, I didn't either until fairly recently... and I really struggle to call his films "comic book movies", because even though they are based on a comic book character, the films are much more traditional action movie than what we would call a comic book movie today.
If the overwhelming majority of people never knew he was a comic book character, which seems to be the case from everyone I have talked to, I don't think it really counts.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 01, 2020, 06:05:31 AM
In all honesty, I didn't either until fairly recently... and I really struggle to call his films "comic book movies", because even though they are based on a comic book character, the films are much more traditional action movie than what we would call a comic book movie today.
If the overwhelming majority of people never knew he was a comic book character, which seems to be the case from everyone I have talked to, I don't think it really counts.
If you have to disavow the origin then you have acknowledged the problem.
Elektra is an old Marvel film that I had in my collection for years. I recently dug it out, and was surprised. It's a good story with a fun plot, but something about the ending has an anticlimactic feel that takes away from the overall film. For some reason, I think if it were released today, it would have received more attention.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 01, 2020, 01:08:05 AM
Pre-Iron Man, comic book movies were almost exclusively absolute flops. You had a few exceptions (MacQuire's Spiderman, Nolan's Batman Begins, the X-Men movies, Blade), but the overwhelming majority were just... bad movies, forgetfully bad movies.
It could be argued that studios didn't often invest very much money or creativity into them, thus ensuring their failure - and then blaming the victim for their own inability to produce comic book movies competently.
That and CGI has really improved over the years.
*edited to add - let's say that Marvel movies had never taken off and it was just DC in the mix and those movies were just as hit and miss and miss as they are today. People would say that superhero movies are box office kryptonite, and no one should even think of adapting a character who isn't Superman or Batman. Those people would be dead wrong, but it would sound a lot like the truth.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 01, 2020, 08:01:55 AM
It could be argued that studios didn't often invest very much money or creativity into them, thus ensuring their failure - and then blaming the victim for their own inability to produce comic book movies competently.
That and CGI has really improved over the years.
*edited to add - let's say that Marvel movies had never taken off and it was just DC in the mix and those movies were just as hit and miss and miss as they are today. People would say that superhero movies are box office kryptonite, and no one should even think of adapting a character who isn't Superman or Batman. Those people would be dead wrong, but it would sound a lot like the truth.
DC comics problem is they never really expanded their other franchises out that greatly from their most popular ones. Batman and superman and the main members of the justice League are their most popular (wonder woman, green lantern, Aquaman, flash, green arrow). But outside of these main characters despite having a large consortium of characters they really only put their best eggs in one basket.
Marvels different since it has more of a variety of popular franchises, avengers, Spiderman, X-Men, fantastic 4, that have their own established lore and can function as their own entity or work when put together. X-Men was marvels most popular film franchise series for years before the avengers line up became popular, and Spiderman already had his own popular film trilogy.
DC could expand out with a lot more independent franchises given what they have, they just seem to only focus on the most popular ones.
Quote from: SGOS on April 01, 2020, 07:47:17 AM
Elektra is an old Marvel film that I had in my collection for years. I recently dug it out, and was surprised. It's a good story with a fun plot, but something about the ending has an anticlimactic feel that takes away from the overall film. For some reason, I think if it were released today, it would have received more attention.
Elektra was a spinoff of Daredevil. I did see Daredevil and liked it.
Quote from: Baruch on April 01, 2020, 01:05:21 PM
Elektra was a spinoff of Daredevil. I did see Daredevil and liked it.
I liked michael clark duncan (rest in peace) as kingpin. He had the perfect build for the role and a good actor for it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 01, 2020, 06:50:34 AM
If you have to disavow the origin then you have acknowledged the problem.
Huh?
"Tropic Thunder" is a Vietnam film but filmed as a comedy. That doesn't mean there is a problem with "Apocalypse Now" or the classical war films, it just means that two directors can see two source materials and direct them in two different ways.
"Blade" is a comic book film but filmed like a 90's action flick. That doesn't mean there is a problem with "Iron Man" or what has become traditional comic book movies, it just means that two directors can see two source materials and direct them in two different ways.
Even within the modern comic book movie style, you have styles as varied as Iron Man, which leans more towards traditional action and humour, Guardians of the Galaxy which is more towards silly humour, Winter Soldier which incorporates spy-thriller elements, Black Panther with it's socio-political message, Joker being more like blade in that it's almost entirely devoid of comic book elements while still being based on an iconic comic book character, etc.
There might have been a problem with comic book movies in the 90s, but that's because directors didn't know how to make a good comic book movie. But that's like saying cars today have problems because back in the 30s they had like 5 horse power and could drive 2 miles before breaking down.
And we wind back to the beginning. Oh well.
Quote from: SGOS on April 01, 2020, 07:47:17 AM
Elektra is an old Marvel film that I had in my collection for years. I recently dug it out, and was surprised. It's a good story with a fun plot, but something about the ending has an anticlimactic feel that takes away from the overall film. For some reason, I think if it were released today, it would have received more attention.
Oh yeah, forgot about Elektra. Daredevil as well isn't horrible.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 01, 2020, 08:26:31 PM
Oh yeah, forgot about Elektra. Daredevil as well isn't horrible.
Daredevil was the best handicapped hero since Ironsides (starring Raymond Burr). And Monk (starring Tony Shalhoub) ... is you count his autism as a handicap.
Quote from: Baruch on April 02, 2020, 10:43:18 AM
Daredevil was the best handicapped hero since Ironsides (starring Raymond Burr). And Monk (starring Tony Shalhoub) ... is you count his autism as a handicap.
Monk had way more than just autism. He had nearly every phobia known to man. He was even scared of milk. lol. But he was mainly known for his obsessive compulsive disorder, which helped him notice anything out of place or unusual.
https://www.cnet.com/news/the-us-box-office-made-just-5k-over-the-last-week-in-march/
QuoteThe US box office made just $5K in the last week of March
The same time last year, it made over $200 million.
The outlook is grim for the movie industry at the moment, with cinema closures and postponed movie releases causing seismic shifts in the movie calendar. Now we know the box office impact of those measures to help stem the spread of the coronavirus.
From March 20 to 26, the US box office made just $5K, according to Box Office Mojo (via Reddit user u/TheDankestMofo). The same time last year, that number was over $200 million.
The low figures make sense. By March 19, virtually all cinemas had shuttered in North America.
In the first quarter of 2020, the US box office suffered a 25% decline in revenue compared to last year, according to The Hollywood Reporter -- a drop of $600 million.
James Bond, Mission Impossible 7 and Wonder Woman are among the movies whose releases or productions have been delayed due to the coronavirus. The setbacks have also seen many theaters struggle to stay afloat.
Scary stuff. Well surviving this thing is more important, its now thinking about whats going to be there on the other end of it.
Quote from: Baruch on April 02, 2020, 10:43:18 AM
Daredevil was the best handicapped hero since Ironsides (starring Raymond Burr). And Monk (starring Tony Shalhoub) ... is you count his autism as a handicap.
Damn, I forgot about Monk. Haven't seen that in I think actual decades.
Quote from: Munch on April 04, 2020, 10:54:09 PM
https://www.cnet.com/news/the-us-box-office-made-just-5k-over-the-last-week-in-march/
Scary stuff. Well surviving this thing is more important, its now thinking about whats going to be there on the other end of it.
All your shekels belong to us - Rothschilds?
Just watched The Highway Men with Costner and Harrelson, supposedly true story of the take down of Bonnie and Clyde. I liked it. A bit slow for most of you, but solid entertainment. Harrelson shows some acting chops. I give it a good 8.
Quote from: aitm on April 06, 2020, 09:08:16 PM
Just watched The Highway Men with Costner and Harrelson, supposedly true story of the take down of Bonnie and Clyde. I liked it. A bit slow for most of you, but solid entertainment. Harrelson shows some acting chops. I give it a good 8.
Q: Were the "good guys" using BARs?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 07, 2020, 04:10:39 AM
Q: Were the "good guys" using BARs?
I don't know. I don't know what that is
Quote from: Munch on April 04, 2020, 10:54:09 PM
https://www.cnet.com/news/the-us-box-office-made-just-5k-over-the-last-week-in-march/
Scary stuff (economic fallout). Well surviving this thing is more important, its now thinking about whats going to be there on the other end of it.
I understand the impact on the economy. It's a huge hit. I also understand the health risks and impact on over crowded facilities. We have been asked by a few right wing leaders to take one on the chin and disregard our health, lives, and safety for the sake of the economy. OK, but we can also legitimately ask that the economy take one on the chin for the public's health and safety.
Yeah, but it's the economy...
Yeah, but people's lives are at stake...
These are important issues, and most of it will eventually be decided in corporate boardrooms. I doubt that we will ever see a public referendum on the issue at the polls.
Quote from: aitm on April 06, 2020, 09:08:16 PM
Just watched The Highway Men with Costner and Harrelson, supposedly true story of the take down of Bonnie and Clyde. I liked it. A bit slow for most of you, but solid entertainment. Harrelson shows some acting chops. I give it a good 8.
The original Bonnie and Clyde (Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway) was excellent also. I don't know about historical accuracy, but it was engaging.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 07, 2020, 04:10:39 AM
Q: Were the "good guys" using BARs?
Browning Automatic Rifles, the model of gun Clyde was notorious for stealing from the National Guard because of it's larger caliber than the more popular Thompson.
(https://www.gunsandammo.com/files/2016/08/Clyde.02.jpg)
Though I thought they only had the one, with Bonnie preferring a shotgun.
(Had a period where outlaws like them really interested me; lived near where Pat Garrett was killed and buried, so one thing led to another)
Quote from: SGOS on April 07, 2020, 05:11:38 AM
I understand the impact on the economy. It's a huge hit. I also understand the health risks and impact on over crowded facilities. We have been asked by a few right wing leaders to take one on the chin and disregard our health, lives, and safety for the sake of the economy. OK, but we can also legitimately ask that the economy take one on the chin for the public's health and safety.
Yeah, but it's the economy...
Yeah, but people's lives are at stake...
These are important issues, and most of it will eventually be decided in corporate boardrooms. I doubt that we will ever see a public referendum on the issue at the polls.
There is a war on (all the time). Individuals are expendable.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 07, 2020, 04:10:39 AM
Q: Were the "good guys" using BARs?
At least one semi-automatic rifle ...
https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/lot-1170-historic-remington-model-8-rifle-used-to-kill-bonnie-and-clyde-57943/
I would have used a Thompson! The criminals had an arsenal that day, two shotguns, three BAR and ten handguns. Clyde may have been killed by the first shot (head shot) and Bonnie was wounded, possibly by the first shot. The lawmen used semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and hand guns. It was a bit like the time the LAPD shot up that house that the Symbionese Liberation Army was holed up in (and mocked in a Clint Eastwood movie).
Quote from: aitm on April 07, 2020, 05:09:46 AM
I don't know. I don't know what that is
Well, when looking for an image of a BAR I kind of answered my own question.
(https://i.imgur.com/9itESed.jpg)
Source: https://www.range365.com/guns-highwaymen/
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2020, 06:34:50 AM
At least one semi-automatic rifle ...
https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/lot-1170-historic-remington-model-8-rifle-used-to-kill-bonnie-and-clyde-57943/
I would have used a Thompson! The criminals had an arsenal that day, two shotguns, three BAR and ten handguns. Clyde may have been killed by the first shot (head shot) and Bonnie was wounded, possibly by the first shot. The lawmen used semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and hand guns. It was a bit like the time the LAPD shot up that house that the Symbionese Liberation Army was holed up in (and mocked in a Clint Eastwood movie).
The BAR had the range on the Thompson.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 07, 2020, 08:12:09 AM
The BAR had the range on the Thompson.
Not as cool - as Churchill would have claimed ;-) Hollywood gangsters always used Thompsons. The lawmen ambush on Bonnie and Clyde was close enough I bet (they have cover).
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2020, 02:28:06 PM
Not as cool - as Churchill would have claimed ;-) Hollywood gangsters always used Thompsons. The lawmen ambush on Bonnie and Clyde was close enough I bet (they have cover).
I had to break any number of FNGs from "spray and pray".
And the fact that that particular shoot-out happened at close range doesn't say anything about the relative ranges of the Thompson and BAR.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 07, 2020, 05:37:15 PM
I had to break any number of FNGs from "spray and pray".
And the fact that that particular shoot-out happened at close range doesn't say anything about the relative ranges of the Thompson and BAR.
So you recommend that ultra long range 50 cal single shot the military snipers user? Why not just a missile?
Supposedly it had to do with the BARs larger caliber .30-06 cartridges being more effective at piercing the steel doors of cars back in the day than the Thompson's .45 ACP. I don't know how the penetration potential of the two compare when shot at an old-school steel door, but one is a proper rifle round vs a pistol-sized round so it's certainly possible the Thompson would have had a less consistent time making it through the exterior.
My guess is also... he had a BAR and he didn't have a Tommy, and the BAR was free so why switch?
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2020, 05:51:32 PM
So you recommend that ultra long range 50 cal single shot the military snipers user? Why not just a missile?
Missiles are used routinely, and they kill loads of people. One shot-one kill is cleaner. It also scares the shit out of people. The classic .50 round is supersonic.
Splat
Bang
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 07, 2020, 09:03:17 PM
Missiles are used routinely, and they kill loads of people. One shot-one kill is cleaner. It also scares the shit out of people. The classic .50 round is supersonic.
Splat
Bang
You just spend too much time down at the BAR ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2020, 11:57:10 PM
You just spend too much time down at the BAR ;-)
I was fourteen the first time I fired a .50 cal. on full auto. I had cleaned horse stalls all summer for the privilege.
Just watched “the good the bad and the ugly, 50 odd years later from.the first time I saw it. God was that some awful movie. LOL. Used to think it was great as a kid. Jesus, was that bad.
I rewatched Resident Evil for fairly straightforward reasons.
It hasn't aged super well - the acting is kinda uneven and there are some bizarre pacing issues, but for the most part, it's fine. It's kinda schlocky and over-the-top, but that's the point. I still maintain that this series has an excellent aesthetic and I still love those CGI map sequences even now that I notice just how low-poly that sequence was.
That opening sequence of the poor office workers getting screwed over really hit me a lot harder than it used to because now that kinda thing is way more believable and I could see myself in that role a lot more easily. I particularly felt bad for the resident codemaster cause holy moley, he must've had ptsd and survivor's guilt out the wazoo during that whole operation.
Milla Jovovich acted her ass off, and Michelle Rodriguez was pretty good, too.
Quote from: aitm on April 09, 2020, 10:34:36 PM
Just watched “the good the bad and the ugly, 50 odd years later from.the first time I saw it. God was that some awful movie. LOL. Used to think it was great as a kid. Jesus, was that bad.
I am still a kid. Saw it at a small theater in Kansas. I still enjoy it. Serve up as much spaghetti as you can dish out!
Milla Jovovich? Like her as St Joan.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 09, 2020, 11:40:20 PM
I rewatched Resident Evil for fairly straightforward reasons.
It hasn't aged super well - the acting is kinda uneven and there are some bizarre pacing issues, but for the most part, it's fine. It's kinda schlocky and over-the-top, but that's the point. I still maintain that this series has an excellent aesthetic and I still love those CGI map sequences even now that I notice just how low-poly that sequence was.
That opening sequence of the poor office workers getting screwed over really hit me a lot harder than it used to because now that kinda thing is way more believable and I could see myself in that role a lot more easily. I particularly felt bad for the resident codemaster cause holy moley, he must've had ptsd and survivor's guilt out the wazoo during that whole operation.
Milla Jovovich acted her ass off, and Michelle Rodriguez was pretty good, too.
Actually going back and rewatching that now as I play RE2.
Honestly, it seems to have aged in the same way the game has; poorly, but in a charming way.
I don't see the charm in movies that are made of constant murder.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 10, 2020, 05:36:37 AM
I don't see the charm in movies that are made of constant murder.
They're zombies, it's different.
Edit: Well, actually the first... 500 some and 5 people are human... but otherwise they're zombies, it's different.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 10, 2020, 05:46:14 AM
They're zombies, it's different.
Edit: Well, actually the first... 500 some and 5 people are human... but otherwise they're zombies, it's different.
And the guy that dumped the virus murdered them. Then for the rest of the series of movies people are being murdered by people who have been murdered.
THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 10, 2020, 06:52:21 AM
And the guy that dumped the virus murdered them. Then for the rest of the series of movies people are being murdered by people who have been murdered.
THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!!
Exactly!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 10, 2020, 05:36:37 AM
I don't see the charm in movies that are made of constant murder.
https://youtu.be/Ah-QbFaY_wU
Edit - also:
https://youtu.be/5WJSK2jbuVI
I've murdered a shit load of people. If I have noticed that I found it entertaining I would have notified my CO immediately.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 10, 2020, 07:59:00 AM
I've murdered a shit load of people. If I have noticed that I found it entertaining I would have notified my CO immediately.
In the movie version of Lawrence of Arabia, Lawrence discovers he enjoys killing people. This is devastating to his middle class English delusions.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 10, 2020, 07:59:00 AM
I've murdered a shit load of people. If I have noticed that I found it entertaining I would have notified my CO immediately.
I guess it's a good thing no one is actually murdering anyone on screen then.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 10, 2020, 03:29:47 PM
I guess it's a good thing no one is actually murdering anyone on screen then.
You biased against snuff flicks?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 10, 2020, 03:48:31 PM
You biased against snuff flicks?
I'm biased against people actually being harmed or murdered.
If you don't see the difference between people being legitimately murdered and people playing with props, I don't really know what to say other than... that's weird?
Quote from: Shiranu on April 10, 2020, 03:58:48 PM
I'm biased against people actually being harmed or murdered.
If you don't see the difference between people being legitimately murdered and people playing with props, I don't really know what to say other than... that's weird?
I saw enough people killed to not be "entertained" by watching people get killed. That's not weird, that's rational.
We can't all have PTSD.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 10, 2020, 05:15:19 PM
I saw enough people killed to not be "entertained" by watching people get killed. That's not weird, that's rational.
And that's perfectly fine.
I have a harder time watching and am bothered by films that involve sexual violence and suicide than most people I know. But I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with films that depict those types of acts or that there is something wrong with people who enjoy those films. They just aren't for me, so I don't watch them.
Just because I feel uncomfortable about something doesn't invalidate it's position as art of entertainment or make people wrong for finding entertainment in it.
Ummm, okay then.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 10, 2020, 06:24:51 PM
Ummm, okay then.
The point is that just because I don't like a style of entertainment, I don't see the need to try and discredit it as entertainment... no matter how good or valid my reasons for disliking it are.
If you're trying to scold me I have bad news for you.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 10, 2020, 06:37:22 PM
The point is that just because I don't like a style of entertainment, I don't see the need to try and discredit it as entertainment... no matter how good or valid my reasons for disliking it are.
In a free society that is true. But snuff films are illegal for a reason. I have seen enough unedited historical footage (even public executions in Imperial China) that qualify as snuff films. Most women don't like combat movies. Many men do. Most women might like non-porn romance movies. Most men don't.
(https://media.comicbook.com/2020/04/dune-movie-2020-04-1215365.jpeg?auto=webp&width=900&height=1259&crop=900:1259,smart)
New Dune photos (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/04/behold-dune-an-exclusive-look-at-timothee-chalamet-zendaya-oscar-isaac)
I am so stoked for this movie, you guys have no idea. I desperately want this to be a smash hit. A lot of people aren't familiar with Dune and that's a shame because it's hugely influential - which you can see most obviously in Star Wars. It absolutely deserves to be in the public consciousness again.
I love Dune. I read the book--am re-reading it right now. Bought the Avalon Hill game of Dune. I liked it, but it was hard at that time for me to get people together to play games. Saw the movie and it was just okay. This new one looks more promising.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 14, 2020, 09:47:56 PM
I love Dune. I read the book--am re-reading it right now. Bought the Avalon Hill game of Dune. I liked it, but it was hard at that time for me to get people together to play games. Saw the movie and it was just okay. This new one looks more promising.
You saw the 1980s one, or the 2000s TV mini-series. I saw both (the first part of the TV miniseries). Liked both. The later books (and the later parts of the TV miniseries) are too ... out there for me.
The miniseries tried to be cool. Didn't cool. Just ... clumsy-pretty?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 15, 2020, 04:36:18 AM
The miniseries tried to be cool. Didn't cool. Just ... clumsy-pretty?
May thy knife chip and shatter.
(The miniseries was pretty damn good for a TV show - engaging and moving. Decently acted, especially the Baron and Alia, good setwork, great music, etc. They kinda overdid the spice eyes and the uniforms were a bit too...peacockish. All in all, I'd say it was solid, though nowhere near as infuencial as a movie would be.)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 15, 2020, 04:36:18 AM
The miniseries tried to be cool. Didn't cool. Just ... clumsy-pretty?
Definitely better cinematography than the old movie ... CGI.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 15, 2020, 10:49:18 AM
May thy knife chip and shatter.
(The miniseries was pretty damn good for a TV show - engaging and moving. Decently acted, especially the Baron and Alia, good setwork, great music, etc. They kinda overdid the spice eyes and the uniforms were a bit too...peacockish. All in all, I'd say it was solid, though nowhere near as infuencial as a movie would be.)
The whole costumery was ... weird.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 15, 2020, 06:19:10 PM
The whole costumery was ... weird.
Maybe used that same superhero couturier as the Incredibles?
Quote from: Baruch on April 15, 2020, 08:46:58 PM
Maybe used that same superhero couturier as the Incredibles?
Edna Mode would never touch that job, Darling!
I'm rewatching the Resident Evil movies and there's one part in Resident Evil Extinction that hit a little too close to home: the Umbrella Corp brass are having a teleconference and they bitterly complain about having to stay underground for weeks because of rampant infection on the surface.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQuQl2cNPKngNG6L9JE7P0G3m7cuHVdrsclkuipe36RHtQ26Q_X&usqp=CAU)
Me too, guys. Me too.
Evil is only resident, if you are hosting a CCP member in your home.
"Covid-19 vaccine? We're all over this."
(https://i.imgur.com/8jDEoZv.jpg)
What is Umbrella Corp's goal, anyway?
1. Create deadly virus.
2. Infect entire globe with the virus.
3. Everybody dies.
4. ???
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 17, 2020, 01:08:18 PM
What is Umbrella Corp's goal, anyway?
1. Create deadly virus.
2. Infect entire globe with the virus.
3. Everybody dies.
4. ???
Easy. Take out life insurance on everyone. Make AI the beneficiary. AI becomes incredibly wealthy in Bitcoin.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 17, 2020, 01:08:18 PM
What is Umbrella Corp's goal, anyway?
1. Create deadly virus.
2. Infect entire globe with the virus.
3. Everybody dies.
4. ???
Weaponize the flu.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 17, 2020, 01:08:18 PM
What is Umbrella Corp's goal, anyway?
1. Create deadly virus.
2. Infect entire globe with the virus.
3. Everybody dies.
4. ???
Who knows. Why do we develop and test biological weapons in the real world, knowing if they are used or even spread outside of the lab they can completely destroy humanity?
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 17, 2020, 01:08:18 PM
What is Umbrella Corp's goal, anyway?
1. Create deadly virus.
2. Infect entire globe with the virus.
3. Everybody dies.
4. ???
See, at least Alexia Ashfords plan made sense in wanting to become a god with fire powers, she was insane but her goals were just for herself
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 17, 2020, 01:08:18 PM
What is Umbrella Corp's goal, anyway?
1. Create deadly virus.
2. Infect entire globe with the virus.
3. Everybody dies.
4. ???
Make money? But they were already making it hand-over-fist anyway, so it strikes me that they might've had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - a status quo where they're wealthy and powerful. In fact, a lot of Umbrella's brass and rank-and-file seem to share a desire to contain infection and return to a pre-infection world.
But others are really into eugenics. I'm not sure if it was planned or they just took advantage of the incident, but they want to use the incident to reform the world - one in which genetically-altered post-humans dominate and Umbrella is no longer a corporation, but a ruling class (as far fetched as a corporation ruling over others sounds)
Quote from: Shiranu on April 17, 2020, 02:43:39 PM
Who knows. Why do we develop and test biological weapons in the real world, knowing if they are used or even spread outside of the lab they can completely destroy humanity?
That's a good point. It's amazing what people will do irl, and not necessarily out of an evil intent. Hell, there was a story a few years back of misplaced smallpox samples stored in cardboard boxes (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28221185) (not ideal containment) and a previous story of other smallpox samples stored in some freezer. It wouldn't take much to have an irl Raccoon City incident, as I'm sure we're all acutely aware.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 17, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Make money? But they were already making it hand-over-fist anyway, so it strikes me that they might've had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - a status quo where they're wealthy and powerful. In fact, a lot of Umbrella's brass and rank-and-file seem to share a desire to contain infection and return to a pre-infection world.
But others are really into eugenics. I'm not sure if it was planned or they just took advantage of the incident, but they want to use the incident to reform the world - one in which genetically-altered post-humans dominate and Umbrella is no longer a corporation, but a ruling class (as far fetched as a corporation ruling over others sounds)
Rothschild family business cough ... cough
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 17, 2020, 05:27:58 PM
That's a good point. It's amazing what people will do irl, and not necessarily out of an evil intent. Hell, there was a story a few years back of misplaced smallpox samples stored in cardboard boxes (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28221185) (not ideal containment) and a previous story of other smallpox samples stored in some freezer. It wouldn't take much to have an irl Raccoon City incident, as I'm sure we're all acutely aware.
Or Chinese scientists taking virus samples back and forth over the US border without declaring them?
Today I rewatched Resident Evil Afterlife. This is the point where the series really jumped the shark and put spectacle over substance. Paper-thin story, characters that I honestly would struggle to describe if my life depended on it, and just really schlocky, dumb action scenes.
But if you turn your brain off and just want some amusement, it's a surprisingly good bad movie. This movie runs off the rule of cool, and that's okay sometimes. I found the sheer illogical nature of some scenes amusing rather than irritating.
My favorite part was the gang needing to get to a weapons locker two stories underwater. The solution? Pump the water out, right? Nah, jump right in! Besides drowning and being eaten (not necessarily in that order), what's the worst that can happen?! Spoiler: someone dies.
That movie has a killer soundtrack, though. It's like if you took a K-Mart version of Frank Klepacki, kept him in captivity and fed him only cornflakes and meth, this is what he'd come up with. The rest is primo A Perfect Circle.
Given that the locker was below the water table it would have taken some robust pumping, I think.
But seriously, movies made from video games have less need to be "realistic" than even comic book movies IMNSHO.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 18, 2020, 06:10:14 AM
Given that the locker was below the water table it would have taken some robust pumping, I think.
The locker (and the section of the building directly above it) is bone dry, despite both stories also being said to be underwater, so I'm not sure at all where the water table is in this scenario, lol.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 18, 2020, 06:10:14 AMBut seriously, movies made from video games have less need to be "realistic" than even comic book movies IMNSHO.
Imho, they should at the very least be internally consistent. That's bare minimum.
And barring some fantastic element flipping the script, should operate on real-world logic (water flows downhill, not uphill)
There's a lot I'm willing to accept on the basis of the rule of cool, but the more mundane aspects should be grounded and believable.
A spaceship traveling faster than light = believable
A spaceship traveling in all points in space simultaneously, the pilots "evolving" into salamanders, doing the deed and laying eggs on some alien world = not believable
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 18, 2020, 09:18:17 AM
The locker (and the section of the building directly above it) is bone dry, despite both stories also being said to be underwater, so I'm not sure at all where the water table is in this scenario, lol.
The water is leaking in between them and the locker, so it's below the water table at that particular point.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 18, 2020, 09:30:46 AM
Imho, they should at the very least be internally consistent. That's bare minimum.
They won't. Get used to it. In fact twenty years or more of get used to it.
Ought =/= is
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 18, 2020, 09:30:46 AM
A spaceship traveling in all points in space simultaneously, the pilots "evolving" into salamanders, doing the deed and laying eggs on some alien world = not believable
Or, an Infinite Improbability Drive. :D
Quote from: trdsf on April 18, 2020, 11:16:41 PM
Or, an Infinite Improbability Drive. :D
"Oh no, not again."
Quote from: trdsf on April 18, 2020, 11:16:41 PM
Or, an Infinite Improbability Drive. :D
Or the least liked episode of Star Trek Voyager. Lt Paris got to make out with Capt Janeway ;-(
Resident Evil Retribution has the most baffling intro:
* A huge action setpiece on slowmo and playing backwards from the end
* then an exposition dump
* then that same action setpiece at normal speed playing forwards from the beginning
I will never understand that choice. Like, imagine if I filmed myself eating a sandwich on slowmo playing backwards from the end, then I show you the exact same footage played forwards from the beginning. You're effectively watching the exact same scene twice - confused the first time, bored the second time.
You know what would be better than that? Literally anything. You could show the scene from another pov, you could show the scene with minor (or major) variation, etc. Anything else would be fine.
That movie is such a hot mess. A real turn-off-your-brain kind of film. I sort of liked it for what it was. Its main redeeming feature is that it had a hell of a strong finish.
See, if people knew how to succinctly put their message like this... I think it would go a long way towards an important dialogue of how "feminism" actually is ruining media. And I use that word in quotations because I don't believe it actually has anything to do with, and should be associated with, feminism as it is just a phrase idiots latched onto to justify their bigotry and stupidity.
Unfortunately it's generally not put so clearly, and more than likely most "SJWs" would/will ignore it anyways.
Is our young'un finally developing adult tastes ;-)
Lego Movie, Part 2 - 9.5/10
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 23, 2020, 10:36:07 AM
Lego Movie, Part 2 - 9.5/10
I keep forgetting that that's a thing. At first, I was like, "Part 2? Does he mean the Lego Batman movie?"
PIERREPOINT: THe HANGMAN
A British Biographical account of Albert Pierrepoint, who's career as a hangman spanned the 1930s and into the 1950s in England and required him to hang 608 convicts and several Nuremberg Nazis. It was deeply disturbing, but not because he was a psycho. He was not at all. He was highly efficient carrying out his tasks quickly and cleanly to minimize suffering, both physically and psychologically. Still the process was extremely grotesque in the way the hanging was done with such serious mechanical efficiency. He could walk into the holding cell, tie, and escort the prisoner into the gallows chamber, and have him dead on an average time of 14 seconds. He was considered England's best executioner of that time.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 23, 2020, 08:11:15 PM
I keep forgetting that that's a thing. At first, I was like, "Part 2? Does he mean the Lego Batman movie?"
There's a Batman version?
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 24, 2020, 06:12:48 AM
There's a Batman version?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6DOpfJzmo0
I dismissed this one too when I saw the trailers, but it was actually pretty good. I actually went and saw it because, as sad as it sounds, I heard someone say it was the "most accurate Batman movie." Accuracy being to the comics, of course. After seeing it myself, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhh... I wouldn't say it's the most accurate, especially if you consider the straight to video movies that were basically ripped right from the comics. This here is basically a parody movie, and its an entertaining one. If you liked the character of Lego Batman from the Lego movie, you'll probably like the movie.
Finally got around to watching Game of Thrones. Interesting enough but I don’t grasp the fanaticism that many attached to it.
Quote from: aitm on April 29, 2020, 08:13:58 AM
Finally got around to watching Game of Thrones. Interesting enough but I don’t grasp the fanaticism that many attached to it.
And lucky you.
Quote from: aitm on April 29, 2020, 08:13:58 AM
Finally got around to watching Game of Thrones. Interesting enough but I don’t grasp the fanaticism that many attached to it.
I'm doing the same thing, although I followed the first season and part of the second when it first started, but actually lost interest during the second. Never the less, I'm at it again, because it seems to be the most talked about series I never watched. I find it more or less interesting, but it's nothing like Dexter or Breaking Bad, which I binge watched taking in several episodes a day, all the while holding onto my chair with white knuckles.
I should caution all involved that if you love the series during seasons 3 and 4, you might not like all of what you find in seasons 5 and 6. Seasons 7 is a bit of a mess and season 8 will almost certainly leave a bitter, bitter aftertaste.
In sum: "A man who enjoys honeyed locusts may find his appetite changed after one bad experience"
I think Game of Thrones was applauded for its realism. I mean, you have magic, zombies, and dragons, but as far as the writing style goes, it was very unpredictable and dark. Characters would just get killed off suddenly, with little to no build up. When you think it's going to follow a common trope, it pulls the rug out from under you. Just like in real life, there are no happy endings. Buuuuuuut for me, the feel of the show started to change in season 7, and I don't know why. I mean, there's one time a guy is about to be roasted alive by a dragon, and he's saved last second, pushed into the water. That kind of Deux Ex Machina seemed very out of place. And the whole season was full of convenient moments like that that just made the show feel just a little bit off.
And then season 8 came along and...woo boy. It blew season 7's convenient contrivances out of the water. There's a huge battle, wiping out nearly the whole army of good guys, and it ends when someone manages to somehow sneak past an army of White Walkers, all facing them, so they can get a killing blow on the head walker, killing all the rest. Wow. How convenient. And then, despite having their whole army wiped out, they immediately march again to the next battle. WTF? Where did all these new people come from? And then the thing that killed a dragon in a previous season is suddenly completely ineffective? And the ending? My god. How painfully predictable. The show turned into something completely different from what made it popular in the first place.
The darkness was apparent early on, when who I thought was going to be the hero of the story was killed off. Yeah, that left a bitter taste, and may have been part of the reason I lost interest.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 29, 2020, 11:22:05 AMI mean, there's one time a guy is about to be roasted alive by a dragon, and he's saved last second, pushed into the water.
In full armor. And there's a shot of him sinking like a stone. Next episode, he's fine like it ain't no thing.
Now, in a normal series, this probably wouldn't be that annoying. In most series, the expectation is that the main characters are safe. You know that when Spock, Kirk, and two redshirts beam down to the surface of a planet, only two are going to beam up, and it sure as hell ain't going to be the redshirts. But GRRM doesn't work that way. There isn't a Search for Spock for this guy.
In GRRM's stories, when characters are in situations when they are likely to die - they will die or get maimed or maybe just maybe get out by the skin of their teeth but it ain't pretty and it ain't easy. In the books, this guy would go through a harrowing experience at the very least. So contrivances like that are immersion-breaking and run directly counter to the themes of the series.
I've never seen it but I know it's a good movie.
Sean Bean dies.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 29, 2020, 11:59:00 AM
I've never seen it but I know it's a good movie.
Sean Bean dies.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/9957678/sean-bean-killed-on-screen-rejecting-roles/
I liked him best in YouTube reruns of Sharpe ... where he is a British soldier in the Napoleonic wars. He never dies in those.
Quote from: SGOS on April 29, 2020, 11:32:37 AM
The darkness was apparent early on, when who I thought was going to be the hero of the story was killed off. Yeah, that left a bitter taste, and may have been part of the reason I lost interest.
That's the thing, though. Game of Thrones has no heroes. Every character has flaws. The ones you hate at first, you may grow more sympathetic to. The ones you like may do things you disapprove of. That was an intentional decision by the original author, to create characters who are varying degrees of grey, not black and white.
And boobies.
True dat. Plenty of boobies, even saw a swinging dick....surprised at that given our aversion to seeing it the telly
Quote from: aitm on April 29, 2020, 03:23:46 PM
True dat. Plenty of boobies, even saw a swinging dick....surprised at that given our aversion to seeing it the telly
I used to shower with 199 other men. Nudity never bothered me. Even on the telly.
But I really got hot when they killed the wolves.
Quote from: aitm on April 29, 2020, 03:23:46 PMTrue dat. Plenty of boobies, even saw a swinging dick....surprised at that given our aversion to seeing it the telly
There's a lot more tolerance for that on premium cable stations like HBO. Things are slowly easing, though. Cheers to the forward-thinking people who consider seeing nipples as less heinous than seeing a fictional murder or real life violent crime scene.
Quote from: aitm on April 29, 2020, 03:23:46 PM
True dat. Plenty of boobies, even saw a swinging dick....surprised at that given our aversion to seeing it the telly
The scene in Alexander, where Alexander bones Roxanne ... you see it from the back between his legs ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on April 30, 2020, 12:51:48 PM
The scene in Alexander, where Alexander bones Roxanne ... you see it from the back between his legs ;-)
Don’t know the names of the people...not enough to remember them. I’ve seen two now in the first 8 episodes, one from the guy just finished of his hooker, the other the spy what tried to poison the lil blonde beauty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38NPsmM07-Y
i'd almost forgotten this movie existed. Looking back, I was still a teen when it came out and won over by the idea of animated characters interacting with real life people, after all I loved and still love who framed roger rabbit. But this movie really was just awful, jordan isn't an actor, and the loony toons are just wrong and boring to watch.
Jessica Rabbit, on the other hand...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 30, 2020, 09:31:15 PM
Jessica Rabbit, on the other hand...
I was probably the only guy who watched that movie at the time who liked jessica rabbit purely for her personality.
Quote from: Munch on April 30, 2020, 10:20:54 PM
I was probably the only guy who watched that movie at the time who liked jessica rabbit purely for her personality.
What personality? lol. She was a rabbit with boobs who acted sexy, but hated being called "doll." She was such a garbage character.
Later cartoons redeemed her character, turning her into a goofball.
Edit: Ah, dang it. I got the Bunnies mixed up.
AMC says it'll no longer play Universal Studios movies (https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/28/21240637/amc-theaters-universal-trolls-world-tour-disney-warnermedia-digital-streaming) due to Universal Studios saying that it'll release its movies both in theaters and on video-on-demand (VOD) simultaneously
Of course, theaters aren't open right now, so VOD is a pretty solid option if they...you know, want to be able to turn a profit and not have to fire everyone. Not having to shutter the studio is a pretty enticing deal.
But theaters have long relied on timed exclusivity - "You wanna see the movie really bad? Well, you can drop $10 on a seat or you can totally miss out and sit out all the watercooler talk people are going to have about it for a solid three weeks. And then you'll have to wait months for it to be on DVD or longer to see it on cable. You know, whatever you want." So people are decidedly motivated to see it in theaters.
But that's all coming to an end very soon. Soon, new releases are going to be available for streaming on day one. So, you can stream it for $20 (which is kinda steep imo and I'm fairly certain will decrease) or watch it in theaters for $10 a person (plus concessions). For a family of four, the math decidedly favors steaming.
So basically, theaters are dying and they brought it on themselves. Eventually, they're likely to transition to a luxury business model - the theater offers amenities like comfy recliners, beer, etc. So you pay more to go to theaters, but you also get more. But a lot of places aren't going to make that transition in time and stay solvent. Those theaters are essentially doomed.
Hell, I used to have an AMC theater near me that offered $2 afternoon matinees for movies that have been out for a while but haven't gone to DVD yet (like 5-9 months after release). They stopped that. And I stopped going. Because there's literally no other reason to go there. There's a very good chance that theater's going to be gone in 1-2 years, along with a lot of others.
Quote from: Munch on April 30, 2020, 10:20:54 PM
I was probably the only guy who watched that movie at the time who liked jessica rabbit purely for her personality.
I don't recall much about her personality other than that she had good intentions towards Roger (though her logic was a little off) and treated him quite kindly. That and they're happily married. Good for them.
The cliff-notes version of what I said above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnd67egAiNU
Quote from: Munch on April 30, 2020, 10:20:54 PM
I was probably the only guy who watched that movie at the time who liked jessica rabbit purely for her personality.
Yeah, there were no other gay men back then.
The latest Clone War episode had a tribute to both Kobe and Gigi, and I was not fucking ready for that trip down feels boulevard.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 01, 2020, 12:44:38 AM
I don't recall much about her personality other than that she had good intentions towards Roger (though her logic was a little off) and treated him quite kindly. That and they're happily married. Good for them.
Sums up three out of four of my marriages.
There is something to be said in favor of the big screen. I have that at home, but it only hints at an AMC Theater's screen. The crowds are a detraction, unless you want to do a mid week matinee. Theaters without recliners now seem like torture chambers to me. A person who worked at a theater told me their revenue is almost all from concessions, because Hollywood gives them but a small pittance for the use of their physical plant and equipment. A theater can't operate in the black without those absurd popcorn prices, which softens my one time anger at the movies, but understanding why they have to do it, doesn't really alter the basic fact that you are getting screwed. But now I feel like I owe it to the theater to buy popcorn, just to help keep them afloat.
Some interview a few years ago featured some top producers and directors (I think Spielberg may have been one of them) who warned that theaters would soon no longer exist because people aren't flocking to them anymore. I didn't know if they were simply pointing out a fact or making a case to get my ass to the movies more often. It may be true. But there must still be money to be made in theater ownership, as a new one just opened up near me 4 years ago. Of course it also has a restaurant, arcade, and bowling alley.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 01, 2020, 04:01:25 AM
Yeah, there were no other gay men back then.
I meant with all the friends and family I knew who watched it
Quote from: Munch on May 01, 2020, 07:04:29 AM
I meant with all the friends and family I knew who watched it
Ach, alles klar, ja!
Quote from: Munch on May 01, 2020, 08:49:21 AM
Ich mag auch Google Ãœbersetzer!
I took German classes at Purdue. Flunked both times. No head for languages save the odd phrase.
Quote from: SGOS on May 01, 2020, 06:26:06 AMBut there must still be money to be made in theater ownership, as a new one just opened up near me 4 years ago. Of course it also has a restaurant, arcade, and bowling alley.
Wow, that's the dying store trifecta. Don't see a lot of bowling alleys anymore. And arcades are like unicorns around here. I'd cherish a place like that.
Quote from: Munch on April 30, 2020, 10:20:54 PM
I was probably the only guy who watched that movie at the time who liked jessica rabbit purely for her personality.
Nope, not the only one.
Quote from: SGOS on May 01, 2020, 06:26:06 AM
There is something to be said in favor of the big screen. I have that at home, but it only hints at an AMC Theater's screen. The crowds are a detraction, unless you want to do a mid week matinee. Theaters without recliners now seem like torture chambers to me. A person who worked at a theater told me their revenue is almost all from concessions, because Hollywood gives them but a small pittance for the use of their physical plant and equipment. A theater can't operate in the black without those absurd popcorn prices, which softens my one time anger at the movies, but understanding why they have to do it, doesn't really alter the basic fact that you are getting screwed. But now I feel like I owe it to the theater to buy popcorn, just to help keep them afloat.
Some interview a few years ago featured some top producers and directors (I think Spielberg may have been one of them) who warned that theaters would soon no longer exist because people aren't flocking to them anymore. I didn't know if they were simply pointing out a fact or making a case to get my ass to the movies more often. It may be true. But there must still be money to be made in theater ownership, as a new one just opened up near me 4 years ago. Of course it also has a restaurant, arcade, and bowling alley.
You are soooo spoiled ;-) What, no chewing gum in the seat? What about 3-D or smell-o-vision, so in the restroom scenes you get the full effect? I want to hear the turds plop in the bowl.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 01, 2020, 12:34:46 AM
What personality? lol. She was a rabbit with boobs who acted sexy, but hated being called "doll." She was such a garbage character.
Later cartoons redeemed her character, turning her into a goofball.
Edit: Ah, dang it. I got the Bunnies mixed up.
You prefer cartoon bunnies who are butch dike feminists? ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 01, 2020, 09:37:05 AM
Wow, that's the dying store trifecta. Don't see a lot of bowling alleys anymore. And arcades are like unicorns around here. I'd cherish a place like that.
Not many 1957 Thunderbird coupes or poodle skirts either!
saw 3 movies recently, all from the DC animated genre. Justice League Dark, john constantine City of Demons, and Justice League Dark apokolips war.
Justice League dark - 7/10
Pretty good, as all these movies are from the perspective of john constantine for a lot of them, it opens up the chance to be a lot more graphic. Characters are well established, it does seem to be a case that you might need to have seen some of the other DC animated movies to get a fuller scope of whats going on with some, but thats why having the story from constantines perspective makes it more easier to get into. Animation in action scenes are good, voice acting is really good, and the twists just don't hold back in what their prepared to do. It feels like given this setting is set in the New52 series, and it was drawing to a close (getting to that) that they could get away with doing a whole lot more insane shit with characters, and why they just didn't care about keeping it clean, and why constantine was perfect to be used more at this time. Overall pretty good, though will need to see other DC animated films to get a full scope.
John constantine: City of Demons - 9/10
This is really good, a more stand alone for the character, and they just went all out with it. When you think about the kind of reserved stuff in other DC animated movies like sometimes your occasionally see blood when a characters punched or an off screen stab with a sword, there this just goes full on blood, guts, dismemberment. Story felt very grounded, constantine friendship with his long time friend Chas, the fact everyone who comes across constantine knows him or heard of him gives more broader implications. The animation and voice acting is again really good. Also just like how the graphic moments are more used, so to are mature themes like the consequences for constantines choices, and how the kind of story setting he's in isn't like your typical super hero saves the day theme. Worth seeing if your just curious about the character of constantine.
Justice League Dark: apokolips war - 6/10
Probably my least favorite of the three. It was still a good movie, the same level of voice acting, animation and story structure was all good, but it was more just the choices made for the story that made it kind of questionable. Spoilers for this one: [spoiler]I didn't realize that this was the final movie in the DC animated run based on the New52 series, because like the previous movies mentioned, it was obvious they were leading up to this film, and so let the writers and animators get away with so much more, as in bloody mutilations of beloved comic book characters, and if not being torn apart, they'd be resurrected as deformed cybernetic monstrous or brainwashed into going against their nature. This really felt like a movie designed about just letting the writers do whatever they wanted without restrictions, and I'm fine with that, but I think it just felt like they tried to cram in far to much in a short movie, think like avengers infinity war and end game but crammed into an hour and 30 minutes. And how they wrapped it up at the end makes it obvious why they just did whatever they wanted and killed off so many characters.
The animation, voice acting and overall premise was okay, just felt like it could have used 2 movies or even like an extra 20 minutes to flesh it out more. But yeah an okay send off to this era of dc animated movies. [/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 01, 2020, 09:37:05 AM
Wow, that's the dying store trifecta. Don't see a lot of bowling alleys anymore. And arcades are like unicorns around here. I'd cherish a place like that.
Back in high school (late 1950s), taking your date bowling was common, and no one ever asked, "Isn't that kind of weird?" Miniature golf was also a common Friday night date topped off with a stop at the ice cream parlor. I'm not kidding either. Movies like Back to the Future actually capture the nostalgia of the 1950s, and it comes across humorous, even to me, but it also touches on some fond memories.
My sister took me to an arcade in Chicago a few years ago. It was strictly early arcade format. The owner filled it with nothing but those old 1960s/70s games like Donkey Kong, driving games, shooting down WWII bombers, and what all I can't remember. They were all second hand games bought where I don't know. There must have been a hundred games in the place. For some reason, I missed most of those post pinball electronics, so I was unfamiliar with most of what was there.
And roller skating. I think I was in the last roller rink in Indiana back in the '70s. Lady I was with got concussed when there was a pile up.
Yeah, I forgot about roller skating. I considered that as a special occasion, and it too was popular. In boy scouts, my scout leader was one of those 1 in 1000 skaters. As a result, we did more skating than camping. We would invite the local girl scout troupe, so it was kind of like a mass blind date, and everybody skated with everybody. During the waltz couples only, the one where maybe 4 couples would have the floor to themselves, our leader would grab some woman his age and gracefully show off. And somehow he knew which woman to ask, because she would be as good as he was. I suspect they actually knew each other. I used to watch them and somehow understand that I could never skate that well. That was in Chicago.
All it would take would be to casually visit the rink and watch for a while. Then invite the selected ladies to the Boy Scout thing later in the week. I knew women had few choices when it came to "roller dance" partners back then. One shanghai'd me out of desperation, I think. I sucked at skating.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2020, 06:28:24 AM
All it would take would be to casually visit the rink and watch for a while. Then invite the selected ladies to the Boy Scout thing later in the week.
I suspect that was something like what my scout leader did. Actually, I think he may have spent so much time at the rink that he knew who the best skaters were. I can't imagine anyone consenting to waltz with a stranger, unless they knew that both of them would not end up on the floor.
Quote from: SGOS on May 08, 2020, 06:46:43 AM
I suspect that was something like what my scout leader did. Actually, I think he may have spent so much time at the rink that he knew who the best skaters were. I can't imagine anyone consenting to waltz with a stranger, unless they knew that both of them would not end up on the floor.
Given the quality of skaters at the rink in Alexandria, Indiana, pop. ~7,000, I think anyone would be thrilled to find a partner of whatever skill level.
Just watched the documentary RBG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBG_(film)) on Hulu. Highly recommended. That woman is an absolute national treasure.
Now I'm bingeing on How It's Made as my audio wallpaper while I work from home.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2020, 03:50:46 AM
And roller skating. I think I was in the last roller rink in Indiana back in the '70s. Lady I was with got concussed when there was a pile up.
Roller Derby? That women's Roller Derby was murder ;-). My daughter was still roller-blading in the Oughts. But I never mastered any of it, though I remember the roller skates you attached to your shoes. I brained myself the last time I went ice skating, when I was 18. Never again!
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2020, 09:02:53 AM
Roller Derby? That women's Roller Derby was murder ;-).
Nah, one kid knocked her down and another one couldn't avoid the wreckage.
QuoteMy daughter was still roller-blading in the Oughts. But I never mastered any of it, though I remember the roller skates you attached to your shoes. I brained myself the last time I went ice skating, when I was 18. Never again!
My brother broke an elbow when he fell trying to master those bolt-on menaces.
I watched Dallas Buyers Club the other night. That was a great movie. The awards were well deserved.
Onward - 8/10
A slightly different coming of age story, pretty good.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 12, 2020, 01:08:27 PM
Onward - 8/10
A slightly different coming of age story, pretty good.
I hate pixies ;-)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 12, 2020, 08:04:14 PM
How about megapixies?
Maga-pixies are Trump supporters ;-)
Bloodshot - 6/10
Lots of film clichés, but entertaining nonetheless.
The Avengers
Second time watching it, I had forgotten just how much I had forgotten about it... which is to say, nearly everything, particularly the New York fight scene, which is perhaps the most forgettable aspect of it to me.
Still a great movie, but honestly one of the weaker ones in my opinion. But it did what I needed to do and bring the crew together, and it has some really great moments in it as well. Some the foreshadowing of stuff that would happen years and years down the line is still amazing to see (as well as knowing what those foreshadows would entail adding so much more meaning behind it), particularly in a world that is not particularly concerned with longevity.
I'm no longer going to try to classify movies in a 1/10 scale, but I would certainly say it's worth a re-watch, though don't expect too much. It is still in the MCU's childish fun stage (which is not a negative) and lacks much of the depth we see near the end of the character arches, but it's legitimately fun to just watch something made in a simpler time with simpler sensibilities.
You won't get a silk purse out of a comic book.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 14, 2020, 04:57:35 AM
The Avengers
Second time watching it, I had forgotten just how much I had forgotten about it... which is to say, nearly everything, particularly the New York fight scene, which is perhaps the most forgettable aspect of it to me.
Still a great movie, but honestly one of the weaker ones in my opinion. But it did what I needed to do and bring the crew together, and it has some really great moments in it as well. Some the foreshadowing of stuff that would happen years and years down the line is still amazing to see (as well as knowing what those foreshadows would entail adding so much more meaning behind it), particularly in a world that is not particularly concerned with longevity.
I'm no longer going to try to classify movies in a 1/10 scale, but I would certainly say it's worth a re-watch, though don't expect too much. It is still in the MCU's childish fun stage (which is not a negative) and lacks much of the depth we see near the end of the character arches, but it's legitimately fun to just watch something made in a simpler time with simpler sensibilities.
The negatives probably only seem like negatives because later MCU movies spoiled us. lol. I remember everyone being super excited about that first Avengers film. It was the first of its kind (that I'm aware of, at least). I remember when Age of Ultron came out, some people thought it felt a little samey, and worried that every Avengers movie would center around them fighting hoards of nameless enemies in New York. But nobody complained the first time they did that. They were just happy to see all these characters, who each (excluding Black Widow and Hawkeye) had stand alone movies fleshing out their characters, all coming together. Over the years, as the movies continued to find success, there was backlash from people getting tired of all the superhero movies in theaters, and so the writers for the MCU had to step up their game to keep people coming back. People will never know how good they had it until the MCU disappears (or new leadership runs it into the ground).
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 14, 2020, 05:54:54 AM
You won't get a silk purse out of a comic book.
Best (2012) line of all time ... "Puny god"
I still like Green Lantern (2011).
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 14, 2020, 05:54:54 AM
You won't get a silk purse out of a comic book.
But you will get Vicuna wool, which is far better anyways.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 14, 2020, 04:57:35 AMThe Avengers
Second time watching it, I had forgotten just how much I had forgotten about it... which is to say, nearly everything, particularly the New York fight scene, which is perhaps the most forgettable aspect of it to me.
Still a great movie, but honestly one of the weaker ones in my opinion. But it did what I needed to do and bring the crew together, and it has some really great moments in it as well. Some the foreshadowing of stuff that would happen years and years down the line is still amazing to see (as well as knowing what those foreshadows would entail adding so much more meaning behind it), particularly in a world that is not particularly concerned with longevity.
At the time, no one had really done a big crossover movie like this, weaving multiple films together (Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, Captain America). Now that that's a normal regular thing (Avengers 2, Civil War, Infinity War, Endgame) it seems less impressive now than it was at the time.
I remember watching it and being absolutely blown away by it - the authentic characters, the high-budget action scenes, the top-notch special effects, even Joss Whedon's jokes - it truly aimed high in terms of production in a way that comics movies rarely had before. The most memorable parts by far were that sweeping group shot at the battle of New York and of course, the schwarma post-credits scene.
While I wasn't too impressed by the easily-dispatched hordes of mooks, I did like Loki a lot (even though the logic behind his attempted conquest was pretty sketchy) and overall I found it very enjoyable - a solid summer blockbuster - and at the end of the day, that's what it's all about, right?
This was the movie that ushered in the reign of the MCU and cemented a lot of the conventions of modern comic book movies (ensemble cast, high budget actors and special effects, high stakes, post-credits scenes). It paved the way for a lot of other movies.
One thing I really like about the Marvel movies is that they give all the heroes something to do - even heroes with comparatively weak powersets (muggles like Black Widow and Hawkeye and Nick Fury) have their moments.
That's not an easy thing to do. It'd be super easy to ignore them or write them out of the story entirely, yet the writers try really hard to keep them interesting and in the action instead of focusing entirely on the literal god right beside them. Kudos.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 14, 2020, 01:50:12 PM
One thing I really like about the Marvel movies is that they give all the heroes something to do - even heroes with comparatively weak powersets (muggles like Black Widow and Hawkeye and Nick Fury) have their moments.
That's not an easy thing to do. It'd be super easy to ignore them or write them out of the story entirely, yet the writers try really hard to keep them interesting and in the action instead of focusing entirely on the literal god right beside them. Kudos.
Hide the Mary Sues.
Almost forgot, watched 1917 a few nights ago.
Was pretty drunk, which I felt actually added to the horror and mood of the movie. Really enjoyed it, I definitely understand the hype around it. Probably one of my favorite movies to come out in the last couple years.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 14, 2020, 06:55:45 PM
Almost forgot, watched 1917 a few nights ago.
Was pretty drunk, which I felt actually added to the horror and mood of the movie. Really enjoyed it, I definitely understand the hype around it. Probably one of my favorite movies to come out in the last couple years.
Yes, horror and moody are good descriptions. Really felt sorry for the one protagonist who died early, after saving the life of his friend. Of course like any storytelling, there are a lot of implausible setups. I really didn't expect the German fighter pilot to be bad ass.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 14, 2020, 01:50:12 PM
One thing I really like about the Marvel movies is that they give all the heroes something to do - even heroes with comparatively weak powersets (muggles like Black Widow and Hawkeye and Nick Fury) have their moments.
That's not an easy thing to do. It'd be super easy to ignore them or write them out of the story entirely, yet the writers try really hard to keep them interesting and in the action instead of focusing entirely on the literal god right beside them. Kudos.
its more believable (as believable as a comic book movie can be) seeing a heroes power set in a situation like avengers where the more human characters fight on a ground level against alien enforcers and the big hitters like hulk and thor tear though the bigger ones, then it is every time they have batman and the justice league where batman seems to be able to hit or take on foes at the same degree superman or wonder woman can.
Quote from: Baruch on May 14, 2020, 07:01:12 PM
Yes, horror and moody are good descriptions. Really felt sorry for the one protagonist who died early, after saving the life of his friend. Of course like any storytelling, there are a lot of implausible setups. I really didn't expect the German fighter pilot to be bad ass.
I thought he was afraid for his own life and tried to pre-empt an attack. Both sides could be rough with flyers. It was one more wild, desperate moment in the struggle to get to their objective. And the Albatross was cool.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 15, 2020, 06:06:56 AM
I thought he was afraid for his own life and tried to pre-empt an attack. Both sides could be rough with flyers. It was one more wild, desperate moment in the struggle to get to their objective. And the Albatross was cool.
The airplanes were cool. But neither the Red Baron or Snoopy would do that ;-)
I'm re-watching The Avengers just to refesh my memory, and there are a few really great things I noticed:
Show-don't-tell - the scene with Black Widow was genius because it quickly establishes her as a super spy and martial artist by having her pretend to be interrogated (in reality, it's the other way around) and be annoyed that she has to break cover and abandon the assignment. She kicks the crap out of her captors like she could have done it at any time. It's beautiful.
Exposition trickle, not exposition dump - they keep the details light, but scattered throughout. Doesn't overwhelm or underwhelm. One could theoretically not watch any of the previous films and mostly understand this one - it least enough to get the gist of it. It's not an overly complicated plot anyway - MacGuffin, villain from 5th dimension tries to take over the world, etc. Pretty standard plot.
Avengers assemble, but not all at once - let's face it, getting the gang together is the worst part of action/heist movies. This movie very carefully and methodically introduces the main characters only a couple at a time, interspersed with action scenes. First, it's Nick Fury and Hawkeye. Then action with Loki. Second, it's Black Widow. Then action with her interrogators. Third, it's Cap and the Hulk and Iron Man. Then action with Loki. Thor's introduction doubles as an action scene. My point is that the audience stays entertained and engaged during these introductions.
I loved Tony's ad lib line about the video game.
Ran (Chaos) - 1985, Akira Kurozawa
Mix "King Lear" and feudal Japan, add in Buddhist philosophic thought and heavy pessimism, and sprinkle that with the best cinematography from one of the greatest directors to ever live and you get Ran. While a long movie (which being a Shakespeare-adaptation, that is to be expected), the pacing is never horribly slow and the scene changes are marked by transitions looking at the sky, making good markers on where you can take a break.
At this stage of his life, after decades of being denied funding for his movies because he had both simultaneously became "Too Western" and also "Too 'Old-School' Japanese"... Kurozawa had clearly grown depressed and disillusioned with the cinema business (he had tried to commit suicide about ten years before), but also with the idea that his humanity could ever live at peace with one another, a theme repeated several times in this movie... though I think like several of the characters, he also accepted this reality and found peace in doing what little he could. Edit: - Apparently his wife died during the production of this film as well, so that probably... didn't help...
Between the cinematography, the story, the setting and the Buddhist undertones throught... I would go out on a limb and say this might be my favorite movie I have ever watched or at the very least my favorite character-heavy films I've ever seen.
And seriously, just looking at this... the movie is filled with scenes of this quality.
(https://i.redd.it/88izxzic8ih41.jpg)
Check out Kurosawa's Dreams. Kurosawa is one of the few directors who could've given lessons to Kubrick or Welles. I think the technical term for him is "absolute fucking genius".
Quote from: trdsf on May 21, 2020, 03:39:46 AM
Check out Kurosawa's Dreams. Kurosawa is one of the few directors who could've given lessons to Kubrick or Welles. I think the technical term for him is "absolute fucking genius".
"The Fox Wedding" was interesting. That thing in the tunnel was pure PTSD.
I watched someone do a review of Avatar. He brought up some interesting points.
Anyone even remember that movie? When mentioning avatar it can be interpreted your talking about either the great animated series, that crap live action remake, or the movie with blue alien guys.
It for a while was the highest grossing movie of all time, and is still in the top 10 highest, but just because a movie makes a lot of money on ticket sales isn't a measure of its quality. It's like paying to see a football game but you come out disappointed despite how much you paid to see it, you and thousands others.
The only thing good about the movie is the cgi, it's pretty, for the time it was made. But they seriously can make video games with more advanced cgi today better then they could back then. The music was okay too but I seriously can't remember any of it, so dunno if I can even back that statement.
Everything else in avatar are plots copied from other movies, and average to flat out awful acting.
When I think about movies that left some kind of impact, ones I'll remember for the acting, music and cinematography, there are loads that have had more of an impact on me then this movie. Infact rewatching it, all it did was make me think of better movies they copied stories from I'd sooner be watching.
Pretty but shallow, like a hot guy or girl you see at a party but when you finally talk to them they have all the cognitive function of a walnut. And that's why it made so much money.
Coincidentally, I just watched Avatar again about a week ago. I would put that film in my top 5 all time favorites. And it does shamelessly borrow from other films, in this case, Dances with Wolves, which must have borrowed it's plot from something else, because I distinctly remember experiencing Deja vu when I saw Dances. But I don't mind a borrowed plot, especially when it's done better than the one before it. Avatar was also my introduction to the new 3D or "fake" 3D as it's sometimes called, but Cameron was a rare director that knew what to do with 3D. He set the stage and showed what possibilities 3D could add to movie making, but it was all downhill from then on, except for Dr. Strange. Most directors just saw the possibilities of 3D as extra profit the way a drug company mixes two older drugs into a new one with a new name, and charges 4 times more. You can't just shoot a haunted house in 3D and call it added value. But Cameron milked it with concepts that seem almost gratuitous, like the floating islands, cliff diving, and distant panoramas with bold foregrounds. I once paged through all of Amazons 3D films to see which ones would justify me buying a new 3D projector, but there were only two, Avatar and Dr. Strange. There were a couple of others that I added just to try and make a more solid case for the purchase, but apparently that wasn't enough.
I was especially taken by the colors in Avatar. Parts of the jungle glowed astonishingly bright colors seldom seen in films and included iridescent floating things that drifted silently by or landed on a character marking him as chosen by the sacred life mother. The wildlife was a bit over the top, but I was totally willing to submit to the fantasy and just lose myself in the film.
I don't want to debate this. Others may feel differently, and that's OK. I just wanted to express my appreciation for that film. I don't know why things click differently for people, nor can I explain why I love some films that critics hate, or hate some films that critics fawn over, but it's a chance to share differences in things we enjoy, rather than distance ourselves because of our views. I love movies. I love loving movies. But I'll walk out of the theater in the middle of some films too.
SGOS I like Avatar (in my top 5 as well) for much the same reasons as you do. I think it is a great film. Hurtlocker sucks and I was quite upset when it beat out Avatar. I have given the Oscars much attention since.
I like Avatar mainly because it does something that I rarely see. It takes us to an alien planet and shows us all the interesting fauna in it. Plants and animals, and the unique co-evolutionary trait they have of being able to link minds. It was very interesting stuff. Of course, the world has these aliens that basically look like humans, but taller and blue, and they're comparatively boring compared to the wildlife. But I do often wonder, if we ever find alien life, how similar would it be to life here? Would it be weird, like nothing we've ever seen before, or would convergent evolution result in life following certain blueprints? Personally, I suspect it is unlikely that an alien planet would have anything like us there, given that in all of Earth's history, we're the only species like us. Flying squirrels, lizards, and bats all independently developed membranes between their limbs that allowed them to glide, but no lizard has ever built or used tools. I think humans are a huge fluke.
Extraction, meh. Take a over the hill John wick style action film where one guy wipe out 500 others and it becomes really boring.
I dunno why everyone likes Avatar so much. M. Night Shyamalan has really lost edge. Korra was better, imo.
Quote from: Munch on May 22, 2020, 10:49:13 PM
I watched someone do a review of Avatar. He brought up some interesting points.
Anyone even remember that movie? When mentioning avatar it can be interpreted your talking about either the great animated series, that crap live action remake, or the movie with blue alien guys.
It for a while was the highest grossing movie of all time, and is still in the top 10 highest, but just because a movie makes a lot of money on ticket sales isn't a measure of its quality. It's like paying to see a football game but you come out disappointed despite how much you paid to see it, you and thousands others.
The only thing good about the movie is the cgi, it's pretty, for the time it was made. But they seriously can make video games with more advanced cgi today better then they could back then. The music was okay too but I seriously can't remember any of it, so dunno if I can even back that statement.
Everything else in avatar are plots copied from other movies, and average to flat out awful acting.
When I think about movies that left some kind of impact, ones I'll remember for the acting, music and cinematography, there are loads that have had more of an impact on me then this movie. Infact rewatching it, all it did was make me think of better movies they copied stories from I'd sooner be watching.
Pretty but shallow, like a hot guy or girl you see at a party but when you finally talk to them they have all the cognitive function of a walnut. And that's why it made so much money.
A better FernGully, that I also saw. And Dances With Wolves, and Little Big Man.
I rewatched Blair Witch 2 for like the 6th time. This film gets a lot of crap, but personally, I think it's genius.
They're mad because they had bad expectations due to false assumptions about the nature of the movie. It's not a copy-paste of the original, that would be boring. Nor is it a completely conventional horror flick like the trailer would lead one to believe. It's something entirely different: a deconstruction of the first film, an exploration of the interface of pop culture and reality and how fan obsession and madness can cause a sort of mass hysteria and real violence. "Blair Witch: hysteria or history?"
This movie was made for theorists, which is ironic, because it also warns against the sort of obsessive analysis that it actively encourages. Because the unreliable narrator trope and the fact that the entire main cast is increasingly off their rockers, it's very difficult to piece together what's actually going on. The only clue is that what's captured on film (in-universe film) is genuine, while what everyone thinks is happening or remembers happening is suspect.
A LOT of what goes on in the film makes very little logical sense, and the main joy of this film is putting together a theory about what really happened in a way that conforms to as many facts as possible and makes the least amount of assumptions. And like the first film, my working theory is that there is nothing supernatural going on - no witch, no witchcraft - just mentally-damaged people who somehow unleashed each other's bottled-up madness and went on an absolute bender one night.
The real villain is mankind, and always has been. The witch is just a scapegoat, just like historical witches.
I watched Addams family and Addams family values, the ones from the 90s. I forgot how good these movies were. Sat watching them both with my mum in hysterics.
The directing and cinematography in both were really good, and the acting, just about all performers gave it their all, especially anjelica Huston, Raul Julia, Christina Ricci and Christopher Lloyd.
I really don't find any fault in the two movies, they felt like something Steven Spielberg had directed back then, dark humour and slapstick done right.
To me these are the definitive Addams family, even more then the original series, though that still has its charm today.
Quote from: Munch on May 24, 2020, 07:09:22 AMTo me these are the definitive Addams family, even more then the original series, though that still has its charm today.
In the original series, I really liked the scene where Wednesday is upset about a story the school made her read: a story of a knight slaying a dragon. The father and mother consider it an outrage.
Master and Commander - Really great, I wish it didn't end on a cliff-hanger. Might have to give the novels a go sometime, who knows.
Between my mom living in the Caribbean and about a third of my family is Navy, so it checked a fair few boxes for me. I definitely see why it's popular in my family now, and it's an interesting look at what life would have been like in those times... much the same way that 1917 was a visual way to understand the horrors of that time.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 24, 2020, 10:52:08 AM
In the original series, I really liked the scene where Wednesday is upset about a story the school made her read: a story of a knight slaying a dragon. The father and mother consider it an outrage.
Sort of like in the first movie where Morticia is telling school children the story of Hansel and Gretel when they push the witch in the oven, and discribes in graphic detail how the witch burns alive, then asks the children what do you suppose that feels like. Or when in the second movie she's reading the cat in the hat to her golden curls possessed baby, and is disappointed by the fact the cat lives in the end.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 24, 2020, 10:55:55 AM
Master and Commander - Really great, I wish it didn't end on a cliff-hanger. Might have to give the novels a go sometime, who knows.
Between my mom living in the Caribbean and about a third of my family is Navy, so it checked a fair few boxes for me. I definitely see why it's popular in my family now, and it's an interesting look at what life would have been like in those times... much the same way that 1917 was a visual way to understand the horrors of that time.
That was an excellent movie. It's part of my collection. The opening battle scene on my sound system would justify owning the movie just for that reason alone, but it is a well done film in almost all regards.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 24, 2020, 10:55:55 AM
Master and Commander - Really great, I wish it didn't end on a cliff-hanger. Might have to give the novels a go sometime, who knows.
Between my mom living in the Caribbean and about a third of my family is Navy, so it checked a fair few boxes for me. I definitely see why it's popular in my family now, and it's an interesting look at what life would have been like in those times... much the same way that 1917 was a visual way to understand the horrors of that time.
There was supposed to be a sequel. The book author wrote multiple books. But the investors thought it was all wet ;-) Of course the scientist on board, is to remind you of young Charles Darwin on the Beagle.
Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2020, 11:22:31 AM
That was an excellent movie. It's part of my collection. The opening battle scene on my sound system would justify owning the movie just for that reason alone, but it is a well done film in almost all regards.
I honestly might have to rewatch it, just because I watched it at 3 in the morning and couldn't fully enjoy the blasting cannons. Was constantly having to fiddle with the volume to be able to hear the characters without shaking the entire house when combat broke out.
QuoteThere was supposed to be a sequel. The book author wrote multiple books. But the investors thought it was all wet ;-) Of course the scientist on board, is to remind you of young Charles Darwin on the Beagle.
Losing out to Lord of the Rings will do that, unfortunately. One of those, "any other year..." situations.
Battling age of sail ... when the Navy was all fun and games ;-(
"What a wonderful technological age we live in!"
Quote from: Shiranu on May 24, 2020, 10:55:55 AM
Master and Commander - Really great, I wish it didn't end on a cliff-hanger. Might have to give the novels a go sometime, who knows.
Was the ending really such a cliffhanger? They figure out the trick and set sail after their comrades. The upbeat music-pastime at the end always made it feel like more of a 'aha, we' ve figured it out and come full circle' feel then a : 'oh shit, is everything going to be okay?' feel. At least for me.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 24, 2020, 04:46:55 PM
"What a wonderful technological age we live in!"
Being hit by modern munition while in an airplane, tank or ship ... is wonderful?
Quote from: Baruch on May 24, 2020, 10:46:54 PM
Being hit by modern munition while in an airplane, tank or ship ... is wonderful?
No, but they invented the fleshlite, so people don't have to use cow bladders anymore, so it's all ups and downs
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 24, 2020, 07:31:16 PM
Was the ending really such a cliffhanger? They figure out the trick and set sail after their comrades. The upbeat music-pastime at the end always made it feel like more of a 'aha, we' ve figured it out and come full circle' feel then a : 'oh shit, is everything going to be okay?' feel. At least for me.
I guess it depends on how many of the French crew remained alive & onboard the Acheron and how many Englishmen were manning it back to port. I would assume it would have been a pretty minimal crew, which means the captain (disguised as a doctor) wouldn't have an impossible time of freeing his crew and resizing the ship.
Likewise I figure the marines would have stayed onboard the Surprise, meaning the skeleton crew would have mostly been sailors rather than soldiers and less trained for fending off an ambush revolt.
Either way, I am happy the Captain survived because I felt kinda bad for Aubrey that he didn't get to meet the opponent who outsmarted him several times.
Does that happen in the next book in the series?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 25, 2020, 06:11:49 AM
Does that happen in the next book in the series?
Don't know... apparently the plot is based mostly on book 1 and book 10, so I don't know if book 2 or 11 might have the answer to that.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2020, 05:51:22 AM
I guess it depends on how many of the French crew remained alive & onboard the Acheron and how many Englishmen were manning it back to port. I would assume it would have been a pretty minimal crew, which means the captain (disguised as a doctor) wouldn't have an impossible time of freeing his crew and resizing the ship.
Likewise I figure the marines would have stayed onboard the Surprise, meaning the skeleton crew would have mostly been sailors rather than soldiers and less trained for fending off an ambush revolt.
Either way, I am happy the Captain survived because I felt kinda bad for Aubrey that he didn't get to meet the opponent who outsmarted him several times.
Likes ... originally they were to be fighting Americans in an American ship, not French in an American ship. But that is bad for ticket sails. Remember, the Americans are the bad guys ;-) ... also there is the "prize" ... the captain and crew get to split the selling price of the captured ship once it is back in England!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 25, 2020, 06:11:49 AM
Does that happen in the next book in the series?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubreyâ€"Maturin_series
The screenplay was a pastiche. So the "next happening" depends more on the screen writers. They say ... the original author tells a good yarn and can sea shanty with the best of them ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 25, 2020, 12:10:19 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubreyâ€"Maturin_series
The screenplay was a pastiche. So the "next happening" depends more on the screen writers. They say ... the original author tells a good yarn and can sea shanty with the best of them ;-)
I sorta remember asking about the books, not the movie. Of course you were there so I could be wrong.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 25, 2020, 12:47:24 PM
I sorta remember asking about the books, not the movie. Of course you were there so I could be wrong.
There are 20 books. Please read, and return with your own book report ;-)
Or one could just fan-fiction what you want to happen next in the non-canon movie version.
Quote from: Baruch on May 25, 2020, 01:49:32 PM
There are 20 books. Please read, and return with your own book report ;-)
Or one could just fan-fiction what you want to happen next in the non-canon movie version.
I was kinda hoping you wouldn't be the one to respond.
Aubrey did send reinforcements and a competent officer to make sure there could be no mutiny aboard the badly disabled ship when he realized the French captain was still alive. He seemed confident, like this was just an added precaution, but not worried enough to turn and accompany the ship. I always feel a bit uneasy at that point in the movie, but assume that things will be fine, although never quite sure. I do see how this is a bit of a cliff hanger, however. It sure leaves the door open for a sequel.
The acting and screen play at the beginning when they were searching the fog for an enemy ship was especially well done. There was a lot of subtle tension created over a young lesser officer because of what he might or might not have seen and the captain who was looking for more certainty. I thought the young officer might get chided, but finally Aubrey says, "Well you did the right thing, Lad, calling the ship to arms." I actually felt like a burden had been lifted from my shoulders. And I was engrossed like that for the rest of the film.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 25, 2020, 06:22:54 PM
I was kinda hoping you wouldn't be the one to respond.
I really enjoyed the British miniseries 1998-2003 Hornblower (TV series).
Quote from: Baruch on May 25, 2020, 08:38:11 PM
I really enjoyed the British miniseries 1998-2003 Hornblower (TV series).
I have that on DVD.
Hornblower was the shit. So good.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 26, 2020, 10:57:33 AM
Hornblower was the shit. So good.
The British TV miniseries was so ... true to history. The acting was OK too.
How about the original Hornblower movie from 1951 with Gregory Peck? A prequel to Moby Dick in 1956? Avast ye matys!
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2020, 11:20:28 AM
The British TV miniseries was so ... true to history. The acting was OK too.
How about the original Hornblower movie from 1951 with Gregory Peck? A prequel to Moby Dick in 1956? Avast ye matys!
Other than jamming two (?) books into one movie, not bad for the time.
Battleship - 5/10
Cheesy film based on the Hasbro game of the same name. Slightly entertaining, yet predictable and bland.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 27, 2020, 05:00:34 PM
Battleship - 5/10
Cheesy film based on the Hasbro game of the same name. Slightly entertaining, yet predictable and bland.
Anything Navy. Were you rooting for the aliens? Did you see Midway?
Kaiju would eat those aliens for breakfast!
I haven't seen Midway.
There could've been a lot engaging exposé in the Battleship movie, like why are the aliens here, what is their purpose, etc.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 27, 2020, 05:50:49 PM
I haven't seen Midway.
There could've been a lot engaging exposé in the Battleship movie, like why are the aliens here, what is their purpose, etc.
It was a silly billy movie made for no good reason.
Please tell me that someone at least said "You sunk my battleship!" in that movie. Otherwise, what's the point?
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 27, 2020, 08:33:26 PM
Please tell me that someone at least said "You sunk my battleship!" in that movie. Otherwise, what's the point?
I think I remember that line. Like you, I was looking for it. It was a weird game to make a movie out of, but there was about a two or three year period where there must have been 10 or15 games that made it too the big screen, but most of them were video games. I was suckered into going to see most of them.
Quote from: SGOS on May 27, 2020, 09:09:15 PM
I think I remember that line. Like you, I was looking for it. It was a weird game to make a movie out of, but there was about a two or three year period where there must have been 10 or15 games that made it too the big screen, but most of them were video games. I was suckered into going to see most of them.
Imo, Mortal Kombat is the only one that has any business being a live-action movie (which makes sense considering the original game used motion capture and had a rather striking similarity to Enter the Dragon), though I admit that Resident Evil, Pokemon, and Sonic are feasible as well. Pretty much all of the rest are DOA as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 27, 2020, 09:54:28 PM
Imo, Mortal Kombat is the only one that has any business being a live-action movie (which makes sense considering the original game used motion capture and had a rather striking similarity to Enter the Dragon), though I admit that Resident Evil, Pokemon, and Sonic are feasible as well. Pretty much all of the rest are DOA as far as I'm concerned.
kinda like street fighter, loved playing street fighter 2 turbo with my brother back in the day, and I got excited when they had the street fighter movies announced. Saw both, the live action movie was a mess, acting was terrible, and it felt more like a power rangers parody of street fighter. However the other street fighter movie they didn't get as much attention was the anime street fighter 2, by GisaburÅ Sugii. That became The street fighter movie I always rewatched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CRqf1M2ewQ
typical case really, while japan sees anime as another legit form of entertainment, the west then and today still sees animated as just a lesser form of entertainment *coughmoderndisneycough*
I watched "The Theory of Everything," based on the book by Jane Hawking about the life of Steven Hawking while she was married to him.
Rewatched Captain America: Civil War. Imo, it's not quite as good as I remember. Though the airport scene was amazing, the dour and pretty miserable atmosphere made it a really tough movie to get through. Plus, a lot of body aches could have been avoided with just a little negotiation. Kids fight, adults talk.
While Cap did have some good points, I'm still very much on Team Iron Man for this one. If you take a second to think about it, it really is crazy that superhumans act with impunity across national borders without any coordination or accountability. Put a pin in the problem of accidental casualties, what I wonder about is what happens when a plane is about to crash and none of the supers are available? Like they're offworld or something. Or there's hostage situation in Queens while Peter Parker is taking his SAT or asleep or in europe. 3 hostages could get gunned down and he'd never know. He's not psychic.
Ideally, there should be some sort of framework where supers are integrated into the first responder system. Authorities could summon them to where their particular talents are needed to maximize effectiveness - Storm to a hurricane, Captain Marvel to stop a crashing jet, Hawkeye to a renaissance festival, etc. Plus, they could provide cover stories for Peter Parker and others who live double lives. And the teams could be tailored for each situation - the Hulk might want to smash some giant robots in downtown NYC, but when he's paired with a teleporting partner, they can teleport the combatants to someplace no one would miss, like South Carolina, and have their big fight there instead. That'd be way better than the alternative. Utility heroes (supers whose powers aren't well suited for combat) would benefit tremendously from teaming up, as would the combat heroes they'd be helping.
This needn't be draconian, just managed/coordinated a little bit more.
The Sokovia Accords is the most contrived gimmick in a long history of comic book gimmicks.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 01, 2020, 04:32:07 AM
The Sokovia Accords is the most contrived gimmick in a long history of comic book gimmicks.
Writers must have sat around the table trying to think of something different, and someone said, "Suppose all the superheroes started fighting among themselves?" I give credit for trying to think of something new, but that's the first plot that would have crossed my mind, and I'm no creative writer.
Also, it happened when DC came up with the idea of Batman vs. Superman. I don't know who thought of it first, but copying the other guy is not real creativity. But the issue of creativity aside, I didn't care for either of those films. Well at least relatively speaking in terms of stuff Marvel usually comes up with. It seemed like the scenario was unlikely and the plot was contrived. Instead of focusing on the action and entertainment, I found my thoughts wandering to the writers and wondering what they were thinking, and if they were satisfied with the outcome. Or did they wish they would have come up with something else?
I don't recall taking sides with one side of the issue or the other. I just remember seeing a bunch of superheroes that couldn't get their shit together. It reminded me of a hypothetical government made up of Democrats and Republicans, with the inevitable outcome of chaos and confusion.
Quote from: SGOS on June 01, 2020, 08:02:23 AM
Writers must have sat around the table trying to think of something different, and someone said, "Suppose all the superheroes started fighting among themselves?" I give credit for trying to think of something new, but that's the first plot that would have crossed my mind, and I'm no creative writer.
Also, it happened when DC came up with the idea of Batman vs. Superman. I don't know who thought of it first, but copying the other guy is not real creativity. But the issue of creativity aside, I didn't care for either of those films. Well at least relatively speaking in terms of stuff Marvel usually comes up with. It seemed like the scenario was unlikely and the plot was contrived. Instead of focusing on the action and entertainment, I found my thoughts wandering to the writers and wondering what they were thinking, and if they were satisfied with the outcome. Or did they wish they would have come up with something else?
I don't recall taking sides with one side of the issue or the other. I just remember seeing a bunch of superheroes that couldn't get their shit together. It reminded me of a hypothetical government made up of Democrats and Republicans, with the inevitable outcome of chaos and confusion.
Captain America: Civil War was political foreshadowing. They weren't bright enough to come up with Avengers: Covid.
I've watched Labyrinth a few weeks ago. For the 20th time but the first time in more than 20 years. It's still very good. Aw.
Maybe I should watch Time Bandits. Or start a Terry Gilliam marathon.
No. Willow. :)
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 01, 2020, 08:50:05 AM
I've watched Labyrinth a few weeks ago. For the 20th time but the first time in more than 20 years. It's still very good. Aw.
Maybe I should watch Time Bandits. Or start a Terry Gilliam marathon.
No. Willow. :)
Both Time Bandits and Willow are very good. Classics! Labyrinth with David Bowie was good too. Pan's Labyrinth was too dark for me.
Quote from: SGOS on June 01, 2020, 08:02:23 AMI don't know who thought of it first, but copying the other guy is not real creativity.
*literally everyone in the comics industry except Jack Kirby*
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/87/64/c1/8764c14719bd7f43920b6f6041eedf12.jpg)
While I'm on the subject of originality. When was the last time you saw a wholly original action movie? Heist film? Rom com? Scifi film? I could go on.
In fact, how many movies have you seen in the past 10 years that weren't sequels, prequels, reimaginings, or adaptations? I'm not sure if I can even name one.
I think I could name one, but I'd have to think about it. On the other hand, I heard one time from someone who sounded quite authoritative, that every plot ever written had already been done by Shakespeare. But that sounds like a rather sweeping claim. I never bothered trying to disprove it, although I haven't read much of Shakespeare, so that would be futile.
Maybe what that guy meant was something like this:
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20180525-every-story-in-the-world-has-one-of-these-six-basic-plots
Which basically says there's more than just one good way to skin a cat.
Quote from: SGOS on June 01, 2020, 04:45:29 PM
I think I could name one, but I'd have to think about it. On the other hand, I heard one time from someone who sounded quite authoritative, that every plot ever written had already been done by Shakespeare. But that sounds like a rather sweeping claim. I never bothered trying to disprove it, although I haven't read much of Shakespeare, so that would be futile.
Maybe what that guy meant was something like this:
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20180525-every-story-in-the-world-has-one-of-these-six-basic-plots
Which basically says there's more than just one good way to skin a cat.
And every war is won, lost, or indecisive. Doesn't mean there aren't plenty of differences.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 01, 2020, 09:13:48 PM
And every war is won, lost, or indecisive. Doesn't mean there aren't plenty of differences.
American Revolution never ended (Confederates restarted it). Civil War never ended. WW I never ended. WW II never ended. Korean War never ended. Cold War never ended. Need I go on? The idea of success and failure is bullshit. So I guess the answer is always "indecisive".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXDPejI9uTI
woof!
Quote from: Baruch on June 01, 2020, 09:21:05 AM
Pan's Labyrinth was too dark for me.
Too real? That's the only one reflecting reality bluntly on that list.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 03, 2020, 03:50:15 AM
Too real? That's the only one reflecting reality bluntly on that list.
I am not the type that likes to see post-Spanish Civil War cruelty, or the death of a little girl. Entertainment is rejection of reality, for a little while.
As an anthropologist, I did like the historical zeitgeist. Modern Spain is little used as a meme here.
On the other hand, my ancestors left Europe, even GB, because of the barbarous vendetta there.
The Last Days of American Crime - 2/10
Just look at this contrived bullshit - I did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdWxGwiuhnU
As long as there are humans, there will be crime. Only Americans are so childish as to rename their criminality as something else.
We watched Scream 1996, oh boy, how stupid.
I tried to have look at the new Lion King. I couldn't watch it. Jumped forward to check Tomin in and Pumbaa... AAARRGH! It's not even bad, it is an abomination. Now, I am watching the original to clean the recent memory. I hope the original voice cast haven't seen any of it...which included names like Jeremy Irons, James Earl Jones, Rowan Attkinson, Whoope Goldberg...etc. E: I fortgot Nathan Lane. And the lines... ffs.
Ed?
Kung Fu Hustle (2004)
Really good mix of comedy and action, with the comedic-aspect of it helping gloss over and explain some of the ridiculous CGI scenes. The story and world-building seems very bareboned, but it works.
If you like martial arts and/or comedy movies, definitely a recommend.
On a related note, it's interesting to notice how much modern comic movies are based on the old martial art films of Hong Kong, using many of the same techniques (just with more 'realism' and advanced CGI) to accentuate the action. Edit: And the more I think about it, those films really were "super hero" films as well, just based on folk-legend and the like rather than comics... which I would argue have reached the point of being the modern day equivalent of folklore with how iconic they are.
One of those love it or hate it movies. Still a side-splitter in place for me.
"Flirting Scholar" ... so funny I had to turn away at times. What China could produce before the CCP banned humor ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dghEmuAjUPY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZd3xUDudy8
I dunno how to feel about this. On one hand, it looks like good production values and they nailed that retrofuturistic aesthetic, especially with the vehicles. Though some of the costumes are kinda wonky - I swear one guy was wearing athletic pads painted blue. And this trailer is cut like a thriller movie, which Foundation absolutely is not. Is that just to get asses in seats, or is indicative of the overall tone? Cause I sure hope the former.
And did I just see a friggin' monster? WTH!
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 24, 2020, 09:21:53 PM
I dunno how to feel about this. On one hand, it looks like good production values and they nailed that retrofuturistic aesthetic, especially with the vehicles. Though some of the costumes are kinda wonky - I swear one guy was wearing athletic pads painted blue. And this trailer is cut like a thriller movie, which Foundation absolutely is not. Is that just to get asses in seats, or is indicative of the overall tone? Cause I sure hope the former.
And did I just see a friggin' monster? WTH!
I know how I feel about it.
Let's start with a heapin' helping of "WHAT THE ABSOLUTE TECHNICOLOR FUCK DID 98% OF THAT HAVE TO DO WITH 'FOUNDATION'?"
I re-read the core trilogy about annually.
Some of the dialog could be a fair extrapolation from the first novel. I'm fine with Gaal being a black woman; it was written in a different time when minorities and women were poorly represented (if at all), and Asimov himself tried (with limited success) to redress that in later additions to the series.
I have looked at the Wikipedia page on the upcoming series, and I am not encouraged. Who says, "Yeah, let's take the winner of the Hugo for Best All Time Series and fuck around with it without any good reason to do so"? Well, apparently the production team of this mess does.
I can guarandamntee that there are
no such things as 'Brother Dawn', 'Brother Day' and 'Brother Dusk' in the entire series. Salvor (presumably Hardin) is absolutely
not contemporaneous with Seldon and can
not be contemporaneous unless they're turning this into an adaptation in the same way that "I, Robot" (spitspit) was an "adaptation". There are plot reasons that Hardin is 50 years after Seldon's time -- fundamental enough that if they're playing with
that plot thread, then they are
not making an actual Foundation series.
Fucking disaster.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 24, 2020, 09:21:53 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZd3xUDudy8
I dunno how to feel about this. On one hand, it looks like good production values and they nailed that retrofuturistic aesthetic, especially with the vehicles. Though some of the costumes are kinda wonky - I swear one guy was wearing athletic pads painted blue. And this trailer is cut like a thriller movie, which Foundation absolutely is not. Is that just to get asses in seats, or is indicative of the overall tone? Cause I sure hope the former.
And did I just see a friggin' monster? WTH!
The great scifi novel by Asimov. Trantor, capital of a post-Earth galactic empire. The psycho-historian has statistically modeled that it will inevitably fail, producing centuries of darkness. Reminds me now of the bad Covid model from GB. Like Dune without the drugs.
Quote from: trdsf on June 24, 2020, 10:54:03 PMI re-read the core trilogy about annually. Some of the dialog could be a fair extrapolation from the first novel. I'm fine with Gaal being a black woman; it was written in a different time when minorities and women were poorly represented (if at all), and Asimov himself tried (with limited success) to redress that in later additions to the series.
I read Foundation long ago and although I still broadly understand the series, I do not at all remember the details, especially character names and ethnicities. I just checked out the wiki and apparently, most of Trantor is multiracial due to centuries of interracial marriage. I'm sure that'll go over well with certain audiences, lol.
QuoteFucking disaster.
Patience. All we have so far is the trailer. If I made snap decisions based on trailers, I'd think that Suicide Squad was a masterpiece and Ghostbusters (1984) was awful. I want to wait for the critics' reviews to come in before drawing any firm conclusions.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 24, 2020, 11:44:04 PM
Patience. All we have so far is the trailer. If I made snap decisions based on trailers, I'd think that Suicide Squad was a masterpiece and Ghostbusters (1984) was awful. I want to wait for the critics' reviews to come in before drawing any firm conclusions.
Actually, it's the writeup about all the extraneous stuff that really has me... worried, concerned, upset, somewhere in that vicinity. It doesn't look like they're going to tell the actual story in Foundation, it looks like they're going to do an "inspired by" like I, Robot.
Asimov has historically been treated
terribly by Hollywood. Three versions of "Nightfall" have been made. The first was unmitigated trash... and the two that followed were even
worse. Ellison's brilliant script for I, Robot was never produced, mainly because Harlan insulted an exec. Fantastic Voyage wasn't actually his -- they contracted with him to write the novelization, and Asimov was such a fast writer he had it on the shelves a couple months before the movie released. So far, the only movie of any of Asimov's work that's been not bad is Bicentennial Man.
From what I've read about what they're doing to the story -- Foundation does not sound like it's going to challenge Bicentennial man for "least worst adaptation". I said a long time ago that Joe Straczynski should be showrunner of any Foundation miniseries, and I stand by that. He respects the work -- Foundation was an inspiration for his own Babylon 5. I see no evidence the team doing
this version respects the work.
I no longer expect anything good from hollywood when they put one of my favorite sci-fi books on the screen. I was super excited when the first Planet of the Apes and I Am Legend first came out. Deeply disappointed when I saw them. I don't expect anything from books to movies.
Quote from: trdsf on June 25, 2020, 03:40:26 AMI said a long time ago that Joe Straczynski should be showrunner of any Foundation miniseries, and I stand by that. He respects the work -- Foundation was an inspiration for his own Babylon 5. I see no evidence the team doing this version respects the work.
JMS is still kicking around? The last thing I remember from him was The Lost Tales. Heh, remember the time the Devil possessed someone and some priest has some sort of spiritual head-to-head with him? Quality scifi right there. :P
But yeah, none of the indicators for this Foundation movie are particularly good so far. I don't understand why it couldn't get the Dune treatment - big budget, quality actors, deep respect for the source material. Not some lowballed, hastily put together shitshow. I don't understand why Hollywood still hasn't figured out that if you take the money and time to make a high quality product, you will make a killing in the box office. It's not rocket science.
Meanwhile, the world is a twitter with anticipation of "Godzilla vs. King Kong."
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 25, 2020, 12:58:43 PM
Meanwhile, the world is a twitter with anticipation of "Godzilla vs. King Kong."
Rodan will sue for species discrimination!
I'll add the book to my list.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 25, 2020, 12:08:17 PM
JMS is still kicking around? The last thing I remember from him was The Lost Tales. Heh, remember the time the Devil possessed someone and some priest has some sort of spiritual head-to-head with him? Quality scifi right there. :P
But yeah, none of the indicators for this Foundation movie are particularly good so far. I don't understand why it couldn't get the Dune treatment - big budget, quality actors, deep respect for the source material. Not some lowballed, hastily put together shitshow. I don't understand why Hollywood still hasn't figured out that if you take the money and time to make a high quality product, you will make a killing in the box office. It's not rocket science.
Not familiar with Lost Tales offhand -- I haven't had cable since 2005. JMS is of course responsible for Babylon 5, which is unquestionably quality SF.
I definitely recommend JMS's memoir, Becoming Superman: My Journey From Poverty to Hollywood. It would make a good movie.
Quote from: Baruch on June 25, 2020, 03:31:12 PM
Rodan will sue for species discrimination!
Gojira had two movies out before Rodan came along.
Quote from: trdsf on June 25, 2020, 04:05:35 PM
Not familiar with Lost Tales offhand -- I haven't had cable since 2005. JMS is of course responsible for Babylon 5, which is unquestionably quality SF.
Not had cable TV, or not bothered with it since 2005. Even cable TV or Netflix kinds of pay-per-view is a dead medium for me. Internet (not streaming media) is all I have needed for 15 years. People who still are on TV of any kind, are like seniors keeping their rotary phones ;-)
Quote from: trdsf on June 25, 2020, 04:05:35 PMNot familiar with Lost Tales offhand -- I haven't had cable since 2005. JMS is of course responsible for Babylon 5, which is unquestionably quality SF.
Oh, I know. Babylon 5 is one of my favorites. I was just poking fun at the poor quality towards the end. The Lost Tales were supposed to be an exciting short story compilation to Babylon 5, but a poor budget and what I assume was some sort of insanity-inducing gas pumped directly into the writers' room killed all chances that there would be any more stories in the B5 universe.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 25, 2020, 07:09:46 PM
Oh, I know. Babylon 5 is one of my favorites. I was just poking fun at the poor quality towards the end. The Lost Tales were supposed to be an exciting short story compilation to Babylon 5, but a poor budget and what I assume was some sort of insanity-inducing gas pumped directly into the writers' room killed all chances that there would be any more stories in the B5 universe.
Not sure what happened to Lost Tales; I know Crusade got screwed by the network because they kept playing them out of order even though it's a consistent story arc that needed to buildup over time. And of course not finding out until the last possible second that B5 was getting a 5th season, after he'd already wrapped up almost everything in the fourth because he didn't think he was getting the full five. Science fiction has historically been the red-headed step child of movies and TV.
Midsommar festival turned into a horror movie must hit Swedes like Pig Pickin' turned into a slasher movie for Southerners.
I just watched Midsommer and that movie shocked and disturbed me to my core. I can't say I'm too surprised by any of how it turned out, it was horror after all. And if you've ever watched the early seasons of Vikings, you kinda already have the gist of it, just 1000% more horrifying.
On that note, I think I may have to call it quits on horror movies for a long, long while. While I like a good spooky tale and fright every now and then, I don't have the stomach to enjoy what other people enjoy (which is fine).
I'm more into Blair Witch or The Shining or the Ninth Gate or 28 Days Later or Demon Knight or Army of Darkness, if that counts. I'm not into Human Centipede or Saw or Hannibal or Us. I'm into movies where there's danger and people buy the farm on occasion, but it's not usually graphic or deeply disturbing. I'm just looking for a little thrill, I'm not looking to be psychologically scarred.
I don't ever want to be that terrified again. I...I got scared straight. Oh, my God, I got scared straight.
Yeah, Midsommer was a mind fuck. I watched that on magic mushies and I wasn't really ready for that, but it was at a party and I couldn't turn away. Some of it hit a little too close to home, particularly near the beginning.
Just finished watching Knives Out, really REALLY enjoyed it. It's a nice, fun "whodunit?" film that is aware of what it is, pokes fun of what it is, and yet does it amazingly well at the same time. And Daniel Craig speakin' with a Kentucky accent is life. It's got a pretty uplifting story as well (particularly for a murder mystery), so that's pretty cool.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 28, 2020, 01:57:21 AM
I just watched Midsommer and that movie shocked and disturbed me to my core.
Horror is not my favorite genre, but Midsommer gets extra points for it's uniqueness. It does what most horror does not. It penetrates the subconscious recesses of the human mind where normal humans don't want to go, and it has the capacity to fuck viewers up hours after they leave the theater, and for a couple of days after that. Your description "disturbing to the core" could not be more accurate. I think it does this by using people instead of monsters. I can think of a bare handful of movies that have affected me at that level. A year ago, I recommended it here. I think I may have added a guarded caution that could have easily been interpreted as your typical "R" rated film, but the American Movie Association doesn't really have a letter grade capable of warning viewers what they are in for when they watch it. And watching it on mind altering drugs (Shiranu), makes as much sense to me as playing Russian Roulette with a 44 Magnum.
For some reason, Swedes know how do do horror. I don't know why. Maybe they don't get enough sunlight, and then when it comes all at once in the summer, they don't know what to do with it. The lead actress was perfect for the part. I don't think I've seen her in anything else, but she does "innocent and vulnerable" in a way that doesn't even seem like she is acting.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 28, 2020, 01:57:21 AM
I just watched Midsommer and that movie shocked and disturbed me to my core. I can't say I'm too surprised by any of how it turned out, it was horror after all. And if you've ever watched the early seasons of Vikings, you kinda already have the gist of it, just 1000% more horrifying.
On that note, I think I may have to call it quits on horror movies for a long, long while. While I like a good spooky tale and fright every now and then, I don't have the stomach to enjoy what other people enjoy (which is fine).
I'm more into Blair Witch or The Shining or the Ninth Gate or 28 Days Later or Demon Knight or Army of Darkness, if that counts. I'm not into Human Centipede or Saw or Hannibal or Us. I'm into movies where there's danger and people buy the farm on occasion, but it's not usually graphic or deeply disturbing. I'm just looking for a little thrill, I'm not looking to be psychologically scarred.
I don't ever want to be that terrified again. I...I got scared straight. Oh, my God, I got scared straight.
You have a stronger constitution than I. I got scared straight off horror with a sci-fi film. :))) I watched the 53 version of War of the Worlds in a theater by myself and then had to go home to my grandparents house out in the country, and sleep upstairs by myself. Yeah, it scared me. So, I was never fond of horror thereafter. Every now and again I see one--It was my last. And I always ask myself--What were you thinking??!! Stephen King sort of forced me to start some of his horror novels like Cujo, It, Pet Sematary and the like. I love King's writing and character development, but I could not finish Cujo or Pet Sematary (got thu It somehow), and now I don't even start those types of his books. I stick with Delores Claiborne,The Stand, The Cell--those types of his books. You lasted much longer in horror than I. :)
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2020, 04:55:41 AM
Yeah, Midsommer was a mind fuck. I watched that on magic mushies and I wasn't really ready for that, but it was at a party and I couldn't turn away. Some of it hit a little too close to home, particularly near the beginning.
Just finished watching Knives Out, really REALLY enjoyed it. It's a nice, fun "whodunit?" film that is aware of what it is, pokes fun of what it is, and yet does it amazingly well at the same time. And Daniel Craig speakin' with a Kentucky accent is life. It's got a pretty uplifting story as well (particularly for a murder mystery), so that's pretty cool.
Magic shrooms? Didn't you strip naked and go all Berzerker? Did you turn into Henrik Ibsen? Father of dramatic Feminism?
Hamilton 9/10
*watches the beginning of 28 Days Later*
Hey, I remember that from a couple weeks ago!
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 28, 2020, 09:36:06 AM
I watched the 53 version of War of the Worlds in a theater by myself and then had to go home to my grandparents house out in the country, and sleep upstairs by myself. Yeah, it scared me.
Oh, that movie fucked me up when I was 8 -- although actually,
When Worlds Collide did a bigger number on my head -- unfortunately, the night after I first saw it, there was a full moon in the sky outside my bedroom window... and it was
years before I could sleep with the shades open again.
28 Days Later was super vicious but it also had some strangely soothing music and even joyful and hopeful scenes. You don't always get that in zombie movies. Wild cinematography. And I forgot that it had the 9th Doctor.
My first scary movie was the 1950s version of The Thing. It wrecked my sleeping habits for what seemed like a year. I don't think my parents should have let me go see it. A kid who was one year older than me went with me explained the concept of a scary movie on our way to the theater. I could not grasp how a movie could be scary. I was somewhere around 8 to 10 years old, I suppose. James Arness was the actor who played the Thing. Later he became the TV star of Gunsmoke. I think they picked him because he was taller than most actors.
Quote from: SGOS on July 05, 2020, 05:26:48 AM
My first scary movie was the 1950s version of The Thing. It wrecked my sleeping habits for what seemed like a year. I don't think my parents should have let me go see it. A kid who was one year older than me went with me explained the concept of a scary movie on our way to the theater. I could not grasp how a movie could be scary. I was somewhere around 8 to 10 years old, I suppose. James Arness was the actor who played the Thing. Later he became the TV star of Gunsmoke. I think they picked him because he was taller than most actors.
"The Thing from Another World" was based on a short story, "Who Goes There". Fun read even today.
When Worlds Collide is the granddaddy of the 2012 Nabiru scifi panic ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU1QPtOZQZU
Actual asteroid impacts are at extreme velocity, instantaneous, not slow and to a musical beat.
The only "panic" was from watching idiots go apeshit.
Passengers (2008) Anne Hathaway, Patrick Wilson, David Morse
A grief counselor working with a group of plane-crash survivors....'
4 of 10. Started out promising and then went off the rails into supernatural nonsense as so many films do. I get bored when this happens....'Contact' with Jodie Foster turned into a train wreck as well.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 05, 2020, 11:22:00 AM
The only "panic" was from watching idiots go apeshit.
Did you do Year 2000 prep? I know I guy who did. And I was involved in correcting some military computers to make sure they worked New Years day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1F7vaNP9w0
I got paid $200 to sit in my office at State Farm and notify the boss if it was an actual thing. Not sure how I would have done that, but I took the money. And the free lunch for myself and my staff person, and my wife who did the carry out. Italian, really good Italian. (And I used to live in Italy.)
Quote from: Baruch on July 05, 2020, 09:13:13 AM
When Worlds Collide is the granddaddy of the 2012 Nabiru scifi panic ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU1QPtOZQZU
Actual asteroid impacts are at extreme velocity, instantaneous, not slow and to a musical beat.
Think of all the damage that would do to the economy.
Akira - 1988
Highly, highly disappointed in it. Always heard it was a masterpiece and the film that got the West into anime but it didn't do much for me. Would not recommend. The later-half was at least bearable, but the first hour I had to watch in 20 minute chunks because it was just too boring.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 06, 2020, 05:12:11 PM
Akira - 1988
Highly, highly disappointed in it. Always heard it was a masterpiece and the film that got the West into anime but it didn't do much for me. Would not recommend. The later-half was at least bearable, but the first hour I had to watch in 20 minute chunks because it was just too boring.
Looks just like 2020 ... boring?
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 06, 2020, 03:31:44 PM
Think of all the damage that would do to the economy.
Also, it's not slow motion. It only looks that way because space is
big. I run realtime simulations in Universe Sandbox (http://universesandbox.com) on these sorts of themes all the time. One thinks of a supernova as blasting a solar system into cinders in an instant -- nope, the speed of light is still the speed limit. I've set the sun to go supernova and let it run in realtime. The light still takes eight minutes to get there -- Earth is toast within about half an hour of the sun going boom, but only because of the additional radiated energy across the spectrum. The actual debris and shock wave takes about two hours to get to the Earth.
So absolutely yes, viewed from that distance, an asteroid impact like that would look like it's in slow motion, even though it's happening at tens of thousands of miles an hour. An asteroid moving at 40,000 miles an hour is still going to take six hours or so to cross the Earth/Moon distance.
As far as the soundtrack for the end of the world, that'd be a good one to go out on. :)
Quote from: Shiranu on July 06, 2020, 05:12:11 PM
Akira - 1988
Highly, highly disappointed in it. Always heard it was a masterpiece and the film that got the West into anime but it didn't do much for me. Would not recommend. The later-half was at least bearable, but the first hour I had to watch in 20 minute chunks because it was just too boring.
I remember being really impressed by
Akira in '90 or '91... and then when I saw it some ten, twelve years later, it rapidly devolved into MST3K night. It really didn't age well at all; I think it was only because I had never seen animation quite like that before, being used to try to tell a serious story rather than be a 'cartoon movie'.
Quote from: trdsf on July 06, 2020, 07:04:11 PM
Also, it's not slow motion. It only looks that way because space is big. I run realtime simulations in Universe Sandbox (http://universesandbox.com) on these sorts of themes all the time. One thinks of a supernova as blasting a solar system into cinders in an instant -- nope, the speed of light is still the speed limit. I've set the sun to go supernova and let it run in realtime. The light still takes eight minutes to get there -- Earth is toast within about half an hour of the sun going boom, but only because of the additional radiated energy across the spectrum. The actual debris and shock wave takes about two hours to get to the Earth.
So absolutely yes, viewed from that distance, an asteroid impact like that would look like it's in slow motion, even though it's happening at tens of thousands of miles an hour. An asteroid moving at 40,000 miles an hour is still going to take six hours or so to cross the Earth/Moon distance.
As far as the soundtrack for the end of the world, that'd be a good one to go out on. :)
Have you read "Rescue Party"? https://www.baen.com/Chapters/0743498747/0743498747___1.htm
Quote from: trdsf on July 06, 2020, 07:04:11 PMAs far as the soundtrack for the end of the world, that'd be a good one to go out on. :)
I'm a bit partial to Yakety Sax. I suppose we'll have to create a playlist.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 06, 2020, 09:12:53 PM
I'm a bit partial to Yakety Sax. I suppose we'll have to create a playlist.
I really can't see my way clear to denying Yakkity Sax as the outro music for humanity. Bob knows we're fucked up enough to make it appropriate.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 06, 2020, 08:02:20 PM
Have you read "Rescue Party"? https://www.baen.com/Chapters/0743498747/0743498747___1.htm
I have now. This is why Clarke is a genius. :D
Quote"You know," he said to Rugon, "I feel rather afraid of these people. Suppose they don't like our little Federation?" He waved once more toward the star-clouds that lay massed across the screen, glowing with the light of their countless suns.
"Something tells me they'll be very determined people," he added. "We had better be polite to them. After all, we only outnumber them about a thousand million to one."
Rugon laughed at his captain's little joke.
Twenty years afterward, the remark didn't seem funny.
For thirteen year old me that was a hell of a lot of new stuff that I had to work on. Loved it.
Atlas Shrugged Part 1 ...
I read the book when I was in HS, because my mother urged it on me. Then went on to read everything Ayn Rand wrote. But I didn't become a Republican.
From my POV, Atlas Shrugged is about a worldwide corrupt Elite who are trashing the world with their callous incompetence. But there are a few Elite left, who are Chads. People who can both talk the talk and walk the walk ... what if they abandoned the Karens and the Normies to their fate?
Who is John Galt?
I read Atlas Shrugged in college and remember it being very long with elements I enjoyed and elements that seemed very heavy-handed and repetitive. I knew several people who LOVED this book. I may check out the movies since they are free on Amazon Prime.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/bookshelf.png)
I went through an Ayn Rand period. Loved Atlas Shrugged. Fountainhead, not so much. And really loved the tiny Anthem. After college, I sort of forgot those three books. Later I thought it would be a fun read to start on Atlas Shrugged and then the other two. Not so much fun; wondered where my head was when I thought I loved any of that crap.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 07, 2020, 06:32:53 PM
I went through an Ayn Rand period. Loved Atlas Shrugged. Fountainhead, not so much. And really loved the tiny Anthem. After college, I sort of forgot those three books. Later I thought it would be a fun read to start on Atlas Shrugged and then the other two. Not so much fun; wondered where my head was when I thought I loved any of that crap.
I think a lot of the themes of Atlas Shrugged appeal to young men, especially rational types.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 07, 2020, 06:32:53 PM
I went through an Ayn Rand period. Loved Atlas Shrugged. Fountainhead, not so much. And really loved the tiny Anthem. After college, I sort of forgot those three books. Later I thought it would be a fun read to start on Atlas Shrugged and then the other two. Not so much fun; wondered where my head was when I thought I loved any of that crap.
I did the same thing, but I only read Atlas Shrugged. I think understanding that Rand was a lunatic may have taken all the fun out of her stories. Science fiction and fantasy with a little mystery thrown in is fun, but not meant to be taken seriously as a political ideology.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 07, 2020, 06:59:33 PM
I think a lot of the themes of Atlas Shrugged appeal to young men, especially rational types.
Yeah, you may be on to something. I look back and wonder at myself. How could anybody like Heinlein and Rand at the same time????
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 07, 2020, 05:15:37 PM
I read Atlas Shrugged in college and remember it being very long with elements I enjoyed and elements that seemed very heavy-handed and repetitive. I knew several people who LOVED this book. I may check out the movies since they are free on Amazon Prime.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/bookshelf.png)
The Atlas Shrugged movie is much less pedantic ... it had to be. The Fountainhead was made into a famous movie (1949 Gary Cooper), because it was a shorter novel, and had normal dramatic elements. Atlas Shrugged (the book) is too long, and John Galt's speech toward the end (think V for Vendetta) was widely mocked for its length.' The Fountainhead is about artistic integrity and architecture. Artsy people still get upset about styles in architecture. "The Fountainhead is the quintessentially American movie, and the most stylized and powerful presentation of a radical individualist ever presented on film."
Ayn Rand's characters tended to be as sociopathic as she was herself ;-)
"Anthem" is a post-apocalypse short story. The bad guys are anti-technology ... so atheists like the protagonist.
Rewatching the Lord of the Rings trilogy, extended edition (just like my quarantine :sad:)
The Fellowship of the Ring is a much better movie all around than from what I remember. I think those extra scenes give it more connective tissue between the theatrical scenes. They certainly place a lot of extra emphasis on Aragorn's lineage and on the elves in general.
The downside is that this movie is nearly 4 hours, practically a trilogy in its own right. But having extra helpings of a great movie is a pretty nice problem to have.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 07, 2020, 05:15:37 PM
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/bookshelf.png)
"Put ze stupid book back!"
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 07, 2020, 06:32:53 PM
I went through an Ayn Rand period. Loved Atlas Shrugged. Fountainhead, not so much. And really loved the tiny Anthem. After college, I sort of forgot those three books. Later I thought it would be a fun read to start on Atlas Shrugged and then the other two. Not so much fun; wondered where my head was when I thought I loved any of that crap.
I never did a Rand period. The first time I heard about the political philosophy of Libertarianism, my thought was (and remains to this day), "Well, that's interesting. Too bad it's as deliberately ignorant of basic human nature as Marxism is." Marxism mistakenly assumes society will act in the best interest of citizens. Economic libertarians mistakenly assume that the market will; social libertarians make the same error as Marxists and mistakenly assume society will.
I have kind of watched/listened The Meg. It's a terrible movie and a bit of fun.
[spoiler]The usual deal. People are stupid and they're all in a lab on the middle of the ocean. A couple of them can't even swim. There is a megalodon in the water but then that's nothing because it seems they barely survive in the middle of the freaking ocean anyway. Also apparently dear ancient Meg(s) have long become senile because while there is bigger, better meat everywhere, it is hunting the salty, yikes human meat. ...blah blah Bad ending, it dies before eating enough people but it eats a few boats of shark poachers that part was a nice touch. [/spoiler]
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 12, 2020, 12:05:47 PM
I have kind of watched/listened The Meg. It's a terrible movie and a bit of fun.
[spoiler]The usual deal. People are stupid and they're all in a lab on the middle of the ocean. A couple of them can't even swim. There is a megalodon in the water but then that's nothing because it seems they barely survive in the middle of the freaking ocean anyway. Also apparently dear ancient Meg(s) have long become senile because while there is bigger, better meat everywhere, it is hunting the salty, yikes human meat. ...blah blah Bad ending, it dies before eating enough people but it eats a few boats of shark poachers that part was a nice touch. [/spoiler]
[spoiler]First half was a little fresh, second half was Jaws XXXII. [/spoiler]
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 12, 2020, 12:18:52 PM
[spoiler]First half was a little fresh, second half was Jaws XXXII. [/spoiler]
Lol yeah. Jaws for the new generation.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 12, 2020, 12:42:57 PM
Lol yeah. Jaws for the new generation.
With a lower case "j".
Watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy and I'm just in awe of how influential that series was, especially when it comes to fantasy gaming.
While afaik LotR didn't actually originate elves, dwarfs, orcs, goblins, dragons, wizards, magic items, etc it definitely cemented them in public consciousness and how they operate. In just about any fiction, orcs are bestial and warlike. Dwarves are hearty and cave-dwelling. Elves are long-lived and adept at magic.
Huge chunks of D&D was directly inspired by LotR. And just about everything else (MTG, Warcraft, to some degree TES) borrows heavily from D&D.
Modern fantasy wouldn't exist in its current state without LotR.
Ummmm...
The Hunt 8/10
It's so bloody it's laughable, which is the intention. Think Ready or Not; It's that kind of dark humor. Mostly users at Redbox liked it. But those who didn't said they hated it. I'm more inclined to think it hit a nerve, because it's clearly political satire. There were back handed references to the current administration, and neither liberals or conservatives were scripted to look like the good guys.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 13, 2020, 12:31:42 AM
Watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy and I'm just in awe of how influential that series was, especially when it comes to fantasy gaming.
While afaik LotR didn't actually originate elves, dwarfs, orcs, goblins, dragons, wizards, magic items, etc it definitely cemented them in public consciousness and how they operate. In just about any fiction, orcs are bestial and warlike. Dwarves are hearty and cave-dwelling. Elves are long-lived and adept at magic.
Huge chunks of D&D was directly inspired by LotR. And just about everything else (MTG, Warcraft, to some degree TES) borrows heavily from D&D.
Modern fantasy wouldn't exist in its current state without LotR.
Inspired me to practice speed-shooting my recurve bow...at the cost of bit of velocity and accuracy of course. A stationary orc at 20 or 30 yards can expect two solid hits in three seconds.
Quote from: Cassia on July 13, 2020, 09:53:29 AM
my recurve bow...
You still have one of those? I hunted with one of those for 25 years and never hit anything with it. Compounds came out and I doggedly kept hunting with the recurve. It was sad and depressing. Finally, I broke down and bought a starter compound, and I killed a little buck. Things were looking up. I entered a field shoot with it and got my ass handed to me. Almost everyone at the shoot was using the same bow, a hybrid made by a crack archer in Kalispell, Montana that owned a shop. I got one of those and went to a lighter arrow, and later went to shorter arrows with an overdraw shelf, so I wouldn't have to compensate as much for distance. I practiced every day during the spring, summer, and fall. I've never been a good shot with anything that required aiming, but I got to a point where I wouldn't embarrass myself. Anything that would increase accuracy and compensate for my own deficiencies, I had on that bow. That bow and my first set of arrows cost me more than my rifle and shotgun together. I killed a 7 point whitetail western count that went into the Pope and Young record book for archers. I suppose it's still in there. I haven't looked to see in the last 25 years. It just made it into the bottom tier, but I had the head mounted, and it still hangs on my wall here in Virginia.
My father was a purist and was disgusted with me selling out and going high tech. When I shot that first little buck, he said, "Nice little buck. Too bad you had to shoot it with a machine." A hunter friend of mine who was a rifle hunter decided to get a bow. His reason was that bow season coincided with the elk rut. He said, it seemed like it would be an easy way to get a big bull. I laughed at him like he was an idiot. Opening day of that season, he shot a 6 point bull. The next season we hunted together, and one evening we separated and went our own ways. At dusk I heard him bugling over and over off in a different part of the forest. When we got back to the truck he informed me that he and downed a 4 point bull. We spent the next day hauling it out of the woods.
One year, I just got tired of killing things and sold all my stuff. I never thought that would happen. I don't have the desire to hunt anymore, but I remember spending many happy days out in the woods chasing game over the hills.
Watched “Jersey Boys†gotta admit I liked it. Give it a 7. I don’t know if they actually sang or dubbed or used early tapes so early Frankie not as clean as later Frankie, but a nice show. Interesting mob stuff, lucky the boy made it out. So if housebound give it a try.
Quote from: aitm on July 14, 2020, 09:27:57 PM
Watched “Jersey Boys†gotta admit I liked it. Give it a 7. I don’t know if they actually sang or dubbed or used early tapes so early Frankie not as clean as later Frankie, but a nice show. Interesting mob stuff, lucky the boy made it out. So if housebound give it a try.
I actually saw the play in Chicago. I don't generally like plays, but I enjoyed that one, and I thought it was better than the movie, which I saw later.
The Matrix Reloaded
I liked the first film a lot. Revolutions (the third movie?), not so much. Somehow I had missed Reloaded, or if I saw it, I didn't remember a thing about it, possibly because it strikes me as forgettable. The action was kind of fun in a ridiculous sort of way. The original film kept my attentions all the way through because it was an original concept, but once the concept became clear, their wasn't much left over to work with. I turned off Reloaded at one hour and 47 minutes. I may finish it tomorrow, but I'm going to bed right now.
Revolutions is a continuation of Reloaded. Those movies are a two-parter. It's not recommended to watch one without the other. Or either without some kind of drinking game! (Take a shot whenever someone says something that doesn't make any sense, lol)
And while it tried to expand the setting and do some serious worldbuilding, the plot itself is rather dull - macGuffin central, monologues, and the world's simultaneously most boring and important-sounding speech in cinematic history. Ergo. Vis-a-vis.
Its most glaring flaw is that there's very little character agency (characters driving the plot) - instead it's the plot happening to the characters - things are happening to them and they're just reacting. If that sounds familiar, that's how the Star Wars prequels operated and look how it worked out for them. And while this lack of agency does tie into the central theme of Matrix Reloaded, it makes for a very, very dull audience experience.
Check this out after you finish it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TROA_0RxZmM
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 15, 2020, 12:40:46 AM
Check this out after you finish it:
That review covers most of my criticisms exactly but could have gone even further:
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 15, 2020, 12:40:46 AM
the plot itself is rather dull - macGuffin central, monologues, and the world's simultaneously most boring and important-sounding speech in cinematic history.
OMG; The speech! Laurence Fishburne as an actor must have been embarrassed to be called upon to deliver that scene. I was embarrassed for him just watching it, and then it was followed by what the review called a "rave." I called it an orgy, but "rave" could also be used; It had the sensual dance moves in Dirty dancing, but much more graphic visuals centered around intensely erotic cleavage that was missing from the the Dirty Dancing classic, while Neo and Trinity fuck in some nearby alcove apparently designed specifically for copulation. Talk about tropes; "The world is about to end! Lets fuck one more time."
Your observation of the monologues is a good one. They come one after another for the first 35 minutes, and all of them are boringly pompous. These are interrupted by action scenes. After which, the monologues start up again.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 15, 2020, 12:40:46 AM
Its most glaring flaw is that there's very little character agency (characters driving the plot) - instead it's the plot happening to the characters - things are happening to them and they're just reacting. If that sounds familiar, that's how the Star Wars prequels operated and look how it worked out for them. And while this lack of agency does tie into the central theme of Matrix Reloaded, it makes for a very, very dull audience experience.
I wasn't actually aware of this in Star Wars. I just know that the sequels were uninteresting to me, but in Reloaded, the idea of predestination is right in your face and gratuitously pompous. The movie does capture the essence of real life debates over free will and predestination that mimic the heady philosophical arguments we are familiar with.
Actually, I haven't finished the movie, and I don't think I ever will, unless I find the need to exercise more critical observations. Other than that, I have little motivation to finish the movie.
Quote from: SGOS on July 15, 2020, 06:22:14 AM
OMG; The speech! Laurence Fishburne as an actor must have been embarrassed to be called upon to deliver that scene.
I was talking about the Architect's monologue, but that works too.
QuoteI wasn't actually aware of this in Star Wars.
Almost all the major plot points in the first two prequels are things that happen to the protagonists rather than the protagonists making a choice.
https://youtu.be/yUzr5JW3fSk?t=330
Skip to 5:30 for the part about agency.
QuoteThe movie does capture the essence of real life debates over free will and predestination that mimic the heady philosophical arguments we are familiar with.
I really wish they had gone about it better. Neo and crew go on a series of ops that go south - the Agents always seem know what they're going to do before they've done it. Neo is plagued with self-doubt starts wondering about his agency.
It galls me that professional writers and millions of dollars went into a very simple plot interspersed with monologues about predestination that never really get resolved one way or the other.
For an example of this done well - a character who feels trapped and seems destined to fail, but retains agency - check out Babylon 5's Londo Mollari.
The audience can empathize with this guy because he does have an internal struggle and an actual personality, unlike most prequel characters. And they can easily put themselves in his shoes and wonder what choices they'd make in his place, and hooboy, does he make some HUGE decisions! That's what studios should shoot for.
The Old Guard - 5/10
The action scenes were mediocre. The philosophical dialogue for the characters that have lived a very long time (not quite immortal) was a patchwork of sloganisms about seeing everyone around you fade away. Highlander did a much better job at that angle. Not very memorable or interesting. Meh.
Jojo Rabbit - 10/10
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 22, 2020, 02:17:53 PM
Jojo Rabbit - 10/10
Saving that one for when I'm tied down to a respirator.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 22, 2020, 02:50:00 PM
Saving that one for when I'm tied down to a respirator.
Hitler is the funniest German ever. Especially his cute little moustache!
If you can't laugh at Hitler, you are probably Stalin ;=)
After x years, finally thought I would watch Easy Rider......meh, won’t get that time back....
Like the ending?
Maybe it's the times, when that movie came out it was widely acclaimed. I watched it years later and didn't understand what all the attention was for. But some movies don't age well. Gone with the Wind is often named as one of the all time best films, probably by a lot of people who never saw it. I rented it just to be knowledgeable or something. It was over acted, over dramatic, and uninteresting in every way other then I was watching one of the top ten classics of all time.
Saw Easy Rider when it first came out. It was during Nam and was an anti-establishment flick. I loved it--I was in the Army then and was anti-Nam, so it fit into my 'rebellion' mode at the time. Not sure how it would look to me today.
Quote from: aitm on July 24, 2020, 07:37:39 AM
After x years, finally thought I would watch Easy Rider......meh, won’t get that time back....
[spoiler]Hopper is an asshole all the way through.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 24, 2020, 09:54:57 AM
[spoiler]Hopper is an asshole all the way through.[/spoiler]
Isn't that the role he always played?
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 24, 2020, 08:59:04 AM
Saw Easy Rider when it first came out. It was during Nam and was an anti-establishment flick. I loved it--I was in the Army then and was anti-Nam, so it fit into my 'rebellion' mode at the time. Not sure how it would look to me today.
Would your fat ass fit in a motorcycle seat? (sarc)
Speaking of classic movies ...
Citizen Cain
High Noon
Vertigo
How do they rate?
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 24, 2020, 10:03:48 AM
Isn't that the role he always played?
I can't think of him any other way. He sure makes a great asshole in the movies. I wonder what he's like in real life?
As for the time I last watched it, I would describe the plot as banal. Two guys on choppers driving across the country to deliver drugs meeting various characters along the way. And they have long hair, so rednecks hassle them. Three years later those same rednecks would be worshiping Willie Nelson, and the rest of the Country Western stars with long hair singing about God, America, and their heartbreak. Timely then, but just a bunch of shallow stereotypes today.
Quote from: SGOS on July 24, 2020, 10:23:14 AM
I can't think of him any other way. He sure makes a great asshole in the movies. I wonder what he's like in real life?
Ummmmm..................dead.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 24, 2020, 10:38:46 AM
Ummmmm..................dead.
So much for current events.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 24, 2020, 10:03:48 AM
Isn't that the role he always played?
I avoided him most times, so I'll have to take your word for it.
Not a movie, but I just... I cant get into Babylon 5. The acting and cinematography is like a telenova soap opera.
I've always heard how amazing it is, but jesus christ how do people sit through an episode of this? I'm glad people can enjoy it, I just wish I could.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 24, 2020, 01:22:14 PM
I avoided him most times, so I'll have to take your word for it.
I like him in all the roles I remember him in. I never went to a movie just to see him act. But if he was in the cast, that was okay. I basically regarded him as a character actor.
Quote from: Baruch on July 24, 2020, 07:51:47 AM
Like the ending?
Been a better movie if they got shot within the first 20 minutes.....
Being out of town all week I scroll through movies looking for something that peeks me. Don’t care for horror so that seems like about 70%...rest just look bad.
Maybe I watch Casablanca tonight,,,see how that aged.
"Here's looking at you, kid"
Mortal Engines (2018) - 9/10
A boilerplate hero story built around very concise points about (political) ideological possession.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 25, 2020, 10:51:01 AM
Mortal Engines (2018) - 9/10
A boilerplate hero story built around very concise points about (political) ideological possession.
I gave that one a 7/10. Pretty to look at but profoundly absurd.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 25, 2020, 10:51:01 AM
Mortal Engines (2018) - 9/10
A boilerplate hero story built around very concise points about (political) ideological possession.
I like steampunk. It's like Jules Verne.
Greyhound ... clips, Tom Hanks 9/10.
(https://i.imgur.com/mQyHKIg.jpg?1)
Not steam punk, because you aren't in a sauna ;-)
Official Dune movie poster:
[spoiler](https://i.imgur.com/G3NVRBk.jpg)[/spoiler]
We have wormsign!
Madre Dios! Not again!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 26, 2020, 10:27:11 AM
Madre Dios! Not again!
Giant French worms are delicious ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 25, 2020, 08:38:31 PM
Official Dune movie poster:
[spoiler](https://i.imgur.com/G3NVRBk.jpg)[/spoiler]
We have wormsign!
That was a spoiler??? It's not like now I don't want to see the movie. All it told me was that a guy whose name I can't remember is in a movie about a dune. I assume it's a sand dune or a Beetles tune: "Hey, Dune..., la, la, la,...lah."
It does indeed feature a sand dune. Spoilers. :P
The sequel will feature ampersand dune.
Bored again, watched the old Murphy Akyrod comedy "Trading Places" some laughs but I forgot Jamie Lee Curtis gives a couple full frontal booby shots, damn she was hot..which led me to another fav comedy, "True Lies" where Jamie is smokin as well....anyway, not big stars but a rise in the covers....
"These are for rent!" or something along those lines?
Quote from: aitm on July 31, 2020, 09:21:20 AM
...which led me to another fav comedy, "True Lies" where Jamie is smokin as well....anyway, not big stars but a rise in the covers....
A I completely forgot about that movie. They'd canceled the sequel after 9/11 because it had a similar scenario, right? Not sure.
Now do you people remember a movie called 'If Tomorrow Comes'? A thief, a woman. Steals precious things, she was done wrong and gets revenge?
And also does anyone remember a movie where the husband pushes his wife to a river with crocs in a far away vacation to kill and believes her dead but she survives, gets well and comes back for revenge but she looks different because she gets plastic surgery...
Some of those movies in the revenge genre can be good. Some not so. One of my favs is Law Abiding Citizen. It's a blood fest because it's revenge on a system and everyone in it. So there's a lot of guys (and women) to be taken down.
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2020, 05:32:30 PM
Some of those movies in the revenge genre can be good. Some not so. One of my favs is Law Abiding Citizen. It's a blood fest because it's revenge on a system and everyone in it. So there's a lot of guys (and women) to be taken down.
Those are different than the ones I have been looking for. I am trying to dig out old movies -with no big picture, system messages- I have seen as a little kid. Long story short, it is something based on the 'the toys and movies that made us' idea but in a bigger context. You know how people often talk about this stuff? The movies we have seen as little kids, certain scenes, lines...etc? People do remember and talk about them but almost always because something new and similar points it out or it is already a traumatic, cult thing everybody remembers because it is celebrated anyway. What about the things we don't remember at first thought? Simple ones? Simple and harmless looking ones. Movies, music clips and songs and things we don't even remember now?
The bigger context is the backwards evolution of culture here. Now in the US, if we divide the population in to two opposite cultures, you people are much more similar to each other in basic life. Eating, drinking, dress codes...popular culture...etc. There are differences of course but much similar. It's not like that here. The two sides here...well, we are extremely different in any sense. And this has started long time ago of course, mainly with our generation in terms of popular culture because our childhood is the era when these pop cultural products entered the culture here. The country got opened and the technology arrived from the west when we were growing up. So we were the 'millenials' of our time in a sense.
Anyway, you get the idea...it is really a long story, probably boring to outsiders.
No, tell us your story. My daughters first "going out" movie was Aladdin. But she had seen Hundred & One Dalmations at home first, 101 times ;-)
The Headless Horseman! (Which I have learned the name later of course.) Then the Sword in the Stone and Dumbo... But then everything was broken by E.T. which was the first movie I saw in a theatre at 6. Mom blames E.T. (joke) for our basic development.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_HLXFIRmJQ
So first you overdosed on Reese's Pieces, then moved on to stronger drugs?
Finally got around to listening to the Hamilton soundtrack, on YouTube with animatics.
I cried. And I am a fucking idiot for waiting so long to listen to the whole thing.
We watched the Ben-Hur remake.
Been a long while since I've seen the original.
Good flick. Worthy remake.
Better jesus-movie than the passion of the christ, that's for certain.
But that's not saying a lot in and by itself.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 09, 2020, 05:57:54 PM
We watched the Ben-Hur remake.
Been a long while since I've seen the original.
Good flick. Worthy remake.
Better jesus-movie than the passion of the christ, that's for certain.
But that's not saying a lot in and by itself.
Yes, the sea fight scene and the Roman soldiers chanting on entering Jerusalem were improvements.
Seabiscuit
Never saw this one before.
Pretty damn good.
Educating Rita
It's probably 40 years old, and Michael Caine is a lot younger (but he still looks kind of old). It's almost a romance, but really about being friends. It's one of those old movies I enjoyed and wanted to see again. I had to buy the DVD for Region 2, but I have a Region 2 DVD player for such occasions. It's still a good film that plays to the heart.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 10, 2020, 03:21:37 PM
Seabiscuit
Never saw this one before.
Pretty damn good.
It's hard to imagine someone being so late seeing that one. It's definitely in my top 20 favorites. Maybe even my top 10. When it was released 10 years ago, a competing studio put out Secretariat, another true horse story. Not being a follower of horse racing, but not being one to dismiss it, I was captivated by both films. So while they followed the common plot of "little guy becomes a success," I actually had fun learning about what happened in both films. Secretariat is also a top 20 contender. Not knowing anything about either horse, other than Secretariat's familiar name, I was blown away by the ending of Secretariat, which caught me completely off guard. I'm going to pull it out of my collection and watch it again tonight. It's that good.
Have you seen "War Horse"?
"Based on a true story."
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 15, 2020, 08:17:01 AM
Have you seen "War Horse"?
"Based on a true story."
I didn't know there was a movie about War Horse, but I will see if it's on Netfliks DVD, and if not I'll check Amazon and ebay. eBay I've found is often the cheapest source. Incidentally after posting, I looked up both Sea Biscuit and Secretariat, and it turns out that Sea Biscuit is a descendant of War Horse, and Secretariat is a descendant of both. It "runs" in the family, apparently.
I did not know that.
Loves Seabiscuit, and war horse haven’t seen secretariat. Don’t know how I missed that one. Would watch sea biscuit again, can’t watch war horse, too emotional for me...I’m such a pussy that way. But hey if you guys like tough horses, you should also watch Hildalgo, although the truthfulness of it is questionable it’s still a fairly good movie.
Oops! I think it's a different War Horse, but I only skimmed Wiki. I remember when War Horse came out, but from coming attractions I gathered that it was about a gallant horse that was used in WWI, and I guess I wasn't in the mood at that time, but generally, I like films about animals, until they start to get gooey. There's been a few of those about dogs recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Horse_(film)
$3.20 plus shipping at ebay
Yeah, I was talking about the WWI horse, didn't know there was a thoroughbred by that name, even it would highly unlikely there wouldn't be one such.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 15, 2020, 11:13:32 AM
Yeah, I was talking about the WWI horse, didn't know there was a thoroughbred by that name, even it would highly unlikely there wouldn't be one such.
I wouldn't have know that either, except for the fact that in the movie, War Horse was Sea Biscuit's eventual boss match.
How did you all feel when you first saw Jurassic Park? I saw it on the big screen and let me just say that dinosaur movies looked pretty sad and unbelievable before JP I. The series didn't progress as well as it may have but I will never forget the sense of awe and terror when these creatures first "came to life" in my eyes.
The T-rex ruined every Harryhausen there ever was. But Ray's critters ared still cool.
Quote from: Cassia on August 16, 2020, 04:36:42 PM
How did you all feel when you first saw Jurassic Park? I saw it on the big screen and let me just say that dinosaur movies looked pretty sad and unbelievable before JP I. The series didn't progress as well as it may have but I will never forget the sense of awe and terror when these creatures first "came to life" in my eyes.
Still the best dino-movie I've seen.
Including all the Jurassic Park and -World movies, Ice age 3, the land before time, Dinosaur, The Lost World, We're back! A dinosaur's movie, and a few others I forget.
I remember those old dinosaurs. Even as a little kid, my friends and I would laugh at how fakey they were. The motion was the worst thing. As stationary models, they may have looked pretty good, but they couldn't get the movement right.
The lizards with "Lee Press-On Fins" were a hoot.
Come to think of it, the name of the horse Sea Bisquit raced against was War Admiral, not War Horse.
Quote from: Cassia on August 16, 2020, 04:36:42 PM
How did you all feel when you first saw Jurassic Park? I saw it on the big screen and let me just say that dinosaur movies looked pretty sad and unbelievable before JP I. The series didn't progress as well as it may have but I will never forget the sense of awe and terror when these creatures first "came to life" in my eyes.
I saw the book first, before the movie. Read the book review. The idea of it made me say to myself "oh shit, bad idea". Love dinosaurs otherwise. We have a T-Rex in our local museum.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 16, 2020, 06:40:06 PM
The lizards with "Lee Press-On Fins" were a hoot.
I always wondered what they gave the lizards to make them fight. Showed them a girl lizard "you can have her if you kill the other guy"?
Quote from: Cassia on August 16, 2020, 04:36:42 PM
How did you all feel when you first saw Jurassic Park? I saw it on the big screen and let me just say that dinosaur movies looked pretty sad and unbelievable before JP I. The series didn't progress as well as it may have but I will never forget the sense of awe and terror when these creatures first "came to life" in my eyes.
I though it was one of the best movies I've ever seen. I was awestruck and inspired by the first half - the idea of cloning dinosaurs back to life seemed possible, especially a few years later when Dolly the sheep was born. I should've been a bit more critical of the "extra" DNA to fill in the gaps, but kid me didn't know any better. I really liked the idea of some remote island serving as an ecological sandbox for ambitious scientists (the tourism business model seemed kinda iffy even to kid me, a lot of people might be too scared to go - little did I know that in-universe the demand for a dino theme park dropped off, lol).
The second half was absolutely terrifying. Even that electric fence dad joke was scary. And I have Newman's rain-soaked encounter with a Spitter forever seared into my mind. I still think about it sometimes when my car breaks down and remember to check all the seats after fixing with the problem. One thousand times scarier than the T-Rex.
The Velociraptor "clever girl" scenes were horrifying, but any decent melee weapon would work wonders at evening up the score. I'm a little less terrified of them after realizing that they were misnamed Deinonychus and the real Velociraptors were much smaller.
Every now and then, I get annoyed with the science of the film being inaccurate (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/08/jurassic-park-dinosaur-inaccuracies). Imho, they should never have included a T-Rex in the film - those are Cretaceous creatures - but that's what gets asses in seats, so whatcha gonna do. *shrugs*
I bought a pack of Jurassic Park-themed playing cards and they were the bomb! The fronts of the cards used stills from the movie. I played with them all the time until I lost them. C'est la vie.
And you know what, unlike Jeff Goldblum's character, I'm genuinely in favor of using science to revive and conserve endangered and select extinct species, especially ones of great cultural or scientific or practical interest. Especially after the main cause(s) of their extinction have been removed or greatly reduced. Needless to say, poaching said species would be HIGHLY illegal.
If I had the technology at my disposal, I would sail across the stars, build a space station near a lifeless but potentially life-supporting planet, and intentionally seed it with life, creating a new Eden. It would be periodically surveyed with drones (biodegradable, of course). A pristine world of nature unbounded and therefore forbidden to people - attempt no landings there. Not a mere curiosity, but a grand experiment in the course of evolution and a world whose biological treasures can be sampled and used for new medicines and foodstuffs and who knows what else. That space station could even have a private garden with the rarest fruits and vegetables in the galaxy. A lot of work for a salad and glass of juice, a philistine might say. The garden is just the cherry on top - the real accomplishment is the joyful act of creating, making endless forms most beautiful appear as if by invocation...
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 16, 2020, 11:48:49 PM
And you know what, unlike Jeff Goldblum's character, I'm genuinely in favor of using science to revive and conserve endangered and select extinct species, especially ones of great cultural or scientific or practical interest. Especially after the main cause(s) of their extinction have been removed or greatly reduced. Needless to say, poaching said species would be HIGHLY illegal.
IMO, I think a park like Jurassic Park would work IRL. The only reason it failed was because John Hammond was a lying asshole and a complete moron. He hired ONE GUY TO program everything. And why did he pick Dennis Nedry? Because he was the cheapest. Overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated. Spared no expense my ass. No wonder he betrayed them.
Of course, it also didn't help that the only thing between dinosaurs and the guests was an electric fence. It doesn't take a genius to realize a power outage would end in disaster. For all its problems, Jurassic World actually got that right. It's a little more believable when shit goes down in that movie.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 16, 2020, 11:48:49 PMIf I had the technology at my disposal, I would sail across the stars, build a space station near a lifeless but potentially life-supporting planet, and intentionally seed it with life, creating a new Eden. It would be periodically surveyed with drones (biodegradable, of course). A pristine world of nature unbounded and therefore forbidden to people - attempt no landings there. Not a mere curiosity, but a grand experiment in the course of evolution and a world whose biological treasures can be sampled and used for new medicines and foodstuffs and who knows what else. That space station could even have a private garden with the rarest fruits and vegetables in the galaxy. A lot of work for a salad and glass of juice, a philistine might say. The garden is just the cherry on top - the real accomplishment is the joyful act of creating, making endless forms most beautiful appear as if by invocation...
That sounds like the plot of a book. Imagine a story about space poachers infiltrating the space station, and the extinct species turn out to be a bit more than they can handle.
I can't remember when I first watched Jurassic Park. I remember being at my grandmother's house when I heard family members talking about a dinosaur movie. I said I wanted to see it, but my mom said it was too scary. That just made me more curious. I'm sure I liked it, though. I still do. Despite the continuity errors, it's still the best of the movies.
That being said, I enjoyed all of the movies in the series. Lost World, Jurassic Park III, Jurassic World, Fallen Kingdom. I understand the criticisms, but none if the movies are perfect, even the original. I just think they're fun.
I also enjoyed some of the video games. Jurassic Park on the Genesis is hard AF, and a bit wonky (especially with the final boss, which requires frame perfect precision). Operation Genesis was a cool park simulator, and I'd occasionally let the dinosaurs out on purpose to see what happened (after saving, of course). Jurassic World: Evolution is pretty similar to Operation Genesis, but it has many more dinosaurs to choose from, and you can alter their genes to change their colors or stats. You can even change their preferred population size, turning a loner species like the t-rex into a pack animal. The more changes you make, though, the greater of the chance the incubation will fail. Dinosaurs will even sometimes interact with guests from the other side of the fence. I've seen brontosauruses stand at the gate and watch the people pass by. Then one of them makes a noise, and the passersby act frightened. Carnivores will stare at guests on the viewing platforms and occasionally roar at them. They're apparently working on a sequel, and I'm very much looking forward to it. Maybe we'll get aquatic and avian creatures, like the fans had been asking for.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 17, 2020, 02:01:13 AMI also enjoyed some of the video games. Jurassic Park on the Genesis is hard AF, and a bit wonky (especially with the final boss, which requires frame perfect precision).
I played it on Super Nintendo, but it was super hard. For starters, the character is always in the middle of the screen and the game scrolls as you move, which wouldn't be so bad except there's like 20 feet between your character and the edge of the screen and these dinos come at you FAST. Imagine walking around irl and you can only 20 feet in front of you. I'd get run over trying to cross the street.
JP2 for Gameboy.
Top 5 of childhood handheld games, easily.
Allong with Pokémon blue, Pokémon gold, tmnt back to the sewers and Tetris. 5th place, I need to think about.
I'm watching Pacific Rim and I have yet to find a good reason why a kaiju can't just be downed by aircraft. On a related note: I don't understand why aircraft have to fly so close to the kaiju that it can reach out and snap them in half.
Also, I'm kinda mystified as to why Kaiju - whose primary weapons are close range - aren't engaged at long range. Either with aircraft or coastal cannons or cruise missiles from naval ships.
Am I making sense? Cause I feel like I've taken crazy pills.
I'd prefer aircraft and missiles not just for the obvious reasons (it kinda makes sense to use tech you already have), but also because aircraft and missiles can be launched in minutes while god knows how long it takes to startup and transport a mech to the battlefield. (what's the weight on these things?) Any plausible timetable would probably be an hour or two.
I lost my head for the first Jurassic Park movie. I was 18. I ran away from school and watched it 8 times on big screen. I teared up at the scene Ellie and Alan saw the brachiosaurus...her soft, deep, primal sound. Sigh. (I have just gone and watched it when I saw you guys are talking about the movie,lol). And then I fell in love with velociraptors forever.
Honestly, I never expect Jurassic movies to be realistic. I watch them to see 'dinosaurs', they have secured me long time ago. I turn in to a 12 year old kid, rooting for them when they start to eat people. But yeah last one sucked the worst.
It does have a good universal message. Creating something so powerful you can't control or deal with, not respecting/considering any other power than yours to begin with. That's so human, it is like the best sum in pop culture. In the first one, our dear chaotician has good lines to point all that out. Also "Life finds a way" is a good start to teach any little kid about evolution.
And Seabiscuit! I forgot about that movie. I cried like a baby. We, a few friends, have a silly theory that you shouldn't trust anyone who doesn't get emotional or teary about true stories like that.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 25, 2020, 12:19:19 AM
I'm watching Pacific Rim and I have yet to find a good reason why a kaiju can't just be downed by aircraft. On a related note: I don't understand why aircraft have to fly so close to the kaiju that it can reach out and snap them in half.
Also, I'm kinda mystified as to why Kaiju - whose primary weapons are close range - aren't engaged at long range. Either with aircraft or coastal cannons or cruise missiles from naval ships.
Am I making sense? Cause I feel like I've taken crazy pills.
It's a direct result of the Rock'em Sock'em Robots not being able to deliver a flying drop kick.
I just watched The Color Out Of Space. Well, that escalated quickly. âŽ' out of â£
In short, it's odd and weird and strange and creepy and perplexing and harrowing and profoundly terribly wrong wrong wrong and I...I can't even words. *chuckles*
It's like The Tommyknockers combined with Signs and a little bit of the Shining. And I'm pretty sure I got a contact high.
Beware the 2012-ish version out that isn't at all worth watching.
The Last of Us II, pays homage to Jurassic Park in a very clever way. It's just one small diversion from the plot that the game takes.
Just watched fargo the movie, for the first time.
It's pretty darn tooting great, dontchaknow?
Jah, I had a swell time with this here movie.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 27, 2020, 12:37:08 PM
Just watched fargo the movie, for the first time.
It's pretty darn tooting great, dontchaknow?
Jah, I had a swell time with this here movie.
Ya sure, you betcha. The movie wasn't about Fargo. Well, maybe the accents. For example, the scene where the car salesman shafts the customer. That was my favorite scene. It could have happened anywhere in America, and it does every day in America at every car dealership. That scene set the stage for the rest of the film. You clearly understood who the biggest asshole was.
I think the success of Fargo was mostly the work of the Coen Brothers, who wrote and directed it. The cast was strong as well, but when the Ethan and Joel Coen make a film, it often comes up as fascinating but quirky for one reason or another. The Coens have an unusual knack for quirky, but they're not just about crime. If you are interested in seeing how diverse they can be, check out The Hudsucker Proxy. It's a comedy but you can still see the Coen fingerprints all over it.
The 4K restoration of 1980s Flash Gordon was released on Blu-ray this month and I bought it immediately. My husband has no idea why I love this movie and I find it difficult to explain the appeal of this campy cult classic. I told him it's not a good movie, it an entertaining movie. I love the B-movie effects, the Queen soundtrack, the fabulous/ridiculous costumes, the comic book dialogue. I do tend to like movies that are over-the-top, such as The Fifth Element, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and Moulin Rouge!
https://youtu.be/O6uOHnxf85g
DIVE!!!!!
Love Flash Gordon too, The Fifth Element, and Moulin Rouge!
Time Trap (2017) I loved it! I had no idea it existed. What an underrated movie. I just saw it on Netflix and I thought it was some stupid, simpleton teenage movie.
I think it affected me. I had a dream 20 years ago that I cannot forget. I have felt the same thing.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 31, 2020, 05:31:14 PM
Time Trap (2017) I loved it! I had no idea it existed. What an underrated movie. I just saw it on Netflix and I thought it was some stupid, simpleton teenage movie.
I think it affected me. I had a dream 20 years ago that I cannot forget. I have felt the same thing.
I can still remember any dream I have had more than once. As a kid, I dreamt I was like a James Bond guy skiing at night, dressed in black. There is an Outer Limits episode ... about a future soldier, that I was reminded of by watching the preview of Time Trap just now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBwVyZjpjT4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSiQJl-gKyE
Poster spoilered for size, not content:
[spoiler](https://i1.wp.com/bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/INTERSECT-Beamer-Poster-2000x3000-1-scaled.jpg?resize=1024%2C1536&ssl=1)[/spoiler]
Not the most impressive trailer in the world, but it's a Lovecraftian movie with Richard Dawkins! Do you guys have any idea how on board I am for that?
If it is Lovecraftian, I am usually in.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 31, 2020, 05:31:14 PM
I think it affected me. I had a dream 20 years ago that I cannot forget. I have felt the same thing.
I still remember a dream from 50 years ago. My dream about flying. And my take away was not so much about the flying but as a kid who had never been above 30 feet off the ground I am still amazed at how the brain can picture everything perfectly about the structure of your and others property from the air when I have never even been in their “backyardâ€. Or project the river and all its turns when you’ve only seen it from one location on the bank of it.
Quote from: aitm on September 03, 2020, 07:01:32 AM
I still remember a dream from 50 years ago. My dream about flying. And my take away was not so much about the flying but as a kid who had never been above 30 feet off the ground I am still amazed at how the brain can picture everything perfectly about the structure of your and others property from the air when I have never even been in their %u201Cbackyard%u201D. Or project the river and all its turns when you%u2019ve only seen it from one location on the bank of it.
Flying dreams...ohhh I remember some too. The last ones were around 20s. I also used to make huge jumps like Hulk.
But that dream was... I'm sure I have written about it here at some time, years ago. It's very short. In a nutshell, I am working in a field in a forest at night. It has very warm and peaceful atmosphere...there are beings around me but I don't really see them. I'm carrying water, we are walking in the forest together. And suddenly I remember that I have been living on that planet for 20 years earth time because humanity has ended and so the life on our planet. I struggle to make sense of it. Then start to sob. Voices try to call to me, calming vices but it is like I hear them in my head, not with my ears. I think wars, genocide..all that pain...what was that for? Nothing. Now it has finally ended. I have felt sharp, deep pain, heartbreak and a huge relief at the same time. We walk to an opening, a huge, like HUUGE tree that is shaped sphere where we supposedly live in the natural little cells in its branches, warm, yellow lights are coming from them. AND I woke up crying violently.
I can't forget that feeling of when I remembered what happened in the dream. I'm crying right now writing this. It will pass in a few minutes.
Yeah, I haven't flown in a dream for a long time, but what a rush! But I didn't fly like Superman, I could only fly if I flapped my arms. In my dreams this seemed normal. I was always surprised when I did it, not because I could fly, but because I never thought of flapping my arms before. And other people in my dreams could fly too. I remember flying with my mother and being so surprised. She said, "Yeah, it's easy, just flap your arms," and I was like, "Yeah, I get it. I get it."
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 31, 2020, 03:51:12 AM
The 4K restoration of 1980s Flash Gordon was released on Blu-ray this month and I bought it immediately. My husband has no idea why I love this movie and I find it difficult to explain the appeal of this campy cult classic. I told him it's not a good movie, it an entertaining movie. I love the B-movie effects, the Queen soundtrack, the fabulous/ridiculous costumes, the comic book dialogue. I do tend to like movies that are over-the-top, such as The Fifth Element, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and Moulin Rouge!
https://youtu.be/O6uOHnxf85g
I have seen it -who knows how many times- around 8 or something like that and before clicking it, I thought I forgot it all...oh my, I remember it all. LOL The pass word activates with "Flash Flash I love you, we have 14 hours to save the earth!" And where is the whipping scene?!
Went to see that in a theater. Invited by a childhood friend of mine. (Her brother married my sister.) When we got there she said "Damn! 'Deep Throat' was playing here just yesterday." Her original mission went on as planned, however.
I love a woman determined to finish the mission.
Watched Black Panther when it was shown commercial-free on TV this weekend. I generally don't like superhero movies because they're too effects heavy and I leave the theater with a headache, but I quite enjoyed this. I'm not sure it was worth a nomination for Best Picture, but a solid, enjoyable movie.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 03, 2020, 11:55:56 AM
Went to see that in a theater. Invited by a childhood friend of mine. (Her brother married my sister.) When we got there she said "Damn! 'Deep Throat' was playing here just yesterday." Her original mission went on as planned, however.
Was that Flesh Gordon???
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 03, 2020, 12:33:27 PM
Was that Flesh Gordon???
Nope, "Flash Gordon". I was surprised that "Deep Throat" was allowed screen time in that obnoxious little farm town in Indiana.
Quote from: trdsf on September 03, 2020, 12:23:32 PM
Watched Black Panther when it was shown commercial-free on TV this weekend. I generally don't like superhero movies because they're too effects heavy and I leave the theater with a headache, but I quite enjoyed this. I'm not sure it was worth a nomination for Best Picture, but a solid, enjoyable movie.
Did you notice that Siri was allowed to make racial epithets?
Quote from: aitm on September 03, 2020, 12:21:32 PM
I love a woman determined to finish the mission.
She could suck start a Harley with the ignition off.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 03, 2020, 01:22:53 PM
Nope, "Flash Gordon". I was surprised that "Deep Throat" was allowed screen time in that obnoxious little farm town in Indiana.
My parents had to accompany me to Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Quote from: Baruch on September 03, 2020, 01:47:47 PM
My parents had to accompany me to Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Well, buncha faggots, you know. Plus, IIRC, one female nipple.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 03, 2020, 02:06:06 PM
Well, buncha faggots, you know. Plus, IIRC, one female nipple.
I was old enough, it didn't seem shocking, just not the usual thing. But there are far worse things, that I wouldn't watch.
I was nine when The Rocky Horror Picture Show was released. They played ads for it incessantly on the AM radio station I used to listen to on my transistor radio.
https://youtu.be/aE5ndpkqEOs
I had a funny introduction to the 'interactive' American youth tradition of the Rocky Horror Show movie in Chealse Theatre NYC, in 2014. Yeah, virgin hazing...ROFL Has any of you experienced that? I think, I wrote here about this though. Oh, Milo. I hope he is fine. I lost his contact. It was hillarious.
A completely missed the whole Rocky Horror thing. I had no clue until years later, when some friends had me over to see it. Now that's one weird flick, but its saving grace was that it was so weird that cult fans turned it into an epic happening of midnight showings where followers would dress up like the characters, shout at the screen, and carry special gear required for certain scenes, and as far as I know, no one ever got hurt. Just people having silly fun. It may have been where the idea of Comic Con came from. Let's just be silly. Now I was never around one of the "happening places", but it's something I would have enjoyed. On it's own, I thought the movie was just weird, not good, not bad, just weird.
Out of boredom I watched the original Nutty Professor with Jerry Lewis. Still funny but surely is dated.
Quote from: aitm on September 04, 2020, 10:54:18 AM
Out of boredom I watched the original Nutty Professor with Jerry Lewis. Still funny but surely is dated.
We didn't know back then, they were real mad scientists trying to destroy the world ... Chitty, Chitty, Bang-Bang and The Absent-Minded Professor
Quote from: aitm on September 04, 2020, 10:54:18 AM
Out of boredom I watched the original Nutty Professor with Jerry Lewis. Still funny but surely is dated.
I loved that movie when it came out, enjoyed again when it finally hit TV. But years later I watched it and didn't know why I was that impressed. I think I was amazed that Jerry Lewis could play a cool guy rather than an childish idiot, but the cool guy Lewis was still a jerk. His only asset was confidence, although rather unwarranted confidence. The other actors in the film were scripted to be attracted to him, so the story could fallow the plot of the ugly duckling becoming a swan, but it was an ugly swan.
I had any number of guys invite me to midnight showings of Rocky when I lived in Miami. I didn't want to disappoint the poor dears, so I politely declined. Each of them seemed to think they were the first one to think of that come-on.
Quote from: SGOS on September 04, 2020, 10:30:55 AM
A completely missed the whole Rocky Horror thing. I had no clue until years later, when some friends had me over to see it. Now that's one weird flick, but its saving grace was that it was so weird that cult fans turned it into an epic happening of midnight showings where followers would dress up like the characters, shout at the screen, and carry special gear required for certain scenes, and as far as I know, no one ever got hurt. Just people having silly fun. It may have been where the idea of Comic Con came from. Let's just be silly. Now I was never around one of the "happening places", but it's something I would have enjoyed. On it's own, I thought the movie was just weird, not good, not bad, just weird.
LOL I had no idea what it was before Milo (an old member of AF) and his gf took me to a midnight screening in NYC. He told me not to ask or read anything about it so it would be a fun surprise. It was a surprise. I got a V for virgin drawn on my forhead in red lipstick by a young lady in full red lingerie costume at the door while waiting in line, thrown to the stage with other virgins -of course you don't have to go, Milo encourged me and I chose to go- which were divided into the two groups- got put into the second one and then had to make a screaming orgasm impression under a spot light, standing in front of a full theatre in the dark. (You walk under the spotlight, tell your name, where you come from and then start. Me: My name, Turkey. Audience: Absolute silence. I start: auauoeuoauoeuoa uouo oeee ROOOFL Clapping and hurray errupts and presenter goes with something like 'Wow they don't sound like the far eastern ones!' I think he meant very thin screaming fake orgasm sounds in Asian porn flicks. And some other lame joke about 'turkey sandwich' I didn't get all of it.) Not to mention that I was wearing a tee reading BEAVEARS which sister gave to me (Oregon State football team) and the only missing thing was the word EAGER on it,lol. I got second place and lost (out of 10) to a gay young man who had a very good finish. We were both good but my finish wasn't, so yeah he deserved it. The clapping jury was between me and him. The prize was a giant golden condom. LOL
Most of the people were in costumes. Not just the characters but also random ones. Milo and his gf were in costumes too.
I met people, Americans who think it is too crude, uncouth, making people uncomfortable but yeah that is how it is been done for hundreds, hell thousands of years. It is exactly the same thing with what was done through human history with street theatres, most of the time 'illegally' in the past in different periods against conservative bullshit norms, esp. the traditional institution of marriage. LOL So yeah that silly, crude thing has cultural value and a role.
So...somewhere there may be a video? *Contemplates spending days searching for it* Ah, I ain’t got time for that shit. 😉
Check Youtube for "Let's do the time warp".
Quote from: drunkenshoe on September 06, 2020, 05:20:57 AM
LOL I had no idea what it was before Milo (an old member of AF) and his gf took me to a midnight screening in NYC. He told me not to ask or read anything about it so it would be a fun surprise. It was a surprise. I got a V for virgin drawn on my forhead in red lipstick by a young lady in full red lingerie costume at the door while waiting in line, thrown to the stage with other virgins -of course you don't have to go, Milo encourged me and I chose to go- which were divided into the two groups- got put into the second one and then had to make a screaming orgasm impression under a spot light, standing in front of a full theatre in the dark. (You walk under the spotlight, tell your name, where you come from and then start. Me: My name, Turkey. Audience: Absolute silence. I start: auauoeuoauoeuoa uouo oeee ROOOFL Clapping and hurray errupts and presenter goes with something like 'Wow they don't sound like the far eastern ones!' I think he meant very thin screaming fake orgasm sounds in Asian porn flicks. And some other lame joke about 'turkey sandwich' I didn't get all of it.) Not to mention that I was wearing a tee reading BEAVEARS which sister gave to me (Oregon State football team) and the only missing thing was the word EAGER on it,lol. I got second place and lost (out of 10) to a gay young man who had a very good finish. We were both good but my finish wasn't, so yeah he deserved it. The clapping jury was between me and him. The prize was a giant golden condom. LOL
Most of the people were in costumes. Not just the characters but also random ones. Milo and his gf were in costumes too.
I met people, Americans who think it is too crude, uncouth, making people uncomfortable but yeah that is how it is been done for hundreds, hell thousands of years. It is exactly the same thing with what was done through human history with street theatres, most of the time 'illegally' in the past in different periods against conservative bullshit norms, esp. the traditional institution of marriage. LOL So yeah that silly, crude thing has cultural value and a role.
The only thing I have done like that was when my sister and her husband took me to see the Blue Man Group when I visited them in Chicago. I too was a virgin although that's not what they call newbies at that event. I was delightfully dumbfounded. Over the years, I have seen them two more times, once because they changed aspects of the show, and once because I brought a friend with me, and I wanted to have her see it.
Quote from: SGOS on September 06, 2020, 09:01:45 AM
The only thing I have done like that was when my sister and her husband took me to see the Blue Man Group when I visited them in Chicago. I too was a virgin although that's not what they call newbies at that event. I was delightfully dumbfounded. Over the years, I have seen them two more times, once because they changed aspects of the show, and once because I brought a friend with me, and I wanted to have her see it.
Well, that's obviously far more sophisticated. I've heard of it many times but never had the chance.
Quote from: aitm on September 06, 2020, 06:56:20 AM
So...somewhere there may be a video? *Contemplates spending days searching for it* Ah, I ain’t got time for that shit. 😉
Unfortunately not...And honestly I regret that. It's a common thing done in those shows among other things. You also need to know the original lines and the comebacks written for the audience. You also should be ready to cover yourself from the rice, water, other objects thrown around in sync with the movie.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/oct/19/rocky-horror-picture-show-fan-rituals-fox-remake
Quote... They’re also asked to perform in lewd contests. “We play a little game show called Let’s Have an Orgasm and virgins fake their best one and the audience votes on the winner,†Garment says. “It’s great fun.†...
Garment says there are some traditions that theater owners don’t love. Throwing rice during the opening wedding scene used to be ubiquitous until clean-up crews started complaining about the mess. The same goes with people shooting water guns during the song There’s a Light, when Brad and Janet walk through the rain. Janet puts a newspaper over her head in the film, which would also happen in the theater, mostly to protect a well-styled wig from all of those water pistols. There are also some arcane props that are no longer in fashion. Garment says that at the end of the song Planet, Schmanet, Janet, various characters call Frank a “hotdogâ€, which would prompt the hurling of the cylindrical mystery meat toward the screen. Yeah, no one wants to deal with flying wieners in public.
Another time-honored tradition is yelling back at the screen at certain times during the film. For instance, every time a character says Brad’s name, the audience shouts “assholeâ€, and every time someone says Janet’s name they shout “slutâ€. No, not very nice, but it can be very funny. There are also a few other well-worn responses, like during Sweet Transvestite when Frank takes an inordinately long pause between the syllables “antici†and “pationâ€, the silence is filled with revelers screaming, “Say it!â€
BLOOD SHOT 7/10 Vin Diesel killing people. The guy who killed his wife by shooting her in the head with a bolt gun. The SEVEN people who killed her by shooting her in the head with a bolt gun. I think it was seven, lost count.
Better than average popcorn movie.
Irresistible 8/10
Powerful cast in what is billed a political satire, but not of the SNL variety. Don't read about it before you see it. It's not what you think, and you most certainly don't want to spoil this one. It's not left or right. Each side takes embarrassing hits, but it's not attacking ideologies, although you will disagree until you finally understand. So if it's not left or right, what is the message of the film? You'll see. I like films that don't follow the familiar Hollywood plot. I like it when then take a baby step away from the usual and investigate other alternative entertainment.
Quote from: SGOS on September 07, 2020, 09:12:25 AM
Irresistible 8/10
Powerful cast in what is billed a political satire, but not of the SNL variety. Don't read about it before you see it. It's not what you think, and you most certainly don't want to spoil this one. It's not left or right. Each side takes embarrassing hits, but it's not attacking ideologies, although you will disagree until you finally understand. So if it's not left or right, what is the message of the film? You'll see. I like films that don't follow the familiar Hollywood plot. I like it when then take a baby step away from the usual and investigate other alternative entertainment.
Preview is funny. Urban proletariat trying to relate to rural peasants. Social comedy like Aristophanes, not political at all (just ask recently executed Socrates).
Watched “The Accountant†with Ben Affleck. Gotta say damn entertaining, much better than I expected. I recommend it.
Quote from: aitm on September 15, 2020, 10:39:03 PM
Watched “The Accountant†with Ben Affleck. Gotta say damn entertaining, much better than I expected. I recommend it.
It's hard to make accounting exciting, but they do it.
Quote from: SGOS on September 16, 2020, 07:34:03 AM
It's hard to make accounting exciting, but they do it.
BBC staff set on Reg and saw his head off.
ANIMATION: Reg's head starts off by being thrown into picture.
Animation leads to an oak panelled, Civil Service committee room. A politician is addressing three officals.
Politician Gentlemen, our MP saw the PM this AM and the PM wants more LSD from the PIB by tomorrow AM or PM at the latest. I told the PM's PPS that AM was NBG so tomorrow PM it is for the PM nem. con. Give us a fag or I'll go spare. Now, the fiscal deficit with regard to the monetary balance, the current financial year excluding invisible exports, but adjusted of course for seasonal variations and the incremental statistics of the fiscal and revenue arrangements for the forthcoming annual budgetary period terminating in April.
First Official I think he's talking about taxation.
Politician Bravo, Madge. Well done. Taxation is indeed the very nub of my gist. Gentlemen, we have to find something new to tax.
Second Official I understood that.
Third Official If I might put my head on the chopping block so you can kick it around a bit, sir...
Politician Yes?
Third Official Well most things we do for pleasure nowadays are taxed, except one.
Politician What do you mean?
Third Official Well, er, smoking's been taxed, drinking's been taxed but not ... thingy.
Politician Good Lord, you're not suggesting we should tax... thingy?
First Official Poo poo's?
Third Official No.
First Official Thank God for that. Excuse me for a moment. (leaves)
Third Official No, no, no - thingy.
Second Official Number ones?
Third Official No, thingy.
Politician Thingy!
Second Official Ah, thingy. Well it'll certainly make chartered accountancy a much more interesting job.
How about a pre-French Revolution script ...
"The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to procure the largest quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing." - Jean-Baptiste Colbert
Out of geese? Got Assignats.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 16, 2020, 09:37:40 AM
BBC staff set on Reg and saw his head off.
ANIMATION: Reg's head starts off by being thrown into picture.
Animation leads to an oak panelled, Civil Service committee room. A politician is addressing three officals.
Politician Gentlemen, our MP saw the PM this AM and the PM wants more LSD from the PIB by tomorrow AM or PM at the latest. I told the PM's PPS that AM was NBG so tomorrow PM it is for the PM nem. con. Give us a fag or I'll go spare. Now, the fiscal deficit with regard to the monetary balance, the current financial year excluding invisible exports, but adjusted of course for seasonal variations and the incremental statistics of the fiscal and revenue arrangements for the forthcoming annual budgetary period terminating in April.
Somewhere in there you should insert the words "financial instruments." It doesn't matter where, just about anywhere. I always laugh when I hear some talking head say, "This, and other financial instruments." It sounds so much more refined that "stack of poker chips."
Given that I was on a cell phone and in the hospital I thought I did pretty good to get a readable copy up there.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 17, 2020, 08:05:50 AM
Given that I was on a cell phone and in the hospital I thought I did pretty good to get a readable copy up there.
Hope you weren’t a patient, but if so, hope all is well. Can’t afford to lose our resident curmudgeon. 😉
Intersect 3/10 (watch the 2019 The Color Out Of Space instead)
I was super pumped about this Lovecraftian film with Richard Dawkins in a minor role. I was very disappointed.
For starters, the AI that Dawkins voices isn't intelligent and therefore does not interact with any of the characters. No Hal 9000 shenanigans here. Not even GERTY shenanigans. So really, Dawkins' role is more like the computer's voice on Star Trek. And that's really a shame, because there are bible beaters out protesting and evolution even comes up and you know Dawkins would have a golden quip or two to throw down about that. Wasted talent.
Also, the first half of the movie is shot like a student film with a $50,000 budget. No joke. And you can do a lot with $50,000, just ask The Blair Witch Project directors. But they didn't really do a great job with those limited resources. There was a lot that seemed unnecessarily shoddy, especially the characters and the dialogue - which is exactly what you absolutely need to get right in a low-budget production.
And it also appears to be shot out of order, almost like it's going backwards chronologically. I could understand that if they were going for some trippy Memento arc, but they didn't set that up very well. For the first half, we get an in-medias-res, then an emotional turning-point scene (a scene that the audience doesn't have enough info to understand and therefore can't possibly be invested in), a scientific breakthrough (good stuff), then copious and unnecessary backstory on said breakthrough. That's the first half.
Imagine if I showed you some astronauts about to exit a lunar lander then I showed you some kids in school studying astrophysics for the next hour then eventually go back to the moon stuff. You'd get bored and shut it off before it gets to the good stuff.
Now, there is a good twist towards the end, but man, you have to endure a LOT of tedium to get there. Honestly, you could edit this down to a 20 minute short and it'd be a damn good short. But it absolutely should never have been made feature-length. Huge mistake.
Simply put, there were major screw-ups in both the writing and editing departments, which created a 90% boring movie with 10% good stuff.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 21, 2020, 05:01:28 PM
Intersect 3/10 (watch the 2019 The Color Out Of Space instead)
I remember considering renting that, but I can't remember if I did, and consequently, I have no visual flashes of, "Oh yeah, that movie!" Maybe it got bad reviews, which ordinarily I don't pay a lot of attention to, but the new releases at Redbox have been mostly real stinkers since the theaters closed. I've become more selective about what I rent as a result. Since the theaters closed, I have rented maybe 10 new releases, most rather disappointing. I've been mostly catching up on older TV series that I've missed out on. Some I rent from Netflix, and if I'm caught up in the first season, I'll buy the whole set on ebay. Used are fine. I've yet to be burned on used disks. I've got a good start on a winters supply. My favorites so far are Smallville, Supergirl, Defiance, Gotham, and at the top of the list would be
Outlander, and
Homeland. I'm binge watching Homeland right now. As much as I try to space episodes out, I end up watching 4 in a row sometimes. The thing never resolves and the plot keeps building with never a breather, so that one is not going to last the winter. I'm sure I'll find more, and there's plenty there now that deserve a second watching by January. I'm also watching American Gods right now. I'm only on the first disk, and trying hard to figure out what it's about. I don't know if I like it, but I keep watching. It's mysterious weirdness.
The Lighthouse 7.5/10
This here's a two-mate movee picty-show, one wit' a horror most gradual, deepening like an oak sprout's trunk. I liked all thems olden swabbie talk, right nice ring to it. These two mates - an old shellback an' a youngun lean bush-whacker turned wickie - they's holiday turns brutal as a hellcat's swipe for a fortnight. This tale t'was a mite sluggish at demi-heure - all languor-like - but it got back all me interest plus interest toward's th' terminus.
Envision thus. Both mates heavy wet for a month o' sundays. Raising cain. Bunch o' fives. And lookin' like the Devil heself, howling that his mate is selling him tha dog. Off his chump, one or other or both! Verily, a story worthy o' the time, but no' fit fer encore.
Okay. I know you guys have most likely heard the controversy around the Cuties movie on Netflix, right? I was wondering, as someone without Netflix anyway, if the movie was really as bad as people say. I was searching on YouTube for any reviews from people whose opinions I trust, and I got Shoe0nHead (no), Ben Shapiro (fuck no), Tucker Carlson from Fox News (insert Titus laugh here), and a bunch of people I've never heard of.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 29, 2020, 02:46:11 AM
Okay. I know you guys have most likely heard the controversy around the Cuties movie on Netflix, right? I was wondering, as someone without Netflix anyway, if the movie was really as bad as people say. I was searching on YouTube for any reviews from people whose opinions I trust, and I got Shoe0nHead (no), Ben Shapiro (fuck no), Tucker Carlson from Fox News (insert Titus laugh here), and a bunch of people I've never heard of.
Haven't seen it, but there is nothing wrong with porn. Probably rather innocent compared to Fifty Shades of Grey, which I would consider tame. Virtue signaling SJWs are potential INCELs that Cotton Mather would approve of. Feminists of course consider male preferred porn to be objectifying, while reading their bodice-ripping romance stories.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 29, 2020, 02:46:11 AM
Okay. I know you guys have most likely heard the controversy around the Cuties movie on Netflix, right? I was wondering, as someone without Netflix anyway, if the movie was really as bad as people say. I was searching on YouTube for any reviews from people whose opinions I trust, and I got Shoe0nHead (no), Ben Shapiro (fuck no), Tucker Carlson from Fox News (insert Titus laugh here), and a bunch of people I've never heard of.
Same. ShoeOnHead and Alteori gave it a shot and came away with some pretty negative reactions. The general impression is that it's straight up softcore porn for pedos. The director may or may not have had good intentions, but the finished product is not a noble endeavor. And like 450 or so "cuties" participated, so what you see on-screen is just a drop in the bucket. Pretty disgusting.
The Social Dilemma on Netflix is a movie that everyone should watch. I sincerely believe that social media is deteriorating the mental health of many of its users, particularly children, and that it is undermining civil discourse and democracies.
https://youtu.be/uaaC57tcci0
People said the same thing about TV back in the '50s.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on September 30, 2020, 05:24:18 AM
The Social Dilemma on Netflix is a movie that everyone should watch. I sincerely believe that social media is deteriorating the mental health of many of its users, particularly children, and that it is undermining civil discourse and democracies.
https://youtu.be/uaaC57tcci0
Yes, we need the propaganda of the big three TV corps, ala 1968 (Walter Cronkite, Fr Daniel Berrigan and MLK were traitors). My ex grew up in a small town, where there was just one of the big three TV corps, and nothing else.
Democracy = Liberal dictatorship, moving inevitably to petite bourgeoisie socialism. Useful fools until you get a real Communist like Stalin or Mao.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 30, 2020, 07:24:27 AM
People said the same thing about TV back in the '50s.
It was true. TV is evil. Radio before that. Newspapers/magazines before that. Literacy itself is subversive, destructive of every society that pushes that.
Lets head down to Blockbuster and grab a movie. Who is with me? The "Endling" store is in Bend, Oregon. Except we get to sleep over and have our run of the place..it is actually an Air BnB. Be kind. Please rewind
https://www.oregonlive.com/travel/2020/08/sleep-over-inside-the-worlds-only-surviving-blockbuster-store-in-bend.html
Quote from: Cassia on October 01, 2020, 12:51:14 AM
Lets head down to Blockbuster and grab a movie. Who is with me? The "Endling" store is in Bend, Oregon. Except we get to sleep over and have our run of the place..it is actually an Air BnB. Be kind. Please rewind
https://www.oregonlive.com/travel/2020/08/sleep-over-inside-the-worlds-only-surviving-blockbuster-store-in-bend.html
Only on the stipulation that no technology more recent than the year 2000 may be brought inside. The authentic experience.
Man. That reminds me of a trip a guild I was in in The Elder Scrolls Online tried to organize. They have family who owned a place we could stay in and everything. The plan just sort of fizzled out, despite several expressing interest.
Enola Holmes was a lot of fun.
https://youtu.be/1d0Zf9sXlHk
Quotehttps://www.oregonlive.com/travel/2020/08/sleep-over-inside-the-worlds-only-surviving-blockbuster-store-in-bend.html
Blockbuster! I never went there. But there were plenty of mom and pop video rental places where I spent hours and got to know the proprietors. Even during a few months in the LA area, my favorite video store was a mom and pop joint, even though there must have been several Blockbusters in the area. I would have gone of course, but I was on foot, and Mom and Pop was closer. I rented a sleeper movie that I enjoyed from that particular mom and pop store, and got talking to the owner about any other sleeper movies he might recommend. Without hesitation, he answered, "Bubba Ho-Tep," and before I could ask further questions, he grabbed it from a shelf, and shoved it into my hands. If you like strange, funny, and outside the box story telling, I recommend that movie. I own it and watch it once a year or so. [spoiler]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubba_Ho-Tep[/spoiler]
But I do have a certain nostalgia about Block Buster, a short lived phenomenon of the fast changing digital age. My favorite scene in the movie Captain Marvel is where she falls from space and crashes through the roof of an abandoned Blockbuster. I laugh every time I see it. I'm not up for a sleep over, as much as I'm into strange and weird, but I think it's an interesting ideal. Why not?
I like movie-reactions by young people. This graphic novel movie is very close to 2020, only with White people, straight people, oppressed.
V FOR VENDETTA (2005) MOVIE REACTION!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMA3CuqmQ4M
Quote from: GSOgymrat on October 05, 2020, 04:21:38 AM
Enola Holmes was a lot of fun.
Yeah it was. I liked that they found a way to tell the teenager girls that their male peers were/are pressured in different ways for similar reasons.
Devil's Advocate. I have seen it on the big screen for the first time when it came out. I have seen it more than a few times I guess. What I like about this movie is that among all 'the moral of the story' stuff this one is probably one of the shortest cuts to the point because of the poet its lines. I don't like that it's covered with sugary religious coat while it actually has nothing to do with it because very interestingly enough this movie is also designed to point out that religious side of it all is just a fantasy with good visual effects and nothing more, while it pokes in the eye that the evil is just what people choose to do. I think that's why it doesn't get old. It hits the nail on the head. Yeah it is over the top, corny, lame... but The Law. It's the only thing stands between the darkness and the civilisation on a cotton thread. It's also done with very little budget, I always like that.
[spoiler]But maybe because they focused too much on Milton and his lines although it is a rip off from Milton -I mean the real one- there is always the secretary's weird outburst that ruins it a bit for me. Why would she get back to him like that even if she didn't know the answer to his question -Is he circumcised?- while Lomax is coaching her for the trial. That wouldn't happen. She would be too scared and laugh it off the most. [/spoiler]
Also they use the word Vanity and carefully avoid the word Pride. LOL In short, it is still good. The Eddie Barzoon conversation is fucking brilliant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r96KpNTcog4
Why SJW are like a naive Wonder Woman, who at the end of the first movie is no longer naive?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otSip1l20I0
It is the good people you have to watch out for!
Rewatching The Blair Witch Project per Halloween tradition.
Mike and Josh were lowkey hateful of Heather and it's pretty obvious very early on, further fueling my murder suspicions. Josh is very subtle about it - pretending to be affable without showing any warmth - but Mike (the new guy) barely disguises his contempt. Heather calls him "little Mikey" - she likely means it in an endearing way, but Mike is very prickly about it, further fueling his hostility, but Heather seems to not understand that he hates being treated like a kid. He also hates being filmed, which is somewhat suspicious since he actually hates being scrutinized very closely.
Mike also knew in advance that Heather would get lost because he lays the groundwork to blame her should they get lost - accusing her of not knowing the way, accusing her of lying about travel times, and saying that he doesn't trust her. That way, when they do get lost, her credibility and trustworthiness is completely shot and she has to try to save face by navigating them out, which he knows she won't be able to do.
This film is brilliant because there's such a slow and steady descent into horror that it's completely believable. Everyone's doing normal, everyday things and the change to horror is so gradual and blurry that it's difficult to tell exactly where things took a turn. The film completely bypasses normal suspension of disbelief because the setting is so mundane and the horror is so gradual.
This film may be interesting, although I don't ordinarily seek out documentaries.
https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/idfa-film-review-bellingcat-truth-in-a-post-truth-world-1203031551/
The interest for me is that it deals with the issue of fake news that panders to those who are drawn to conspiracy theories, lies, and confusion that haunt the internet, and occasionally even reliable sources. I'll be looking for this one, and will definitely watch it when I find it. It's done well at 100% from critics at Rotten Tomatoes, although it's only been reviewed by 6 critics at this point.
Quote from: NitzWalsh on February 16, 2013, 02:12:20 AM
Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters
6/10
It was pretty good, but they could have swore less and cut out one 10 second nudity scene for a slightly lower rating without messing up the story at all. That would have increased the audience and they would have made more money.
Did you notice the fan boy from that movie in "Kong: Skull Island"?
It will be interesting to see if NitzWalsh responds to the above, but I'll respond that I think that 10 second nude scene was one of the most sensuous 10 seconds that ever came out of Hollywood. All of this is personal opinion, of course, but the movie started out interesting and then got kind of meh, but those 10 seconds are still memorable 7 years later.
Quote from: SGOS on October 17, 2020, 07:59:00 AM
This film may be interesting, although I don't ordinarily seek out documentaries.
https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/idfa-film-review-bellingcat-truth-in-a-post-truth-world-1203031551/
The interest for me is that it deals with the issue of fake news that panders to those who are drawn to conspiracy theories, lies, and confusion that haunt the internet, and occasionally even reliable sources. I'll be looking for this one, and will definitely watch it when I find it. It's done well at 100% from critics at Rotten Tomatoes, although it's only been reviewed by 6 critics at this point.
The MSM has always been unreliable. In my day (and yours) the big three TV networks put out continuous lies, except for one day in 1968, when Cronkite broke. The Media had to immediately replaced him with a new Disney animatronic Cronkite. In your fantasy, there are reliable news sources. Believe your own eyes ... sometimes. Otherwise this is only distraction entertainment, like CNN inventing 24 hour news, to satisfy Jane Fonda. All the news that gets out on MSM or social media ... have various agendas behind them.
Cronkite made military estimations that were wrong.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 17, 2020, 12:12:56 PM
Cronkite made military estimations that were wrong.
Yep, he was our greatest general. Cronkite was a sometimes honest man, who spent most of his career lying for the Establishment. The military estimates in the Vietnam War were all cointelpro put out by McNamara, a failed Ford executive. The Army colonel at Ia Drang Valley, he knew the real score, after he was nearly annihilated. But they shut him up real quick. War is a business, by war profiteers, like LBJ.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 13, 2020, 10:57:44 PM
This film is brilliant because there's such a slow and steady descent into horror that it's completely believable. Everyone's doing normal, everyday things and the change to horror is so gradual and blurry that it's difficult to tell exactly where things took a turn. The film completely bypasses normal suspension of disbelief because the setting is so mundane and the horror is so gradual.
The thing that intrigued me was that it was made by kids, who sold it to Hollywood for 1 million dollars, which to my mind is the same old story of Corporate America ripping off everyone as far out to the horizon and beyond. I'm sure the kids were happy with 1 million, and I would have taken it too. So I'm not complaining, just making an observation. As a horror film, I would rate it as very good. Comparing it to the average Hollywood spooker, I'd say it was well above average. That's even after I deduct points for no special effects, low end filming equipment, having no high paid actors, and probably a budget under $500. The film even capitalizes on the theme of amateur film makers making a fake documentary about amateur witch hunters making a documentary.
When it comes right down to it, it's kids just doing the best they could, which doesn't really say anything endearing about the multi billion dollar film industry in Hollywood itself. Consider the sequel. You would think Hollywood could actually make a sequel that was better than the original under these circumstances, but the sequel wasn't as good. I remember the photography in the sequel as being more professional, but that was about it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 13, 2020, 10:57:44 PM
This film is brilliant because there's such a slow and steady descent into horror that it's completely believable. Everyone's doing normal, everyday things and the change to horror is so gradual and blurry that it's difficult to tell exactly where things took a turn. The film completely bypasses normal suspension of disbelief because the setting is so mundane and the horror is so gradual.
I always thought of it as a bunch of kids scaring themselves to death for no good reason.
Quote from: SGOS on October 17, 2020, 02:43:51 PMThe thing that intrigued me was that it was made by kids, who sold it to Hollywood for 1 million dollars, which to my mind is the same old story of Corporate America ripping off everyone as far out to the horizon and beyond. I'm sure the kids were happy with 1 million, and I would have taken it too. So I'm not complaining, just making an observation. As a horror film, I would rate it as very good. Comparing it to the average Hollywood spooker, I'd say it was well above average. That's even after I deduct points for no special effects, low end filming equipment, having no high paid actors, and probably a budget under $500. The film even capitalizes on the theme of amateur film makers making a fake documentary about amateur witch hunters making a documentary.
When it comes right down to it, it's kids just doing the best they could, which doesn't really say anything endearing about the multi billion dollar film industry in Hollywood itself. Consider the sequel. You would think Hollywood could actually make a sequel that was better than the original under these circumstances, but the sequel wasn't as good. I remember the photography in the sequel as being more professional, but that was about it.
Yeah, they got paid much more than they had been the previous year, certainly a nice payday for them. They could've gotten more, but they didn't know that at the time.
And the first film showed that you didn't need fancy effects or big name actors to make a good horror film. All you need is to tap into common fears (a haunted forest, things going bump in the night, a scary witch story, etc) combined with camcorders to put the audience there and to blur the line between mundane and horrific. A little viral internet buzz and you're golden.
The first film is often derided as people walking in the woods and not much happening, but imo that's an overly simplistic summary. I'm convinced that the witch aspect of the film is just a fiction within fiction - a local tall tale seized upon and hyped up by Josh and Mike to mess with their future murder victim. The real evil is and always has been flesh-and-blood people - the witch is just a convenient scapegoat (both historically and in the film)
The second film is criticized for being nothing like the first, but imo a rehash of the same basic thing would be boring. Instead, it's commentary on the sensation of the first movie and the way people get carried away by fiction - losing themselves in obsession and their own imaginations and no longer able to tell fiction from reality.
Like the first movie, it pointedly raises the question that filming distorts reality by changing how things are perceived. In particular, this film stresses subjectivity and illusion - "video never lies Kim, film does, though". No one knows the truth of things because no one knows the truth, period.
All we the audience get in this mystery box are a lot of puzzle pieces, but they don't quite fit together no matter how you approach the puzzle. Whether or not you believe in witchcraft or ESP or pure naturalism, you can piece together large chunks of the plot, but you'll never be able to satisfactorily explain everything. That's intentional, imo. Reality itself is equally irregular.
The whole movie is a literal witch hunt - a group of people in mounting distress scapegoating someone else. It's no coincidence that the victims were identified as witches. And that mind screw ending is brilliant and makes for great psychological horror. It's commentary on media hype and local myths running out of control, about the gulf between perception and reality, and about mass hysteria and scapegoating. The film is largely unnoticed brilliance and I intend to die on this hill.
And finally, for a movie cautioning against obsession with fiction, it has plenty of easter eggs for keen-eyed observers. There's the infamous message hidden a word at a time in various scenes. There's also the "I'm finished now" maintenance worker doing his best Rustin Parr impression and many other small discrepancies and hidden things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgO8ffxigX8
My favorite little detail - one I only recently observed and as far as I know, I'm the only one who ever noticed - is Jeff, who screams his innocence throughout the film, shown early in the movie using a duffel bag as a pillow - the duffel bag of a recently murdered German tourist - identified through its German flag on the side. Alarming to say the least, since he seemed like the most personable and trustworthy person in the group, especially in early scenes. Clearly, a misleading impression.
Talk about hidden Easter Eggs. Those things are too subtle for anyone to spot, even when they know Easter Eggs are going to show up.
Quote from: SGOS on October 18, 2020, 07:51:28 AM
Talk about hidden Easter Eggs. Those things are too subtle for anyone to spot, even when they know Easter Eggs are going to show up.
That is one evil Easter Bunny ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on October 17, 2020, 02:43:51 PM
The thing that intrigued me was that it was made by kids, who sold it to Hollywood for 1 million dollars, which to my mind is the same old story of Corporate America ripping off everyone as far out to the horizon and beyond. I'm sure the kids were happy with 1 million, and I would have taken it too. So I'm not complaining, just making an observation. As a horror film, I would rate it as very good. Comparing it to the average Hollywood spooker, I'd say it was well above average. That's even after I deduct points for no special effects, low end filming equipment, having no high paid actors, and probably a budget under $500. The film even capitalizes on the theme of amateur film makers making a fake documentary about amateur witch hunters making a documentary.
When it comes right down to it, it's kids just doing the best they could, which doesn't really say anything endearing about the multi billion dollar film industry in Hollywood itself. Consider the sequel. You would think Hollywood could actually make a sequel that was better than the original under these circumstances, but the sequel wasn't as good. I remember the photography in the sequel as being more professional, but that was about it.
The Blair Witch Project worked for the very simple reason that they let your mind do the work for them. I went and saw it with some co-workers at a Saturday afternoon matinee and thought that it was a suitably creepy movie.
When I went to bed that night I heard one effing sound I couldn't immediately identify and that was it, I sat up all night. It burrows into your head by
not providing you with the scary-but-impossible, but by triggering all the little creepy things inside your own mind. If it had shown the monster, it would not have worked as well as it did.
By coincidence, my then-long-distance-bf went and saw it the same day I did. He slept with the lights on for two days.
I would say that it's not the scariest movie I've ever seen, but it's damn skippy the creepiest; I genuinely think it would have left Hitchcock twitching... or grinning.
The problem with it is that once you know the trick, it doesn't stand up well under further viewing. You have to make a deliberate effort to put yourself in the headspace of not having seen it before. It's a similar trick to learning to properly appreciate the impact
Citizen Kane hadâ€"you have to remember that before
Kane, no movie had ever looked like that before; Welles completely reinvented cinema in one film. Blair Witch was not so impactful on the art of cinema (other than reviving the 'found footage' style), but you do rather have to put yourself in the mental space where you were when you first saw it to be able to re-appreciate it.
I know what you mean by putting yourself in the same headspace on the second watching. I was very aware of my effort to achieve that "place", but I couldn't get it all back the second time.
Quote from: SGOS on October 18, 2020, 05:21:01 PM
I know what you mean by putting yourself in the same headspace on the second watching. I was very aware of my effort to achieve that "place", but I couldn't get it all back the second time.
You can't step into the same horror movie twice - Heraclitus
Quote from: trdsf on October 18, 2020, 04:45:23 PMThe problem with it is that once you know the trick, it doesn't stand up well under further viewing. You have to make a deliberate effort to put yourself in the headspace of not having seen it before.
Jokes on you, I do that involuntarily after a few years anyway.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/640x360/p03kk27x.jpg)
So I watched the Blair Witch movies for the first time this weekend. I mistakenly started with the simply titled "Blair Witch" first, thinking it was the original. But it turned out it was a direct sequel. Why do they do that? Don't name a sequel after the first movie, FFS. So then I watched Blair Witch 2, which was...very different. It was so cheesy and confusing, and the ending, IMO, felt very anticlimactic and forced. Especially with that news woman talking about this being "another case of violent media inspiring violent crime." Give me a break.
So then, today, I got around to The Blair Witch Project. The actual first movie. It was okay. Personally, I'm not a fan of the unseen monster thing. Feels kinda cheap. Makes the monster seem like less of a threat. I don't know if it was meant to be up to interpretation if the witch was even real, but if it was just an elaborate murder, that doesn't explain why no one came back alive. And what would be the motive? The later movies also make the supernatural stuff a little harder to explain away. Still, it was impressive how much they were able to do with no budget, and the acting was excellent.
Personally, I liked Blair Witch best. The...sequel one. It doesn't look as authentic, but it does go back to the original format. Yet while going back to the old formula, it didn't feel unoriginal or forced. Having the main character searching for his sister, the main character of the original, was a good way to connect the stories. Plus, it gave them motivation beyond just morbid curiosity. It also showed the witch on camera (literally), and she was creepy. Overall, it was like what the first movie would have been, with a Hollywood budget.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 18, 2020, 10:22:13 PMI don't know if it was meant to be up to interpretation if the witch was even real, but if it was just an elaborate murder, that doesn't explain why no one came back alive. And what would be the motive? The later movies also make the supernatural stuff a little harder to explain away. Still, it was impressive how much they were able to do with no budget, and the acting was excellent.
What's the motive for Ted Bundy to eat people? Sometimes, people do horrible things for seemingly no rational reason.
And apologies for this brief Doylist rant, but in horror films, the villains' motives are rarely ever revealed or particularly rational. Most horror villains - human and monster alike - seem to kill for killing's sake and most audiences are just fine with that. Voodoo sharks and all that jazz.
The reasons I prefer the murder explanation:
1)
It makes sense with the on-screen events - hostility, lying (I gave you back the map!), sabotage (that map was useless!), odd reactions to mortal danger (laughing at the predicament, unphased by "cackling", the most cautious guy running headlong into the murder house, etc. Throughout, Heather is the only one who actually seems legitimately scared)
2)
It's parsimonious (note that nowhere in the film do we get a witch or anything supernatural. It's simply an assumption the characters make. Is it wise for us to make the same assumption? Sometimes, a sword is just a sword and a pile of rocks is just a pile of rocks)
3)
It adds to the drama - adding subtext to the characters' interactions
4)
It changes the context of the movie from a supernatural horror movie to a psychological horror. Here's the difference between the two and let me know which one The Blair Witch Project more closely resembles: "Supernatural horror involves some kind of suspension or breach of physical law, usually embodied in or caused by some kind of supernatural agency such as an uncanny monster or a ghost... psychological horror, on the other hand, does not involve violations of physical law, but features naturalistic (if often implausible) menaces and scenarios."
Better yet, psychological thrillers are described as having a "dissolving sense of reality" and are "often told through the viewpoint of psychologically stressed characters, revealing their distorted mental perceptions and focusing on the complex and often tortured relationships between obsessive and pathological characters." Sound familiar?
If Josh and Mike did it, since they were never found dead or alive (presumed missing and surely wanted by the authorities for questioning) they probably assumed new identities and took residence elsewhere. Difficult but not impossible. Or maybe they liked the experience so much that they went on a killing spree and eventually bought the farm somehow.
Dunno, and doesn't much matter. The movie is very much Heather's story. What happens afterwards is narratively unimportant.
I dunno. The sounds they hear at night, the children shaking their tents and leaving handprints everywhere, the bloody tooth, the way they somehow end up going in a circle when following a river South, it all makes it hard for me to believe that this was just an elaborate murder. It also kinda bothers me that Mike and Heather just drop their cameras and are immediately assumed to be dead. We don't hear a struggle, we don't hear anything hit them, they just appear to die instantly for no apparent reason. I can't remember which movie says it, but the townsfolk claim that looking directly at the witch is enough to kill you. In the 2016 sequel, the witch appears to use the voices of previous victims to lure people to her, and get them to turn to face her. If that's what happened to Mike and Heather at the end of the original movie, it would explain the instant death.
Also, there is apparently some lore that didn't make it into the movie, but was on the official website. Heather, apparently, didn't start the documentary just because she was interested in the subject. She wrote in a journal that she felt drawn there. This implies that the witch was planting ideas in her head to lure her to her death.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 19, 2020, 02:33:39 AM
Also, there is apparently some lore that didn't make it into the movie, but was on the official website. Heather, apparently, didn't start the documentary just because she was interested in the subject. She wrote in a journal that she felt drawn there. This implies that the witch was planting ideas in her head to lure her to her death.
TBWP was one of the first movies to leverage the Internet as a tie-in. For my part, I avoided all the online stuff until after I'd seen it because I wanted to go into the movie 'clean'. Afterwards, then I looked it up mainly to see how well it all fit together.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 19, 2020, 02:33:39 AMThe sounds they hear at night, the children shaking their tents and leaving handprints everywhere, the bloody tooth, the way they somehow end up going in a circle when following a river South, it all makes it hard for me to believe that this was just an elaborate murder.
At night, Heather normally sleeps like a rock and the two guys do not. And one of them is a sound engineer with sound equipment.
Someone did indeed shake the tent Heather was in, but why assume it was children?
The bloody tooth is admittedly a pretty elaborate part (as are the tiny handprints in the murder house) though it's not much more hassle than the creating all those stickmen and piling rocks together. Two guys could set all that up in advance in a couple days if they really wanted to. Like Josh said to Heather, "someone is fucking with you". Not us. YOU.
Going in a circle is actually evidence for it being a murder. It's deliberate misnavigation. Remember, Mike and Josh are leading the way in the second half of the movie (the part where they're completely lost and laughing) and Heather was leading the way in the first half (where they got to their first two destinations with no problem and then start to get lost on the return trip).
When Heather realizes they've gone in a circle, it completely shatters any remaining self-confidence and from there on out, she just defers to Mike, who suggests they go East, away from the water and straight to the murder house. Come to think of it, Mike only takes the reins a couple times, and it always results in him leading the group further astray.
QuoteAlso, there is apparently some lore that didn't make it into the movie, but was on the official website. Heather, apparently, didn't start the documentary just because she was interested in the subject. She wrote in a journal that she felt drawn there. This implies that the witch was planting ideas in her head to lure her to her death.
Her feeling drawn there implies only that she felt drawn there; we can't infer the existence of a witch from that any more than we can infer the existence of god from people "feeling his presence".
In fact, if the word witch wasn't in the title of the movie and we didn't hear the locals or the three main characters talk about the witch, and all we got were the scenes of them being lost and afraid, would anyone in the audience think there was a witch? Mike suggested that it was rednecks before rejecting that idea and instead insisting that whoever lived nearby was responsible.
For argument's sake, let's take it as a given The Blair Witch Project was meant is a supernatural horror movie and the titular witch is indeed real in-universe.
Let's say you're the director trying to pitch this movie to film executives. Can you imagine the look on their faces when you tell them that there are no shots of the witch, no obvious magic or curses or anything, and 90% of the movie is just people hiking through the woods and having arguments. What kind of sense does that make? Imo, that would be a pretty awful film and definitely wouldn't stack up to its big-budget counterparts, so the executives probably wouldn't sign off on that. What were they actually pitched that got their attention?
Conservation of detail would suggest that the arguments about the map and being lost would be significant in some way. Instead, they're just a dull preamble to a very brief and intense few final scenes. And bear in mind that editing this film was already a huge pain in the ass. Why bother to keep that in? Why didn't that end up on the cutting room floor in favor of more scares and gore? It makes no sense.
Honestly, if I was doing a straight supernatural horror movie, I would at the very least give definite hints of a supernatural presence - if not directly, then indirectly through corrupted wildlife or magical flora or possession. All we get are bundles of sticks and piles of rocks - indistinguishable from human handiwork. Why?
And the existence of the witch makes for some odd logic in the plot - the Witch kills people who enters her woods, except for the search party who found the film the trio left behind packed under some rocks (aren't they too busy being dead to do this? Who placed it there?). This famously territorial witch is hostile to the trio and yet surprisingly hospitable to the search party that found the film. Sounds legit.
Imho, if I wasn't pitched a mediocre/bad supernatural film and wasn't instead pitched a fake-out - something that on the surface looked like a supernatural horror film but was actually a psychological thriller, and especially if it was shot in a new and fascinating way, that might be just enough to pique my interest!
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 19, 2020, 12:53:38 PM
For argument's sake, let's take it as a given The Blair Witch Project was meant is a supernatural horror movie and the titular witch is indeed real in-universe.
Let's say you're the director trying to pitch this movie to film executives. Can you imagine the look on their faces when you tell them that there are no shots of the witch, no obvious magic or curses or anything, and 90% of the movie is just people hiking through the woods and having arguments. What kind of sense does that make? Imo, that would be a pretty awful film and definitely wouldn't stack up to its big-budget counterparts, so the executives probably wouldn't sign off on that. What were they actually pitched that got their attention?
Conservation of detail would suggest that the arguments about the map and being lost would be significant in some way. Instead, they're just a dull preamble to a very brief and intense few final scenes. And bear in mind that editing this film was already a huge pain in the ass. Why bother to keep that in? Why didn't that end up on the cutting room floor in favor of more scares and gore? It makes no sense.
Honestly, if I was doing a straight supernatural horror movie, I would at the very least give definite hints of a supernatural presence - if not directly, then indirectly through corrupted wildlife or magical flora or possession. All we get are bundles of sticks and piles of rocks - indistinguishable from human handiwork. Why?
And the existence of the witch makes for some odd logic in the plot - the Witch kills people who enters her woods, except for the search party who found the film the trio left behind packed under some rocks (aren't they too busy being dead to do this? Who placed it there?). This famously territorial witch is hostile to the trio and yet surprisingly hospitable to the search party that found the film. Sounds legit.
Imho, if I wasn't pitched a mediocre/bad supernatural film and wasn't instead pitched a fake-out - something that on the surface looked like a supernatural horror film but was actually a psychological thriller, and especially if it was shot in a new and fascinating way, that might be just enough to pique my interest!
I think the arguments amongst themselves was meant to show that they were breaking down. Their trust in each other was failing, making them vulnerable. As for the search parties, part of the lore states that the witch is only active once every 50 or so years. And not everyone who enters her forest are victims. Sometimes, they're vessels. Like the hermit who built his home there. He lived there for years without incident, but then he started hearing a voice speak to him, telling him to bring children to his home and slaughter them. The victims were also made to stand in the corner to wait their turn, just like we see Mike doing at the end of the film, before Heather drops her camera. There is a lot of witch lore like that, which are odd details to include if she's just supposed to be a myth.
It's not that I'm against the idea of what you're suggesting. It's just that it seems to me like the more complex explanation. These two guys take a girl into the woods with the intention of killing her, knowing they're being filmed. After getting her out to the middle of nowhere, they intentionally get themselves lost and use hidden sound equipment to make Heather think they're being stalked by something. Josh wanders off, but doesn't have any difficulty keeping up with them, despite having no fire or lights at night to give away their position. Then, despite being totally lost, they end up finding an abandoned house, where Mike runs around before intentionally dropping his camera at an angle where you can't see what's happening. Then he stands in the corner while Josh sneaks up on Heather and...does something to instantly incapacitate her. She drops her camera, again at an angle where we can't see what's happening. There's no sounds of a beating or of Heather being dragged away. It's just silence. Then after completing this murder, the victims burn down the house, leaving the tapes unharmed for a search party to find. And the two disappear, hungry and without transportation (their truck was left behind), to never be seen or heard from again.
Fair point, though the witch thing has its share of problems as well and gets just as convoluted.
The witch stalks these people at night, cackling and apparently throwing stones at other stones in the distance. Doesn't harm a hair on their heads. After a while, she ransacks the campground for some reason. After another while, abruptly abducts Josh. Then waits yet again and leaves a bloody present, presumably from Josh, so he's either dead or hurt badly. Then leaves them alone for yet another while, then the witch uses Josh's screaming to lure Mr Cautious into the murder house. Mike races ahead of Heather for some reason, loudly announces that he's headed upstairs, doesn't find anything, sprints away the instant Heather catches up to him, loudly announces (to who?) that he's headed downstairs, puts as much distance between him and Heather as possible, get incapacitated, presumably by the witch. Then the witch moves Mike into the corner, lies hidden, then ambushes Heather, then finally finishes off Mike (why not off Mike immediately?). Then the witch disappears the bodies, buries the footage under some rocks, and apparently doesn't bother the search party that comes looking later on.
That's one weeeird witch.
After another viewing, I noticed that Josh early on pointedly asks Heather if she believes in the witch, says "someone is fucking with your mind" (singular, not plural), mentions Deliverance, extremely casually - almost in passing - mentions a cackling last night. All while very intensely measuring her response. He clearly is trying his hardest to implant the idea that this is a supernatural stalking to Heather.
If neither of these guys were suspicious, if there was obviously some supernatural stuff going on, and if everyone involved seemed scared, I would totally believe this is 100% the handiwork of some outside threat. But the way this film is shot, it's intentionally ambiguous who's doing the haunting or if there even is a witch. If everything is as it appears, if there's not some twist, why the ambiguity?
For people who hate remakes: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805647/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
I saw Knives Out. Not good, 5/10 if that.
I kinda like murder mysteries. This is not truly a murder mystery, since most of the mystery is revealed in the first 15 minutes. It does have a twist, but it's a very weak and uninteresting twist, imo.
And there's a part at the end that I found absurd and inexcusably inept:
[spoiler]After the killer is revealed by the dashing detective (this movie is cliched AF, not gonna lie) and the detective tells the police to take him away, the police stay back and for some reason, let this guy approach someone. He walks right up to her and says that he's going to try to kill her right in front of the cops (dafuq) then reaches for a weapon (the cops react too slowly to intervene, which is quite something) and absolutely could have killed her. Look, I know the cops aren't super competent in murder mysteries, but damn, that's a new level of inept. That's Chief Wiggim inept.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 19, 2020, 12:53:38 PM
Honestly, if I was doing a straight supernatural horror movie, I would at the very least give definite hints of a supernatural presence - if not directly, then indirectly through corrupted wildlife or magical flora or possession. All we get are bundles of sticks and piles of rocks - indistinguishable from human handiwork. Why?
I don't know, but this may have been the best part of the story for me. Maybe there's a witch, maybe it's a psychopath, but whatever it is, it's unknown. I would call it genius if it wasn't the first time I had seen this scare device, but genius or dumb luck, this was the limit of the special effects available to them, and they used the little sticks wisely. Also, there weren't any jump scares that you know are coming. The duration of the trip is just a low level of creepy, with no scare followed by a relief like, "Oh, it was just a cat!" There is never any resolution or explanation for the creep, and you have to endure it. It even remained with me for a while after I left the theater.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 20, 2020, 11:31:30 PM
I saw Knives Out. Not good, 5/10 if that.
I kinda like murder mysteries. This is not truly a murder mystery, since most of the mystery is revealed in the first 15 minutes. It does have a twist, but it's a very weak and uninteresting twist, imo.
And there's a part at the end that I found absurd and inexcusably inept:
[spoiler]After the killer is revealed by the dashing detective (this movie is cliched AF, not gonna lie) and the detective tells the police to take him away, the police stay back and for some reason, let this guy approach someone. He walks right up to her and says that he's going to try to kill her right in front of the cops (dafuq) then reaches for a weapon (the cops react too slowly to intervene, which is quite something) and absolutely could have killed her. Look, I know the cops aren't super competent in murder mysteries, but damn, that's a new level of inept. That's Chief Wiggim inept.[/spoiler]
Boss Lady sat through the entire thing going "It can't be him, it's too obvious."
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 09, 2020, 04:03:24 PM
Devil's Advocate. I have seen it on the big screen for the first time when it came out. I have seen it more than a few times I guess. What I like about this movie is that among all 'the moral of the story' stuff this one is probably one of the shortest cuts to the point because of the poet its lines. I don't like that it's covered with sugary religious coat while it actually has nothing to do with it because very interestingly enough this movie is also designed to point out that religious side of it all is just a fantasy with good visual effects and nothing more, while it pokes in the eye that the evil is just what people choose to do. I think that's why it doesn't get old. It hits the nail on the head. Yeah it is over the top, corny, lame... but The Law. It's the only thing stands between the darkness and the civilisation on a cotton thread. It's also done with very little budget, I always like that.
[spoiler]But maybe because they focused too much on Milton and his lines although it is a rip off from Milton -I mean the real one- there is always the secretary's weird outburst that ruins it a bit for me. Why would she get back to him like that even if she didn't know the answer to his question -Is he circumcised?- while Lomax is coaching her for the trial. That wouldn't happen. She would be too scared and laugh it off the most. [/spoiler]
Also they use the word Vanity and carefully avoid the word Pride. LOL In short, it is still good. The Eddie Barzoon conversation is fucking brilliant.
I remember seeing that 22 years ago, but I couldn't remember what I liked about it, who was in it, or what it was about. So I got the disk and watched it today. I didn't remember any of it. Nada! It's a good one to watch cold, because it takes you where you're not expecting. It's kind of a mind blower. Thanks for bringing it up.
The Lost Boys
Still pretty good, even after all these years. Afaik, it introduced us to punk vampires, helping to update vampires from their nosferatu roots to something more akin to the Buffy vampires.
It had some memorable shots of wild California with amusement parks filled with hooligans of every stripe rockin' fly threads and constantly partying and surfing. I know it's just a movie with no bearing on reality whatsoever, but that's my mental image of California.
Also, I'm convinced that The Lost Boys and The Craft are the same basic movie, just from the other sex's perspective. Impressionable teenage boy/girl get pressured into joining all-male/all-female gang with supernatural abilities. After being inducted, he/she has a change of heart, turns against the gang and a fight ensues. It's like poetry. And imho, both films take place in a shared universe. Take that, MCU!
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 25, 2020, 12:57:09 AM
The Lost Boys
Also, I'm convinced that The Lost Boys and The Craft are the same basic movie, just from the other sex's perspective. Impressionable teenage boy/girl get pressured into joining all-male/all-female gang with supernatural abilities. After being inducted, he/she has a change of heart, turns against the gang and a fight ensues. It's like poetry. And imho, both films take place in a shared universe. Take that, MCU!
There are certain scenarios that seem to draw people in. I can think of a couple that always give me a flash of excitement. I can see that the scenario above would have that appeal for many. It's interesting and different, at least until it's overused and no longer different.
Stargate SG1 had a scenario that they use probably 10 times, and I fall for it each time: Some key person is introduced to the wonders of the stargate. Think Samantha's dying military father who is given a trip through the gate, but is also introduced to an alien culture that saves his life, so that he can play a critical role in saving the world. Or the dying buddy of SG1's team leader who is given an alien device to experience the highly secretive aspects of his buddy's role in the Stargate Program. Each time one of these show up, I'm waiting for it with excited anticipation. Time travel experiences in other movies do that to me also.
For the last 10 years, superheroes in magical universes have captured the same titillating excitement in audiences so that you have to wonder what took Hollywood so long to get around to it. Well, I guess they have been using it for decades, so apparently what's in and what's out is affected by something I haven't figured out yet.
Or 20 years ago the Romantic Comedy formula, where a couple meet by an accident of fate, fall in love, have an argument, and when all seems lost, they get back together. THERE! I just gave away the plot of hundreds of romantic comedies. They always drew a crowd until Hollywood wore it out. Did you ever wonder what happened to the couple in the movie after they get back together? Do we assume they live happily ever after? Or does their relationship experience a prolonged period of agonizing decline ending in bitterness and deep resentment? We don't get to watch that part. (Thank God!)
John carpenter's the thing.
Brilliant. Very impressive.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 25, 2020, 09:31:24 AM
John carpenter's the thing.
Brilliant. Very impressive.
OK, that was not the original, but I saw that one too. It wasn't as scary, but then I was 40, rather than 8. lol
Just watched The Crow. Never seen it before in my life. One of the best movies I've ever seen. Certainly, a unique action superhero (halloween?) film.
I loved the visual style. I loved the acting, Brandon Lee really went all in on this one. I liked the story. I liked the music. I liked how absolutely insane a lot of the scenes were. I practically giggled at some of the cheesy lines, like "our friend won't be joining us this evening on account of a slight case of death". Heh, classic. A lot of the scenes and lines are so tropey now (like showing up at the mobsters' meeting to do a little magic trick or disappearing mid-conversation) that I honestly don't know if this movie started them or if they were around previously.
Also, I have a theory...a film theory...that the mask in The Crow was originally owned by Arthur Fleck and made its way to Eric Draven and thus served as an inspiration for his manic facepainting and resulting crazed fearlessnes. Hell, that might even be the same apartment. So technically, The Crow takes place in Gotham. The cities seem similar enough that it fits - urban decay, gang problem, largely incompetent cops, perpetually dark and rainy - it sure looks like Gotham.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 28, 2020, 08:45:23 PM
Just watched The Crow. Never seen it before in my life. One of the best movies I've ever seen. Certainly, a unique action superhero (halloween?) film.
Oh my gawd. I was at the last grade of high school, it was a cult movie. It was esp. popular among boys.
We said 'It can't rain all the time' to each other whenever feeling bad for a decade after that movie.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 28, 2020, 10:12:09 PMWe said 'It can't rain all the time' to each other whenever feeling bad for a decade after that movie.
That's what started it. I have plans with a friend and got a text that it might rain. So I searched for a gif in response. That quote is what I went with. Then I decided to check out the movie.
I have seen The Lost Boys when I was a kid. I should see it again. I vaguely remember it. Weird... I dunno why I haven't seen it later again.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 28, 2020, 10:12:09 PM
Oh my gawd. I was at the last grade of high school, it was a cult movie. It was esp. popular among boys.
We said 'It can't rain all the time' to each other whenever feeling bad for a decade after that movie.
I heard about it from the woman who cuts my hair. We were talking about superhero films and she mentioned her favorite was The Crow. I'd never heard of it and thought how can that be? It must have been before I developed an interest in movies. So I found it on ebay or Amazon or something and bought it. It's time to find that one in my collection and watch it again. I've found other movies of that genre that flew under my radar. They are older but not advertised well enough, and may have just seemed like some old movie that I never bothered seeing. Electra with Jennifer Garner was one I missed when it happened. I guess they were heroes that Marvel discarded, or didn't receive as much welcome from the public.
The Crow was interesting, a modern gothic take on Batman-like vigilantism. I would never do a revenge fantasy myself.
On Romantic Comedy ... wasn't that how your SO experience went? It was my SO experience. And yes, in reality, the relationship goes on, until it doesn't and then in old age you get back together again, but different.
Oddly enough, the last movie I watched was 'A Christmas Story' while staying at the house next door to the actual 'A Christmas Story' house in Cleveland (the 'Bumpus House'). I don't know how my cousin got to be in his 70s without ever having seen it, so we watched it.
Quote from: trdsf on November 05, 2020, 01:49:47 AM
Oddly enough, the last movie I watched was 'A Christmas Story' while staying at the house next door to the actual 'A Christmas Story' house in Cleveland (the 'Bumpus House'). I don't know how my cousin got to be in his 70s without ever having seen it, so we watched it.
Is the Bumpus House for rent? I heard the Christmas Story House is available for rent by the night.
Quote from: SGOS on November 05, 2020, 04:52:25 AM
Is the Bumpus House for rent? I heard the Christmas Story House is available for rent by the night.
Both can be rented -- we stayed on the first floor of the Bumpus House, and it's
really nice. The upper unit has the second floor and a loft. And you can stay in the Christmas Story house itself. If you want it on Christmas proper it is a) booked for the next five years at least and b) $4000 for that one night. The Rowley, the restaurant across the street, is
fantastic. I had an albino stout and a pecan brown that I am keeping an eye out for here in town, and I can definitely recommend the chicken paprikas.
Quote from: trdsf on November 05, 2020, 10:00:50 AM
Both can be rented -- we stayed on the first floor of the Bumpus House, and it's really nice. The upper unit has the second floor and a loft. And you can stay in the Christmas Story house itself. If you want it on Christmas proper it is a) booked for the next five years at least and b) $4000 for that one night. The Rowley, the restaurant across the street, is fantastic. I had an albino stout and a pecan brown that I am keeping an eye out for here in town, and I can definitely recommend the chicken paprikas.
None of that sounds the way it looked in the movie, which showed a rundown neighborhood, not unlike many of neighborhoods where I grew up in the Chicago suburbs. I don't recall a restaurant across the street in the movie. The neighborhood back then would not have been a place to go eat. Much of what I liked about the movie was that it took me back to my childhood and the family I grew up with, the bullies, the classrooms, the dress, the cars, the coal burning furnace in the basement, the push button wall switches, and the culture. And I always wanted a Daisy Air Rifle, which my parent's wouldn't let me have because I could shoot my eye out. That movie captured my past better than any movie I can think of.
Quote from: SGOS on November 05, 2020, 10:12:36 AM
None of that sounds the way it looked in the movie, which showed a rundown neighborhood, not unlike many of neighborhoods where I grew up in the Chicago suburbs. I don't recall a restaurant across the street in the movie. The neighborhood back then would not have been a place to go eat. Much of what I liked about the movie was that it took me back to my childhood and the family I grew up with, the bullies, the classrooms, the dress, the cars, the coal burning furnace in the basement, the push button wall switches, and the culture. And I always wanted a Daisy Air Rifle, which my parent's wouldn't let me have because I could shoot my eye out. That movie captured my past better than any movie I can think of.
The restaurant isn't contemporary with the story (although it fits in really well), but the neighborhood definitely feels right for that house and family. It's quite close to downtown; the back yard overlooks an old steelyard. The guy who bought and renovated the house has set up a fund for locals to assist in renovating their own properties.
Quote from: SGOS on November 05, 2020, 10:12:36 AM
None of that sounds the way it looked in the movie, which showed a rundown neighborhood, not unlike many of neighborhoods where I grew up in the Chicago suburbs. I don't recall a restaurant across the street in the movie. The neighborhood back then would not have been a place to go eat. Much of what I liked about the movie was that it took me back to my childhood and the family I grew up with, the bullies, the classrooms, the dress, the cars, the coal burning furnace in the basement, the push button wall switches, and the culture. And I always wanted a Daisy Air Rifle, which my parent's wouldn't let me have because I could shoot my eye out. That movie captured my past better than any movie I can think of.
Beat you on one thing, I did get a Daisy from my parents. And I did shoot my thumb (which was over the end of the barrel). Ouch! I did nearly put my eye out accidentally, but that was because I was trying to sneak a peak at some girls, and lost situational awareness.
If you enjoyed The Hunt, you may like ANTEBELLUM. Both movies have a similar weirdness about them, which is something I usually enjoy.
Weird (my definition): fanciful, sometimes in a morbid way with an emphasis on strange and not done before.
In these times of sleepless nights, I caught A Knights Tale on late night tv. 2001 movie that stars Heath Ledger. Set in the medieval times and follows a page's assent into the world of jousting. For me, it is a feel-good type movie where the underdog finally prevails. And the sound track is fantastic; critics panned it because it was rock and roll, not classical music. But it fit the theme and the mood--one of my favorite soundtracks. We Will Roccccck You!
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 06, 2020, 09:50:27 AMcritics panned it because it was rock and roll
Pure conjecture here, but imho, if medieval knights had access to rock music, most of them would grow to love it. Especially on campaign. Metal, too. Anything with bass drums.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 06, 2020, 09:50:27 AM
In these times of sleepless nights, I caught A Knights Tale on late night tv. 2001 movie that stars Heath Ledger. Set in the medieval times and follows a page's assent into the world of jousting. For me, it is a feel-good type movie where the underdog finally prevails. And the sound track is fantastic; critics panned it because it was rock and roll, not classical music. But it fit the theme and the mood--one of my favorite soundtracks. We Will Roccccck You!
The rock music was Ok as such, and broke the 4th wall. The girl blacksmith was appropriate, as one of my daughter's best friends was just that kind of girl. She had thieves try to steal her anvil out of the back of her pickup one night, but they all died from hernias ;-) Actual armor workers went deaf from the loud banging all day, every day.
This was my blackball movie ... Constantine, not Matrix, but the same actor ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzukJ90emEE
I am on a race with mortality, to burn my own secularity straight to Hell.
I actually went to a movie in a theater. We saw Honest Thief with Liam Neeson. I was a good film. We ordered the tickets online and chose our seats. I think there were maybe 5 other people in the theater. It was really weird.
Quote from: LoriPinkAngel on November 09, 2020, 11:42:56 PM
I actually went to a movie in a theater. We saw Honest Thief with Liam Neeson. I was a good film. We ordered the tickets online and chose our seats. I think there were maybe 5 other people in the theater. It was really weird.
When I used to go to movies, pré Covid, we'd tend to go to the last few viewings of films. You usually have very few people in the audience then. I prefer that.
No people checking their phones. No smelly nachos n cheese next seat. No commentary.... Just you and a big screen.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 10, 2020, 06:08:04 AM
When I used to go to movies, pré Covid, we'd tend to go to the last few viewings of films. You usually have very few people in the audience then. I prefer that.
No people checking their phones. No smelly nachos n cheese next seat. No commentary.... Just you and a big screen.
Yeah or the first one a week day.
Quote from: LoriPinkAngel on November 09, 2020, 11:42:56 PM
I actually went to a movie in a theater. We saw Honest Thief with Liam Neeson. I was a good film. We ordered the tickets online and chose our seats. I think there were maybe 5 other people in the theater. It was really weird.
Try attending local amateur theater, if the Rulers ever allow that again. Maybe audition for a part? Much better than a movie, and cheaper and easier to get to than Broadway.
Spontaneous Critics loved it. 98% at Rotten tomatoes. I'll give it a three.
I have no idea what I missed. It was unique, 2 points. I didn't fall asleep too much, 1 point. I didn't see a purpose for the movie.
Just saw Patton, 1970, with George C Scott. Timely, because I have recently become interested in that event. It was a very entertaining movie for sure...but my BS detector was constantly triggering when his German advisories were conducting a personality profile on him.
One thing about him in real life was his attitude towards African Americans. Quote:
Men, you are the first Negro tankers ever to fight in the American Army. I would never have asked for you if you weren't good. I have nothing but the best in my army. I don't care what color you are, so long as you go up there and kill those Kraut sonsabitches! Everyone has their eyes on you and is expecting great things from you. Most of all, your race is looking forward to you. Don't let them down and, damn you, don't let me down!"
When he said "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!" he was referring to a book by Hans Guderian, "Achtung! Panzer!"
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 16, 2020, 02:41:19 PM
When he said "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!" he was referring to a book by Hans Guderian, "Achtung! Panzer!"
Seems the French military perhaps didn't get a chance to read that book and were thinking WWI style all over again. General Patton was a real fighter for sure. I was shocked to learn of his early accidental death in 1945. Didn't even get to gloat or be a public figure at all, damn.
Quote from: Cassia on November 16, 2020, 05:18:52 PM
Seems the French military perhaps didn't get a chance to read that book and were thinking WWI style all over again.
DeGaulle was the only French high ranking officer to have anything close to a good idea how to use armored forces, and he didn't have enough to change things.
QuoteGeneral Patton was a real fighter for sure. I was shocked to learn of his early accidental death in 1945. Didn't even get to gloat or be a public figure at all, damn.[/color]
Conspiracy theorist say he was offed. Unlikely.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 16, 2020, 02:41:19 PM
When he said "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!" he was referring to a book by Hans Guderian, "Achtung! Panzer!"
Perhaps. The book on his bed side (in the movie) was "Infantry Attacks" ... by Erwin Rommel .. based on Rommels experience as an infantry officer in WW I. The fake cover said "Tank Attacks". The whole point being (getting inside the other guys military timing/planning loop). Guderian's book came out in 1937, so he probably read that too. I don't think Patton would have faired well on the Eastern Front against Guderian. Rommel's line of supply was being strangled. Even the Germans were surprised how well Blitzkrieg worked.
Quote from: Cassia on November 16, 2020, 05:18:52 PM
Seems the French military perhaps didn't get a chance to read that book and were thinking WWI style all over again. General Patton was a real fighter for sure. I was shocked to learn of his early accidental death in 1945. Didn't even get to gloat or be a public figure at all, damn.
Improbable. All competent military officers read potential enemy publications in translation. Patton was fluent in French. The French tanks were individually superior to the early Panzers ... heavier with bigger cannon and plentiful, but were deployed incompetently. The French state and high command were completely incompetent, except for DeGaulle. But the whole political situation in France was trash in 1940, same as GB and the US. The 1940 Ardenne offensive was brilliant and worked much better than the Germans expected.
BTW ... generals are always fighting the previous war ... hence the cavalry attacks in WW I and in Poland in WW II.
There is a parallel biography of Patton/Rommel by a competent and unbiased historian that I can recommend:
Patton And Rommel: Men of War in the Twentieth Century by Dennis Showalter 2006.
Patton still has enemies even today, and generals like Bradley have fans that are blind to his mistakes. Republicans vs Dems. Even winning commanders make mistakes, MacArthur in the Philippines in 1941 was disastrous. There were people who wanted Patton dead (he was a Republican), and MacArthur dead too (another Republican), after the war. Both were brilliant prima-donnas, as was Montgomery. Eisenhower found Patton insufferable, but needed him anyway. Rommel was quiet and competent but happy for the good promotion even from a dictator.
exas billionaires fought it out in 1952 over picking Eisenhower or MacArthur for nominee. They made the wise choice.
Just watched the hunger games. Never saw it before. Better than I imagined, but not exactly what I'd call a good movie.
Didn't hold a candle to battle Royale, but I'll admit I was entertained.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 20, 2020, 04:55:35 PM
Just watched the hunger games. Never saw it before. Better than I imagined, but not exactly what I'd call a good movie.
Didn't hold a candle to battle Royale, but I'll admit I was entertained.
I haven't but my daughter did, I think as is typical, she liked the initial movie most.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 20, 2020, 04:55:35 PM
Just watched the hunger games. Never saw it before. Better than I imagined, but not exactly what I'd call a good movie.
Didn't hold a candle to battle Royale, but I'll admit I was entertained.
I know you have heard this before--the books are better.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 20, 2020, 06:18:04 PM
I know you have heard this before--the books are better.
I read all the books, and I watched all but the last movie of the series. I was impressed with just how much child murder they were able to get away with on the big screen. ...That's a sentence I just said. Hi, FBI. I accept my place on your watch list. But the books are so much more graphic, disturbing, and weird. No spoilers, but the ending for the final book is bullshit, though. That shit pissed me off.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 21, 2020, 01:58:22 AM
I read all the books, and I watched all but the last movie of the series. I was impressed with just how much child murder they were able to get away with on the big screen. ...That's a sentence I just said. Hi, FBI. I accept my place on your watch list. But the books are so much more graphic, disturbing, and weird. No spoilers, but the ending for the final book is bullshit, though. That shit pissed me off.
I wasn't wild about the ending, either. I felt the first book was the best. And I finished the series because I wanted to finish it. Over all, I enjoyed the books and would recommend them to those who like that type of subject matter.
Writers run out of steam (Game of Thrones) or paint their plot into a corner ;-(
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 21, 2020, 01:58:22 AM
I was impressed with just how much child murder they were able to get away with on the big screen.
Harry Potter set the pace.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 21, 2020, 01:58:22 AMI was impressed with just how much child murder they were able to get away with on the big screen. ...That's a sentence I just said. Hi, FBI. I accept my place on your watch list.
I just googled "movies with the most child deaths" so hi FBI, NSA, CIA, and several as of yet undisclosed organizations. I assure you, it was purely for academic purposes!
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 21, 2020, 03:48:32 PM
I just googled "movies with the most child deaths" so hi FBI, NSA, CIA, and several as of yet undisclosed organizations. I assure you, it was purely for academic purposes!
The CIA/FBI/NSA are all Democrats anyway ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 21, 2020, 03:48:32 PM
I just googled "movies with the most child deaths" so hi FBI, NSA, CIA, and several as of yet undisclosed organizations. I assure you, it was purely for academic purposes!
You gonna share the fruits of your research?
I started reading The New Mutants comic when it came out in 1982 and yearned as a kid to see these characters on the big screen. The movie was made in 2017 and had serious problems partially due to Disney buying the X-Men franchise from Fox. It had bad pre-screenings, calls for reshoots that never happen... the movie was said to be a train wreck and was shelved. Some fans were surprised to see it released apparently without major changes in a pandemic. I was reluctant to even watch it but after seeing the Demon Bear in the preview I had to check it out.
The movie isn't great but it isn't a disaster, in fact, it's nowhere near as bad as Dark Phoenix or Origins: Wolverine. It's more a YA spookhouse movie about trauma than the typical superhero origin story. There is a nostalgic vibe to this movie and it lifts scenes directly from 80s and 90s movies and TV shows, which I took as more homage than ripoff-- this is after all a story from an 80s comic. I understand why they wanted reshoots because the characters need to be fleshed out, the scares need to be scarier, and the plot tightened.
[spoiler]I like the idea that these kids are sequestered because they have killed people and there is ambiguity on whether they are being punished or protected. Anyone who knows the comic or pays attention realizes why they are being "haunted"-- Danielle Moonstar's mutant power is to physically manifest whatever terrifies a person, including herself. She can't control it and unconsciously kills everyone in her community by creating the Demon Bear. This one messed up power and a good premise for a horror movie, it just needed better execution.[/spoiler]
https://youtu.be/W_vJhUAOFpI
Under the Skin, 2013 science fiction film directed by Jonathan Glazer and written by Glazer and Walter Campbell, loosely based on the 2000 novel by Michel Faber. It stars Scarlett Johansson.
I wasn't in the mood for a movie; however I couldn't top watching. Gave me 'Eraserhead' vibes at times. Johansson is not too hard to watch either... :rockout:
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 21, 2020, 09:25:34 AM
I wasn't wild about the ending, either. I felt the first book was the best. And I finished the series because I wanted to finish it. Over all, I enjoyed the books and would recommend them to those who like that type of subject matter.
After Hunger Games came to the screen, I went to the Library for the rest of the books, but I didn't read the first book because I had seen the movie. I just needed to see what was going to happen next. So I can't compare Hunger Games to the book, but to me, what I read in the books that followed reminded me of what I read in reading class in elementary school with limited vocabulary, and not much description. I thought it was aimed at maybe average Freshman and Sophomore levels, which I guess may be what they mean by young adult level books. I didn't care for the books, and when the corresponding movies came out, I didn't care for them either. What started out as post apocalyptic movie (which I liked a lot), turned into something more like supernatural, a transition which I was unable to make in my head.
Those other "young adult series," that followed from Hollywood, were the same, and some of them never even finished with the sequels. They just bombed themselves to death and disappeared. But I did like "Hunger Games." I own it and still watch it from time to time.
Quote from: Cassia on November 22, 2020, 08:01:56 AM
Under the Skin, 2013 science fiction film directed by Jonathan Glazer and written by Glazer and Walter Campbell, loosely based on the 2000 novel by Michel Faber. It stars Scarlett Johansson.
I wasn't in the mood for a movie; however I couldn't top watching. Gave me 'Eraserhead' vibes at times. Johansson is not too hard to watch either... :rockout:
I have that one filed under "Incomprehensible Fantasy" in my Library, and like you, I can't NOT watch it. Maybe watching it on acid would make more sense.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 22, 2020, 05:58:05 AM
I started reading The New Mutants comic when it came out in 1982
I was going to pass when I read the reviews, but now I think it might be worth a watch.
Quote from: SGOS on November 22, 2020, 08:22:13 AM
After Hunger Games came to the screen, I went to the Library for the rest of the books, but I didn't read the first book because I had seen the movie. I just needed to see what was going to happen next. So I can't compare Hunger Games to the book, but to me, what I read in the books that followed reminded me of what I read in reading class in elementary school with limited vocabulary, and not much description. I thought it was aimed at maybe average Freshman and Sophomore levels, which I guess may be what they mean by young adult level books. I didn't care for the books, and when the corresponding movies came out, I didn't care for them either. What started out as post apocalyptic movie (which I liked a lot), turned into something more like supernatural, a transition which I was unable to make in my head.
Those other "young adult series," that followed from Hollywood, were the same, and some of them never even finished with the sequels. They just bombed themselves to death and disappeared. But I did like "Hunger Games." I own it and still watch it from time to time.
It is 'young adult' fiction. But the lack of a high level vocabulary did not bother me--The Hunger Games was sort of an experiment for me in that it was the first 'young adult' work I had read. I liked the story, so I kept reading the books in the series. It is not as good as The Stand, Swan, or The Earth Abides, but it was a good, fast read for me. The first movie was the best for me in that it followed the book more than the others movies followed the later books. But I also enjoyed the movies. I was reading The Last Ship just prior to stumbling upon The Hunger Games series. I wanted very badly to like The Last Ship, and still love the premise of a 'last' warship that was out to sea when the world wide virus killed off 90% of the world's population. But the writing was so stilted that I could not finish the book (a rarity for me); then launched into the Hunger Games series, which I think made it seem much better than it is, maybe.
Quote from: SGOS on November 22, 2020, 08:28:44 AM
I have that one filed under "Incomprehensible Fantasy" in my Library, and like you, I can't NOT watch it. Maybe watching it on acid would make more sense.
I did not know why she was on Earth. At the end of the movie I didn't care why she was on Earth.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 22, 2020, 01:12:26 PM
I did not know why she was on Earth. At the end of the movie I didn't care why she was on Earth.
The ending felt like the editor of the film took the ending from some other movie, and just stuck it there. It kinda felt like, "Yeah, OK. That must be the end of whatever I was watching."
Quote from: SGOS on November 22, 2020, 02:35:01 PM
The ending felt like the editor of the film took the ending from some other movie, and just stuck it there. It kinda felt like, "Yeah, OK. That must be the end of whatever I was watching."
Yeah, one from the "How do I get out of this?" bucket. The whole movie was a means of showing that Scarlett looks better with her clothes on.
Quote from: SGOS on November 22, 2020, 08:22:13 AMAfter Hunger Games came to the screen, I went to the Library for the rest of the books, but I didn't read the first book because I had seen the movie. I just needed to see what was going to happen next.
The first movie is pretty decent. It was interesting seeing the characters come to life on screen, before they died. But there were some details in the book that aren't spelled out to you in the movie. Katniss is a silent protagonist in both versions, but in the book, her thoughts are explained to the reader.
Also, the book is a lot more brutal. A lot of moments are put on fast forward in the movie. You don't get time for those emotions to sink in, because they've got to condense the whole story for one sitting. I'd recommend giving the book a read.
A Knight's Tale
I probably won't finish it tonight, but I am really enjoying it so far. Don't know how it took me 30 years to finally get around to watching it.
Quote from: Cassia on November 22, 2020, 08:01:56 AM
Under the Skin, 2013 science fiction film directed by Jonathan Glazer and written by Glazer and Walter Campbell, loosely based on the 2000 novel by Michel Faber. It stars Scarlett Johansson.
I wasn't in the mood for a movie; however I couldn't top watching. Gave me 'Eraserhead' vibes at times. Johansson is not too hard to watch either... :rockout:
Yeah I liked it too. It was harshly critcised in comparison with the book as usual.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 22, 2020, 01:12:26 PM
I did not know why she was on Earth. At the end of the movie I didn't care why she was on Earth.
Because the earth is under our skin?
Profound.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 30, 2020, 03:03:03 AM
A Knight's Tale
I probably won't finish it tonight, but I am really enjoying it so far. Don't know how it took me 30 years to finally get around to watching it.
It's a very good movie. I go to it every now and again when I need a little upbeat time. I think the acting is good, the music is great!, and the plot is okay (and I'm okay with that). The evil bad guy is done in and the little guy with no chance to make good, does. Nothing earth-shaking here, but it fits me quite well and it is one of my favs.
There are movies I used to like but one of the actors ended up being a dipshit later. "The Bounty" with Hopkins and...mmm Mel Gibson (aka suffering cheezus). Vangelis's soundtrack was so great. I tried to watch on it's own merit. Almost could.
BTW is it my imagination or is "The Blue Lagoon" a pedophile's best friend?
Quote from: Cassia on November 30, 2020, 11:58:08 AM
BTW is it my imagination or is "The Blue Lagoon" a pedophile's best friend?[/size][/color]
I've never seen it. I'm actually embarrassed to say that. Along those lines, have you seen Moonrise Kingdom? It's not pedophilia, but a satirical take on kiddie porn. It's worth a watch, with a serious cast being silly. Like really silly.
Quote from: Cassia on November 30, 2020, 11:58:08 AM
There are movies I used to like but one of the actors ended up being a dipshit later. "The Bounty" with Hopkins and...mmm Mel Gibson (aka suffering cheezus). Vangelis's soundtrack was so great. I tried to watch on it's own merit. Almost could.
I, too, used to like Mel Gibson with the Mad Max series one of my favorites. Can't watch them anymore. Same with Clint Eastwood. Liked most of his stuff, but not now. Hell, I don't even like empty chairs anymore. :))
Quote from: Cassia on November 30, 2020, 11:58:08 AM
BTW is it my imagination or is "The Blue Lagoon" a pedophile's best friend?[/size][/color]
Ain't shit compared to "Pretty Baby".
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 30, 2020, 01:20:08 PM
Ain't shit compared to "Pretty Baby".
Oh yeah, forgot about that one.
OooK. Just googled. I didn't know about the movie Pretty Baby.
Blue Lagoon makes me think baout her mother. I don't know what was the boy's age. Another bad thing, we generally only consider the female part in this context.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 01, 2020, 03:08:32 AM
OooK. Just googled. I didn't know about the movie Pretty Baby.
I'd heard of it, mostly in research Shields's later movie, Tilt, which is kinda like The Wizard without Fred Savage and it's pinball instead of video games. It's terrible. Don't watch it. And even that movie weirdly sexualized an underaged Brooke Shields. I mean, jesus christ, Ken Marshal. She told you she was a virgin.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 30, 2020, 03:03:03 AM
A Knight's Tale
I probably won't finish it tonight, but I am really enjoying it so far. Don't know how it took me 30 years to finally get around to watching it.
Don't mess with a female blacksmith ;-)
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 01, 2020, 03:08:32 AM
OooK. Just googled. I didn't know about the movie Pretty Baby.
Blue Lagoon makes me think baout her mother. I don't know what was the boy's age. Another bad thing, we generally only consider the female part in this context.
Boys have periods too (say all liberals).
If you have have seen "Airplane!, 1980" you should see "Zero Hour!", 1957. You may experience some Déjà vu.
I finally decided to watch a Saw film. The only one I was able to find on my streaming services was the most recent one, Jigsaw. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it wasn't quite as gory as it's hyped up to be (I'm not a big fan of gore), and the scenarios were rather enjoyable to watch for the most part. I particularly liked the scene with the shotgun keys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkgkvV-I8hk
It also had a nice thriller mystery to go along with the horror plot, another pleasant surprise. A few parts of the script could have used a bit of proofreading (a lot of things happen "ten years ago" which can't possibly all be from the same year), but other than that it was a pretty decent film. 7/10, good Halloween movie.
Watched Bombshell last night. Very entertaining. Charlize Theron was amazing at impersonating Megan Kelly.
https://youtu.be/B2G9-KhBek8
Interesting preview .. I like love stories, costume drama and fossils playing the bit parts ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcG0HQkVaD0
Christmas Under the Stars (somewhere between 2 and 8)
Tired of a constant bombardment of Trump's hate mongering and chaos while he attempts to destroy everything that is good? Take a break and travel to the opposite extreme, as unrealistic as the the world of Trump, but instead filled with 10% idealism, 10% hope, and 80% unadulterated schmaltz. You will shake your head in wonder at why you are watching, and if you search deep in your soul, you may even wonder why this much schmaltz doesn't make you vomit, and still makes you feel kind of good. No this movie is not real, but it is a relief. I won't even try to rate it.
The hitman's bodyguard.
Really good, actually. Predictable formula. But the chemistry of the 'buddy cop' movie, just slightly out of that familiar mold, is there. It really flourishes with the leads and brings that mind numbing fun.
I just watched the Da Vinci Code for the 2nd time after reading the book for the second time. This time I liked the movie better than the book. I realize none of this is insightful or interesting, but there it is.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 23, 2020, 05:56:37 PM
The hitman's bodyguard.
Really good, actually. Predictable formula. But the chemistry of the 'buddy cop' movie, just slightly out of that familiar mold, is there. It really flourishes with the leads and brings that mind numbing fun.
Jackson, the ultimate straight man, Reynolds, the ultimate goofball. And MRS. HITMAN!!!
Quote from: SGOS on December 24, 2020, 11:25:01 AM
I just watched the Da Vinci Code for the 2nd time after reading the book for the second time. This time I liked the movie better than the book. I realize none of this is insightful or interesting, but there it is.
The documentary about the "Freemasonic" signs in Washington DC, that fed the second book is more interesting ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOjwVkmYMO8
Just watched Bing Crosby in "A White Xmas" for the 1st time...Silly and sentimental flick with some cool dance numbers. I noticed the actress/dancer Vera-Ellen had a tiny waist. Google came back with 21 inches. Those old school actors could do it all act..dance..sing. I also read that costar Rosemary is George Clooney's Aunt
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e8/ee/e3/e8eee37590d99d1fda2cc7bbf15cfa29.jpg)
Coincidentally, we watched White Christmas for the first time a few days ago. It was an enjoyable, classic movie. I too noticed Vera-Ellen's tiny waist.
Quote from: Cassia on December 24, 2020, 09:42:07 PM
Just watched Bing Crosby in "A White Xmas" for the 1st time...Silly and sentimental flick with some cool dance numbers. I noticed the actress/dancer Vera-Ellen had a tiny waist. Google came back with 21 inches. Those old school actors could do it all act..dance..sing. I also read that costar Rosemary is George Clooney's Aunt
Hollywood Measurement.com, which apparently is a thing that exists, weighs in with 35-23-35" for the hyphenated Ms. Ellen. She's also listed second on their list of most popular celebrities, right between... fuck. Two people I've never heard of. Probably because most people look her up after seeing White Christmas this time of year, also noticing her freakishly slender waist.
There were rumors that she had an eating disorder. White Christmas was cited as evidence since her neck was covered during most of that movie, allegedly to hide the wrinkling of the neck that can occur with anorexia. Those who were close to her denied these rumors, stating she just worked out a fuckload to keep in shape (direct quote).
She may have been able to sing, but in man of her credits, a dubbed in singer was used. In White Christmas it was a singer named Trudy Stevens, except for "Sisters" where Rosemary Clooney sings both parts.
Personally, I've never seen this movie. It sound racist.
White Christmas is referring to the snow. I don't remember anything in the movie being overtly racist. There are no important characters who aren't white, of course. Old movies are like that. But there's also a song which could be seen as mocking crossdressers, if you take it too seriously. But I don't think even that was intentional. If I remember right, the song is meant to be performed by the sisters, but the male leads take their place while the sisters escape people who are pursuing them.
Quote from: Cassia on December 24, 2020, 09:42:07 PM
Just watched Bing Crosby in "A White Xmas" for the 1st time...Silly and sentimental flick with some cool dance numbers.
I saw that at the theater when it first came out. As an eleven year old, I thought it was OK. I rented it a couple years ago, and was not impressed at all the second time. It's a typical 1950s musical, except with something that could pass for a plot, although a weak plot.
White Christmas? What, no lightsabers no aliens? There are a lot of good old movies and TV shows.
WW84 today!
Quote from: Baruch on December 25, 2020, 08:38:06 AM
White Christmas? What, no lightsabers no aliens? There are a lot of good old movies and TV shows.
I may pop this into the DVD player...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2BfsbZOuTI
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 25, 2020, 11:19:26 AM
WW84 today!
I just watched it. It showed up on HBO streaming. I don't stream, but I had to see it, so I signed up for HBO. It cost me $15 for a month, which is basically the cost of a movie ticket and an 80 mile round trip to the theater (for me). So even if I'm not satisfied with HBO, I can cancel out at the end of January, and I break even. DC may be catching up to Marvel, with Wonder Woman and Joker back to back. The ending is meant to be uplifting and a message of hope, but it's laid on so thick that it overshoots the mark and turns out to be an eye rolling face palm. I didn't vomit though. Over all, it's great fun and a wonderful way to spend Christmas Day at home. I liked it better than the first Wonder Woman.
Quote from: SGOS on December 25, 2020, 06:09:04 PMDC may be catching up to Marvel, with Wonder Woman and Joker back to back.
Ehhh...
Don't get me wrong, I really liked The Joker, but that's just a one-off movie. If DC were able to pump out 2 or 3 megahits per year for a decade - which I very much doubt they could pull off for even a year - then they'd on the same level as Marvel.
Marvel has an easier time of it because they have a much more varied lineup. In contrast, DC has had great difficulty expanding beyond Batman, Superman, and the occasional Wonder Woman.
And to be brutally honest, DC have neither the skill nor the raw clay for a decade-long successful run comparable to Marvel. Few do. Imho, out of all the big franchises, only Star Wars currently has that sort of potential.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 25, 2020, 07:41:44 PM
Marvel has an easier time of it because they have a much more varied lineup. In contrast, DC has had great difficulty expanding beyond Batman, Superman, and the occasional Wonder Woman.
I don't think that's the reason. It has more to do with the writing, which has been clearly on Marvel's side. The DC movies were saddled with this Snyderverse bullshit, but now that his randian ass is out, they can try to recover a little. They do still cater to a twelve-year-old's idea of being adult in places. "Fuck Batman," indeed.
Some videos on the subject I've recently watched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdxk7dB9yeU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dfI_2dscGE
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 25, 2020, 09:01:21 PMThey do still cater to a twelve-year-old's idea of being adult in places. "Fuck Batman," indeed.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/p7T9wEKtOzCuC12QYnqxTHH8SVZEtwYiEqoDEJcV-t0.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=6289447d10cc68eefa0471009bb39b98479f3161)
I don't know what you're talking about. These people are sitting on cinematic gold. It's like Hemmingway wrote it himself. They put this to film and Marvel's going to have sell Hulk Juice at the drugstore just to make ends meet.
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 25, 2020, 09:01:21 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dfI_2dscGE
I'm about halfway through this video.
Superhero movies don't necessarily need to be rated-R, you of course can have great storytelling and gripping action without shish kabobing the mooks. Deadpool stands out as one of the rare examples of a superhero(ish) film that should aim for an R-rating because his antics naturally lend themselves to a great deal of swearing and violence. Imho, Logan was a bit too dark and brutal for my tastes, but my take is clearly in the minority. That movie made bank and got rave reviews. And Hollywood goes were the money is. That said, there will always be a place for superhero movies below R-ratings. Into The Spider-Verse was rated G and that movie made bank and got rave reviews.
Similarly, "dark and gritty" is absolutely not what movie studios should shoot for unless it makes sense for the character. Joker? Yes. Spider-Man? No. Punisher? Yes. Fantastic Four? No. The Boys? Yes.
A big part of this whole R-rating craze might be the relegation of superhero stories as "children's entertainment" as if no one over the age 12 could possibly enjoy a comic book. Not to mention the sanitization and arguable censorship of comics under the Comics Code Authority, which ensured that no one over the age of 12 would. It makes sense for superhero comics/tv/movies to want to try to shoot for more adult themes while at the same time still being approachable by kids - like the Batman Animated Series.
And finally, I feel like I should touch upon the seemingly damning aesop embedded in superheroing: "solving problems with violence".
1) Superhero films are a subgenre of action films and action films as a genre always have violence, usually justified as protective/defense.
2) Lots and lots of movies from scifi to fantasy to dramas to military films feature some form of justified violence, whether it's hunting down Nazis, killing gangsters, etc.
"Okay, so a lot of other films do it too, but that's still a bad message send, right?"
Kinda. I wish more superhero films relied more on guile heroism (the hero uses his/her wits to win, rather than brute force). It really breaks up the monotony of straight action all the time. There was an Iron Man What If? comic that had War Machine talk the villain down from the verge of committing murder and even manages to rehabilitate him somewhat. I love it when diplomacy carries the day because it shows that there are other options than using force, even if they're not obvious or easy.
So yeah, it's good to point out that violence isn't the
only solution. But yanno, it is
a solution. That seems to be the general consensus society has made, though there are some who argue that all violence is abhorrent. Of course, there are also some who say much the same about sex, so it's tough to say who is truly on the right side of history here.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 25, 2020, 07:41:44 PM
Ehhh...
Don't get me wrong, I really liked The Joker, but that's just a one-off movie. If DC were able to pump out 2 or 3 megahits per year for a decade - which I very much doubt they could pull off for even a year - then they'd on the same level as Marvel.
Marvel has an easier time of it because they have a much more varied lineup. In contrast, DC has had great difficulty expanding beyond Batman, Superman, and the occasional Wonder Woman.
And to be brutally honest, DC have neither the skill nor the raw clay for a decade-long successful run comparable to Marvel. Few do. Imho, out of all the big franchises, only Star Wars currently has that sort of potential.
It's true that two good movies back to make don't make a run. I always compare DC to Marvel, because Marvel always puts out better stuff, and they're both the same genre. I go to DC movies with my guard up, because they do put out some stinkers at times. I root for DC to do better, not to start a competition, but simply because I want to watch better movies, and I don't expect DC to match, let alone out do, Marvel, but any improvement would help. I know they can do this, but sometimes it almost feels like they hold themselves back when I know they can do great films. V for Vendetta, some of the X-Men films, Batman Begins, Joker, and Wonder Woman, Man of Steel are very good, and improved on their stuff from 20-30 years ago.
I agree with Antithesis about the writing. I've often thought the characters have great potential, even if limited in number, but DC seems to often struggle with the story telling. I never identified with a specific writer, however. But sometimes I would wonder, "What were the writers thinking?" They do decent story telling most of the time, but too often they suddenly lapse into something that doesn't fit, or like they run out of creativity, and do something lame, because they need filler to make the film longer, or to be funny they sometimes just get stupid. Part of that is directing, I think. But Joker and Wonder Woman give me hope that they can pull out of their part time funk. And I hope that this turns out to be an upward trend. I'll still support them. I won't miss one of their films, because sometimes they nail it.
I am stupid when it comes to superhero movies. I sort of resist them and then when I see them I get all into it, LOL. I think it is because the heroes are too "christ-like" perhaps. Just like him they have super-powers, great abs, cult followers and obvious human character flaws to seemingly manipulate us to relate to them. Characters are overboard ideologs. They are often "killed-off" in symbolic ways to ride again, somehow.
Of course practically all fiction has these same setups, however they seem to be amplified with superheroes. I do prefer when they are less graphically violent. Am I seeing this genre in an unfair light?
For me, the genre excites my basic childhood fantasies of being indestructible, saving people, or saving the universe. It's not real. It's not grown up, and it's hardly dignified. Call it a confession on my part. I don't care what people call it. It just makes me feel good.
I have a good friend who takes great pride in avoiding the genre, and claims to not know anything about it. He's very intellectual, but still has a over the top sense of humor. But some things are just beneath his dignity. Surprisingly, he thought Joker was an excellent film, even though he has very little context to put the Joker in.
I don't mind seeing a film that teaches a lesson, or signals a virtue, or makes intellectual observations of the human condition, but what I really like is the ability to put reality aside and bask in unbridled fantasy for a couple of hours. Reality is always there when I'm done, and there is no worry about losing touch with it. It's there waiting for me, and I like that too.
R-rated superheroes are there for former children who are now adults, who need grittier fare.
Star Cops is intelligent, not much fisticuffs, reasonable sci fi. Try it, if you like cop shows. Of course not every show can be Monk or Colombo. It is sequential, so start at the beginning, and don't see the outtake reel until you are done.
Quote from: SGOS on December 26, 2020, 12:04:46 AM
But sometimes I would wonder, "What were the writers thinking?" They do decent story telling most of the time, but too often they suddenly lapse into something that doesn't fit, or like they run out of creativity, and do something lame, because they need filler to make the film longer, or to be funny they sometimes just get stupid.
"Save Martha."
Probably the most clunkily executed plot point in the history of storytelling. Not just film, stories in general. I think Axe Cop follows a better logical progression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHGfSBr2FrY
Quote from: Cassia on December 26, 2020, 09:05:52 AM
Am I seeing this genre in an unfair light?
Possibly. The thing about super heroes is that it's just action/adventure but the hero has a silly name and a sillier outfit. A lot of the stuff you'd mentioned are modern stuff put into the genre in the last, geez, thirty, forty years? Originally it was much simpler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7GtCsXn1yE
Batman didn't have an origin until, like, his third appearance and it wasn't constantly on his mind until the mid-80's. But now he's constantly dealing with that trauma and you know if you see a piece of media that make a breakthrough for him that it will be ignored by the wider canon and media because failing to come to terms with his parents' murder is a defining character trait. Which, you could say was always true for the character, but the golden-through-bronze age character didn't harp on it as much as the modern version and the cinematic version has been even worse. Before Batman Begins rebooted everything, we had four Batman movies in a kind of series and three of them depicted some element of the origin story. God. Damn. It.
I hate origin stories so much. It's like the Scooby Doo movie where the gang splits up and goes their separate ways because they have a big falling out, but THAT IS NOT HOW SCOOBY FUCKING DOO WORKS. Neither do super heroes work when you try to make them realistic, but they are inherently unrealistic and silly. The whole genre is made of a great big gimme and they simply refuse to just acknowledge that and tell me a fun super hero story.
To put it another way, I do not have any interest in seeing a remake of Taxi Driver mashed up with King of Comedy as presented by the guy who made the Hangover movies. I want there to be these billboards around Gotham City with statues of giant household object, like telephones or bowls of soup or whatever and the Joker has a crime spree where he steals them because he's crazy. I don't want deep character drama in my super hero flick in much the same way you don't go to see Little Women for the car chases and explosions. It's the wrong genre for that shit and if you think adding that would improve it, you're ignoring what makes the genre worth having around in the first place.
I understand they want to give them human qualities to make them relatable, but Batman spends more time brooding in the throes of existential angst than I do. I don't want my heroes to be more conflicted than I am. I want to look up to them, not feel sorry for them. V for Vendetta avoided that. He put Evie through the ringer, but he was constantly focused on his mission. Maybe that's why I liked that movie so much.
Poor billionaire misses Mommy and Daddy.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 27, 2020, 06:53:57 AM
Poor billionaire misses Mommy and Daddy.
Having a long term relationship with a loving mother and father is great. Every human tragedy is an opportunity to grow your character. In Batman's case, he became a psycho crime fighter. Better reaction than most people posting here ;-) The cuck-itude of the present generation is why we have "victim politics". Their reaction to adversity is to become baby Hitler.
I lived in The House of Five Strangers until I was 18. No where near as bat shit as that dude.
Rotten Tomatoes' top 100 movies (https://i.redd.it/4cftx1hyp3861.png): left is by audience score, right is by critics' score.
While I have some quibbles with the audience top 100 (various snubs and the bizarre inclusion of Toy Story 3&4 without Toy Story 1&2) it's a pretty solid list for general audiences, with picks from a variety of genres and decades.
Now look at the critics' top 100. While I appreciate its inclusion of Mad Max Fury Road and Black Panther, I dunno about some picks (were Paddington 2 and Shazam and the recent Mission Impossible *that* good?) also The Last Jedi sticks out like a sore thumb with a noticeably vast gulf between fan and critic perception.
Also note that the majority of the critics' list are movies that came out in the past 5 years, compared to the much more mixed audience list. Recency bias, much? No wonder the oscar-bait movies come out in December.
And finally, it's interesting that both audiences and critics picked a few superhero movies in their lists, but entirely different ones:
Audiences: Spider-Man Far From Home, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse, Logan, Avengers Endgame
Critics: Spider-Man Homecoming, Thor Ragnarok, Incredibles 2, Wonder Woman, Shazam, Black Panther
Imho, the audience generally picked better superhero films here. Sure, Thor Ragnarok is good, but it's hardly top 100 movies of all time good. To paraphrase a dubious and possibly apocryphal quote from John Lennon, "Ringo's not even the best drummer in The Beatles!"
To sum up: beware critics' ratings, you're generally better served by audience ratings.
Any list that doesn't include Yellow Submarine is bogus ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 29, 2020, 03:40:21 PM
And finally, it's interesting that both audiences and critics picked a few superhero movies in their lists, but entirely different ones:
Rotten Tomatoes gets it wrong so much of the time, that they even started up an on site video series called "Rotten Tomatoes is Wrong." I haven't watched it, and I don't know if it's a way for them to justify their picks, or just having fun recognizing the critics/audience disparity. At one time I gave up on the critics and started to go by audience only, but I disagreed with that, so I decided, I'd only rent a film if both the critics and the audience gave it high marks, but there seemed to be just as many turds there too. And some movies I think are great get crapped on by both critics and audiences. I have fun reading the critics reviews. Sometimes I read them after I've seen the film, but I doubt how useful they are as an indication of how much I'll enjoy the film. Currently, I'm back to reading the movie description to decide if I should see it. So I've come full circle now.
Siskel and Ebert had a neat gimmick, which should have explained the whole thing to me clearly 30 years ago: Two of the best know national experts disagreeing on movies. Whatrugonnado?
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 29, 2020, 03:40:21 PM
Rotten Tomatoes' top 100 movies (https://i.redd.it/4cftx1hyp3861.png): left is by audience score, right is by critics' score.
While I have some quibbles with the audience top 100 (various snubs and the bizarre inclusion of Toy Story 3&4 without Toy Story 1&2) it's a pretty solid list for general audiences, with picks from a variety of genres and decades.
Now look at the critics' top 100. While I appreciate its inclusion of Mad Max Fury Road and Black Panther, I dunno about some picks (were Paddington 2 and Shazam and the recent Mission Impossible *that* good?) also The Last Jedi sticks out like a sore thumb with a noticeably vast gulf between fan and critic perception.
Also note that the majority of the critics' list are movies that came out in the past 5 years, compared to the much more mixed audience list. Recency bias, much? No wonder the oscar-bait movies come out in December.
And finally, it's interesting that both audiences and critics picked a few superhero movies in their lists, but entirely different ones:
Audiences: Spider-Man Far From Home, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse, Logan, Avengers Endgame
Critics: Spider-Man Homecoming, Thor Ragnarok, Incredibles 2, Wonder Woman, Shazam, Black Panther
Imho, the audience generally picked better superhero films here. Sure, Thor Ragnarok is good, but it's hardly top 100 movies of all time good. To paraphrase a dubious and possibly apocryphal quote from John Lennon, "Ringo's not even the best drummer in The Beatles!"
To sum up: beware critics' ratings, you're generally better served by audience ratings.
I would have voted for LOTR trilogy, Bram Stroker's Dracula, Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Sideways, Office Space, Beetlejuice, Private Ryan, and Red October over many of those listed. In fact, I have not seen a good many on either list.
Quote from: SGOS on December 29, 2020, 07:00:52 PM
Rotten Tomatoes gets it wrong so much of the time, that they even started up an on site video series called "Rotten Tomatoes is Wrong." I haven't watched it, and I don't know if it's a way for them to justify their picks, or just having fun recognizing the critics/audience disparity. At one time I gave up on the critics and started to go by audience only, but I disagreed with that, so I decided, I'd only rent a film if both the critics and the audience gave it high marks, but there seemed to be just as many turds there too. And some movies I think are great get crapped on by both critics and audiences. I have fun reading the critics reviews. Sometimes I read them after I've seen the film, but I doubt how useful they are as an indication of how much I'll enjoy the film. Currently, I'm back to reading the movie description to decide if I should see it. So I've come full circle now.
Siskel and Ebert had a neat gimmick, which should have explained the whole thing to me clearly 30 years ago: Two of the best know national experts disagreeing on movies. Whatrugonnado?
I used to use the critics to determine if I'd like a movie or not. Then I switched to, if the critics panned it, I'd watch it. Now, I don't care what the critics say. I plan movie going (well, I used to, ages and ages ago, back in the day) by asking a question. Honey, would you like going to see xxxxxx (no, not porn)? If the answer is 'yes', then we go.
Ideally, I'd latch onto several trustworthy critics with similar tastes as mine and just use their consensus recommendations. Absent that, I'll go with audience reactions - those tend to be good early indicators of enjoyable movies, though they aren't flawless or the end-all-be-all.
Critics are a mixed bag and sometimes I wonder if they even watched the same film as me. I just don't know their methodology. Are they a fan of arthouse films and automatically give low marks to any director with less than two hypens in their name? Do they give high scores to films produced by their parent company? Or films with their favorite actors? Do they try to anticipate audience reactions and give high scores to movies with a great trailer and a lot of buzz? Are they sick and tired of the superhero genre and give superhero movies artificially low scores? Do they fault the film if they don't like the title sequence?
And what do they mean by "fresh" anyway? Are they trying to quantify some abstract "goodness" quality of a film? Or are they putting themselves in the audience's shoes and trying to quantify what will entertain them and what won't?
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 29, 2020, 08:42:22 PM
Critics are a mixed bag and sometimes I wonder if they even watched the same film as me. I just don't know their methodology. Are they a fan of arthouse films.
As a group they, tend to rate the artsy fartsy films unusually high. I think they want to be perceived as having intellectual tastes. Grand Theft Auto several years back had movie theaters where players could take a break from playing, and attend a film. And they captured this pseudo intellectual quality of the art house genre. There would be some guy sitting at a table clutching his head in agony, followed by him spending inordinate amounts of minutes wandering the streets aimlessly. Then he would be back in his kitchen agonizing about his condition again. I could honestly not make it through the films, at least not when there were banks to rob, and cars to steal.
Quote from: SGOS on December 30, 2020, 05:18:54 AM
As a group they, tend to rate the artsy fartsy films unusually high. I think they want to be perceived as having intellectual tastes. Grand Theft Auto several years back had movie theaters where players could take a break from playing, and attend a film. And they captured this pseudo intellectual quality of the art house genre. There would be some guy sitting at a table clutching his head in agony, followed by him spending inordinate amounts of minutes wandering the streets aimlessly. Then he would be back in his kitchen agonizing about his condition again. I could honestly not make it through the films, at least not when there were banks to rob, and cars to steal.
Training for BLM members? ;-)
Quote from: Cassia on December 24, 2020, 09:42:07 PM
Just watched Bing Crosby in "A White Xmas" for the 1st time...Silly and sentimental flick with some cool dance numbers. I noticed the actress/dancer Vera-Ellen had a tiny waist. Google came back with 21 inches. Those old school actors could do it all act..dance..sing. I also read that costar Rosemary is George Clooney's Aunt
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e8/ee/e3/e8eee37590d99d1fda2cc7bbf15cfa29.jpg)
YouTube suggested this video. It's cute!
https://youtu.be/1caGN5No89w
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 30, 2020, 04:44:28 PM
YouTube suggested this video. It's cute!
https://youtu.be/1caGN5No89w
Wasn't that "high society" segment the inspiration for Madonna's "Material Girl" video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p-lDYPR2P8
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 30, 2020, 08:39:03 PM
Wasn't that "high society" segment the inspiration for Madonna's "Material Girl" video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p-lDYPR2P8
That was Marilyn Monroe performing "Diamonds Are A Girls Best Friend" from
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.
https://youtu.be/bfsnebJd-BI
How silly of me to not think it was Norma Jean.
It's always Norma fucking Jean
Cat Woman
I don't know how I missed this. It may have been before the recent popularity of superheroes, and it kind of has that earlier feel about it. But it is fun. There are some clever scenes where her human personality naturally does cat things, like going to a restaurant with her date, but fixating on tropical fish in the restaurant's fish tank. There's lots of these cat things she does throughout the film that are like little Easter eggs. I'm surprised that DC didn't take this character further that just a cameo in one of the Batman movies.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2020, 09:04:43 PM
The 2004 one with Halle Berry?
Yes. After I posted that, I remembered that there were earlier Cat Women, but for some reason, I don't include any of the 20th Century superheroes in the Superhero Renaissance. Well my Renaissance, anyway. I don't even remember them. My spellbound awe did not happen until the 21st Century. I usually liked the older films, but something happened around the turn of the century, where Superheroes became more real and memorable, while at the same time dominating the film industry and the theater audiences. Halle Berry was a transitional figure. So was Brandon Routh of Superman Returns. Halle Berry still had some of the unrefined comical edges of the old, and while she is naturally sexy, she carried "sexy" to a laughable extreme in Cat Woman, but she had more realistic and scary antagonists. Brandon Routh had a more serious character, but his antagonist was ridiculous; Remember Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor demonstrating how he was going to take over the world by staging a train wreck with his Lionel model railroad. When that happened, his threat to mankind was reduced to zero IMO.
Most of the time I forget all those actors that played earlier superheroes. They just aren't memorable to me. I just looked them up, there must be 30 Supermen, most of them I never heard of. Batman too. And just as many Cat Women. And most of the 20th Century villains could have been played by Abbot and Costello. OK, this is more about me than it is about them, and I'll be happy to respect anyone else's opinion. My division between the old and the new, the fake and the real, and the silly and the awesome is totally arbitrary, and this post was just me justifying and explaining why I forgot earlier Cat Women.
I remember the first Cat Girl, meow! Julie Newmar.
"To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar" .. fun movie, inevitable tie-in.
Quote from: SGOS on December 31, 2020, 05:57:36 AMAnd most of the 20th Century villains could have been played by Abbot and Costello.
Imho, you can see the transition from silly, mustache-twirling buffoons to serious and threatening with Jack Nicholson's Joker and Mark Hamill's Joker.
Many movies were made with the intention of a “messageâ€. Alas, they over estimated the average intelligence of their viewers. Either it’s scary good, lovable or funny...no messages were ever found.
Quote from: aitm on December 31, 2020, 04:07:28 PM
Many movies were made with the intention of a “messageâ€. Alas, they over estimated the average intelligence of their viewers. Either it’s scary good, lovable or funny...no messages were ever found.
Philosophical or political messaging is overrated. Pseudo-intellectuals of the world unite, you have only your library to be burned.
Quote from: aitm on December 31, 2020, 04:07:28 PMMany movies were made with the intention of a “messageâ€. Alas, they over estimated the average intelligence of their viewers. Either it’s scary good, lovable or funny...no messages were ever found.
It depends on the person. Viewers Are Geniuses and/or Morons, after all. I've caught stuff that I don't think many have, but I've also missed stuff. I quite like videos that dissect movies or at least discuss them, because it gives me an opportunity to reroll perception, heh.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2020, 09:04:43 PM
The 2004 one with Halle Berry?
Oh, that was an award-winning performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-7s_yeQuDg
The shit doggiest movie that ever squeezed from a sphincter..in it's entirety !
Best review..I saw this movie on a plane and people still walked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-WOjJpYuRE
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 31, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
Oh, that was an award-winning performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-7s_yeQuDg
I vaguely recall that reviewers trashed it, which may account for me missing it when it came out. But I still had a good time watching it.
It wasn't just reviewers. It was hated. It was that year's Rise of Skywalker.
I find it interesting that you'd enjoyed it.
Yeah, I mean, I don't want this to be a thread where we bag on each other about our choices, but man, there are some movies with seriously bad overall receptions and Catwoman is definitely among them. Though I do note that it got many more 10-star ratings on IMDB than I expected (I expected zero). I find it so fascinating how people can see the same thing and have completely different impressions of it.
"Notzilla" on Prime. Boss Lady was laughing her ass off.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 01, 2021, 01:54:29 AM
It wasn't just reviewers. It was hated. It was that year's Rise of Skywalker.
I find it interesting that you'd enjoyed it.
I sent for a copy from ebay after I watched it, partly to complete my superhero movie collection, but I am looking forward to seeing it again. Price on ebay: $2. However it was from one of those guys who slams you on the shipping, so it was actually $6.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 01, 2021, 02:14:52 AM
there are some movies with seriously bad overall receptions and Catwoman is definitely among them. Though I do note that it got many more 10-star ratings on IMDB than I expected (I expected zero). I find it so fascinating how people can see the same thing and have completely different impressions of it.
I looked it up on rotten tomatoes. I think it was 18% for viewers, and 9% from critics, which would have resulted in an immediate pass back then, and probably still would today but I know that movies I like and dislike can often be that far off from the reviewers, but things that only 1 out of five people agree with is typical of so many of my priorities in life.
Saw red sparrow.
Awesome flick.
Preferred the lead here way over het hunger game flicks, which already were okay.
For myself, I see rating movies as purely subjective. Like beauty (or porn). I know it when "I" see it. I see many of these ads on various sites on the internet, when they will say something like, 'Most beautiful woman in the world.' There is no such thing. Like asking for the 'best' movie. I would rank my favorites differently on different days. Citizen Kane is often put forth as the best movie. I didn't like it and will never watch it again. I also know that I will never watch what I call the Old Yeller type--animals die. Will not watch-ever. Where the Red Fern Grows I detest. On the other hand, a solid B movie, A Knights Tale, I love! A hackneyed story, told in hundreds of versions--but I like it and I don't care if anybody else does. I also, will never watch a Texas Chainsaw type movie, or horror/torture movie of any kind. Anyway, I watch a movie for 'my' enjoyment, not the critics or my neighbor.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 01, 2021, 09:30:38 AM
For myself, I see rating movies as purely subjective. Like beauty (or porn). I know it when "I" see it. I see many of these ads on various sites on the internet, when they will say something like, 'Most beautiful woman in the world.' There is no such thing. Like asking for the 'best' movie. I would rank my favorites differently on different days. Citizen Kane is often put forth as the best movie. I didn't like it and will never watch it again. I also know that I will never watch what I call the Old Yeller type--animals die. Will not watch-ever. Where the Red Fern Grows I detest. On the other hand, a solid B movie, A Knights Tale, I love! A hackneyed story, told in hundreds of versions--but I like it and I don't care if anybody else does. I also, will never watch a Texas Chainsaw type movie, or horror/torture movie of any kind. Anyway, I watch a movie for 'my' enjoyment, not the critics or my neighbor.
I agree...In fact I think I am very odd in that the actual story is second priority to the environment a movie presents. Much in the same way I think chord structure and harmony are more important than lyrics to my enjoyment of music. When all of the elements come together, those are the great ones. So the movies' color temperature, background music, complexity and realism in the set and costumes count a lot to me. I find human wants, desires, and insecurities rather boring. But show me a stage coach flying through the Transylvanian mountains, chased by wolves, backlit by a bloodstained sky, I can tolerate Keanna's granite faced acting.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 01, 2021, 09:30:38 AM
I see many of these ads on various sites on the internet, when they will say something like, 'Most beautiful woman in the world.'
I've succumbed to these click baits on a couple of occasions. I don't know what I'm expecting to see, but the experience is never breathtaking. I then have about 5 women I hardly ever think about flash through my brain that I think are better looking. That is followed immediately by the feeling that I've been duped into looking at cosmetics ads.
Quote
Citizen Kane is often put forth as the best movie. I didn't like it and will never watch it again.
I watched that to see what elements make it so good, but I didn't see anything that special. I had the same reaction to Casablanca and Gone with the Wind. I won't say these are bad films, but I don't know why they are so universally applauded.
Quote
Anyway, I watch a movie for 'my' enjoyment, not the critics or my neighbor.
I like romantic comedies. I liked them so much that I was embarrassed to even say so, even though the plots are identical, usually shallow, and totally unrealistic, but then as writers started experimenting to create something new, a lot of stuff started turning up that was not as fun. Now Romantic comedies are making a small comeback, but it almost seems like writers are too dedicated to finding a new twist. I read something a couple of years ago that said actors and actresses are now avoiding romantic comedies, which they see as career enders.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 01, 2021, 09:30:38 AM
For myself, I see rating movies as purely subjective. Like beauty (or porn). I know it when "I" see it. I see many of these ads on various sites on the internet, when they will say something like, 'Most beautiful woman in the world.' There is no such thing. Like asking for the 'best' movie. I would rank my favorites differently on different days. Citizen Kane is often put forth as the best movie. I didn't like it and will never watch it again. I also know that I will never watch what I call the Old Yeller type--animals die. Will not watch-ever. Where the Red Fern Grows I detest. On the other hand, a solid B movie, A Knights Tale, I love! A hackneyed story, told in hundreds of versions--but I like it and I don't care if anybody else does. I also, will never watch a Texas Chainsaw type movie, or horror/torture movie of any kind. Anyway, I watch a movie for 'my' enjoyment, not the critics or my neighbor.
Thank you. If you don't like a movie, don't see it. Don't whinge for two hundred posts. I had one guy complain about a movie and I had to point out some things.
1. It had GODZILLA in the title.
2. It had MONSTERS in the title.
3. You're an idiot.
Quote from: SGOS on January 01, 2021, 11:27:45 AM
I like romantic comedies. I liked them so much that I was embarrassed to even say so, even though the plots are identical, usually shallow, and totally unrealistic, but then as writers started experimenting to create something new, a lot of stuff started turning up that was not as fun. Now Romantic comedies are making a small comeback, but it almost seems like writers are too dedicated to finding a new twist. I read something a couple of years ago that said actors and actresses are now avoiding romantic comedies, which they see as career enders.
You like what you like--I can honor that. The type of movie I like is not really a type, I don't think. I like movies that show the protagonist as a common type Joe (or Jill), who is thrown into a crisis/situation that is not of his/her making, casts around to figure out what to do and finally overcomes the problem. I guess the template would be The Hero's Journey (by Joseph Campbell)--a process I think all of us go through in some fashion or other. And not all 'heroes' are national figures, or even neighborhood figures; we can be our own heroes. And not every Hero's Journey is epic.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 01, 2021, 12:00:29 PM
The type of movie I like is not really a type, I don't think. I like movies that show the protagonist as a common type Joe (or Jill), who is thrown into a crisis/situation that is not of his/her making, casts around to figure out what to do and finally overcomes the problem. I guess the template would be The Hero's Journey (by Joseph Campbell)--a process I think all of us go through in some fashion or other.
I would call that a type, and a common one at that. But I'm not that familiar with Campbell. I did a wiki thing on him, and get the general idea. It seems like the concept would be vital in most story telling, unless there is something more subtle that I'm missing.
Quote from: SGOS on January 01, 2021, 12:21:18 PM
I would call that a type, and a common one at that. But I'm not that familiar with Campbell. I did a wiki thing on him, and get the general idea. It seems like the concept would be vital in most story telling, unless there is something more subtle that I'm missing.
There are only 7 story lines in novels. One of which is the "hero's journey". Joseph Campbell was an awesome anthropologist and teacher. The Power Of Myth from PBS was a classic. BTW - now Vertigo by Alfred Hitchcock is rated above Citizen Kane by Orson Welles. Citizen Kane was a Hollywood version of the life of William Randolph Hearst, of castle fame, in California. Welles deliberately filmed it in B&W because "film noire" and he was a cheap bastard ;-) James Stewart (in Vertigo) is a much better actor than Orson Welles (in Citizen Kane).
Now I know how to really irritate Mike CL ... "rosebud" ;-))
Quote from: SGOS on January 01, 2021, 08:29:26 AM
I looked it up on rotten tomatoes. I think it was 18% for viewers, and 9% from critics, which would have resulted in an immediate pass back then, and probably still would today but I know that movies I like and dislike can often be that far off from the reviewers, but things that only 1 out of five people agree with is typical of so many of my priorities in life.
*frantically tries to find a way to non-hypocritically make the argument that the audience/critics are right in hating movies I don't like but wrong in hating movies that I like*
*tries to literally construct it but pieces keep falling off as soon as I put them on, it implodes, then the remains catch on fire*
*sweeps it under the rug, where bulges ripple and writhe underneath the surface*
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 01, 2021, 12:30:30 PM
*frantically tries to find a way to non-hypocritically make the argument that the audience/critics are right in hating movies I don't like but wrong in hating movies that I like*
*tries to literally construct it but pieces keep falling off as soon as I put them on, it implodes, then the remains catch on fire*
*sweeps it under the rug, where bulges ripple and writhe underneath the surface*
Like the food critic, in the cartoon, Ratatouille.
I'm getting to the point in movies where I'd much rather rewatch something I know is good that take a gamble on something new and unfamiliar.
I've gotten burned a bit too much. Plus, there are certain movies that have done their unique thing and no one's done that better since.
You can criticise anything with anything, if that's your goal and even rarely there can be good, interpreting, informing kind of critiques too.
Yeah, when people start to 'criticise' a kaiju movie on how 'nonsense' the plot related to that idea is, I get the urge of smacking them on the head.
But the first place...oh the first place is a tie between the people who think Matrix and Fight Club are the best movies ever made, who can talk/write about them hours on end and developed the ability of relating/linking everything to these two movies; because you know, they are the best definition of life. Then I visualise myself smacking them with a tyre iron on the head and flying away like Neo, with a long rocketing fart trail off my ass.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 04, 2021, 11:44:02 AMYeah, when people start to 'criticise' a kaiju movie on how 'nonsense' the plot related to that idea is, I get the urge of smacking them on the head.
"It's just a guy in a rubber suit trampling cardboard boxes!" Yeah, and The Wizard of Oz is just a lost girl running around and asking people questions. And Citizen Kane is just a rich old guy dying.
And even if it didn't have a deeper meaning to it, if at heart it really was just a silly monster wrestling match, would that really be so wrong? Have you guys seen the reality TV stuff that passes for entertainment nowadays?
QuoteBut the first place...oh the first place is a tie between the people who think Matrix and Fight Club are the best movies ever made, who can talk/write about them hours on end and developed the ability of relating/linking everything to these two movies; because you know, they are the best definition of life.
(https://img.gifglobe.com/grabs/peepshow/S02E01/gif/PwyfAFvBJkMO.gif)
They're certainly not the best movies ever made (who argues that??), but they are in the top 100 imho and they have smart ideas embedded into them that are worth analyzing and discussing. Do some people take that too far? Absolutely.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 04, 2021, 11:44:02 AM
You can criticise anything with anything, if that's your goal and even rarely there can be good, interpreting, informing kind of critiques too.
Yeah, when people start to 'criticise' a kaiju movie on how 'nonsense' the plot related to that idea is, I get the urge of smacking them on the head.
But the first place...oh the first place is a tie between the people who think Matrix and Fight Club are the best movies ever made, who can talk/write about them hours on end and developed the ability of relating/linking everything to these two movies; because you know, they are the best definition of life. Then I visualise myself smacking them with a tyre iron on the head and flying away like Neo, with a long rocketing fart trail off my ass.
High culture comes from high society having good taste and demanding sponsorship. Low culture is ... deplorables doing their thing.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 04, 2021, 01:19:44 PM
And even if it didn't have a deeper meaning to it, if at heart it really was just a silly monster wrestling match, would that really be so wrong? Have you guys seen the reality TV stuff that passes for entertainment nowadays?
Agreed. Yes, I unfortunately have. I also know about the day time tv we have.
Quote(https://img.gifglobe.com/grabs/peepshow/S02E01/gif/PwyfAFvBJkMO.gif)
They're certainly not the best movies ever made (who argues that??), but they are in the top 100 imho and they have smart ideas embedded into them that are worth analyzing and discussing. Do some people take that too far? Absolutely.
Hmm. In top 100, embedded smart ideas...worth discussing but certainly not the best movies, who says that, it is not good to take it far... You passed,lol. But I didn't think anyone from here, honestly.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 04, 2021, 08:22:52 PMHmm. In top 100, embedded smart ideas...worth discussing but certainly not the best movies, who says that, it is not good to take it far...
I feel like that's what I said if it were passed through a game of chinese telephone, written down, xeroxed, and then xeroxed the copy, and then xeroxed that copy. :P
QuoteYou passed,lol. But I didn't think anyone from here, honestly.
I'm still stuck in defensive mode here. They're not bad movies, are they? I mean, they really made a splash when they came out. And it's a nice to change of pace to have a movie where one thing is going on at a surface level and something else is going on underneath the surface. Good for watercooler discussion and later, video essays (especially the Architect's speech lol). Is that a bad thing?
And top 100 might sound like a huge acclaim given the thousands upon thousands of movies out there, but that's 2 movies a year for a span of 50 years. If I did it that way, there'd be quite a few pretty mediocre films on the list. I dunno if I've personally seen more than 300 different movies in my life. So just getting me in the seat really improves its chances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfFF-PP78iA
I'll probably be renting this tomorrow. I've always heard my family say that Carter was, "The greatest man to be a president, but one of the worst presidents to be president", and I have always admired his work since leaving office so I want to know more about him. The fact that he was a fellow music-phile has only made me more intrigued.
Fun thing was that "rock and roll" was still considered a tool of Satan by a lot of people in his home state. Bluegrass, on the other paw...
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 04, 2021, 09:23:28 PM
I feel like that's what I said if it were passed through a game of chinese telephone, written down, xeroxed, and then xeroxed the copy, and then xeroxed that copy. :P
LOL. No, not really. You don't think that these movies are some sort of a manual for explaining life and existence of our species, do you? From your reaction, it seems you don't, and hence 'You passed'.
QuoteI'm still stuck in defensive mode here. They're not bad movies, are they? I mean, they really made a splash when they came out. And it's a nice to change of pace to have a movie where one thing is going on at a surface level and something else is going on underneath the surface. Good for watercooler discussion and later, video essays (especially the Architect's speech lol). Is that a bad thing?
And top 100 might sound like a huge acclaim given the thousands upon thousands of movies out there, but that's 2 movies a year for a span of 50 years. If I did it that way, there'd be quite a few pretty mediocre films on the list. I dunno if I've personally seen more than 300 different movies in my life. So just getting me in the seat really improves its chances.
OK. I first started write a long one about 'autonomy' of art, work of art, time...zeitgeist... etc. and then deleted it. LOL Yeah, no. It's going to get very long and bore you and anyone who accidentally attempt to read it out of their minds. I'm just going to describe a summary of what I felt when I've first seen it 20 years ago and what I thought afterwards about the culture it created. Just a note, what you are asking includes huge, high concept questions in disgusie regarding my field from 'are they bad movies' to 'the embedded good ideas' in them. Because that's what this movie attempts. But not going that way.
Matrix is a dystopian action movie. The movie itself is an introduction of a new technology in cinema. Beyond the visual effects, it doesn't offer a new, original idea or a story, not just as a concept, but also in cinema. If you remove the action it is a simply an
inferior form of the cave story told by a man called Plato, 2500 years ago. Before that Indian Vedas...and some other monks in far east belief systems very long time ago. Jostein Garder's famous book for children, Sophia's World. (I'm skipping Alice purposefully, not necessary.) Philip K. Dick himself, not just as a writer but as a person, who really believed that we lived in a matrix. Most importantly, Freidrich Nietzsche who has spent his life trying to find the roots of modernism and in that search, perhaps he is the one who came the closest yet imo, not to the answer but at least a brief description of the brutal reality that with heroes, saviours and gods humans can only accomplish shit. That's a real person lived who made out some parts of
the matrix, if you will.
And that's why I see it as an
inferior , a backwards expression of the original ancient idea. Because it is a
hero's journey to the Olympus to save the world. We are in deep shit because of this plot. The difference in telling is the successful make up of its pretense of challenging 'literal' qualities as opposed to its metaphoric ones which are just visual effects. So it is a very surface level work pretending to be deep, imo.
If you'd stripped the movie from the visual effects, a little amount of people would've known about it. So the content, the embedded ideas are not what sold the movie. That's what people forced later. I think the reason why the Matrix wasn't sold for a specific generation -I'm their youngest I guess- is that because at least in our circles -we watched movies in cinema like crazy- we had seen Dark City just anew. I'm not saying this because it is the menu. I understand that it's become another counter culture to push Dark City against Matrix. I found Dark City a good movie but I wasn't affected by it either. That's not my problem.
Back then when the movie was out, a lot of older, learned people had a good laugh about it on 'what a good matrix of bullshit culture itself got started to be built' by this movie and I had found that exaggerated then. I was like, 'yeah it is inept... chill, it is just entertainment, right?' Right. I was what? 25? Well, history only proved how right they were so far, I'm afraid.
Art is so powerful, maybe the most powerful thing in imitating reality, it changes everything because it changes human perspective and perception; reception of reality. Because art is consisted of human bullshit. When most people think about art, with the letters of a,r,t in their mind consciously, they mostly think about something that happened in the past or happening somewhere else, something that occurs/happens independetly from them that they could choose to interact, get included or not. Unfortunately, this is not true, esp. in harsh way at where we arrived. The visual culture of today.
So, the problem here is that something going beyond its quality, purpose, meaning without surpassing or exceeding any mark. I'm not using the word 'hype' because considering 1999, one of the reasons of the success of Matrix is that it didn't have the traditional hype to begin with. So it also provides a fake sense of historical consciousness with its content in a time, when humanity was about the change century for the first time in modern life.
There is a never ending debate -noone actually knows when it started contrary to the written sources- on art's so called autonomy. You are probably familiar with it. Wether it has autonomy or it had once upon a time but why doesn't have it anymore... blah blah too long...but doesn't matter which camp you argue from, it doesn't change the consequences and infleunce of an entertainment product when it stops just being that.
Fight Club has the same place, same quality. At first glance, it looks like it is all about thinking out of the box, doing something extraordinary; getting the better of the system, solving it (?) in different conceptual levels. You understand how did we arrive from there to the last Joker, don't you? I get there is so much to unpack here, I just hope to get my main point.
There is this imaginary tipping point in human history -like the concept of first art- that we know it took place, probably many times at different places, probably independent from each other, probably earlier than we think. So that point represents the struggle of human intelligence, it is some sort of an end and the beginning at the same time. And much later we called what existed before that generally pre-historical and what started after that, historical.
Because we have realised that when we develop written thought, when we start to cut the cords from verbal thought we entered to the second greatest split. So, we wrote all of those myths and fairy tales down and so they made the first plots. All we do is playing with those plots. Textual thinking is another level of alienation supporting human ability of thinking. All the tales about opening your eyes and seeing the real world gains another level of meaning as in understanding it. In its earliest shape, Adam and Eve and Steve... OK, yes Steve has to eat the apple. When somebody says apple, you think a red apple don't you? Including this cliché Matrix have all the myths in it.
The thing is Steve has already eaten that apple long time ago. He climbed to Mount Olympus, slapped Zeus on his ass, killed every monster along the way, sat in the cave watched the shadows, went out and became blind, then started to see again. Rinse, repeat. This was a very long time ago. But Steve is still there. He is living through a nightmare, stuck in a hedgehog day because whenever somebody wants to tell something more complicated than a romantic comedy, they resurrect Steve and send him to an odyssey. Matrix is the best example of this. Pretending to be different, enlightening, much bigger and beyond while it is telling the old wive's story.
So to me, Matrix takes this ancient enormous scope, dips it in heavy sauce and sells it as an original, enlightening, revolutionary interpretation of that idea. It's not. It's another episode of poor Steve. Steve is sick of it all. His middle name is Brian. :p
And because of that, the scope and the materials... it is not just a movie anymore. It hasn't been for some time.
It's become this toy box full of basic five 3d shapes that children play with. The box says you can build everything with it but it is a lie. Because 5 basic shapes is very limited, and we are not children anymore. Aren't you sick of building castles? Nobody lives in castles anymore. They are not affordable. They make good ruins, nothing more.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 06, 2021, 03:21:49 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfFF-PP78iA
I'll probably be renting this tomorrow. I've always heard my family say that Carter was, "The greatest man to be a president, but one of the worst presidents to be president", and I have always admired his work since leaving office so I want to know more about him. The fact that he was a fellow music-phile has only made me more intrigued.
Fake Wiki bio? Never thought he would be a focus of that. He was and remains a Christian. If you share music with him, you might be Evangelized.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2021, 06:31:55 AM
Fun thing was that "rock and roll" was still considered a tool of Satan by a lot of people in his home state. Bluegrass, on the other paw...
Those people behind him in the picture don't look like Rockers to me ;-)
A Million Ways to Die in the West. Absurd comedy, modern romantic comedy in 19th century...tiny bit bordering meta.
Not bad. OK.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 06, 2021, 08:49:26 AM
LOL. No, not really. You don't think that these movies are some sort of a manual for explaining life and existence of our species, do you?
No, not at all. At best, they reference some smart ideas. Something to think about and a step up from the ennui of standard popcorn flicks which don't even do that. But definitely not some philosophical code to live by.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cGrg2Gh4gg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYO413hHwgk
Watching Fury with Brad Pit. Wasn't expecting much....but now the tank is busted and an SS brigade is headed to the crossroad...Not gonna end well I fear, but a good flick.
Quote from: Cassia on January 08, 2021, 10:21:19 PM
Watching Fury with Brad Pit. Wasn't expecting much....but now the tank is busted and an SS brigade is headed to the crossroad...Not gonna end well I fear, but a good flick.
Wait, there's SS in that one? SPOILERS! :P
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 08, 2021, 10:28:03 PM
Wait, there's SS in that one? SPOILERS! :P
I may as well give it all away then. Vladimir Putin himself rides up (shirtless) on a horse and saves the day. He's so fine.
(https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/GTY_putin_shirtless_horse_sk_140402_16x9_992.jpg)
Quote from: Cassia on January 08, 2021, 10:21:19 PM
Watching Fury with Brad Pit. Wasn't expecting much....but now the tank is busted and an SS brigade is headed to the crossroad...Not gonna end well I fear, but a good flick.
Did you notice "Lucius Malfoy"?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 09, 2021, 12:48:35 AM
Did you notice "Lucius Malfoy"?
Did not...always a sign of an acting job well done. Then again, I totally missed that Ted Danson was in "Body Heat" until like the fourth time I watched it.
Quote from: Cassia on January 09, 2021, 07:23:22 AM
Did not...always a sign of an acting job well done. Then again, I totally missed that Ted Danson was in "Body Heat" until like the fourth time I watched it.
He was the colonel with the facial scar that said "I know you, I know what you do."
Quote from: Cassia on January 08, 2021, 10:21:19 PM
Watching Fury with Brad Pit. Wasn't expecting much....but now the tank is busted and an SS brigade is headed to the crossroad...Not gonna end well I fear, but a good flick.
What I remember about that film were the tank battles in the evening with images of tracer fire that I will never forget.
Quote from: SGOS on January 09, 2021, 09:41:03 AM
What I remember about that film were the tank battles in the evening with images of tracer fire that I will never forget.
They used the same system as Star Wars IIRC. I actually applauded in the theater.
Quote from: SGOS on January 09, 2021, 09:41:03 AM
What I remember about that film were the tank battles in the evening with images of tracer fire that I will never forget.
I ended up thinking Fury was a very good war movie--the scene you mentioned reminded me of my time on a LAW (anti-tank missle--hand held) and machine gun firing range. Just after dusk 6/7 .50 cal machine guns lit up the sky with a huge barrage of tracer fire. I'd never seen anything like it! You could not only hear those things firing, you could also feel it!
I swung twin 50s in a power gun tub back in the early '70s. When we had to meet a team I'd fire off a string to tracers. Very pretty and very easy to vector in on. If the team heard heavy fighting they aim for a spot a klick north or south, as previously agreed on. Pinnipeds did like to play in the woods. My mantra was "Never get off the boat."
I did notice how tracer bullets would give away your position and was wondering if they had a choice to use regular rounds. The Sherman tankers were adjusting their shells with a wrench or something, not sure what that was about.
Almost forgot...
Jimmy Carter: Rock and Roll President
So it's been a good 4 years or more since I last payed to watch a movie, but I did have to pay $4.99 on Amazon to watch this one... and honestly, I don't regret it. Amazingly good documentary, really highlights that not only was Carter probably the best human being to ever be president of the United States... his presidency was actually much more successful than anyone gives him credit for as well.
I never knew Reagan literally had nothing to do with the Iranian hostage crisis, something I have always heard him given credit for, and if anything it was Carter's administration that got them out. It was also Republicans who pushed for the Shah to be evacuated to America rather than face consequences for his crimes in Iran which lead to the situation getting out of control in the first place (with Republicans calling for us to bomb Iran which certainly would have meant to the hostages would be killed)... so in typical Republican fashion, create a problem, blame Democrats for it, and if the Dems fix it take credit for it yourself. Some things never change.
Not really talked about in the movie, but from the documentaries and history videos I've been watching lately... most of the negatives of the Carter administration were situations that had been decades in the making or utterly outside his control; the crashing economy, the oil crisis, the overthrow of the Shah, etc. were all problems that stemmed from years of bad foreign policy or just bad luck... and yet he responded to all of them as best he could and, more importantly, without dropping a bomb to fix it.
Anyways, I really enjoyed it. It mostly focuses on how good of person he was and how musicians of the time adored him, and that was pretty cool to see.
Quote from: Cassia on January 09, 2021, 04:59:53 PM
I did notice how tracer bullets would give away your position and was wondering if they had a choice to use regular rounds. The Sherman tankers were adjusting their shells with a wrench or something, not sure what that was about.
"RULE ONE" at most gunnery schools, "Tracers work both ways." Gunny taught me that you shoot when you have a good target and could expect a kill or when the sergeant told me to shoot. The "come hither" move was for desperate situations. It was fun when our socialist brothers in the black pajamas came in hot expecting one boat and found five. Fifteen .50s, plus light arms, 80mm mortars and tube weapons greeted them.
Limitless
This is not the latest movie I've seen. I haven't even watched it in a year, but it's one I pull out of my archive from time to time and haven't gotten tired of it. I just got to thinking about it and am going to watch it tonight. The movie's appeal seems cut off at the knees because it's a recycled plot built on Flowers from Algernon where a person is made super intelligent, and it doesn't even have some futuristic neuroscience that makes it possible. A guy just keeps swallowing smart pills, which makes him capable of almost anything.
But take a recycled and basic plot without even spicing it up to more than just taking a pill, and you can still create a fascinating story. That's what happens here. My first reaction was, "This is like Flowers for Algernon," but it's not. The details beyond the plot are much more complicated, although not in a way that you can't easily follow. It stars Bradley Cooper and Robert DeNiro, who plays a smaller but absolutely vital part of the story. And those two don't take cheesy parts in Hollywood.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 01, 2021, 01:54:29 AM
It wasn't just reviewers. It was hated. It was that year's Rise of Skywalker.
I find it interesting that you'd enjoyed it.
What? I enjoyed it. It’s a movie..you know...make believe crap. I thought it was fun. But the again that is why I watch movies, Sheryl for the escapism....sides everyone knows ain’t no Jedi’s.....🤫
Quote from: aitm on January 14, 2021, 03:24:33 PM
What? I enjoyed it. It’s a movie..you know...make believe crap. I thought it was fun. But the again that is why I watch movies, Sheryl for the escapism....sides everyone knows ain’t no Jedi’s.....🤫
"Everybody I know agrees with me that it was shit. Therefore it was undoubtedly shit."
I liked it. Especially Kylo's "Hey, it's me" shrug when he picks up a light saber from literally nowhere.
Quote from: aitm on January 14, 2021, 03:24:33 PMJedi’s
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5d/7f/71/5d7f71bce481132174f566aedcf3e5aa.jpg)
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 14, 2021, 05:55:16 PM
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5d/7f/71/5d7f71bce481132174f566aedcf3e5aa.jpg)
Oh....bite me!
Just made it through "The Irishman"... I had to watch it in bursts, but man what a fucking movie.
It depresses me how Pacino, de Niro, Pesci are getting though :(.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 25, 2021, 02:46:14 AM
Just made it through "The Irishman"... I had to watch it in bursts, but man what a fucking movie. ...
Yeah, I loved the movie too. I'm a sucker for that genre. Also a last chance to see them all together.
I have seen movies like JFK and Hoffa on big screen when they came out. It was a huge deal then. After JFK, they even opened the files again, I have started to read about it, I even had a JFK file where I collected stuff. (I was 15, lol) Hoffa...the whole saloon, none of us was able to move when the movie ended...etc.
Well, they are movies... but while they promise good research, good sources, they have only been feeding us with "mafia did it, because it was how everything done then" and nothing more actually. No real connection to anything else. Federa state is absent. We also have the real case mafia movies and lives...Like Good Fellas, Donnie Brasco. It makes sense on how mafia works but that's how all kinds of mafia work. Not just Italian. And there has been this weird emphasis on that if wise guys culture is unique to Italian mafia. And all mafia at some point deal with the state. I don't mean bribes and isolated stuff. I mean as in deals.
However, it seems like there is no connection of the sort between two worlds in this speicfic line of American history. The state and mafia. It just fits naturally in our heads. Power. 'Let me do my thing and you do your own thing. If you crack me down I'll fuck you up.' And it feels like any possible state affair is removed like a surgeon's...er what lol accuracy? and healed so good. Because is it possible otherwise?
I always wonder why we never get a huge, 4 hours biographical movie of Frank Sinatra with every kind of detail. Don't you?
And then there are real life stories like Blow. Have you seen Blow? Couple of hippie white boys getting filthy rich on weed-mostly coke and then getting involved with Mexican drug cartels, even coups in little countries...they look like the more legit side of connection with the whole mafia politics thing.
I dunno. It kind of got old, I guess. And as the time passes it looks less realistic and more traditional, nostalgic to me as far as the whole idea goes. Which is a category of its own now, beyond a culture.
Guys, has anyone seen The Torture Report? It's said to be graphic and I respond to that badly. How bad it is?
E: Stopped at 25th min. I don't think it is for me.
There will always be things to like (and dislike) about movie theaters. For me, it was getting out of my environment and focusing my attention in a venue with a sound system no home can compete with on a huge screen that sucks you in. Even the hour long drive to the theater was part of the escape and the ritual.
At home, especially with friends, it's too easy for others to get up and look in the refrigerator, take a shit, or just scratch their ass (right in front of you too). I had a friend that was really good at these distractions, and I hated watching television at his house. Oh, "You are not watching television," you say. "You are watching an uninterrupted film."
Indeed you can watch a well done film, but still get all the trappings of home television at the same time, minus commercials of course. But put the two venues together, and it doesn't work as well.
New York Times
QuoteI miss movie theaters.
Like a lot of people, I’ve gone almost a whole year without going to one â€" definitely some kind of record. What am I actually missing, though? We live in the Streaming Age, with undreamed-of amounts of great stuff to watch, not to mention giant flat-screen TVs that are cheaper than ever.
Were theaters even all that great? Or am I just feeling nostalgic for any pre-pandemic ritual that involved crowds and snacks and, you know, a blithe disregard for airborne pathogens?
I think it’s the movies themselves that I miss. If I’ve learned anything from 11 months of watching Netflix and HBO Max, it’s that I’m just no good at watching movies at home. It’s not that I think modern attention spans are that bad â€" if anything, it’s almost heroic how we make sense of our torrential digital feeds every day. But there’s a restlessness that comes with it. I find myself unwilling â€" unable, even â€" to sit down and completely tune in to a good movie. Again and again, I skip over a queue brimming with really good things, in favor of something that won’t suffer if I keep an eye on my phone. (This is how I’ve become someone who’s watched “The Da Vinci Code†three times.)
A movie theater, on the other hand, is a beautifully simple machine for enhancing your attention. Between the dark environment, the impossibility of pausing the action while you go for a snack and the understanding that even a quick Twitter check will be met with murderous glares from your neighbors, theaters grant you the superpower of deep, unwavering focus. And that makes movies so much better.
There have been some occasional movies that felt like, I was the one who gave the commission for them to be made in some other dimension Dreamland, and it turned out exactly what I wanted.
Sleepy Hollow is one of them. I think this is my fifth round, or something like that. Not sure. I have no idea why we don't kidnapp a billionaire and force him to build the town and live in it in somewhere suitable deep in some woods. Canada sounds good. Also could mean we'll get away with it. And why on earth we don't have a jacko lantern emoji?!
Lisa Marie (Ichabod's mother) played the Martian hottie in "Mars Attacks".
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 01, 2021, 06:13:30 PM
Lisa Marie (Ichabod's mother) played the Martian hottie in "Mars Attacks".
Hands down the best gag in that movie.
I've been on a Godzilla kick lately, watching more of that franchise.
Shin Godzilla was pretty good. I liked how we didn't get to see much at first and were initially in the dark as much as the Japanese leadership. I also liked how it was near constantly interwoven with a boots on the ground perspective, which helped sell the sheer gravity of the situation.
But I like the old stuff for the sheer variety of the monsters. And perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm a big fan of King Ghidorah.
Edit - I just watched King of the Monsters (2019) and the most unrealistic thing by far was near-instantaneous repair of electronic equipment in the middle of a storm. Water is just pouring onto that circuit board and it boots on the first try like it's nothing. That's the tech equivalent of walking to a naval battle and parting the sea to raise the dead. There's miracles and then there's Miracles, know what I'm saying?
In my opinion, Sleepy Hollow was one of those ambitious works overestimating its own era.
[spoiler]The movie is made in 1999, in the millennial threshold, when it was just a few years away for science and technology to change our lives dramatically. What started in early 90s was speeding up. Mobile phones have become this colourful everyday gadgets, first sms messages, WWW browser, windows 95, Genom Project about to be finished, Dolly, tube babies...nothing was going to be same again. Science is about to become some 'magic' you can touch and then disappear on the horizon. Those days were weird. You could still get these kind of news in small screen and there was still one mainstream, 'one' reality.
The original Icabhod Crane firmly believes in every kind of supernatural, he is scared of them and he is some sort of a stupid conman, a pick up artist going on in women's circles with his supernatural stories and he wants to marry a wealthy man's daughter for her inheritance. He also believes that women are the most troubling, puzzling than any other supernatural entities. Well, in a nutshell, in the end he becomes the victim of his beliefs by a simple trick played on him, and that's how the story ends.
The Icabhod Crane in the movie exists in another millenial threshold, a world again that is about to change. He doesn't believe in anything supernatural. He is this innocent, clumsy, nerd inventor who believes everything can be explained, he believes in justice. Also his evil father killed her mother for being a witch. (It points to the real life witch burnings along with the killing of the midwife.)The rest is a gender play with metaphors. The character he loves and the villian of the story are both women and witches. One is good, one is evil. So women are not naturally born evil, but people become evil or good with what they live through. (The twin sister.) Headless horseman is not the villian. He is the wielded old power itself, in this context it is masculine; the Empire; the religion. It kills everything against itself. In the movie the victims all knew and aware of what is going on; they know her 'secret'. As you know the Hessian soldiers have served in the British army in the American Indepedence war... The story ends good, all is going to change in the new world (America), and that's only possible with fighting against all supernatural beliefs; banishing the Hessian soldier. But the headless horseman 'exists', he'll never die and where he reigns is 'hell'. [/spoiler]
So it is a twist and turn on the old character and the story on its head; it was an overestimated wish for the dawning new era I guess. Cheesy, romantic comedy fairy tale with a good ending. I think that's why I love it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 03, 2021, 12:09:11 AM
I've been on a Godzilla kick lately, watching more of that franchise.
"Shin Godzilla" was an analogy of the Japanese government's response to the Fukushima meltdown. The governments, as they went past, were unable to produce a workable solution to the disaster, "as usual".
As for the 2019, we have a dozen or so kaiju running around, so worrying about who "just happened" to be carrying a soldering iron doesn't seem that important.
I loved Shin Godzilla. The only part that took me out of it was the heavy Japanese accent of the woman who was supposed to be American. I actually felt invested in the human characters, which is a rarity in these movies, and was rooting for them to find a solution. It's also nice seeing Godzilla portrayed as the bad guy again, after so many years of him being rebranded as the hero. He was originally designed to represent the nuclear bombs we dropped on Japan, for crying out loud, and they were trying to turn him into a champion for humanity. lol
But why change the original mitten paws? He is even more adorable with them.
(https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/145660907_5047985028577366_1064920471925050575_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=2&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=u54b5WTKJ1UAX-mM81s&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=ac0ef039b9ec81bdc6c3308d596a822a&oe=60409D11)
Oh come on, King Kong only evolved to look more like a silver back. He can't get more adorable. He exactly 'looks' like a het male now. :p *Runs...
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 03, 2021, 11:42:54 AM
I loved Shin Godzilla. The only part that took me out of it was the heavy Japanese accent of the woman who was supposed to be American.
And aspirations to be President, too. Good luck!
It was really jarring when everyone else was speaking japanese and she abruptly started speaking english. It's like someone saying shikata ga nai during a joint session of Congress, lol.
*edit - though I did like the American bomber pilots speaking English, specifically them promising payback. 100% spot on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjk3f4RRFOs
Interesting video comparing the two Kaiju and their advantages. One thing the video doesn't take into account is human intervention, however. We see in the trailers that the humans are clearly backing Kong in this battle, even fashioning himself a weapon. In a 1v1 battle, there's a pretty clear winner, but the humans could possibly tip the scales in Kong's favor.
I wonder what the Japanese think about these movies. The American-made King Kong vs the Japanese Godzilla. I think Godzilla is much more popular in both countries, but I wonder if the Japanese think the idea of pitting their atomic titan against a monkey is stupid.
King Kong definitely has the edge in upper-body strength, the ability to leap and climb, and can get up quickly from being knocked down. Godzilla is a bit sluggish getting up and afaik, in his more recent incarnation, can't jump at all.
My twin says that King Kong's weapon is unfair, but fighting a walking nuclear reactor isn't fair, either. Also, using a stone age hand axe is perfectly in line with apes' natural talent for rudimentary tool-building.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 03, 2021, 10:13:44 PM
I think Godzilla is much more popular in both countries, but I wonder if the Japanese think the idea of pitting their atomic titan against a monkey is stupid.
I watched pure, undiluted Japanese TV for two years. Anything is okay.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 03, 2021, 11:56:34 PM
My twin says that King Kong's weapon is unfair, but fighting a walking nuclear reactor isn't fair, either. Also, using a stone age hand axe is perfectly in line with apes' natural talent for rudimentary tool-building.
Kong's parents taught humans how to use tools.
This bulldog is into King Kong.
https://youtu.be/sLFZe-epD3M
I thought this freebee was pretty good. I am sure much liberty with history was taken
[spoiler]I was previously under the impression that Emperor Hirohito was personally lucky that the war-tired Americans decided he would be useful..and well the love story seemed unnecessary but it was charming :valentine:. [/spoiler]
PS. I use Brave browser so no annoying interruptions...ever ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POOxe1jvKoE
That's my area, one of them anyway, so if you have questions...
We watched the elephant man, for the first time.
Amazing piece of cinema.
Dad would not let me see it when I was very little. Think as a child I might have had nightmares. Probably wouldn't have appreciated it neither.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 21, 2021, 04:01:42 PM
We watched the elephant man, for the first time.
Amazing piece of cinema.
Dad would not let me see it when I was very little. Think as a child I might have had nightmares. Probably wouldn't have appreciated it neither.
To this day he has not been precisely diagnosed. I erroneously assumed it was a mosquito borne disease that caused his elephantiasis but there are many causes. Mosquitos suck.
Quote from: Cassia on February 21, 2021, 05:03:31 PM
. Mosquitos suck.
Wouldn't be an effective mosquito if they didn't.
Quote from: Cassia on February 21, 2021, 05:03:31 PM
To this day he has not been precisely diagnosed. I erroneously assumed it was a mosquito borne disease that caused his elephantiasis but there are many causes. Mosquitos suck.
Just one of god's little masterpieces!
Quote from: Cassia on February 21, 2021, 05:03:31 PMTo this day he has not been precisely diagnosed. I erroneously assumed it was a mosquito borne disease that caused his elephantiasis but there are many causes. Mosquitos suck.
*tries to explain to aliens why dodos are extinct but malaria-carrying mosquitoes are not in a way that doesn't make us look evil or incredibly incompetent*
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 21, 2021, 07:10:09 PM
*tries to explain to aliens why dodos are extinct but malaria-carrying mosquitoes are not in a way that doesn't make us look evil or incredibly incompetent*
Not "us". "Them".
I watched Venom because it starred Tom Hardy and unfortunately he was the only good thing in the movie.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 09:35:22 PM
I watched Venom because it starred Tom Hardy and unfortunately he was the only good thing in the movie.
I remember liking Venom, but I don't remember a single thing from it... so I think I mostly just liked Tom Hardy.
Wish they would have continued the series, "Taboo" he was in/produced. IIRC he even said he really liked it and wanted to do more, but his schedule has become too busy for it.
Venom didn't do much for me. I remember there were some funny lines. I usually like Tom Hardy, but the character wasn't that interesting to me.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 09:35:22 PM
I watched Venom because it starred Tom Hardy and unfortunately he was the only good thing in the movie.
"Pussy".
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 09:35:22 PM
I watched Venom because it starred Tom Hardy and unfortunately he was the only good thing in the movie.
But it does open the door for a "Venom/Deadpool" ensemble movie.
I hate the idea of a Venom with no Spider-Man. I haven't watched it in part because of that. And the reviews weren't glowing either, so I don't feel like I missed anything.
P- "We're gonna have two super dark aliens battle at nighttime?"
W- "Yeah, yeah, yeah!"
P- "Sounds like it's going to be kinda hard to see what's happening."
W- "Yeah, it's gonna be super hard to see. It's going to be like watching two people in garbage bags fighting by candlelight."
https://youtu.be/6aaYkBfEQa4
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 26, 2021, 10:22:21 PM
I hate the idea of a Venom with no Spider-Man. I haven't watched it in part because of that. And the reviews weren't glowing either, so I don't feel like I missed anything.
It was fun in a dumb way. Nothing challenging. Kind of fun to see a different take on the whole superhero genre that has been overtaking Hollywood.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 26, 2021, 10:22:21 PM
I hate the idea of a Venom with no Spider-Man. I haven't watched it in part because of that. And the reviews weren't glowing either, so I don't feel like I missed anything.
I've had a great deal of fun at the movies by never, ever, reading reviews.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 27, 2021, 03:32:01 AM
It was fun in a dumb way.
Very fun. It was a comic book movie. Don't expect those to be "War and Peace".
Fun triple-feature:
Mission to Mars
Red Planet
The Martian
"Never go into orbit around Mars."
Save Yourselves
9/10 For those who have a taste for weird.
I liked it, but then I like things that don't follow the usual Hollywood formulas, and I'm fascinated by the strange.
Not really much of a spoiler, but you may prefer to watch it cold.
[spoiler]The main characters are stereotypes of whatever generation is currently considered the weird generation, which I guess could be any generation, but as shallow as they are, I found myself liking them. Would I hang out with them in real life? Most assuredly not, but they are not offensive. They are actually quite likeable. They are typically addicted to their digital technology, which seems to mean just their phones and little else, and they are well aware of how much their phones distract them from the meaning of life.
They decide to take a week off from their jobs, leave their phones behind, and run to upstate New York to live in an isolated cabin, where they can reconnect to life and to each other. But apparently the real life and the reality they want to reconnect with is nothing like the reality they expected. It's much more weird than the couple themselves. In other words ultra weird. Maybe if they weren't such airheads to begin with, they could cope with this reality, but I think not. They just add their incompetence to the mess, and stumble along.
As related to the movie title "Save Yourselves," do they survive? Well that's a good question. Maybe there will be a sequel, or in keeping with the idea behind the film, maybe not. I don't think it would make much difference. The film stands alone pretty well by itself. I watched it twice so I could spot the hints about what was happening. I'll probably watch it again too.[/spoiler]
Ha, I'm not the only one who liked Venom, lol. It would be better if the didn't rush it. They could have stretched it like they do with the other ones.
I am Mother. It's OK. Nothing really new or interesting.
Also interestingly enough, some people interpretated the plot in ways the movie doesn't actually show anything about or maybe I didn't get it, lol. Weird.
"The She-Creature" -39/Nil. 1956 C feature about a Svengali who can summon previous lives of his subjects. One subject is so "strong" that he can summon a physical manifestation of a, I guess, ancient sea monster. The actors seem embarrassed but in the "I'm getting paid" mode. Available on Amazon and Youtube for your Bad Movie Fridays.
Daredevil. Made it to 20 something mins. I was just curious how bad it is and expecting a standart movie with a bad choice of casting as the hero, sticking out like a sore thumb, but movie itself is pretty bad anyway. I don't think any other actor could have saved it.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 28, 2021, 08:46:47 AM
Daredevil. Made it to 20 something mins. I was just curious how bad it is and expecting a standart movie with a bad choice of casting as the hero, sticking out like a sore thumb, but movie itself is pretty bad anyway. I don't think any other actor could have saved it.
I either missed that at the box office or it made such a poor impression on me that I can't remember seeing it. It made a lot of money, but didn't fare that well with critics. When it was made in 2003, Marvel had yet to become the icon it is today, and while I always enjoyed superhero movies going back to Christopher Reeves, I was never overwhelmed until the first Iron Man came on the scene. I think that was the beginning of Marvel's Hollywood revolution that brought crowds back to the theaters.
I had to google DareDevil just to explain to myself how I could have missed a Marvel Movie, and one thing I learned from this was that Elektra with Jennifer Garner was a spinoff of Daredevil, which was an even bigger failure than DareDevil, and ended the plans for a DareDevil sequel.
But to get to my point, I liked Elektra and added it to my collection. It starts off with an interesting beginning and a lot of excitement, and it really has my attention through most of the movie, but for some reason that still puzzles me, the last 20 minutes of the movie seems to detract from everything before it, and I'm thinking that might be why the movie is remembered as a failure. But to me, the first 60 minutes are well worth watching, even if the movie may only get a 5 out of 10, the first half is at least 8/10.
Yeah it was made before the Marvel era. I didn't think of that way. But I hadn't even seen the trailer, I don't know anything about Daredevil. It was on prime so wanted to check it. I have seen Elektra I'm sure, but I don't remember anything.
That woman didn't look right to me in anything else after Alias series. I have no idea why. She gives a sort of impression to me that she is some shortcoming version of another actress, or like she is 'made' of styles of a few other actresses, part by part here and there. I only liked Affleck in Kevin Smith movies, honestly. I feel similar about him. There has been this idea of him but he never actualy fills in. Something is not in place with those two, but I have no idea what. They look like all hype but nothing else, project actors.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 28, 2021, 08:46:47 AM
Daredevil. Made it to 20 something mins. I was just curious how bad it is and expecting a standart movie with a bad choice of casting as the hero, sticking out like a sore thumb, but movie itself is pretty bad anyway. I don't think any other actor could have saved it.
The Netflix series is much better, but I enjoyed the movie at the time.
I Care A Lot. Nope. It's a good example of how to ruin a good idea. I liked it at the beginning, the idea is really good. Then of course, they had to push it to some ridiculous level, probably because going on with the idea requires superior writing. It's bad.
[spoiler]The ending...seesh. It's not really an ending but more like fast food justice served. If they think this is the American psycho profile of the white female, they are in for surprise and really stuck in somewhere small. She is so two dimensional, you can't even feel the evil properly. Why is she like that? Because she found out you are either a predator or a prey in life and she is so ambitious to be a predator. Can't you tell from the way she looks from the speed bike in red light? She reaches to the 1% at some point (we are told about it), getting bigger and bigger with the mafia, who partners with her as a result of her evil company's deeds, a mafia so stupid and incompetent, they can't even stop two people while they can just kill them or threaten their staff, the doctor she is working with to ruin her which would be very easy considering the stuff she has been doing. But she is better at mafia than mafia without any experience. Or she could have run away with those stones and not work ever in her life again...but she is so ambitious and she is a predator. And she has just started. The movie also includes the most naive judge ever shown in American movies. Myeh. [/spoiler]
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 28, 2021, 11:49:27 AM
The Netflix series is much better, but I enjoyed the movie at the time.
You know what, after SGOS reminded that it was made before the Comic era, maybe I would have liked it then. If you look it that way, this was what a comic book movie then, lol.
WW84. Thundering meh/yawn.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 27, 2021, 07:27:46 AMI've had a great deal of fun at the movies by never, ever, reading reviews.
It feels like that might be a hard thing to do while browsing and posting in a movie review thread.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 01, 2021, 02:40:33 PM
It feels like that might be a hard thing to do while browsing and posting in a movie review thread.
Great is the power of ignore.
I never read about or esp. watch the trailers before watching something. It's a bad idea.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 02, 2021, 07:31:25 AM
I never read about or esp. watch the trailers before watching something. It's a bad idea.
I find them amusing, and, as I don't live for the "great reveals" in movies, I don't worry about them spoiling the movie.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 02, 2021, 09:10:31 AM
I find them amusing, and, as I don't live for the "great reveals" in movies, I don't worry about them spoiling the movie.
Interesting. I can't help it. I don't want to know anything about it.
If it's a movie I know I'm interested in seeing, I avoid the trailers and reviews. If I'm uncertain about a movie, I check out reviews because I don't want to waste my time.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 02, 2021, 07:31:25 AM
I never read about or esp. watch the trailers before watching something. It's a bad idea.
It depends. Trailers can help you get a feel for the movie - what type of movie it is, who's in it, and hopefully a very small part of the plot. All very useful for determining if you'd like the film.
Problems only arise when the trailer is misleading or it gives away too much of the plot. Studios are under a lot of pressure to put as many big moments as possible in the trailer to make it as enticing as possible, which has a tendency to spoil any big reveals.
Generally speaking, I think they shouldn't put anything in the trailer that happens past the 30 minute mark.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 02, 2021, 09:57:22 AM
Interesting. I can't help it. I don't want to know anything about it.
Personal preference, perfectly acceptable.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 02, 2021, 10:31:01 AM
If it's a movie I know I'm interested in seeing, I avoid the trailers and reviews. If I'm uncertain about a movie, I check out reviews because I don't want to waste my time.
Seeing Wonder Woman's dead boyfriend running around 1984 would be a bit of spoiler, no?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 02, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Seeing Wonder Woman's dead boyfriend running around 1984 would be a bit of spoiler, no?
It would make for a good trailer, because people would be interested in finding out how that happened. While it is a spoiler, a bigger spoiler would be the one that explained how it happened. That would almost explain the premise of the entire film. Like Gymrat, I avoid wasting time and money by reading reviews. However, I've wasted money after reading good reviews of films I hated. I also have seen a number of films cold that blew me away. The trouble is I've walked out of a number of films I went to cold that were horrible. Clearly, there is no right or wrong way to do it.
I'm not easily lead, so I watch youtube reviews for the visuals, sound down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLMEgP6Grak
(https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/a-surprise-to-be-sure-but-a-welcome-one-when-55157418.png)
Roberto Baggio was one of the greatest players to ever live, almost a Patron Saint of Italian football, and yet he is remembered now for missing a free kick against Brasil to lose the World Cup finals (that he carried the team to).
Off the pitch, he has received a Man of Peace award from the Nobel Peace Laureates for his extensive charity work and human rights advocacy, and is a devout Buddhist (and was even back in his playing days, which in an extremely Catholic country like Italy in the 80s-90s made it more impressive he was revered).
Really looking forward to this movie, though he was before my time he still remains one of my favorite players; the technical flair and almost poetic movement and passing is timeless.
Yeah trailers are often misleading. But that's not the reason of my attitude.
I have been waching movies since I was a toddler. In the worse, obese way. With no age restriction. Especially when you are young, you pick up what's been labeled 'cool' according to the time and make your choices based on pure pleasure and emotions, strict genres. (For example, we check almost every science fiction piece that comes out.) And this creates a taste and a pattern. Which is inevitable. But it also dulling and blunting. And unfortunately, watching movies and tv shows is not just some innocent diversion, it shapes our minds and affect our judgement, evaluations, our interactions with the real world...etc., doesn't matter how conscious we are that they are certain kind products designed to be sold. You get what I mean. Esp. now we are at a stagnation point artwise with platforms like Netflix, Amazon, HBO...etc.
But even before that at some point in the past, I have stopped 'choosing' movies/series to 'like'. It kind of happened naturally. Interestingly enough, it becomes an easy habit because you instantly realise that you already watch the trailers or read the views of movies you would watch at some point anyway. We are vritually closed shut to any other kind of material. It's not something that happens often but I've also found that you can even not like a movie but find meaning in it. In the end, it's kind of a way of checking, catching yourself out against a whole; the audience, the art...etc.
(I haven't been able to make it with music yet. I haven't listened any music since...oh gawd... I can't get into it and just listen old songs when I drink. It's not like listening music, more like expression of mood sequences.)
I don't know. Probably, everything has been going down since The City of Lost Children and I caught up with it somewhere suitable to my generation and it is a void. I feel better with knowing the least about what I am clicking on. Not to sound like a smart ass, but I think I'm waiting to be surprised, and it feels like the '20th century' again when it happens in some level. Emotional time machine. Take that Godot! :p
Tron (1982)
The first 15 minutes or so, I was concerned about how much I was going to enjoy it; it seemed really disjointed and the CGI/film tricks were jarring.
However once I got invested in the story, and the CGI became more familiar to my brain, I actually really enjoyed it. The visuals actually look really cool to this day, even if they are bad.
My only complaint is the character development was (very) rushed in some respects, but that is pretty common in movies of that era.
Overall really enjoyed it, and will probably watch it again sometime.
Kong: skull island
Kinda dumb, but fun in an absent-minded way.
Bored so I watched Coming 2 America.....should’ve stayed bored.
Quote from: aitm on March 07, 2021, 07:55:11 AM
Bored so I watched Coming 2 America.....should’ve stayed bored.
Too bad, the first movie was so much fun. I watched the trailer and felt that Eddie Murphy playing the dignified father probably wouldn't work as well.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 07, 2021, 04:52:32 AM
Kong: skull island
Kinda dumb, but fun in an absent-minded way.
They'll cycle back to fill out Kong's origin story in the next one.
Meanwhile I'll keep yelling at the screen, "You can fly! You can get out of reach of that monkey!"
I Care A Lot on Netflix.
One of the worst movies I've seen in a while. The lead character is a sociopath who works with a corrupt doctor to obtain legal guardianship of elderly people so she can lock them in facilities, torture them, and steal all their money and possessions. The audience is supposed to sympathize with her because... She's a lesbian? I don't know. It might work if this was a dark comedy but it's not. Its contrivances just become more unbelievable as it goes on. For example, in the real world if a forty-year-old is found unconscious, doesn't have identification, and is asleep for a few hours in the hospital, no one goes before a judge and obtains legal guardianship. That is the level of ridiculousness in this movie.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 09, 2021, 09:26:01 PM
I Care A Lot on Netflix.
One of the worst movies I've seen in a while. The lead character is a sociopath who works with a corrupt doctor to obtain legal guardianship of elderly people so she can lock them in facilities, torture them, and steal all their money and possessions. The audience is supposed to sympathize with her because... She's a lesbian? I don't know. It might work if this was a dark comedy but it's not. Its contrivances just become more unbelievable as it goes on. For example, in the real world if a forty-year-old is found unconscious, doesn't have identification, and is asleep for a few hours in the hospital, no one goes before a judge and obtains legal guardianship. That is the level of ridiculousness in this movie.
I know, right? Spot on. Wrote something about it. I think we are expected to symptahise with her because she understands that you are either a 'predator' or a 'prey' and acts according to that. This has been the main so-called post truth theme lately. From documentaries about economy to movies and tv shows. Zeitgeist baby! :lol:
Afraid of Rain 9/10
A very good psychological thriller, with a 90% emphasis on psychological, and it is far more interesting and thought provoking than it is scary or offensive.
Edit: It may be better described as psychological drama. The thriller part is just necessary to the story, rather than an attempt at exploitation.
Greenland
I'm a little way past the halfway mark, and I'm a nervous wreck.
[spoiler]
QuotePlot: Just when you thing, things can't get any worse.
[/spoiler]
"Ellie to control." "Do you read me?"
The Boys in the Band.
1968, New York City. A group of middle aged gay men gather for a house birthday party. It's adapted from a play, which was apparently ground breaking in 1968. The playwright Mart Crowley was involved with it. And he talks about how he was warned about 'not to go there' by the people in position of authority back then. It's quite a risk. He says he's sold the play as 'comedy-drama' which while the comedy part made it lighter for people to watch/accept that he actually wanted them to see the tragedy burried in back then. (I think he also means that the young people today should see the long way that has been traveled to put it lightly.)
But I didn't get why the movie was expected to be 'ground breaking' today, 50 years later.
[spoiler]I liked that the cast is full gay. I liked that it is about gay people only, told by gay actors. But it is not 1960s. It's just a good movie. And I think it deserves a second watch after some time. You can dissect, analyse everything in it to death. But I don't think it's necessary. It certainly doesn't treat the audience as morons, thank fuck.
They've kept the play quality, it is one of those one stage, narrow space, dialogue pieces. It's ugly, annoying, sometimes even disturbing, obnoxious...over all brutal. I esp. liked how the characters goes in and out from their individual demeanours -which some are deliberate, even pretentious, some are defensive, some are plain and natural- as they face conflict and bully, abuse each other as the story evolved. They are all different. [/spoiler]
Having said all that, I'd like to watch the stories of people with every kind of stigmatised identities from their point of view, in their world as they make and live it and not in some relation to the standard norms and social tragedy anymore. Not because, it's you know 'oh so woke.' Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying let's have a pink, light fantasy bullshit. Obviously, as dark and depressing it is, violence and abuse is often part or their lives, pasts. I don't mean remove that. Never. But honestly, I'm sick of watching the same old stories about these groups with esp. white het men and women attached to it... We have seen that. I genuinely can't enjoy it... unless maybe it is something very original and different I guess.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 14, 2021, 09:01:39 AM
He says he's sold the play as 'comedy-drama' which while the comedy part made it lighter for people to watch/accept that he actually wanted them to see the tragedy burried in back then. (I think he also means that the young people today should see the long way that has been traveled to put it lightly.)
I saw the original
Boys in the Band with a group of gay men shortly after coming out and it made me want to go back in the closet. I don't think young people today really understand what life was like for LGBTQ people in the past, particularly the self-hatred and isolation.
https://youtu.be/vRS4uSAP9qs
There is a slice of time in our childhood when we don't even know about prejudice. Then we are "taught" to hate by the very ones we look to for guidance. Art, music, books and movies do allow us to switch shoes for a while and we can actually get back to that beautiful window of time. Even for those who are so far gone, it helps, I think.
Quote from: Cassia on March 16, 2021, 10:18:03 AM
There is a slice of time in our childhood when we don't even know about prejudice. Then we are "taught" to hate by the very ones we look to for guidance. Art, music, books and movies do allow us to switch shoes for a while and we can actually get back to that beautiful window of time. Even for those who are so far gone, it helps, I think.
All too often the "very ones we look to for guidance" are just people, with no idea what they're doing wrong.
Promising Young Woman
I saw this cold. I didn't have a clue what to expect. I'm only going to recommend it without comment. Just see it.
Godzilla vs Kong. 8/10. Would probably be a 9, but it's clear they cut some vital scenes to keep it under 2 hours.
Probably the most violent Godzilla movie I've ever seen. I can't remember another film where he slashes and draws blood with his claws, or actively tries to drown an enemy. Godzilla really wants to fuck up Kong's shit, and it shows.
It's really more of a Kong movie than a Godzilla one, though. The latter mainly serves as a secondary antagonist. [spoiler]The primary antagonist, Mechagodzilla, is actually introduced killing a Skullcrawler, which is a Kong enemy. Although it turns out Mechagodzilla is actually being piloted by the brain of the severed Ghidorah head recovered at the end of the last film, so that ties it back more to Godzilla's lore again.[/spoiler]
And yes, there is a reference to the infamous tree attack from the original King Kong vs Godzilla, and it's both hilarious and fitting for the scene where it happens.
Watching GvK for third time in two days. Bright spot in this stupid time.
Some of you might remember that I said the real enemy would be revealed, and I unblushingly claim that credit.
Just watched 3:10 to Yuma, with bale and Crowe.
First time I watched it. Simple but good story. Straightforward, I would call it. In the best way.
Loved the leads, did a great job. And the dude that played Charlie prince was the star of the show.
Not the most realistic final part, but it works in the theme of the movie. This regarding how ben wade acts.
Rewatched Captain America and the Winter Soldier. I found it surprising just how little screentime the titular Winter Soldier actually has. He has like 10-15min total screentime in a 2 hour movie. And his first appearance was fairly close to the 1-hour mark. Also, I misremembered how frequently the "Hail Hydra" slogan was said. I could've sworn it was said onscreen way more often than it actually was.
While I don't dislike the movie, I didn't much care for it outside of its two admittedly awesome action scenes. I think a big factor was the central plot/theme of the movie. I felt like the director was saying to me: "You thought SHIELD and related authorities were the good guys? Fool! They're crooked and they're secretly plotting to kill/enslave you!" So, the bad guys are bad and the good guys are bad. Very, very few people are trustworthy. And the authorities at large can't be trusted and should not be powerful. Because you can't trust *almost* anyone. Quite a large spoonful of pessimism in my otherwise idealistic superhero films. :/
And this movie, combined with Age of Ultron, really paint a picture of high-tech attempts to step up security as inherently dangerous crapshoots at best, and liberty-robbing or planet-annihilating at worst. I suppose they had to fail for purely dramatic reasons, but damn, the implications here are pretty damning and a luddite's wet dream.
All cards on the table, I gravitate heavily towards Iron Man precisely because it highlights the promise of technology to solve problems and create a better world, even while acknowledging that technology also causes its share of problems (see Armor Wars and the Technovore two-parter)
Reigo: King Of The Sea Monsters
IMDb 3.8
1 h 23 min
2019
13+
The powerful battleship Yamato, while on patrol in the Pacific, cross paths with the massive kaiju Reigo, the deep-sea monster! The stage is set for an epic battle to unfold between the world's largest battleship and the mysterious dragon-like monster - with the fate of humankind hanging in the balance.
Somehow this got three stars. Negative three would be better. Boss Lady and I are fans of really bad movies but we couldn't finish this one.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 16, 2021, 06:35:42 AM
Reigo: King Of The Sea Monsters
IMDb 3.8
1 h 23 min
2019
13+
The powerful battleship Yamato, while on patrol in the Pacific, cross paths with the massive kaiju Reigo, the deep-sea monster! The stage is set for an epic battle to unfold between the world's largest battleship and the mysterious dragon-like monster - with the fate of humankind hanging in the balance.
Somehow this got three stars. Negative three would be better. Boss Lady and I are fans of really bad movies but we couldn't finish this one.
I have to try... ;)
Quote from: Cassia on April 16, 2021, 10:27:59 AM
I have to try... ;)
As a WWII-focused historian this movie was just that much worse.
Do you guys have any rules for movies? Because I try to only watch certain movies at certain times.
Christmas movies only during December. Halloween movies only during October. Vampire movies only at night (vampires are only active at night, therefore it should be night while viewing them). Conversely, movies set primarily during the day, like Fury Road, should be viewed during the day.
Also, it's ideal to watch movies set in the future at roughly the time they're set. For example, watching 2001 A Space Odyssey during 2001 or Blade Runner during 2019. (obviously, not the first viewing for practical reasons)
No one may talk or make loud noises while watching A Quiet Place. If they do, it's appropriate to silently shush them with a fearful expression.
I ignore holidays for the most part, insofar as these hillbillies will allow given their propensity to celebrate "Wednesday" with random explosions well into the night.
I only watch holiday movies near holidays. I don't watch movies while eating meals, snacks are okay. One intermission during the middle of the movie is acceptable. I don't watch movies with people who I know will not enjoy the genre.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 23, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
I only watch holiday movies near holidays. I don't watch movies while eating meals, snacks are okay. One intermission during the middle of the movie is acceptable. I don't watch movies with people who I know will not enjoy the genre.
Boss Lady was delighted to learn that I liked really bad scifi/fantasy/monster movies.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 23, 2021, 07:50:58 AM
Boss Lady was delighted to learn that I liked really bad scifi/fantasy/monster movies.
Zilla, who is this Boss Lady you keep talking about?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on April 24, 2021, 06:31:29 AM
Zilla, who is this Boss Lady you keep talking about?
My wife.
LOL. How long you have been married?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on April 24, 2021, 07:25:11 AM
LOL. How long you have been married?
This time? Since 2010.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 23, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
I only watch holiday movies near holidays. I don't watch movies while eating meals, snacks are okay. One intermission during the middle of the movie is acceptable. I don't watch movies with people who I know will not enjoy the genre.
Mostly agree, except I'm a the dinner with a movie guy. I'll hold off on dinner until it's time for a movie. I have a dinning table in a sunny nook. Haven't sat there in weeks. It's mostly in case Better Homes and Gardens stops by to interview me. As a home furnishing, it's probably the best area in the house. I've got medical records and tax information stored on it right now.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 24, 2021, 08:25:15 AM
This time? Since 2010.
Oh yeah...I think you've mentioned it before. This is the third time, right?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on April 24, 2021, 09:21:27 AM
Oh yeah...I think you've mentioned it before. This is the third time, right?
Married four times, divorced once.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 24, 2021, 10:24:07 AM
Married four times, divorced once.
Oh OK...Sorry to hear that.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on April 24, 2021, 10:32:42 AM
Oh OK...Sorry to hear that.
"It was long ago and far away, and besides, the wench is dead."
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 23, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
I only watch holiday movies near holidays. I don't watch movies while eating meals, snacks are okay. One intermission during the middle of the movie is acceptable. I don't watch movies with people who I know will not enjoy the genre.
My mom used to obsess over watching (and rewatching and rewatching and rewatching...) "It's a Wonderful Life" at Xmas. That stopped when the rest of us turned it into an informal MST3K party. :D
Quote from: trdsf on April 24, 2021, 04:29:54 PM
My mom used to obsess over watching (and rewatching and rewatching and rewatching...) "It's a Wonderful Life" at Xmas. That stopped when the rest of us turned it into an informal MST3K party. :D
That is a classic. I thought it was OK, I don't want to watch it again. There's lots better Christmas movies.
Aww...I loved that movie when I was a kid.
Quote from: SGOS on April 25, 2021, 03:24:16 AM
A lot of people do. Grownups too. I think it had something to do with Jimmy Stewart. People just liked the guy.
"Mortal Combat". Completely unsurprised by the ending.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 23, 2021, 07:17:33 AM
I don't watch movies with people who I know will not enjoy the genre.
It hasn't happened in years, and then you made this post a couple of days ago, without knowing that you were unleashing the demons of doom. Apparently many people want to teach you what to like, by forcing you watch what you hate. This is a very poor strategy to change a person's brain synapses and neural pathways that lead us to joy. Now I want to scream to my brother-in-law, "Leave my synapses alone." He told me today that I needed to watch this TV series called Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist, which is fine, because these kinds of things often introduce you new things. I didn't ask him what it was about. I didn't think that was necessary. I hate musicals and my brother-in-law loves them, and he knows this well. Can't we just leave it at that? When people start dancing and singing I go for the remote. Sometimes I like dancing and singing, but not Broadway style in what is supposed to be a story. The Wizard of Oz is OK, I suppose, in small doses because the story overrides the singing. But I still like the book better without all he pomp. I liked the Blues Brothers. So I'll allow some wiggle room, but show tunes are not negotiable.
Quote from: SGOS on April 25, 2021, 07:38:14 PM
It hasn't happened in years, and then you made this post a couple of days ago, without knowing that you were unleashing the demons of doom. Apparently many people want to teach you what to like, by forcing you watch what you hate. This is a very poor strategy to change a person's brain synapses and neural pathways that lead us to joy. Now I want to scream to my brother-in-law, "Leave my synapses alone." He told me today that I needed to watch this TV series called Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist, which is fine, because these kinds of things often introduce you new things. I didn't ask him what it was about. I didn't think that was necessary. I hate musicals and my brother-in-law loves them, and he knows this well. Can't we just leave it at that? When people start dancing and singing I go for the remote. Sometimes I like dancing and singing, but not Broadway style in what is supposed to be a story. The Wizard of Oz is OK, I suppose, in small doses because the story overrides the singing. But I still like the book better without all he pomp. I liked the Blues Brothers. So I'll allow some wiggle room, but show tunes are not negotiable.
I generally don't like musicals either. But there are a very rare few instances where I can tolerate them. Most of the time, I don't even like the music, and I want to skip to the end of the song.
I don't know if one would consider "O Brother Where Art Thou" a musical. Wikipedia calls it a "crime comedy-drama," but that label doesn't feel satisfactory to me. The musical portions of the movie are very unique. Can't think of any musicals which use the same genres of music, with gospel, blues, and country filling its soundtrack. Also, the music doesn't feel intrusive. It's even worked into the plot, as the main characters accidentally find themselves creating a hit song in a band they started for convenience. The whole movie is weird and cryptic, and the music adds to the atmosphere, sometimes making it feel like a dream.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDEqgmGIVg
In the Blues Brothers, the music is absolutely essential to the plot. This makes sense (to me). It is also important that the music is personally satisfying. In the classic Broadway musicals, the plot is irrelevant (to me). It's serves as little more than an Ed Sullivan person announcing the next act, and they are acts I don't enjoy. The singing is harsh to my ear, and in a cultivated outdated style that leaves me flat. As a standardized art form it is what it is. I love Chicago's Art Institute, but I pass some of the stuff on display. I don't really care if it's there for other's enjoy or just contemplate, but I don't spend time on it. These are my own standards of course. I'm happy my brother-in-law loves musicals, but they annoy me.
I have seen musicals I enjoyed somewhat, some even skirt what I consider the classical centerpieces of the form, but it's rare enough that I can make a generalization. I have a friend who has zero interest in science fiction. I don't feel a great need to retrain him, although I can in no way understand his distaste at all. And I think that was my issue today.
"Blues Brothers" is similar to "Cats", the music is a vehicle for the plot. The Cats demonstrate several kinds of basic dance style. Some friends of mine could rattle them off from memory, but not being gay I keep forgetting them.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 26, 2021, 09:39:25 AM
"Blues Brothers" is similar to "Cats", the music is a vehicle for the plot. The Cats demonstrate several kinds of basic dance style. Some friends of mine could rattle them off from memory, but not being gay I keep forgetting them.
I never saw Cats. It was a category of entertainment that had burned me too many times. My wife had different feelings about it and she and another woman decided to drive 200 miles to see Cats, and of course an overnight stay at a hotel. I was fine with it, and felt lucky she had someone else to indulge her needs with.
Two weeks later the woman she went with came into my office with one of those 10 page catalogs that come occasionally in the mail, and she said with unusual authority, "You have to buy this music box for your wife at Christmas." It was clearly not a recommendation, but at outright order, which I took seriously. So I ordered the music box, and can't remember much about it. I don't think it was cheap, and played in music box technology what I assumed must have been the music theme for Cats. My wife had no idea this was happening, but on Christmas I gave her this little jewelry sized package which she opened wondering what it could be. She took out the music box, opened it and started to cry and cry and cry as it played it's little melody. And I have never before or since felt so proud of myself.
Different people like different things.
The tune would have been "Memory".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-L6rEm0rnY
Yeah that was it. It was a long time ago, but I remember the tune well.
Quote from: SGOS on April 26, 2021, 10:18:11 AM
Yeah that was it. It was a long time ago, but I remember the tune well.
And I knew it would be that tune. My wife at the time used to play it when she wanted to drop a hint. ;-)
Gross Pointe Blank. I've seen it a few times in years and it was one of my fave movies. I'd forgotten all about it. It's still funny and entertaining. LOL E: Good soundtrack too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yaj_mCG7Oeg
Just watched Chinatown. What a classic. Sad about the ending though.
We are watching 'the happening' for the first time.
I do not regret not watching this sooner.
What an absolute shitshow of a movie.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2021, 04:40:24 PM
We are watching 'the happening' for the first time.
I do not regret not watching this sooner.
What an absolute shitshow of a movie.
All that CGI!
;-)
OK, I'm a movie junkie. It's official. Yesterday (Monday), I went to the movies at the local Regal Cinema, which is now in its second week of the reopening. It was not the weekend, but people don't seem to be flooding back to the theater in excited masses. There were 3 cars in the parking lot, and it the first showing of the day at 4:00 PM. In the past, the first showing could be anywhere from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM. There was one concession window opening with no one there except a masked attendant. I shared the movie with a father and his two little girls. I left the theater after 6:00 PM and the parking lot was still empty with 6 or 7 other movies showing, apparently to empty theater stadiums.
I expected more people. The media is always showing photos of maskless people hanging out in dense crowds, but this does not seem to be the case with movie theaters in Christiansburg.
Clever, campy vampire spoof if you are up for that sort of movie. Inspired the TV series under the same title. I give it 4.5/5 ðŸ¿
https://sflix.to/watch-movie/free-what-we-do-in-the-shadows-hd-17484.2508771
(https://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/what-we-do-in-the-shadows.jpg)
Quote from: Cassia on May 25, 2021, 07:49:41 AM
Clever, campy vampire spoof if you are up for that sort of movie. Inspired the TV series under the same title. I give it 4.5/5 ðŸ¿
Yes! I loved that movie. An affectionate parody of vampire films, and hands-down the best one. Fun fact: Twilight became a thing during filming and so they worked in some Twilight jokes.
IIRC, the world could only support a few thousand vampires at the most without breaking the masquerade (revealing to humans the existence of vampires). Otherwise, vampires could be inferred through an unusually high number of disappearances/deaths in the area.
Also, vampires require human helpers now more than ever. Not just to operate high-tech gadgets (you better believe vampires would love video surveillance, both for defensive and offensive purposes) but also to deal with human bureaucracy - vehicle registration, property taxes, etc. Vampires do have the rather nice advantage of being able to live off of their investments through a proxy (they could also steal wealth) and therefore would be able to buy rather large houses, support a fairly lavish lifestyle, and be able to pay human helpers handsomely.
Chaos Walking
22% from critics
71% audiences
I'd give it an 8 or higher. I have no idea what the critics were doing here. This is a unique sci fi film that breaks away from the common molds. It held my attention.
Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2021, 07:31:58 PMChaos Walking
22% from critics
71% audiences
I'd give it an 8 or higher. I have no idea what the critics were doing here. This is a unique sci fi film that breaks away from the common molds. It held my attention.
You had me at Tom Holland. What did you like about it? What makes it unique?
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 25, 2021, 07:42:08 PM
You had me at Tom Holland. What did you like about it? What makes it unique?
They use a plot device that I'd never even thought of before. The adventure is actually quite simple and doesn't rely on the device much, but it comes in handy at one point and is a fun surprise. Then there is the demented preacher who is psychotic, which is always good for a laugh. He doesn't need to be there either, but it's an Easter egg thrown in to test the nerves of believers. I don't want to spoil anymore.
I was on page 169 last time I was here. You people watch too many movies. :P
And go through lots of lotion.
Quote from: Sorginak on May 25, 2021, 08:44:44 PM
I was on page 169 last time I was here. You people watch too many movies. :P
It's been a year of COVID.
What else were we supposed to do?
Work out? Write novels? Better ourselves? Show dedication in creative ways to the people we love?
Right.
:p
I'm on page 4319 of "A Short History of the Covid-19 Era." Available RSN.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 26, 2021, 10:20:37 AM
It's been a year of COVID.
What else were we supposed to do?
Work out? Write novels? Better ourselves? Show dedication in creative ways to the people we love?
Right.
:p
*cries in 200+ pages of research, roughly 10 pages complete of a short story and already badly in need of major structural changes*
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8426594/ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8426594/)
The WindQuoteA plains-woman faces the harshness and isolation of the untamed land in the Western frontier of the late 1800s.
Available on
Netflix.
The Creeping Terror (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057970/) 1963. I used to think the guy in the gorilla suit with the diver's helmet was the nadir for bad movie monsters. WRONG. This is the ultimate "guy pretending to be an alien in an insane outfit dragging ten feet of what appears to be his own dung" movie. We were calling this "the movie where nobody is smart enough to run away." The subplot of "the government knows about all this shit!" is just to make things sound weirder. UFO lands, government send a farm truck load of soldiers and ONE scientist. From there things go down hill.
Nobody - Bob Odenkirk
10/10
Assuming you don't mind violence, this is over the top. You've seen the premise before, but this is a ridiculous riot of bloody fun. What a good film!
Mobile Suit Gundam Part 1 of 3.
10/10
Quote from: SGOS on June 23, 2021, 06:58:36 PM
Nobody - Bob Odenkirk
10/10
Assuming you don't mind violence, this is over the top. You've seen the premise before, but this is a ridiculous riot of bloody fun. What a good film!
Thanks. Just watched it. That was a lot of fun.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 14, 2021, 07:54:16 AM
The Creeping Terror (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057970/) 1963. I used to think the guy in the gorilla suit with the diver's helmet was the nadir for bad movie monsters. WRONG. This is the ultimate "guy pretending to be an alien in an insane outfit dragging ten feet of what appears to be his own dung" movie. We were calling this "the movie where nobody is smart enough to run away." The subplot of "the government knows about all this shit!" is just to make things sound weirder. UFO lands, government send a farm truck load of soldiers and ONE scientist. From there things go down hill.
There's nothing quite like being terrorized by a monster that's obviously a bolt of carpeting draped over a dozen underpaid extras while co-eds feed themselves to you... if you must watch it, I recommend doing it with two 'bots and a meat puppet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq_Spa9PTyw
This one belongs in the "How To Not Direct" Hall of Fame.
It seems that show will never run out of really bad sci fi films. Sci Fi has progressed since I was a kid.
Quote from: SGOS on June 26, 2021, 05:14:38 AM
It seems that show will never run out of really bad sci fi films. Sci Fi has progressed since I was a kid.
I have two "box sets" with fifty horrible scifi and "horror" movies in each. $19.95 for each box.
Birds of Prey
Firstly, I think it's one of the best movies DC put out post-Nolan trilogy; they managed to succeed on capturing the cranked-up humor that Marvel brought to the game in Thor: Ragnarok after mostly failing at that with Suicide Squad as well as kept what made them good in characters that are very blatant analogies to psychological disorders (Zsasz's fetishism of carving himself and victims, Black Mask and his insecurity and immaturity, and Harley the psychologist even making quips about it).
The fight scenes were also really well filmed, with some of the choreography going on for pretty ended runs without cuts and with all the actors involved actually appearing to be doing something most of the time. In some cases, it almost had a John Wick feeling as the combat itself told a story and progressed in a very video game fashion... at others though it was like a scene from a Broadway play as the characters dance their choreographs across wooden cutouts.
Story was pretty good, they fleshed out the characters well enough... I think the fact that it is narrated by an untrustworthy narrator kinda excuses the fact they didn't have 3 hours to really flesh everything out.
All in all, a pretty good movie and I think the negative reactions from Dude-bros and conservatives was a heavy reason it didn't get the recognition it probably actually deserves. I would watch it over any other post-Batman DC movie other than maybe Watchmen. The Joker is a great movie, but not a watch again type of movie tbh.
T/Y, have to give that one a look.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 23, 2021, 03:57:34 AM
The Joker is a great movie, but not a watch again type of movie tbh.
I doubt that anyone would give Joker as high a score as I did, but I consider it the best movie of all genres in 2019, dwarfing whatever might be number 2. I saw it 4 times in theaters, and at least 4 more times on the disk that I own. I even forget that it was a DC film, because they went so far off their usual formula. It's character development was extraordinarily realistic. While Joker's behavior was extreme, his motives and backstory were easily empathize-able. In the next Batman film, I'll be in the Joker's corner. The film actually justifies Joker's existence, and I no longer see him as a psychopathic clown, but just a severely damaged person trying to balance his reality.
BUT in the comics he was a psychopath. So you have to leave the genre entirely to make him sympathetic.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 23, 2021, 07:43:46 AM
BUT in the comics he was a psychopath. So you have to leave the genre entirely to make him sympathetic.
I agree. That was part of the script's departure from DC's usual formula. But it was only part of the films strength. The strength of film came entirely from things generally outside of the superhero format. As you point out, empathy for the Joker presents a problem for the future development of the plot, and it does for me as well. The whole Batman story is dependent on certain concepts, Joker being a psychopath is one of them. How does DC deal with Joker from now on, when at some point, Batman will have to become his enemy again? Of course the problem is not unsolvable. And solving the unsolvable is one thing Hollywood does all the time. And it may well bring new interest to the ongoing story just to see how DC deals with this.
However, my guess is that the Joker movie was an anomaly, a stroke of accidental genius that most of us experience only rarely before we slip back into mediocrity. I tried to predict how Marvel would bring back the Avengers after most of the team had been wiped out. I correctly predicted time travel, but that Ant Man twist caught be totally off guard. Hollywood finds a way. So do the comics.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 23, 2021, 07:43:46 AM
BUT in the comics he was a psychopath. So you have to leave the genre entirely to make him sympathetic.
I'd argue he's psychopathic in the film too. Being sympathetic doesn't mean he's justified. He still does bad things, and he delights in it. Killing brings him happiness, and he tells the whole world so on live TV. He's also severely lacking in social skills. The way he waits too long to do that "shoot me" joke with that neighbor he likes is uncomfortable to watch.
But he wasn't a histrionic type of psycho. "Let's blow up Gotham just to piss off Batman!" wasn't this Joker's style.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 23, 2021, 10:01:26 AM
But he wasn't a histrionic type of psycho. "Let's blow up Gotham just to piss off Batman!" wasn't this Joker's style.
Yes, he was a different Joker, but I suppose you could make the case that every Joker since the 1970s was a little different than the previous one. This last one was just farther away from the mold than anything I remember. During the last movie he morphed from a loser losing into a loser that wanted to level the playing field. Granted there were some murders that were unexplainable, like killing the social worker at the end. Although, she could also be seen as just part of the system that Joker was fighting. I didn't see him as killing for fun, but more like retaliating. Was he a criminal? Absolutely. But I'm not sure he was a psychopath, whether that makes much difference, I don't know. But if villains need to be scary, DC created a good one even if you might feel some sympathy for him.
Quote from: SGOS on July 23, 2021, 07:13:03 AMI doubt that anyone would give Joker as high a score as I did, but I consider it the best movie of all genres in 2019, dwarfing whatever might be number 2.
I would.
Quote from: SGOS on July 23, 2021, 10:25:37 AMI didn't see him as killing for fun, but more like retaliating.
He was definitely getting back at some people who have wronged him, but when he was on TV and admitted to killing the guys on the subway, he was asked if he thought it was funny. His response was, "I do, and I'm tired of pretending it's not."
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 23, 2021, 03:01:21 PM
He was definitely getting back at some people who have wronged him, but when he was on TV and admitted to killing the guys on the subway, he was asked if he thought it was funny. His response was, "I do, and I'm tired of pretending it's not."
I don't know, and I've puzzled over that unexpected scene on more than one occasion. Up until that time, he struggled with the concept of "fun", uncontrollably laughing at inappropriate times, and was totally incapable of humor in his stand up comedy. I thought that was an important transition in his development from loser to villain. Prior to that he was preoccupied with being a good person, the perfect son, and self pitying victim. At that moment, he clearly redefined himself when his idol verbally attacked him after spending two nights publicly humiliating him on the show. Maybe that was the moment he embraced his own psychopathology. On the other hand, it also seemed like he had been totally out of touch with reality, and I always thought psychopaths were gifted readers of reality. Joker lived in a fantasy world. I'm thinking he was a paranoid schizophrenic, which I was told by a psych professor was the worst diagnosis a patient could have, which makes him even more scary.
It's probably a mistake to try to diagnose him. We'll never get anything concrete, and his symptoms vary wildly. But in this movie, he loves black humor (Ma'am, your son's dead! *laughter*) and definitely seems to have a vindictive, sadist streak.
Though, now that you mention it, textbook sociopathy is often defined by these three key characteristics:
Boldness. Low fear including stress-tolerance, toleration of unfamiliarity and danger, and high self-confidence and social assertiveness.
Disinhibition. Poor impulse control including problems with planning and foresight, lacking affect and urge control, demand for immediate gratification, and poor behavioral restraints.
Meanness. Lacking empathy and close attachments with others, disdain of close attachments, use of cruelty to gain empowerment, exploitative tendencies, defiance of authority, and destructive excitement seeking.
Sound familiar?
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 23, 2021, 10:53:22 PM
It's probably a mistake to try to diagnose him.
Crazy people are often a hodgepodge of symptoms that reflect an array behaviors. I don't know how psychiatrists nail a thing down to one disorder, but they do and often announce it with a bit of undeserved flair I think. Medical science is easier, where a pathologist can usually point to a specific broken part and fix it or remove it, and the patient goes on living a normal life.
I used to volunteer for night duty at a half-way house for veterans being considered for full release from custody. I would be available to talk with them all through the night. This ranged from one-on-one to full blown bull sessions. I made my notes before leaving the next morning. After hours of talking with one dude my notes ran to just one line. "This guy should never, ever, walk the streets again." I was a combat veteran and the gent made me very nervous without doing anything overt. He was just creepy.
Sometimes "creepy" as a diagnosis says more than a more professional diagnosis from the social workers desktop reference manual. There was a guy I taught with that was discovered to be inappropriately touching 7th grade girls in his classroom. He was fired, but protested, and after several public town meetings attended by hundreds of parents, he agreed with the school board to be tested by a psychologist or psychiatrist to be allowed to come back the next year. He didn't show up the next year, but no one was given any explanation of why. A few years later I and the superintendent of schools were both retired and got to talking about the incident, and he confided to me that the test results came back with the appropriate labels used in a professional diagnosis, but the most damaging part of the report simply said, "This person should never be allowed to be alone with young children."
"Sometimes", aka "rarely".
Had no idea a new Suicide Squad movie was coming out... and honestly, I'm kinda excited about it since DC seems to maybe be getting a little more on track AND it's directed by Gunn. I'm keeping my expectations low, but I'm letting myself have a sliver of hope.
Also, just started the Harley series that I never knew existed (or that DC had their own streaming service...) and holy shit it's good lol.
I'm feeling a bit whimsical today. Think I'll rewatch Airplane for some silly giggles.
The gf wanted to watch 'risen', I think because it was with the Draco malfoy guy.
As far as movies go, it's not half bad. Believable acting, good scenery, likeable main character, good shots and costumes. I may not be a fan of the whole Jesus myth, but I can say this is a good movie.
Hell of a lot better than the utter bile that was the passion of the christ. This film at least seems to care about the message that Christians claim to care about: loving thine neighbor.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 27, 2021, 04:44:07 PM
The gf wanted to watch 'risen', I think because it was with the Draco malfoy guy.
As far as movies go, it's not half bad. Believable acting, good scenery, likeable main character, good shots and costumes. I may not be a fan of the whole Jesus myth, but I can say this is a good movie.
Hell of a lot better than the utter bile that was the passion of the christ. This film at least seems to care about the message that Christians claim to care about: loving thine neighbor.
So I checked out the trailer......"as told through the eyes of the non believer." Right! They even have the debunked shroud. There was that Russell Crow 'Noah' movie a while back. I tried to watch it but it got so stupid I strapped on my chute and bailed early.
Quote from: Cassia on July 27, 2021, 06:07:32 PM
So I checked out the trailer......"as told through the eyes of the non believer." Right! They even have the debunked shroud. There was that Russell Crow 'Noah' movie a while back. I tried to watch it but it got so stupid I strapped on my chute and bailed early.
Don't get me wrong. It's not Oscar material, which in nf by itself doesn't say much. But of all the christian films I've ever seen, this is easily the second best.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 27, 2021, 06:37:25 PM
Don't get me wrong. It's not Oscar material, which in nf by itself doesn't say much. But of all the christian films I've ever seen, this is easily the second best.
It may be Ok drama-wise....pretty sure it is viewed as a documentary by millions, LOL. I don't see how Jesus's real message is about love. Those hate-based preachers like the Westboro church actually have it right. Now I would go see a movie like that, LOL.
Quote from: Cassia on July 27, 2021, 07:12:17 PM
It may be Ok drama-wise....pretty sure it is viewed as a documentary by millions, LOL. I don't see how Jesus's real message is about love. Those hate-based preachers like the Westboro church actually have it right. Now I would go see a movie like that, LOL.
It's really quite difficult to figure out exactly what Jesus' message is supposed to be. Take into account the number of different bibles used to 'prove' his message, how many different sects of christianity there are, each with a different take on what his message is supposed to be and mix in all the contradictory things Jesus is supposed to have said and it is impossible to pinpoint what his message(s) are. He can be made to say whatever the speaker wants him to say.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 27, 2021, 09:03:13 PM
It's really quite difficult to figure out exactly what Jesus' message is supposed to be. Take into account the number of different bibles used to 'prove' his message, how many different sects of christianity there are, each with a different take on what his message is supposed to be and mix in all the contradictory things Jesus is supposed to have said and it is impossible to pinpoint what his message(s) are. He can be made to say whatever the speaker wants him to say.
Yeah, almost like a bunch of people made it all up at different times for different purposes. The whole "abandon your family to follow me" and "you must to love me and my dictator/father" or we will burn you forever is pure master/slave and masochistic nonsense. If that is love than I don't want it.
Quote from: Cassia on July 27, 2021, 11:11:11 PM
Yeah, almost like a bunch of people made it all up at different times for different purposes. The whole "abandon your family to follow me" and "you must to love me and my dictator/father" or we will burn you forever is pure master/slave and masochistic nonsense. If that is love than I don't want it.
Amen!!
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug". (Second viewing, after years of owning the videos.) Essential back story for the later (chronologically) movies. I had never learned much about the Necromancer, so I went into this originally with no small amount of curiosity. It keeps its children's story level with things like the bird poop on Radegast's face and Beorn's affection for the tiniest creatures. And oh so beautiful. Plus the scenes on the High Fells added depth.
Has anyone watched the all Middle Earth movies starting from Hobbits to the LotR, extended versions? Is it doable in one day?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 28, 2021, 09:19:24 AM
Has anyone watch the all Middle Earth movies starting from Hobbits to the LotR, extended versions? Is it doable in one day?
Technically, yes, but why would you do that to yourself? lol. Just watch the good ones (ie, not the Hobbit movies). Even that would take you plenty long to do. IMO, the first two Hobbit movies are mostly fine, but the third one was just a mess. Rather than stick the landing, they face planted.
I'm currently watching the second one, having fun without any baggage going in. YMMV
A lot of people complained about the second movie being too fake looking with the physics of their CGI scenes. I thought it was fine. It was definitely nothing compared to the Super Mario physics displayed by Legolas in the third movie.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 28, 2021, 11:48:04 AM
A lot of people complained about the second movie being too fake looking with the physics of their CGI scenes. I thought it was fine. It was definitely nothing compared to the Super Mario physics displayed by Legolas in the third movie.
Knee-jerk reactions to anything vaguely CGI is getting tedious. If you want to see a mythical world there are few real world locations that can be used. Jackson used the shit out of what he could do with reality in the first series, actually building Hobbiton. But Minas Tirith wasn't going to be done that way.
I know it's cool to hate the things everybody else hates, but it's not rational.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 28, 2021, 12:48:17 PM
Knee-jerk reactions to anything vaguely CGI is getting tedious. If you want to see a mythical world there are few real world locations that can be used. Jackson used the shit out of what he could do with reality in the first series, actually building Hobbiton. But Minas Tirith wasn't going to be done that way.
I know it's cool to hate the things everybody else hates, but it's not rational.
Not to mention they are getting really fucking good at CGI.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 28, 2021, 01:16:53 PM
Not to mention they are getting really fucking good at CGI.
Yeah, I get the feeling that the snooty ones haven't watch any movies with CGI since the '60s.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 28, 2021, 11:48:04 AM
A lot of people complained about the second movie being too fake looking with the physics of their CGI scenes. I thought it was fine. It was definitely nothing compared to the Super Mario physics displayed by Legolas in the third movie.
Legolas wasn't exactly bound by Earthly physics in books either. See the pass of Caradhras.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 28, 2021, 05:33:51 PM
Legolas wasn't exactly bound by Earthly physics in books either. See the pass of Caradhras.
I know, Tolkien's elves are magically light on their feet, but not sinking in the snow and leaping off of multiple falling blocks to cross a collapsing bridge are two different things.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 28, 2021, 05:45:50 PM
I know, Tolkien's elves are magically light on their feet, but not sinking in the snow and leaping off of multiple falling blocks to cross a collapsing bridge are two different things.
Why?
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 28, 2021, 09:43:14 AM
Technically, yes, but why would you do that to yourself? lol. Just watch the good ones (ie, not the Hobbit movies). Even that would take you plenty long to do. IMO, the first two Hobbit movies are mostly fine, but the third one was just a mess. Rather than stick the landing, they face planted.
LOL I have already done that a few times with LotR. I think I need to make use of those 'Hobbit' movies. And why not. Something to do it. Things are so bad here...I need weird stuff to do.
The Dwarf Kingdom imagery is worth the sit, IMNSHO.
At the risk of sounding snooty, I think all of Tolkien's stories would be better served by old fashion Disney animation, not even Pixar. When the elves appear, I always have this "knee jerk" reaction: Those aren't elves. They are just people, mature adults, or maybe Vulcans trying to act like elves. The only convincing movie character is Gollum.
Quote from: SGOS on July 29, 2021, 07:49:25 AM
At the risk of sounding snooty, I think all of Tolkien's stories would be better served by old fashion Disney animation, not even Pixar. When the elves appear, I always have this "knee jerk" reaction: Those aren't elves. They are just people, mature adults, or maybe Vulcans trying to act like elves. The only convincing movie character is Gollum.
Serkis was excellent, I'll give you that. But if you can't suspend disbelief then you're going to continue to be unhappy as the movies evolve.
I knew I'd get a reaction from that.
Quote from: SGOS on July 29, 2021, 08:42:27 AM
I knew I'd get a reaction from that.
You're bored too? I've counted the holes in the acoustic tiles twice, then counted the holes in the adjacent tiles once each to confirm my count.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 28, 2021, 05:45:50 PM
I know, Tolkien's elves are magically light on their feet, but not sinking in the snow and leaping off of multiple falling blocks to cross a collapsing bridge are two different things.
Physics is physics. If Legolas (more mass less surface area) can defy Newton's third law by walking on top of snow a Hobbit (less mass more surface area) can't there is no reason he can't defy Newton's second law by climbing a pile of rocks in freefall.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 29, 2021, 10:33:11 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chR0mNL4-Vs
:rrotflmao: :rrotflmao: :rrotflmao:
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 28, 2021, 11:48:04 AMA lot of people complained about the second movie being too fake looking with the physics of their CGI scenes. I thought it was fine. It was definitely nothing compared to the Super Mario physics displayed by Legolas in the third movie.
I don't think it was so much the CGI as the abysmal pacing and just a complete lack of emotional connection to any of the characters. If you were to torture me and told me that my torture would end the moment I recalled any personality traits or names of any of the dwarves, my torture would be unending.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 29, 2021, 12:38:48 PM
Physics is physics. If Legolas (more mass less surface area) can defy Newton's third law by walking on top of snow a Hobbit (less mass more surface area) can't there is no reason he can't defy Newton's second law by climbing a pile of rocks in freefall.
BUT! He didn't leave prints in the snow, BUT the rocks reacted to his passing. In one case he has no down force, in the other he does.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 29, 2021, 02:09:27 PMBUT! He didn't leave prints in the snow
Is that the actual objection? Are you presenting the argument against immersion-breaking physics-defying rule of cool stuff in an accurate and honest way?
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 29, 2021, 04:42:20 PM
Is that the actual objection? Are you presenting the argument against immersion-breaking physics-defying rule of cool stuff in an accurate and honest way?
Not at all, I'm stay in the paradigm. I keep in mind that's it just a movie, it just a movie, it just a movie, it just a movie, it just a movie, it just a movie, it just a movie, it just a movie, it just a movie, ...
As a follow up, I did watch Airplane….still enough chuckles…..
Quote from: aitm on July 29, 2021, 07:51:53 PM
As a follow up, I did watch Airplane….still enough chuckles…..
Both of those were classics.
Jungle Cruise 8.5/10. Surprisingly good. There were a couple of twists and turns down this river. Would watch again.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 29, 2021, 10:23:05 PM
Jungle Cruise 8.5/10. Surprisingly good. There were a couple of twists and turns down this river. Would watch again.
Danke. Boss Lady wants to see it. I'm a given as I liked the Jumanji movies.
It reminded me most of Pirates of the Caribbean, just a bit more upbeat. Jumanji was more wondrous than adventurous, imho.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 29, 2021, 11:32:45 PM
It reminded me most of Pirates of the Caribbean, just a bit more upbeat. Jumanji was more wondrous than adventurous, imho.
POVs are POVs.
Not a movie I've seen, but rather one(s) I want to see...
As studios are more and more being allowed to depict heavy violence, I would love to see a movie or series set during the reigns of Vlad III "the Impaler" ... either following his story or at least in Wallachia at the time. Firstly, the setting is just so "alien" to Western Europe (as so much of Eastern Europe is) and secondly it's just a really interesting era of horror, violence and political intrigue... maybe something akin to "The Borgias" or GoT but without the dragons.
Really I just want to see T.V. branch out and start telling tells from Eastern Europe, Africa, Caucasia, India, Russia... there are so many amazing folk-tales and settings that are just made to be told in a modern setting but no one bothers to tell them or to expand on them.
Media in the various countries tell the stories their audience are familiar with. Less "education" needed, more time for mindless violence.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 01, 2021, 08:38:09 AM
Media in the various countries tell the stories their audience are familiar with. Less "education" needed, more time for mindless violence.
I suppose so, but how many people really knew much about the political machinations between the various powerful families that made up the Vatican's Cardinals as they attempt to secure Papal power or about 700-A.D. Norwegians getting ready to set to sell for Britain and fuck things up other than just, "Heh, longship go brrrr"?
The lore can be set up within the first 10 minutes before the title card, and them boom bam pow into it we go.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 01, 2021, 08:04:04 AMAs studios are more and more being allowed to depict heavy violence, I would love to see a movie or series set during the reigns of Vlad III "the Impaler"
IKR?! The Teutonic wars, as well. Or the Vandal empire. Geiseric the movie could be badass AF, the next Gladiator or Spartacus.
QuoteReally I just want to see T.V. branch out and start telling tells from Eastern Europe, Africa, Caucasia, India, Russia... there are so many amazing folk-tales and settings that are just made to be told in a modern setting but no one bothers to tell them or to expand on them.
Get outta my head!
We are seeing a little bit of this. Animated family movies are moving further from Western fairy tales into hispanic (I know Spain is western, but you get what I'm saying) and Hawaiian territory in recent years.
I've always wanted an uncensored, unglorified, brutally realistic Medici series. Long, detailed, shot in original places. Everrrryything. Make it a series of series. And I'll throw a Catherine de Medici spin with it. I'm sure gore lovers would appericate that too, lol. :p Hmm... OK, maybe a Michelangelo series to lighten the bunch.
The Saw Franchise is already beyond my limit.
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2021, 10:13:37 AM
The Saw Franchise is already beyond my limit.
Then you're probably not a fan of the Hellraiser movies?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 01, 2021, 11:03:15 AM
Then you're probably not a fan of the Hellraiser movies?
I learned quite a long time ago that I'm a lightweight when it comes to movies. Hate the Hellraiser type--and horror in general. Also cannot stand the Old Yeller types, either. Kill off the main hero character, but never the dog!! So, my range of movies that appeal to me is pretty limited. But I did find to my surprise, that I like the John Wick, Jack Reacher, Equalizer type of movies.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 01, 2021, 11:03:15 AM
Then you're probably not a fan of the Hellraiser movies?
I have never seen one. I probably should just as a tolerance check.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 01, 2021, 11:18:00 AM
I did find to my surprise, that I like the John Wick, Jack Reacher, Equalizer type of movies.
I sort my movies by genre. I have one for "Revenge Films," but I think there's only about 10 movies in that group. It's almost embarrassing that I seek these out, and that I put them where I can find them fast. The most recent was Nobody, with the guy that plays the lawyer in Breaking Bad. Can't think of his name at the moment.
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2021, 12:55:04 PM
I sort my movies by genre. I have one for "Revenge Films," but I think there's only about 10 movies in that group. It's almost embarrassing that I seek these out, and that I put them where I can find them fast. The most recent was Nobody, with the guy that plays the lawyer in Breaking Bad. Can't think of his name at the moment.
I guess the Equalizer type movies would be 'revenge' films. A Knight's Tale is an example. It is a nobody makes good against all odds, type of movie. But it is also a revenge movie in that the hero gets revenge on the main bad guy. So, I'd watch revenge movies--good category.
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2021, 12:50:14 PM
I have never seen one. I probably should just as a tolerance check.
Extreme sado-masochistic movies.
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2021, 10:13:37 AMThe Saw Franchise is already beyond my limit.
Same. I can take violent AF movies like Equilibrium where it's not too cruel or gory. But I can't watch torture or really gory stuff. The Walking Dead with Lucille is right at the very edge of what I can tolerate.
Suicide Squad. Easily 9/10, if not higher. Badass seal of approval.
Great quirky and dark humor. Lots and lots of action. These guys legitimately acted like some pick-up-groups I've been a part of.
This movie is leaps and bounds above its infamous predecessor. Such a huge difference between two movies with the same premise when one clearly had talent and vision and the other clearly didn't. Masterwork quality vs kluged together.
Is Amanda Waller's brief to kill off all the supers she can find?
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 12, 2021, 12:14:16 AM
This movie is leaps and bounds above its infamous predecessor.
That's good to hear, because the concept is a good one. Too good to waste on a weak script.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 12, 2021, 06:18:33 AM
Is Amanda Waller's brief to kill off all the supers she can find?
That's pretty much her MO. She's surprisingly short-sighted with the lives under her care. Even villains are assets and you try to keep assets alive as often as possible. From the looks of things, she barely even briefs them (even then, very little is actually planned in advance), they get no armor or support of any kind, and there's no plan B if things go awry. Hell, their power sets and personalities aren't even matched to the mission or to each other. It really seems like she's just throwing whatever she has at the wall and seeing what sticks.
But enough with the Vietnam analogies, eh mate.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 12, 2021, 07:30:06 AM
That's pretty much her MO. She's surprisingly short-sighted with the lives under her care. Even villains are assets and you try to keep assets alive as often as possible. From the looks of things, she barely even briefs them (even then, very little is actually planned in advance), they get no armor or support of any kind, and there's no plan B if things go awry. Hell, their power sets and personalities aren't even matched to the mission or to each other. It really seems like she's just throwing whatever she has at the wall and seeing what sticks.
For what it's worth I think that makes her an incredibly realistic character. She is not at all a military character but rather a political science major who became a congressional aide and then worked her way to the top by being as ruthless as brutal as possible... and when we look at historical strongmen that is often exactly how they treated their soldiers; as cannon fodder expected to win the war in one offensive.
She is a politician trying to play the hero general and she is way in over her depth, but her arrogance and lust for power means she will not only never realize it but just become more and more ruthless if she receives any sort of (warranted) criticism. That and she is just a regular ol' douche nozzle.
I fucking hate her lol, but she is realistic... which is probably why she is so hateable as, unlike most villains, her motives are 100% realistic.
Himmler, or Felix Dzerzhinsky? Any better equivalents?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 12, 2021, 08:44:00 AM
Himmler, or Felix Dzerzhinsky? Any better equivalents?
Hitler as well, though in his defense he did at least see combat in the first World War; personality wise he fits the bill perfectly though and ultimately he was a far better politician than he was soldier.
James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan and the Lords leading the Light Brigade at the Battle of Balaclava comes to mind if we are thinking further back; a landed aristocrat placed in charge for his political position rather than expertise, as even before then he had made multiple blunders but still rose through the ranks because of his status.
If we wanna keep it in Britain I would also say Churchill during the Gallipoli Campaign. Going old school, Marcus Licinius Crassus and his attempt to invade Parthia, Pierre-Charles Villeneuve at Trafalgar... Santa Anna here in Texas... and honestly just a slew of feudal lords from Europe to Japan who had no clue what they were getting themselves into but thought, "Fuck it, my men may die but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for more power.".
I really probably should know more failures by name because you learn just as much through failure as you do success... but we tend to focus on the winner instead, for obvious reason.
Have you guys played the Telltale Batman series? Amanda Waller is in the second of those games too. The game essentially asks you to chose between her and Commissioner Gordon, and yeah. No one in their right mind is going to side with the douche. The choices you make can lead to her being either an annoying ally or an even more annoying enemy. I fucking hate Waller, but I think we're supposed to. lol
She's also in the animated version of Suicide Squad, which is an okay movie. Better than the first live action one. Follows the current trend of animated DC stuff unnecessarily oversexualizing its female characters, so there's that. Waller's pretty much the same in that version too. She just sends the Suicide Squad into a mission, not explaining what she expects them to do, and just expecting them to follow orders blindly. This, of course, does not work, and all hell breaks loose. At the end of the movie, Batman tries to warn her not to play with fire, but she unwisely chooses to ignore his advice and continue to make herself the target of violent bad guys.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 12, 2021, 09:47:51 AM
Hitler as well, though in his defense he did at least see combat in the first World War; personality wise he fits the bill perfectly though and ultimately he was a far better politician than he was soldier.
Waller and the other two I mentioned were flunkies. Different category for Fuehrers.
My introduction to Waller was in the Justice League animated tv show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTXMyuKaFPo
In that show, she's a hardass, paranoid (somewhat understandably), morally gray (but not evil). Overall, a real anti-hero. Not a villain.
Other series have her as a straight-up villain.
Till Death
Megan Fox is NOT the worst actress you have ever seen. She redeems herself in this movie, and I've got to tell you, I WAS surprised. The first 20 minutes drag, but the film gradually pulls you in while the tension builds in this bloody thriller.
Beer and potato chips, old style French onion dip and settled for the comedy Hitmans wife’s bodyguard….or whatever the hell it is. Goofy, dumb, but fun and a couple surprise in characters that makes one just giggle. Will never become a cult movie…even goofier than Rocky Horror, but at the end I realized I enjoyed it and had fun. That’s a win for me.
Quote from: aitm on August 17, 2021, 08:21:16 AM
even goofier than Rocky Horror,
Goofier than Rocky Horror?? I can't believe anything could be that goofy. Now don't get me wrong. I love "goofy", but if anyone starts singing a musical number, I'll be outa there faster than the Red Blue Blur.
We watched 'there will be blood' for the first time. Been meaning to watch it for a while, and now it came on TV so we recorded it.
Gf kept falling asleep, not because she didn't like it but due to genuine fatigue. And despite it being a great movie, it is not a fast paced one.
Kind of sucked that I had to watch it over the span of three nights. But it kind of added to drawing me in to see what would come next.
Loved it. Stories about greed always seem to hit home with me. Great performances overall.
Did think Eli and Paul were actually the same person for about half of the flick.
No idea why this idea popped (or pooped) into my mind. I wondered if any major movies have been made and released to theaters, that had no music. Personally I like music and I like it in movies. But then, when going about my daily life there is no music playing in the background (unless I produce it myself). I found this article.
15 Great Movies With No Musical Score.
https://thecinemaholic.com/great-movies-with-no-musical-score/
Would you believe I have not seen a single one of these? Has anyone seen any of these--and if so, did you miss music, or not?
Seen "Dog Day Afternoon." Everybody was chanting "Attica! Attica! Attica!" for months after. And most of them had no idea what that meant, even after having seen the movie.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 18, 2021, 06:31:21 PM
Seen "Dog Day Afternoon." Everybody was chanting "Attica! Attica! Attica!" for months after. And most of them had no idea what that meant, even after having seen the movie.
Did you miss the music??
Watched Tenet a few days ago. While I was lost for the first half, I started to understand the whole reverse time travel thing more in the second half and thought the film was actually pretty cool. Nor perfect, but up there with other Chris Nolan films.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 18, 2021, 06:13:06 PM
No idea why this idea popped (or pooped) into my mind. I wondered if any major movies have been made and released to theaters, that had no music. Personally I like music and I like it in movies. But then, when going about my daily life there is no music playing in the background (unless I produce it myself). I found this article.
15 Great Movies With No Musical Score.
https://thecinemaholic.com/great-movies-with-no-musical-score/
Would you believe I have not seen a single one of these? Has anyone seen any of these--and if so, did you miss music, or not?
My Dinner with André.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 18, 2021, 06:50:46 PM
Did you miss the music??
Eh? I saw the movie once, original release. /clueless
I heard a coworker years ago tell another that he had watched Dinner with André as if it were some cinematic event. So I rented it, but I don't think I got through the whole thing.
Old. Probably the laziest, least interesting twist I've ever seen in my life.
[spoiler]Basically, it's Cabin in the Woods. Or maybe The Scorch Trials. That's it. No double twist, no scifi shenanigans, nothing. This probably wouldn't cut the mustard for a Twilight Zone episode, let alone a feature film. But I paid, so...[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 19, 2021, 11:45:56 PM
Old. Probably the laziest, least interesting twist I've ever seen in my life.
The core idea seemed like it offered some possibility, but the trailer made it seem like people just got old. I'm passing on it.
Rewatching HBO's "Chernobyl", and I think the second time around makes it so much better; at least the first episode is some of the best horror I have ever seen and I didn't realise it on first watching.
On the first viewing I was very much invested in it as a story, with my focus being on plot points and narrative. I found it plenty enjoyable watching it like this and that there were elements of horror in doing so, but I've found that if you really try to insert yourself into the eyes and mind of the characters it truly becomes one of the most terrifying pieces of media I have ever seen.
Imagine being the firefighters who are awoken by the explosion at 1:30 in the morning, receiving an all-hands-on-deck call for what you are told was a roof fire at the facility; you don't have the slightest clue of how nuclear radiation works and anyways you are only responding to a roof fire so there is nothing to worry about... until you get there and see the air glowing, the building destroyed the taste of metal in your mouth and your skin starts to sunburn in the middle of the night.
Next to you a coworker picks up a strange piece of rock, and minutes later you hear him screaming in pain and his hand literally bursting open with wounds and burns... and then you are told it's not good enough to sit outside this building, you need to go inside to put the fire out. You still don't really know what's going on, but you're being told it's what you have to do.
Now imagine that from top to bottom, no one knows what is actually going on... and the few who have a clue are either in denial or hiding it because they fear the governing party more than the radiation that they do fully understand. And once you do learn what's going on... now it's even worse, because you know you are standing next to a flame that is putting out as much radiation as two Hiroshima bombs every hour.
If you can really get inside the mind of these people, it is fucking terrifying... far more than any monster flick. At least monsters are a physical creature you can in some sense understand... but this is completely beyond your average citizen's understanding and cant even be seen. It's what we don't, or can't, know or understand that is truly the most terrifying and I think the director did an amazing job of portraying the show as accurately as possible (even releasing a podcast with each episode explaining what changes they did make and why they did it) rather than over-dramatizing it; it's the fact that it was so real that makes it so terrifying.
Don't Breathe I became aware of Stephen Lang when he played Gen. Pickett in the mini-series Gettysburg. He was the man who (albeit unknowingly) informed Bobby Lee that the South had lost the war.
In this movie he's a rage-monster and he is believable to a frightening extent. Damaged in war, devastated in peace, he's relentless and merciless.
Don't Breathe 2 is out, I hope it continues at the level of the first one.
Don't Breathe is not my favorite genre, but the first one kept me on the edge of my seat, which is very unusual for this type of film.
I liked the individuality of the characters. Instead of three bad boys they had three people with different levels of intent and purpose.
The reason it affected me so viscerally, was that the characters seemed unusually real. It's been a while since I watched it, but as I recall, none of them acted stupidly, which is the main gimmick of Hollywood horror. Their only stupid mistake was to decide to rob a guy's house. Once in, they were trapped, and at his mercy. So in a way, they got what they deserved for their criminal intent, but it was totally disproportionate, and so far beyond Hammurabi's Code that it was surreal.
Their BIG MISTAKE© was to assume he'd be an easy target.
Tomorrow War. I liked it. I give it a 8. Lots of action, touch of comedy…end was predictable…but open to alternate mental thoughts. Enjoyed it.
Holy shit! I'm fangasming right now! This looks so good!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6T_iMvoRs
Were that Doc Ock?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 24, 2021, 06:10:26 AM
Were that Doc Ock?
The old Peter Parker is long gone, now a grown up, Doctor Octavian looks pretty much the same. They didn't even have to get a new actor.
Quote from: SGOS on August 24, 2021, 06:28:41 AM
The old Peter Parker is long gone, now a grown up, Doctor Octavian looks pretty much the same. They didn't even have to get a new actor.
Didn't need one if the timeline is wonky.
If any of you guys haven't watched Loki yet, it's pretty much required viewing for No Way Home. It makes all this multiverse talk make much more sense.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 24, 2021, 02:35:23 PM
If any of you guys haven't watched Loki yet, it's pretty much required viewing for No Way Home. It makes all this multiverse talk make much more sense.
What streaming service is it on? I can't find it where it's supposed to be.
Quote from: SGOS on August 24, 2021, 06:28:41 AM
The old Peter Parker is long gone, now a grown up, Doctor Octavian looks pretty much the same. They didn't even have to get a new actor.
(https://preview.redd.it/ma4zn7lwfuo11.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=a3bd22539396df6e180e59a5c357c76d14fa331a)
Quote from: SGOS on August 24, 2021, 03:06:34 PM
What streaming service is it on? I can't find it where it's supposed to be.
Disney+.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 24, 2021, 02:35:23 PM
If any of you guys haven't watched Loki yet, it's pretty much required viewing for No Way Home. It makes all this multiverse talk make much more sense.
Just watched episode 1. Marvel yet again shows its creativity.
Quote from: SGOS on August 24, 2021, 03:06:34 PM
What streaming service is it on? I can't find it where it's supposed to be.
Disney Plus. Also... *gets pruned*
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 18, 2021, 06:13:06 PM
No idea why this idea popped (or pooped) into my mind. I wondered if any major movies have been made and released to theaters, that had no music. Personally I like music and I like it in movies. But then, when going about my daily life there is no music playing in the background (unless I produce it myself). I found this article.
15 Great Movies With No Musical Score.
https://thecinemaholic.com/great-movies-with-no-musical-score/
Would you believe I have not seen a single one of these? Has anyone seen any of these--and if so, did you miss music, or not?
The only ones on that list I've seen are 'M' and 'Dog Day Afternoon', both great flicks. 'Blair Witch Project' also lacks a soundtrack -- although YMMV as to whether it's a great movie or not. We were a good 2/3 through watching it in the theater when I realized there was no soundtrack, and that was kind of jarring to actively notice the absence of music. I won't call it one of the greatest movies, but it's still the creepiest movie I've ever seen.
I refer to that one as "Boring Bitch Reject". The ending was the only one they could afford.
The notoriety of the Blair Witch was that it was made by rank amateurs with $100 worth of video equipment from Best Buy. But it's creep factor was high. Blair Witch II was made by Hollywood professionals, and is the lesser of the two movies.
Again…out of boredom, I watched the newish flick Cruella……meh. Should have stuck with “yank my doodle dandyâ€.
Quote from: aitm on August 25, 2021, 12:38:14 PM
Again…out of boredom, I watched the newish flick Cruella……meh. Should have stuck with “yank my doodle dandyâ€.
I saw that at the theater. I didn't stay for the whole thing.
Quote from: SGOS on August 25, 2021, 08:39:13 AM
The notoriety of the Blair Witch was that it was made by rank amateurs with $100 worth of video equipment from Best Buy. But it's creep factor was high. Blair Witch II was made by Hollywood professionals, and is the lesser of the two movies.
Some folks must be easily creeped...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 25, 2021, 01:41:07 PM
Some folks must be easily creeped...
We've been over this before, but what Blair Witch did really really well (and why they didn't need or even want fancy equipment/sets) is that they went for a very realistic, natural setting. Something that looked real, not fake. Someplace where you could imagine yourself going. Well, there's no more universal setting (at least for US audiences) than a trek in the woods, plus it helps that it's already naturally kind of scary. So the first half of the movie has no scares because it's focusing on circumventing suspension of disbelief by making things look so true to life that there's nothing to suspend. That way, when things get progressively creepier in the second half, it really lands because audiences are already immersed.
And I know I've been a broken record about this, but there's an extra layer of creepiness in the two trusty companions being secret murderers. It explains their odd behavior (like laughing at realizing they're hopelessly lost), them being chummy and secretive despite them being strangers before the outing, their suspicious need to control both the compass and the map, they can sleep fine despite being in danger (which Heather finds odd and creepy) while she's the only one who has difficulty going to sleep, the noises at night only happen AFTER she goes to sleep, the stacked rocks and stickmen, and Mike's extremely uncharacteristic let's-run-into-the-murder-house-while-shouting behavior (second story first, then the basement while shouting where he's going and telling Heather to follow him)
Someone getting murdered in the woods = not scary (well, not for me, I'm sure it's plenty scary for the person being murdered)
Someone getting murdered in the woods and we see the whole thing from their POV = kinda scary
Someone getting murdered in the woods and we see the whole thing from their POV and her only companions are plotting her demise behind her back the whole time = SERIOUSLY SPOOKED
Well, I guess I'm just going to have to have to kill you. Sneaky-like. :hammerhead:
Star Trek (2009): Only have rewatched the first 30 minutes, but honestly... it is a really intriguing sci-fi film that I didn't give enough credit to on first watching, having been a dyed-in-the-wool Trekkie at the time.
The character backstories are legitimately interesting (Kirk's daddy issues, Spock's social isolation as a mix-raced Vulcan/Human, Nero having mystery around him, Star Fleet's elitisms over the bumpkins that live in the post-apocalyptic society that supports their utopia), it's explored the darker side of Star Trek's Utopia... other than the fucking lens flares every 5 seconds blinding the entire screen, I'm actually legitimately invested in and curious.
I vaguely remember the movie, so I am actually genuinely intrigued on if it continue to hold up. It is certainly a departure from Star Trek, but in honesty... I don't think a Utopian Star Trek could even be remotely successful today... not just in an economic sense but in a moral sense as well.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 31, 2021, 01:33:59 AMStar Trek (2009): Only have rewatched the first 30 minutes, but honestly... it is a really intriguing sci-fi film that I didn't give enough credit to on first watching, having been a dyed-in-the-wool Trekkie at the time.
The character backstories are legitimately interesting (Kirk's daddy issues, Spock's social isolation as a mix-raced Vulcan/Human, Nero having mystery around him, Star Fleet's elitisms over the bumpkins that live in the post-apocalyptic society that supports their utopia), it's explored the darker side of Star Trek's Utopia... other than the fucking lens flares every 5 seconds blinding the entire screen, I'm actually legitimately invested in and curious.
I mean, it's cool-looking and somewhat interesting, I don't remember the plot but I remember the plot falling apart after even basic scrutiny and it didn't really seem to hit on almost any of Roddenbury's themes, which was certainly unusual at the time.
If you want a popcorn movie where you can turn your brain off, you could do worse.
QuoteI don't think a Utopian Star Trek could even be remotely successful today... not just in an economic sense but in a moral sense as well.
Sadly, true. Though Trek was born during the 60s, and a lot has changed since then. We've definitely got the all-races-working-together thing down pat, fair progress towards peace (don't @ me, @ Steven Pinker), not a whole lot of progress on the enlightenment and post-capitalism front. If anything, common people have fallen a couple rungs down Maslow's hierarchy of needs in the past couple of decades and getting ahead in this over-exploited wasteland-in-progress means doubling down on good ol' capitalism and exploiting even harder. What could go wrong?
Even in Trek, humanity didn't self-overcome - the Vulcans got us most of the way there. By the way, super nice of them.
After watching Picard and seeing the gang of misfits dock at a space station only to be bombarded by targeted ads for narcotics and similar, descending into drunken stupors and basically existing only as shells of people - if that's humanity's future, then we might as well go ahead and push the button right here and now.
Real talk: we have to work towards something together or humanity will surely die on the vine. Trek's ideals are basically impossible to fully realize, but they're laudable and at least partially doable.
QuoteI mean, it's cool-looking and somewhat interesting, I don't remember the plot but I remember the plot falling apart after even basic scrutiny and it didn't really seem to hit on almost any of Roddenbury's themes, which was certainly unusual at the time.
Yeah, I'm still in the world-building stage of the plot. From what I do remember, it didn't make a horrible lot of sense. We will see.
QuoteReal talk: we have to work towards something together or humanity will surely die on the vine. Trek's ideals are basically impossible to fully realize, but they're laudable and at least partially doable.
Without getting into too much of a side tangent, I've noticed that a lot lately; there were so many moral and political champions in the past who saw a peaceful future and took peaceful means to make that happen (particularly through expressing those ideals in media and through union strikes) to try and promote their ideal of the future; today? Not so much. The dystopian and the weary idealist-turned-pragmatist dominate the modern story arch.
Those that do exist are so much easier to dismiss; no longer is "Socialism/Communism" the dirty word you label someone you want to sway public opinion against, just even the slightest hint of the word "Liberal" will get both sides foaming at the mouth and their message buried under an avalanche of partisanship and vitriol.
Roddenbury, Mr. Rodgers, Charlie Chaplin and all those great men of cinema of the past unfortunately seem to have underestimated just how powerful negative media could be.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 31, 2021, 03:12:24 AMRoddenbury, Mr. Rodgers, Charlie Chaplin and all those great men of cinema of the past unfortunately seem to have underestimated just how powerful negative media could be.
The fact that they're household names shows that they were successful in getting their message out. But how many similar people exist today? And why?
That 2009 StarTrek did test the limits of sci-fi fan's suspension of reason, but I thought it was a Hell of a lot of fun. The actor who played Bones did a good job as a younger doctor. All the actors did reasonably well, which surprised me, because I didn't think they could pull it off without the original cast.
Quote from: SGOS on August 31, 2021, 11:50:43 PM
That 2009 StarTrek did test the limits of sci-fi fan's suspension of reason, but I thought it was a Hell of a lot of fun. The actor who played Bones did a good job as a younger doctor. All the actors did reasonably well, which surprised me, because I didn't think they could pull it off without the original cast.
Karl Urban is an a pretty underrated actor imo.
Finished watching it last night and there is nothing I can overly complain about. It is more sci-fi than Star Trek, but I've always found the movies to be a little bit more that anyways.
The villain not just dropping the blackhole stuff on the surface is just slightly dumb (as is the interior design of the space ship, taking The Empire's lack of regard for safety protocols to an extreme), but I can excuse it with him being absolutely batshit and wanting it to not just exterminate the Vulcans and Humans but do it with flair.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 31, 2021, 09:06:51 AM
The fact that they're household names shows that they were successful in getting their message out. But how many similar people exist today? And why?
It's one thing to get your message out; it is another entirely for people to live up to it.
As for the why... I don't know. I would say part of it has to do with growing up either during the World Wars/Vietnam was a major influencer, the Counter-culture Revolution that unfortunately fell apart, the threat of Cold War, Nuclear Annihilation... all these helped breed a large amount of people who had seen the worst of humanity and how on the knife's edge we are but who also believed there was hope for the future.
I would also argue a large part of it is how much more powerful media has become and that they reached a point where they are run fully by businessmen rather than a mix of businessmen but also people who genuinely care about the medium. Drama ultimately just sells more than tranquility.
Star Trek has kinda been a mess lately in terms of message:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuqddbtYE5s
I could swear that these two series are entirely unrelated.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 01, 2021, 01:43:13 AM
Star Trek has kinda been a mess lately in terms of message:
I could swear that these two series are entirely unrelated.
Piccard's vineyard is actually just a front for his cannabis production, he had to make some dough after leaving Star Fleet.
I didn't remember just how... D.A.R.E. the Next Generation sounded lol. But holy hell, that is a hard 180.
Classic Trek certainly could come across as preachy, but I appreciated that they didn't just frown upon addiction (so many other 80s and 90s programs just stopped there) - they showed that the characters are self-actualized people striving to be their best selves, busying themselves with career and education and entertainment and socializing as fellow adults, so becoming a problem drinker or junkie makes sense as a huge step down from that sort of life.
Finding Nemo. I'd seen it first around back then when it came out. Probably, one of the best things ever made, imho.
The idea that humans eliminate the need for money, as all human needs are provided for, is quite optimistic to say the least. The elites at the top would not easily give up their power over others. They'd fight that kind of progress as long as they could. Hell, at this point, I'm doubting we will even live to survive to the 24th century. Just look at how we're handling climate change. We're not. We have a tendency to ignore problems until they get too bad, and then use pseudoscience in the place of the real thing once the problem gets too hard to ignore. Even when the sea levels rise, hurricanes become more frequent and more dangerous, and all that other stuff, there will be people blaming it on other things and refusing to get on board with expert recommendations.
I've resigned myself to the fact I will probably die in my late 40s (if I'm lucky, late 50s) either violently over resource shortage, or just starve to death. All in all, could be worse; that's probably a good 20 years longer than 99.99% of humanity lived historically.
I don't see civilization really making it past 2100, and humanity itself will be iffy on if it ever recovers.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 01, 2021, 03:04:15 PMThe idea that humans eliminate the need for money, as all human needs are provided for, is quite optimistic to say the least.
Well, if I told someone living in the 12th century that most people in the 21st century are literate, highly educated, have all sorts of gadgets with ludicrous amounts of information stored on them, have weird jobs like Senior VP of Social Media Messaging, slavery has been outlawed, peace is the norm in most of the world, kings aren't really a thing anymore, overindulging in food is more common than food deprivation, spices are plentiful and cheap, etc they'd think I was absolutely nuts. In fact, if I gave them a tour of even a fairly quaint town, they'd likely die from a heart attack from overexcitement.
Why not assume that our own future will be equally as bizarre to us?
Quote from: Shiranu on September 01, 2021, 03:33:15 PMI don't see civilization really making it past 2100, and humanity itself will be iffy on if it ever recovers.
It's crunch time for us as a species. We have to transition how we do things into a way that's much more sustainable or we're screwed. We have to make it into space or we're screwed. And if we collapse now, succeeding generations won't be able to climb as fast because those resources will be depleted and unavailable.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 01, 2021, 04:03:14 PM
It's crunch time for us as a species. We have to transition how we do things into a way that's much more sustainable or we're screwed. We have to make it into space or we're screwed. And if we collapse now, succeeding generations won't be able to climb as fast because those resources will be depleted and unavailable.
I used to think that our species was on a very, very slow rise. That we would overcome all thrown at us. I don't think so anymore. Since Bush was first elected, my sensitivity to human stupidity has become more pronounced. The past 5 years has blown that out of the water. We are dangerously stupid--probably fatally so. I think I am too old to see the end start unfolding. At least I hope so. As Forrest says--Stupid is as stupid does. And we have been doing stupid quite well, lately. And we are perfecting it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 01, 2021, 06:16:34 PM
I used to think that our species was on a very, very slow rise. That we would overcome all thrown at us. I don't think so anymore. Since Bush was first elected, my sensitivity to human stupidity has become more pronounced. The past 5 years has blown that out of the water. We are dangerously stupid--probably fatally so. I think I am too old to see the end start unfolding. At least I hope so. As Forrest says--Stupid is as stupid does. And we have been doing stupid quite well, lately. And we are perfecting it.
I look at it like wild game and overpopulation; our natural instinct of self-preservation and replication is paradoxly also self-destructive and species ending.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 01, 2021, 07:11:14 PM
I look at it like wild game and overpopulation; our natural instinct of self-preservation and replication is paradoxly also self-destructive and species ending.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgS1Lwr8gq8
He's not wrong.
The Vault
Classic bank heist film about breaking into the Bank of Spain's famous flooding vault in order to retrieve the coordinates to Sir Francis Drake's hidden pirate treasure. Not the best movie I've seen but worth a watch.
The Witcher: Nightmare of the Wolf
Absolutely brilliant movie, but I will be completely honest that damn near anything Witcher will be heavily tainted with bias. A surprising thing to me was that even though the character design was so different and the voice actor a new one... Vesimir truly felt like Vesimir to me. Something in the way he talk just felt... right... for the character.
Learning more about the world before Geralt was also extremely interesting. Nothing but full recommendations for this movie if you like the Witcher series.
Archive 2020 is a film worth looking into. It had a limited release at theaters in 2020 because of covid. I watched it once and liked it, and then put it away until last night. It's a British sci fi film and is engaging but hard to follow. You don't know what's going on until the end, and then it still left me hanging, because i wanted more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ix7TUGVYIo
Welcome to the desert of the real.
So, just pretend #3 never happened? I'm good with that. I just hope they don't use a lot of CGI, we're over that.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 09, 2021, 04:48:11 PMSo, just pretend #3 never happened?
Possibly. It's likely that this takes place quite a few "years" after Revolutions, with Neo's consciousness housed in Machine City after his "death". So he's experiencing yet another Matrix, but this one is less of a prison and more like life support. Trinity may be in there, too. Everyone else seem to be infiltrators trying to get Neo to remember and resume his fight, which is a rather bold operation to say the least.
It's also possible that this is another iteration of the Matrix, created after the last Matrix collapsed, mainly due to Agent Smith but also partially due to redpills being allowed to leave the Matrix peacefully.
And there's just as much CGI, it's just less conspicuous. It actually kinda bugs me when people trash CGI, disapproving of conspicuous CGI while tacitly approving of inconspicuous CGI, which is everywhere these days. The Matrix movies in particular use conspicuous CGI for a very good narrative reason!
And apparently Youtube thought the trailer was related to Inception, probably due to the weightless hallway fight. Google throwing some shade today.
Another thing about the Matrix, this from the Animatrix short Second Renaissance (I recommend watching it if you don't want to sleep for a few days)
There's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment where the robots and their "human sympathizers" demand robot rights except they're called "liberal sympathizers" verbally in the broadcast while the text says human sympathizers. These sympathizers were presumably arrested, possibly killed alongside the protesting robots.
In the I Robot trial, one of the lawyers says "I'm no liberal", dismissing the idea of extending human rights to robots.
Apparently, in this universe, giving rights to robots was a leftist idea, so there was a partisan dimension to humanity's stance towards machines. Presumably, conservatives were far more belligerent, while liberals favored a more peaceful, perhaps even cooperative, approach.
I bring this up because Morpheus and his band of freedom fighters tend to be highly religious (if the name Zion didn't give it away) and see a stark divide between human and machine. "Liberals" likely took a different approach and presumably got wiped out, caught in the crossfire between belligerent humans and retaliatory belligerent machines. Small wonder that it's a sunless dystopia.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 09, 2021, 12:52:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ix7TUGVYIo
Welcome to the desert of the real.
I don't understand it. In the third movie, the war between humans and machines ended, right? And the humans were set free? Both Neo and Trinity were dead, so...
I've noticed the use of blue pills in this trailer. Maybe this is an alternate timeline, where Neo took the blue pill instead of the red one?
Also, did they replace the actor for Morpheus, or is that a new character? It would be weird if they kept the actors for Neo and Trinity, but recast the other characters.
I took the blue pill thing as an attempt to wake Neo up to the fact that he's not in a red pill world.
IIRC, didn't the Matrix hint that Neo "breaking" the cycle was just another part of the cycle?
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 10, 2021, 12:39:25 AM
I don't understand it. In the third movie, the war between humans and machines ended, right?
An extremely fragile truce, nothing more.
QuoteAnd the humans were set free?
Only the ones who knew they were in a Matrix and wanted out. Naturally, there'd be some squabbling about definitions...
QuoteNeo and Trinity were dead, so...
Were they? Do you shoot lightning out of your hands in the real world?
QuoteI've noticed the use of blue pills in this trailer. Maybe this is an alternate timeline, where Neo took the blue pill instead of the red one?
The creator has stated that this is a sequel, not a reboot. So an alternate universe seems unlikely.
QuoteAlso, did they replace the actor for Morpheus, or is that a new character? It would be weird if they kept the actors for Neo and Trinity, but recast the other characters.
In the expanded universe, Morpheus dies trying to retrieve Neo's body from the machines.
Similar to The Matrix is a movie called the 13th Floor. It's about the same vintage, as these guys are performing complex programming on computers with big lunky monitors, and typing in commands that resemble BASIC, but the idea is similar to the Matrix, with people living in a Matrix. It's dispences with the mysticism that Reeves often gravitates towards in his movies, which is something that doesn't turn me on about Reeves. I actually like the 13th Floor a lot more than the Matrix, although it never developed the cult following. It is a Hell of a lot of fun, however.
Quote from: SGOS on September 10, 2021, 09:41:47 AMI actually like the 13th Floor a lot more than the Matrix, although it never developed the cult following. It is a Hell of a lot of fun, however.
Ditto.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is available for free on YouTube, for a limited time. Michael Moore streamed the movie, along with a Q&A, a couple of interviews, etc. I watched it for the first time last night. When this movie came out, my parents hated Michael Moore, so I hated him by extension. It's amazing how, at the time, nobody wanted to listen to him. Nobody wanted him on their talk shows. Disney, who had the distributing rights, chose to lock it in a vault because they were getting a tax break deal from the Bush mob family at the time, and didn't want to jeopardize that. The fact that the movie got to see the light of day at all despite all that was going against it is amazing. Now, all these years later, we realize he was right about the war. So of course now they want him on their talk shows. Now that the pointless war is over, and Bush's two long terms are long past us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebnlqi9RGQ
Most of this was news to me. I mean, holy shit. George W. Bush clearly stole the election, and he faced zero consequences for it. His opponent, Al Gore, conceded when it was clear nothing was going to be done about it. What a contrast to Trump, who lost by a landslide, tried to stage a coop to change the results of the election, and never officially conceded.
And that's just the beginning. George Bush is a fucking heartless war criminal. He should be rotting in prison right now. The "War on Terror" was never about finding Bin Laden. It was always about making himself and his buddies rich, invading a country that was of ZERO threat to us, based on a lie he fabricated about nuclear weapons in Iran.
MALIGNANT, on HBOMAX. 7/10 Nothing amazing but they held the origin issue almost to the end of the opening credits. But seriously, well shot and well scripted. Killed two hours painlessly.
1979's "Alien"
Second viewing, this one falls in a weird place for me; on one-hand it is an absolutely amazing movie and a classic, with very little to criticize; good story, amazing visuals, good suspense. Would gladly watch it again with no hesitation and it's one of my all-time favorites. That said...
My god, is it fucking slow at times. I know that is pretty common amongst old movies, but that slowness has definitely not aged well; is that a statement about the movie or more a statement about modern society?
Quote from: Shiranu on September 14, 2021, 12:21:38 AM
1979's "Alien"
Second viewing, this one falls in a weird place for me; on one-hand it is an absolutely amazing movie and a classic, with very little to criticize; good story, amazing visuals, good suspense. Would gladly watch it again with no hesitation and it's one of my all-time favorites. That said...
My god, is it fucking slow at times. I know that is pretty common amongst old movies, but that slowness has definitely not aged well; is that a statement about the movie or more a statement about modern society?
It was startlingly fresh for the times. Scott definitely set the bar with that one.
Trivia: Nobody on set knew what was going to happen to John Hurt. When the little guy with the shiny teeth popped out the reactions of the cast are genuine.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 14, 2021, 12:21:38 AM
1979's "Alien"
Second viewing, this one falls in a weird place for me; on one-hand it is an absolutely amazing movie and a classic, with very little to criticize; good story, amazing visuals, good suspense. Would gladly watch it again with no hesitation and it's one of my all-time favorites. That said...
My god, is it fucking slow at times. I know that is pretty common amongst old movies, but that slowness has definitely not aged well; is that a statement about the movie or more a statement about modern society?
I think the slowness works in alien, building the dread naturally. Kind of like in the shining.
I find it worse in other flicks, especially non horror classics.
You should watch aliens, now theres a long movie btw.
It's common in older movies to foreshadow or build tension without really much happening for fairly long stretches at a time. *cough2001ASpaceOdyssey* Nowadays, movies are shot more like extended trailers. :/
*yells at neighbor's fool kids to get off his lawn*
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 15, 2021, 12:11:21 AM
It's common in older movies to foreshadow or build tension ...
Or put the audience to sleep.
Ted Bundy: American Boogieman
I turned it off for a day and came back to it twice, but I knew from the start it was going to be an unimportant film. For a thing that actually happened, the director and actors could not capture the horror. The whole thing felt like it was being acted. I would give it a 1/10.
Malignant with Boss Lady. She was impressed.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 15, 2021, 08:14:54 AM
Malignant with Boss Lady. She was impressed.
I'm out the door to see that movie now, mostly on Boss Lady's thoughts. I was considering that new Marvel movie, but I categorically don't want to watch Kung Fu. Since it's Marvel, I definately will watch it when it comes out on a disk, but only because it's Marvel.
Vivo
I'll admit I only watched 30mins of it but it was a good family movie.
8/10
Malignant - Pretty good as far as horror goes. It was creepy but was also interesting.
Quote from: SGOS on September 16, 2021, 08:07:14 AM
Malignant - Pretty good as far as horror goes. It was creepy but was also interesting.
How'd you deal with the anomalies? Spoilers when needed, please.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 16, 2021, 09:45:09 AM
How'd you deal with the anomalies? Spoilers when needed, please.
I'm not sure what you mean by anomalies. I wasn't watching for plot holes. I was too busy trying to figure out what was going on, and when I finally did, all Hell was breaking loose.
Quote from: SGOS on September 16, 2021, 09:52:10 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by anomalies. I wasn't watching for plot holes. I was too busy trying to figure out what was going on, and when I finally did, all Hell was breaking loose.
I spotted three during the first five minutes.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 16, 2021, 09:53:51 AM
I spotted three during the first five minutes.
Missed them all.
Quote from: SGOS on September 16, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
Missed them all.
[spoiler]When Gabriel is chasing Sis down the hall you can see his elbows bending in the wrong direction.
Gabriel had a partially developed skeleton, but no X-rays seems to have spotted it. On this trend we have the idea of "two head, one cup (skull)", with what would have been associated compression of one or both brains. [/spoiler]
Schumacher (Netflix)
Really enjoyed it, basically just chronicling the career of 7-time World Champion F1 driver Michael Schumacher and giving it a bit more context. He was just a little before I had any ability to watch F1, so it's pretty cool getting to see all the drama behind his career other than just the statistics he broke.
Certainly makes me hope that one day his son Mick can get on with a good team and win one in his memory (while he isn't dead, he has been reportedly borderline vegetative for about 8 years now), like his dad he seems to be a really good guy off the track.
My Regal Cinema is now playing Aquaman 2021. Is this a replay of the 2018 film, or is it new? I'm getting conflicting info from Google that his film won't be released until 2022, and Regal is giving out no information about it. I'm thinking it may be playing just as some kind of pandemic filler. What description they give sounds just like the origin story of 2018.
Saw “cry macho†last night. It’s rather boring..not completely uninteresting, but about as entertaining as watching paint dry. Eastwood is old and boy does he play a great job of being old….I mean he nails it…seriously…ðŸ˜. Anyway, I would not recommend it unless it’s rainy as hell and you have the flu or something and you want something to put you to sleep. Afterwards I wondered why even bother with making this movie….
The Mario movie's voice cast was announced today and... Uhh... It's interesting, at least. This is looking to be quite the dumpster fire, but maybe it'll be so bad it's good?
https://youtu.be/dG9fAtmYdlM?t=1710
Skip to 28:30 for the reveal.
Vote Koopa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqrhWGLUkZ4
I don't usually put much stock in Game Theory theories, since they are frequently wrong. (The point is to have fun, not to find the truth anyway.) But they've picked up on some details in the trailer that I didn't notice, which are very interesting. It looks like The Matrix movies exist within the world of The Matrix. We see it in what appears to be a movie theater. There appears to be a bust of Agent Smith getting punched by Neo, based on the third movie. So if this is the case, this seems to imply that Neo is an actor within this iteration of the Matrix, and the machines are trying to discredit Neo's memories (and maybe the memories of others) by portraying them as fiction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT0eRBPWgBE
The Matrix is a training ground for machines. Specifically, to understand humans. Now, why exactly would that be a priority for the machines?
Two possibilities:
0) humanity was defeated and machines are beginning to take over as the apex species and need to learn from their predecessors (think of it like studying Roman history)
1) The human-machine war is still raging, humanity has not yet been defeated in the real world and the matrix is essentially enhanced interrogation technique, probing humanity's weaknesses and tactics, conventional and unconventional. Centuries could pass in the matrix within hours in the real world.
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.en3yJbqOTfqLM2UnR8X6EQHaDF?pid=ImgDet&rs=1)
I'm watching Godzilla: King of the Monsters right now. Terrible movie, wuvly monsters. Only looking when they are on though. Not really watching.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on September 27, 2021, 01:21:51 PM
I'm watching Godzilla: King of the Monsters right now. Terrible movie, wuvly monsters. Only looking when they are on though. Not really watching.
It's the door opener to the new Kaijuverse. They learned from the responses.
Unfortunately "Smokey and the Bandit II" popped up on TV. Someone decided; "what this here movie needs is an elephant". It does have me questioning if the US really is going backwards, LOL. Maybe "sideways" instead....now that was a good flick.
Quote from: Cassia on September 29, 2021, 11:31:59 AM
Unfortunately "Smokey and the Bandit II" popped up on TV. Someone decided; "what this here movie needs is an elephant". It does have me questioning if the US really is going backwards, LOL. Maybe "sideways" instead....now that was a good flick.
I liked Burt Reynolds (from the beginning--Gunsmoke episodes), like Sally Fields and liked Jackie Gleeson. Stumbled across the first Smokey and the Bandits on late night channel surfing. Watched it for awhile and began to doubt my sanity--I remember really liking it the first time I saw it. It was horrid--had to surf on after a bit. I wonder how many more movies would be like that for me?
The Vault starring Freddie Highmore is a hold your attention heist film, with smart thieves crafting brilliant strategies, rather than your common street thugs blasting their way in and taking hostages. Geeks rule! They're not after all the rare jewels and coins valued in the billions, either, but just a small box of particular items which the questionable owners don't even realize are worth even much much more. I was glued to the screen the entire time. 9/10
Really excited to see the new Bond movie, other than A Quiet Place 2 it will be the first movie-theatre movie I watch in about 3 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2L9ulT2BLs
The Lost Continent (1951)
I missed it at the theaters when I was 7, but one of the Chicago television stations showed it frequently for the next couple of years. It was a big topic of conversation with my friends out in the alley were we got together to play. It was a big deal because these adventurers climbed to the top of a mountain plateau on an undiscovered Pacific Island, and found a prehistoric jungle loaded with dinosaurs. I remember lots of dinosaurs, but there were only 3, a brontosaurs, and two tyrannosaurs, which were used over and over to create the feeling of lots of animals. They also threw in an ordinary lizard on a rock as a close up so it looked like it may have been big. And while the rest were fakey stop action puppets like the original King Kong, which we laughed about as kids, they were good enough to be be recognizable. What I didn't remember was how shamefully fake they actually were. I also read some critic reviews that trashed the film outright, mostly because it was boring, but also because of it's low budget fake sets. However, as 10 year olds living in the 1950s, they seemed like wonderful films.
Well, I found the DVD on ebay and it just arrived yesterday. It was an enjoyable hour and 20 minutes of nostalgia, and I may even watch it again in a few years. I wouldn't outright recommend it, but if anyone is interested in watching a movie just to see how bad they could be 70 years ago, it's kind of weird fun.
Oh, I also read that the movie had the distinction of being shown on Mystery Science Fiction Theater many years later. I wish I could have seen how those guys trashed the film.
Quote from: SGOS on October 02, 2021, 07:28:09 AM
Oh, I also read that the movie had the distinction of being shown on Mystery Science Fiction Theater many years later. I wish I could have seen how those guys trashed the film.
"And so you shall!" [wavesmagicwand] https://smile.amazon.com/Mystery-Science-Theater-XVIII-Continent/dp/B003CNQPNI/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=MST3k+LOST+CONTINENT&qid=1633179010&sr=8-1
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 02, 2021, 08:50:48 AM
"And so you shall!" [wavesmagicwand] https://smile.amazon.com/Mystery-Science-Theater-XVIII-Continent/dp/B003CNQPNI/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=MST3k+LOST+CONTINENT&qid=1633179010&sr=8-1
Hey thanks!
Quote from: SGOS on October 02, 2021, 08:56:46 AM
Hey thanks!
No prob, I'd do the same for somebody I liked. ;-)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 02, 2021, 08:50:48 AM
"And so you shall!" [wavesmagicwand] https://smile.amazon.com/Mystery-Science-Theater-XVIII-Continent/dp/B003CNQPNI/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=MST3k+LOST+CONTINENT&qid=1633179010&sr=8-1
Also free on Utube, so you don't have to buy the DVD, unless you don't want the commentary.
New Chapelle special was really good, the closing story was a lot heavier than I expected shit to get.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 09, 2021, 08:11:24 PM
New Chapelle special was really good, the closing story was a lot heavier than I expected shit to get.
You mean aside from the part where he was being really transphobic and complaining about "cancel culture?"
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 10, 2021, 12:40:48 AM
You mean aside from the part where he was being really transphobic and complaining about "cancel culture?"
I guess so, since I didn't see either happening?
Quote from: Shiranu on October 10, 2021, 01:34:37 PM
I guess so, since I didn't see either happening?
Is this not the show where he spread misinformation about JK Rowling being cancelled and labeled himself a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)?
For reference:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1446435231938973696
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 10, 2021, 02:20:11 PM
Is this not the show where he spread misinformation about JK Rowling being cancelled and labeled himself a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)?
For reference:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1446435231938973696 (https://twitter.com/i/status/1446435231938973696)
he calls himself transphobic throughout the standup because he is making fun of the people who call him that because they cant take a joke. The entire show was him saying, "Fine, yall gonna call me offensive? I'll give you something to be offended about."
Not one instance does he call for violence or meanness towards the LGBTQ+ community; in fact his ending story is about how those same people calling him transphobic bullied a transgender comedian (Daphne Dorman) to the point she committed suicide because she stood up for him. When people bully a friend of yours to the point she kills herself, I think you earn the right to be an offensive asshole right back to them.
He is a comedian who makes offensive jokes; Is Jimmy Carr a pedophile because he makes a shitload of jokes about fucking kids? Probably not.
Also, that clip leaves out the punch line, which... he ain't wrong.
https://twitter.com/MyMovieFixPod/status/1446755317275107330 (https://twitter.com/MyMovieFixPod/status/1446755317275107330)
People have been telling me that Cheech and Chong movies are so funny for years.
Quote from: Cassia on October 15, 2021, 08:27:56 AM
People have been telling me that Cheech and Chong movies are so funny for years.
Definitely a niche market.
Cheech and Chong had a reputation for being wildly funny. They were a big hit with a lot of hippys. I don't recall anyone in the establishment thinking they were funny, which I thought was odd because mostly they were making fun of hippys. I only saw one Cheech and Chong movie. My friends, all thought it was hilarious, but I never had any compelling drive to see them again after that.
Quote from: SGOS on October 16, 2021, 06:41:50 AM
Cheech and Chong had a reputation for being wildly funny. They were a big hit with a lot of hippys. I don't recall anyone in the establishment thinking they were funny, which I thought was odd because mostly they were making fun of hippys. I only saw one Cheech and Chong movie. My friends, all thought it was hilarious, but I never had any compelling drive to see them again after that.
"Dave's not here!"
Quote from: SGOS on October 16, 2021, 10:18:23 AM
Exactly!
Setting on the fantail of a guided missile destroyer cruising through the Straits of Magellan, trippin' balls. Perfect backdrop for a C&C album.
I was high as a kite, still didn't find Cheech and Chong funny.
Sad, because I like both of them as well.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 16, 2021, 12:44:09 PM
I was high as a kite, still didn't find Cheech and Chong funny.
Sad, because I like both of them as well.
They reminded me of the guys I knew in high school, the ones that volunteered to help mow the school grounds because they couldn't stand sitting in a study hall.
Quote from: Cassia on October 15, 2021, 08:27:56 AM
People have been telling me that Cheech and Chong movies are so funny for years.
They were somewhat amusing. Not really funny. But then Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis were not all that funny either. Even Abbott and Costello movies were not that good. Their skits were usually funny as hell, but the movies were just too long.
I think cheech and Chong best piece was the kamikaze….â€Any questions?†“You out your fuckin mind?â€
Quote from: aitm on October 16, 2021, 05:19:09 PM
I think cheech and Chong best piece was the kamikaze….â€Any questions?†“You out your fuckin mind?â€
"Ah, yes, you, Hashimoto?"
"Honorable Captain-san, are you out of your fucking mind?"
Haven't seen it since it's not out yet (I think), but I just want to say... Adam Driver in "The Last Duel".
(https://www.celebtribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/last-duel.png)
Cast this man as Dracula plz.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FB7mbTYXsAYY4QX?format=jpg&name=900x900)
He's already a Dumbledore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYVgbAF-JIs
Getting me really hyped for the "Dune" movie, but please god let there be a part 2.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 17, 2021, 08:54:16 PM
...Cast this man as Dracula plz. ...
Oh yes, never thought of that! Ooooh yes...
Quote from: Shiranu on October 19, 2021, 12:15:14 AMGetting me really hyped for the "Dune" movie, but please god let there be a part 2.
Unless it absolutely bombs, I pretty much guarantee it.
Dune, a classic as a book. Loved the game. (It seems Avalon Hill just never put out a poor game) The movie not so much. I did not like the cast. And while the movie was not a total loss, I remember it as a disappointment. I have hopes for this version.
The 1984 Dune was something I watched, but didn't connect with. I understand it was directed by David Lynch, but back then, I paid little attention to directors. David Lynch is interesting in that few people can figure out what he's doing. He takes "enigmatic" to a whole new level. Had I understood him back then, I may have paid closer attention, but maybe not. I think some of his movies have reached a level where no one understands what he's doing, and anyone who thinks they do is probably woefully mistaken.
I loved Dune 2000. Aw.
Somehow I missed Dune 2000. Have to catch up I guess.
Something called "The Green Knight". Throughout I kept thinking I should just go to bed....but I needed more alcohol for that so I watched all the while debating more of this or some you tube clips of anything. In the end I watched it all and was left satisfied with the realization my first thought was correct.
"The Forgotten Battle", Netflix - Dutch film about the Battle of the Sheldt, the Dutch resistance and a British glider crew stranded on the wrong island.
Really enjoyable, at times a bit of a slow-burn, and the combat leans far more into uncomfortable than heroic; the allies are obviously the "good guys" but they aren't mythicized or romanticized and the Nazis are generally presented as young men who didn't know what they were getting themselves into (with the officers being the more stereotypical fascist jackasses, which I would presume is how it actually was).
Also found it really cool to see the Dutch resistance, something I don't think i've seen a movie portray before. Each faction speaks the appropriate language as well which makes it more engaging.
I haven't seen No Time to Die. I will when it comes out on DVD, but I have one question. Does James Bond go to Morocco to meet that guy wearing a fez who is sits under a ceiling fan? Can a Bond film be complete with out this port of call? I can never remember why he has to visit that guy, but then I can never keep track of his travelog or why he goes where he does. I think he travels around mostly for the casinos.
Quote from: SGOS on October 22, 2021, 07:56:47 AM
I haven't seen No Time to Die. I will when it comes out on DVD, but I have one question. Does James Bond go to Morocco to meet that guy wearing a fez who is sits under a ceiling fan? Can a Bond film be complete with out this port of call? I can never remember why he has to visit that guy, but then I can never keep track of his travelog or why he goes where he does. I think he travels around mostly for the casinos.
Nope, the closest No Time to Die has to a Middle Eastern flair is an opening scene filmed in Basilicata, Southern Italy (use to be part of the Abbasid Empire IIRC, so kinda counts?).
Well then, it's hardly a Bond Film at all!
Just finished watching the new Dune. Thoroughly enjoyed it and think it was pretty faithful to the book with a few notable exceptions. It's probably been more 30 years since the last time I read the book though so it might not be a close to the original story as I remember.
The Protege 9/10
As the name and the face on the movie icon suggests it's another young woman taken under the wing of a mentor and turned into another sexy kick-ass assassin. Not like this hasn't been done before, but just as I thought Hollywood had run through all the best female stars to put in the same role over and over again, this shows up staring a woman, Maggie Q, who I never heard of. But she has very strong support from Samuel Jackson, and especially so from Michael Keaton, and while the premise is familiar, apparently it has not yet been worked to death. Yeah its brutal, but in ways that made me laugh out loud more times than once. So I have to give a whole bunch of credit to the writers and the director. I thought it was fun.
It's Dune day.
The Dunedin are ready.
I suppose that was the wormsign.
It was definitely a slow-burner for most of it, but at the same time it wouldn't have made any sense if it wasn't. To engage in absolutely useless comparisons, it felt like if "Blade Runner" met "Game of Thrones" met "Lord of the Rings" met environmentalism, anti-imperialism and Middle Eastern religion. Absolutely loved the set design and particularly the ship designs, The Voice sounded really creepy and the cutting of the film helped convey the almost blackout nature it caused on people...
It was pretty cool, probably convinced me to finally go finish the book.
Edit: Upon further reflection... yeah, the closest thing I can say about it is that it made me feel the way Bladerunner (original and sequel) made me feel; the plot-twists maybe would have made me feel identical about how GoT's made me feel but because of the shorter time to get invested that didn't happen. Hopefully reading the books gives me that feeling. I get super LotR vibes from the journey after the betrayal.
And we FINALLY have ornithopters!
I'm watching Good Fellas (for the 8th? times) and thinking how would that movie appeal to them, lol. Not a good picture.
I watched Night of the Living Dead last night, the one from 1968. I bought it on the recollection that it was so "bad it was good" and I remembered it as a fun scare. But it's mostly just bad and did not hold my attention well. What it does have in it's favor is that it seemed to set in motion the last explosion of zombie movies that caught the public's attention, and this led to a greater understanding of the true nature of actual zombies. Actually, it just added a wealth of new memes about zombie behavior and zombie physiology. So I guess it's an icon of sorts. I filed it in my Library, under "Classics" along with more notable films as American Graffiti and earlier.
Mah, ha, ha. "There coming to get you, Barbara!"
It was a low budget homebrew, we weren't going to get a good movie out of that production. Instead we can a mania, a deeply disturbing mania.
I have Leonardo's Ornithopter model, but I still haven't built it.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 01, 2021, 02:01:47 PM
I have Leonardo's Ornithopter model, but I still haven't built it.
I give the 2021 Dune thumbs up based on the hardware alone. We finally have ornithopters!
We watched 'gretel and hansel', because the gf wanted to yesterday.
The movie surprisingly came out very strong, only to falter in the last 20 minutes or so.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 01, 2021, 10:21:31 PM
I give the 2021 Dune thumbs up based on the hardware alone. We finally have ornithopters!
Eh, they were visually impressive, but I kept thinking how cool but insane it is to have a transport with dragonfly wings. I worried about what would happen to one the instant it took any damage whatsoever. I could've gone for something either more bird-like (going all in on the sleek design) or more boxy like the 2000 miniseries (more practical)
Peak aesthetic:
(https://us.v-cdn.net/5021068/uploads/editor/p3/v9fv22y3oc3n.jpg)
Peak practicality:
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/94bb9df89b9a0514b836b2f381b628b5/tumblr_p9hxelTeqF1tpri36o3_500.gifv)
Yeah, but ORNITHOPERS!!! I had to look that word up. The Popular Mechanics article was silly but beautifully illustrated.
The Green Knight 0/10
My God, that was slow.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 02, 2021, 09:34:11 AM
Eh, they were visually impressive, but I kept thinking how cool but insane it is to have a transport with dragonfly wings. I worried about what would happen to one the instant it took any damage whatsoever. I could've gone for something either more bird-like (going all in on the sleek design) or more boxy like the 2000 miniseries (more practical)
Peak aesthetic:
(https://us.v-cdn.net/5021068/uploads/editor/p3/v9fv22y3oc3n.jpg)
Peak practicality:
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/94bb9df89b9a0514b836b2f381b628b5/tumblr_p9hxelTeqF1tpri36o3_500.gifv)
Don't care much for the first one, but that second one is sexy.
I think 100th C. technology would have made them safer than some fear they'd be.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 02, 2021, 06:32:23 PM
I think 100th C. technology would have made them safer than some fear they'd be.
True, they can certainly survive a rapid reentry in one piece, much like most Star Wars ships. Surprisingly sturdy.
But whether 2k CE or 40k or 100k, dragonfly wings is an inherently problematic setup. Though I have to admit, those orb designs don't make a whole lot of aviation sense to me either. Maybe we get to the point where technology is so advanced that you can make a flying vessel in whatever shape you want, physics be damned. Idk.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 02, 2021, 06:26:21 PM
Don't care much for the first one, but that second one is sexy.
The bottom one reminds me of a movie I saw in the late '50's I think--The Fly.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 02, 2021, 06:59:46 PM
True, they can certainly survive a rapid reentry in one piece, much like most Star Wars ships. Surprisingly sturdy.
But whether 2k CE or 40k or 100k, dragonfly wings is an inherently problematic setup. Though I have to admit, those orb designs don't make a whole lot of aviation sense to me either. Maybe we get to the point where technology is so advanced that you can make a flying vessel in whatever shape you want, physics be damned. Idk.
Aerodynamics be damned when you have anti-gravity.
Anybody spot the "salt shaker"?
Really the main reason I am sharing this (I figure a lot of this is just common sense) is that there is a comparison between 1991's Star Trek - The Undiscovered Country and 2016's "Star Trek Beyond" (around the 6 minute mark). Both involve Kirk and Spock having arguments.
I never could quite put my finger on it, but seeing the two side-by-side... the new Kirk and Spock look like children. Not because of their age, but their actions; they look like two 5 year olds in the sandbox fighting over a shovel. These are suppose to be two high-ranking military officers behaving like literal children throwing punches over who gets to play with the toy first. In comparison the Shatner/Nimoy conflict involves raised voices, sure, but not screaming... and both sides are trying to use reasonable/understandable arguments to explain their position.
Tl;dw - 1. Movies are expensive af so you have to make the content target the biggest demographic; that just also happens to be the youngest.
2. As a result the conflict between characters is about how you would expect a 5-16 year old to handle conflict.
3. The directors themselves behave like children online, and a character is always going to be influenced by his writer/director.
But yeah, I would really recommend watching around the 5:50 mark to see the comparison, because it's one thing to know there is a difference and another to see it side by side. I really cant help but wonder how much this actually might influence society as a whole, because when you really look at it about 95% of movies follow this model and that's what people grow-up thinking conflict resolution should be about; shout and punch your opponent till they cant disagree with you.
Related but unrelated to my first post...
HOLY FUCKING SHIT I just realized that the Klingon Empire is an analogy to the Soviet Union, and watching "The Undiscovered Country" for the first time it is a VERY loosely veiled analogy to Chernobyl.
It was also co-written and directed by Nimoy who also did "The Voyage Home" and it's environmental message... I didn't realize it has been 6 years since he passed away and jesus christ what a national treasure he was.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 03, 2021, 12:51:31 AMI never could quite put my finger on it, but seeing the two side-by-side... the new Kirk and Spock look like children. Not because of their age, but their actions; they look like two 5 year olds in the sandbox fighting over a shovel. These are suppose to be two high-ranking military officers behaving like literal children throwing punches over who gets to play with the toy first. In comparison the Shatner/Nimoy conflict involves raised voices, sure, but not screaming... and both sides are trying to use reasonable/understandable arguments to explain their position.
Tl;dw - 1. Movies are expensive af so you have to make the content target the biggest demographic; that just also happens to be the youngest.
2. As a result the conflict between characters is about how you would expect a 5-16 year old to handle conflict.
3. The directors themselves behave like children online, and a character is always going to be influenced by his writer/director.
This has worried me as well. Exacerbated by the popularity of "reality" TV that features extreme versions of this sort of childish behavior prominently.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 03, 2021, 01:44:26 AMHOLY FUCKING SHIT I just realized that the Klingon Empire is an analogy to the Soviet Union, and watching "The Undiscovered Country" for the first time it is a VERY loosely veiled analogy to Chernobyl.
Yep. And the Romulans are essentially spacefaring Romans.
For a long time, I thought the Borg were at least partially a metaphor for communism (abolishment of classes, lack of private ownership, etc) but it's apparently just an inverted Federation - instead of individuality, they have a collective, instead of peaceful coexistence, they have unrelenting expansionism, instead of personal freedom, they have no freedom whatsoever, etc. Even the name is just a shortened form of the word cyborg.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 03, 2021, 12:51:31 AM
I never could quite put my finger on it, but seeing the two side-by-side... the new Kirk and Spock look like children. Not because of their age, but their actions; they look like two 5 year olds in the sandbox fighting over a shovel. These are suppose to be two high-ranking military officers behaving like literal children throwing punches over who gets to play with the toy first.
As much as I enjoyed that movie, I found the childish behavior unsettling too.
Last Night in SoHo 7/10
I love time travel and body swapping, and this does both. The device has been used a lot, but what interested me here was that the cinematography handled it in a new an interesting way and affords some 1960s nostalgia. Beyond that, the actual plot seemed all too familiar, which wasn't bad because I'm such a fan of traveling through time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biAszWd_ZxI
Quote from: SGOS on November 03, 2021, 07:12:52 PM
As much as I enjoyed that movie, I found the childish behavior unsettling too.
Yeah, all in all it's honestly not the worst movie in the world but... eh.
What We Do at Shadows. Well, I was told "please, check out the series, now!", lol, so I've watched the movie first and it is hilarious! Thumbs up.
A Knights Tale. Again. Was late night channel flipping and caught this one almost from the beginning. It is still good and the music is perfect. Medieval setting and the 'We Will Rock You!' song blaring at a Joust. Perfect! It is a feel good story of underdog good guy overcoming evil guy. Good cast and I love that story line.
"Harlock, Space Pirate" Way too much CGI. Characters didn't seem ... right ... somehow. Laser beams cool. Only alien built on human template, AGAIN. Japanese humor character, something fun about him. No boobage, so 1/10.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 09, 2021, 07:39:59 AM
What We Do at Shadows. Well, I was told "please, check out the series, now!", lol, so I've watched the movie first and it is hilarious! Thumps up.
Good! [hypnosis power] Now you must watch the tv show! [/hypnosis power]
Confession: I can't actually tell if my hypnosis power works all that well. I mostly just point a laser pointer at people stuck in traffic while commanding them to be mad and they get pretty mad. *gunshots* Okay, that guy I definitely did not do anything to. He must've had something else going on.
“Hidden figures†again. Good movie. Good lead into a CRT argument along with the current blitz over “racist†roads and long forgotten “red liningâ€.
Watched live action mulan with the gf.
Absolute garbage.
The Eternals has some of the old Marvel flair, but lacks a compelling story. It has great although kind of pointless visuals with lots of shots of one superhero or another standing in an interesting location while he contemplates the meaning of it all, of which there doesn't seem to be much. It has some creative superpowers, but not much of a point to the whole thing. I wonder if Marvel has used up all of its creativity with the first phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and this marks the end of a phenomenally great run? Or is this just the work of Disney after taking over the franchise without the guiding hand of Stan Lee? How much longer can the franchise dominate the box office on the inertia of its past reputation?
It does have a good rating by movie goers, but I don't understand what that is based on. The professional critics were not impressed, and I tend to agree with them on this one. I think Disney needs to pay more attention to finding writers who better understand what made Marvel so magical. The direction seemed OK, but there wasn't much for the director to work with, except for some of the special effects. I liked some of the actors, but some of the characters were not impressive. The whole thing reminded me of one of DC Comics lesser offerings.
I saw The Eternals in IMAX for free. I showed up at the theater and their ticket system was down so the manager said to sit wherever I liked. I was the only person in the theater. I enjoyed the action on the big screen but the story had major problems. I had no sense these were people who had lived for thousands of years. I've been less forgiving recently by superhero origin stories that make no sense, such as The Eternals, Invincible, and others. It's clear the writers created the heroes and villains first and then tried to come up with a story to explain their motivations.
Started watching the series “Yellowstone†Question. Are we supposed to like the lead family? Are we supposed to “root†for Costner’s character? Cause they are everything I hate in people….just wondering.
Quote from: aitm on November 18, 2021, 10:43:58 AM
Started watching the series “Yellowstone†Question. Are we supposed to like the lead family? Are we supposed to “root†for Costner’s character? Cause they are everything I hate in people….just wondering.
I had the same thoughts. While I do share some of their goals, I don't find them to be very likeable. But it may be fairly realistic. Living in Western Montana, I only knew a couple of the East Side Ranchers. I thought they were nice people, but I had already formed that opinion before I knew they were ranchers. I don't know what is typical. Of course, there was that rancher family that captured that national monument, because they thought they should be entitled to that land. But I don't know if that's typical either.
Most important question: Does that one dude still need his bleach in bulk?
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 18, 2021, 09:21:49 AMI've been less forgiving recently by superhero origin stories that make no sense, such as The Eternals, Invincible, and others.
WAT. Not to spoil anything, but the initial story isn't the full story, and it makes more sense as you go along. Does it make complete sense? No. But it doesn't stick out to me as egregiously bad.
QuoteIt's clear the writers created the heroes and villains first and then tried to come up with a story to explain their motivations.
I mean, that sounds pretty typical. I tend to do that, too - come up with some flashy character first then try to figure out what makes him tick later. Sometimes, I do it the other way, and come up with a character's personality and goals first, then figure out where life took him/her afterwards. There are pros/cons to both techniques, imo.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 18, 2021, 10:28:05 PM
WAT. Not to spoil anything, but the initial story isn't the full story, and it makes more sense as you go along. Does it make complete sense? No. But it doesn't stick out to me as egregiously bad.
I'm one of the few people who didn't like
Invincible. I watched the entire season in one sitting, which was probably a mistake. What kept me going wasn't the teen drama but wanting to learn the secret of Omni Man, because even though the entire show is made up of tropes and clichés I thought the secret would be surprising... but it was just another trope.
While Invincible is contrived and does not completely make sense, the explanation for why the Eternals exist makes no sense at all.
BTW, is it ever explained why Atom Eve can't use her power to manipulate matter on the atomic level to turn Omni Man into a potted plant? She is shown rearranging organic matter.
Fun fact ; there are two movies in production with... Questionable... Ips: The hot cheetos movie and Uno the movie.
If those are the best stories you can come up with, it might be time to move on...
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 18, 2021, 10:28:05 PM
Does it make complete sense? No. But it doesn't stick out to me as egregiously bad.
"egregiously bad" is probably a harsher description than I would have used or intended. A better characterization would be "weak or poor." But that's just my opinion.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 18, 2021, 10:28:05 PM
I mean, that sounds pretty typical. I tend to do that, too - come up with some flashy character first then try to figure out what makes him tick later. Sometimes, I do it the other way, and come up with a character's personality and goals first, then figure out where life took him/her afterwards. There are pros/cons to both techniques, imo.
Either way can work or fail. The overall test is in the final product. I think what GSO meant was that the characters were fine, but the writers gave them little meaningful purpose. Well, granted saving the human race would be meaningful, but the human race played very little part in the story. They were mostly just referred to in the third person, without showing them doing anything that warranted saving. At the beginning, there were scenes showing the celestials caring for and saving humans from death, and at that point, I was happily feeling I was going to like the movie, but the movie quickly shifted to conflicts between the Eternals.
It did seem to me that the characters dazzling abilities were created first, but little attention was given to the plot besides them displaying their abilities (in some pretty good special effects too), while story development took a back seat. This is not an uncommon perception for me. I've often thought if Hollywood can pour that much money into special effects, they can certainly pay for better writing, and those writers are out there too, because their talents show up in films like the Guardians, Ant Man, and the first Ironman. Others too, and as far as I can tell, those films that didn't do well had weak stories, while the visuals have always been top drawer.
Quote from: SGOS on November 19, 2021, 03:39:12 AM
I think what GSO meant was that the characters were fine, but the writers gave them little meaningful purpose. Well, granted saving the human race would be meaningful, but the human race played very little part in the story. They were mostly just referred to in the third person, without showing them doing anything that warranted saving. At the beginning, there were scenes showing the celestials caring for and saving humans from death, and at that point, I was happily feeling I was going to like the movie, but the movie quickly shifted to conflicts between the Eternals.
It did seem to me that the characters dazzling abilities were created first, but little attention was given to the plot besides them displaying their abilities (in some pretty good special effects too), while story development took a back seat. This is not an uncommon perception for me. I've often thought if Hollywood can pour that much money into special effects, they can certainly pay for better writing, and those writers are out there too, because their talents show up in films like the Guardians, Ant Man, and the first Ironman. Others too, and as far as I can tell, those films that didn't do well had weak stories, while the visuals have always been top drawer.
Agreed.
[spoiler]If the entire purpose of the Eternals is to allow the human population to grow so the baby Celestial can emerge, why wouldn't Druig telepathically make all humans pacifists and obsessed with having as many children as possible, Phastos provide technology to easily make food and shelter while the remaining Externals fend off external threats? The Eternal's non-interference rule violates the entire reason they exist. If producers are going to spend millions making a movie, try choosing a story that at least follows its own internal logic.[/spoiler]
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 18, 2021, 11:48:39 PMI'm one of the few people who didn't like Invincible. I watched the entire season in one sitting, which was probably a mistake. What kept me going wasn't the teen drama but wanting to learn the secret of Omni Man, because even though the entire show is made up of tropes and clichés I thought the secret would be surprising... but it was just another trope.
Yes, the entire show is filled to the brim with familiar comic book tropes, like the Justice League and Superman. That's intentional. Then you get the twist, and it's a hell of a doozy of a twist. And the story from there veers away from standard comic book tropes and becomes its own thing. Specifically, it's about unlearning violence and becoming a more caring, cooperative person rather than just someone who talks with his fists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCfmkMGeceg
If you stop to think about it, that kind of message is pretty---
*smashcut to title screen*
QuoteBTW, is it ever explained why Atom Eve can't use her power to manipulate matter on the atomic level to turn Omni Man into a potted plant? She is shown rearranging organic matter.
Yes. She has a much easier time manipulating inorganic matter. Organic matter takes a ludicrous amount of effort, only exacerbated by how fast and dense vilrimites are. It's like trying to use scissors to cut steel.
Finally got to see "Dunkirk". The three stories within the story were compelling and the CGI was stunning. I read that in reality most of the dogfights happened way out over the channel and the soldiers on the beach were upset at the RAF as they were getting strafed. I would be as well. As film makers pick certain battles or campaigns for their 'historical' films, I think they contribute greatly to the general public's view of how things went down, true or not. And other events and battles not depicted just fade away over time. However, we do tend to forget how terrible war really is and I am thankful that young generations can get a sense of it.
Did you notice that the Spitfire that was burning on the beach didn't have an engine?
That movie has a huge fandom here. I haven't seen it yet.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 26, 2021, 12:50:22 AM
That movie has a huge fandom here. I haven't seen it yet.
People get confused because the three time lines run concurrently. The pilot, the civilian skipper and the dogface on the beach are interlaced.
"Henry Poole Is Here". I give it minus 4 stars. I didn't stick till the end as I know where it's going.
[spoiler]What is it with the movies with the idiotic plot "all you need to do is believe". The unbeliever is usually the object of the plot that must be fixed.[/spoiler]
I'm going to have to be in a happy place before I can finish watching "Children of Dune."
Old didn't get good reviews. Both audience and critics were around 50%. I guess I fall in the half that enjoyed the movie, even though I was expecting not to. Usually good science fiction sells it's fantasy by passing itself off as plausible, assuming you are willing to stretch reality a bit. Old probably didn't do well because it stretches fantasy to the absurd and creates a movie experience of "Nah! Can't happen!" Yeah, it's definitely absurd, and I found myself intensely aware of that quality. But maybe because I wasn't expecting much caused me to appreciate what WAS there. The ending draws things together, although that too was absurd. Don't demand too much reality, and you may enjoy this one. Acting was mostly on the weak side, but there were a couple of characters at the end that were convincing.
I didn't like that one precisely because a smart and/or mildly observant viewer will pick apart the premise to death and be incredibly disappointed by the big reveal. And then a *clears throat*...average viewer will dislike the weak acting and extremely forgettable characters. So who's happy?
Ghostbusters Afterlife.
A decent passing-the-torch movie surprisingly similar to Star Wars The Force Awakens. I know, I know, that seems absurd. But it's true. Takes place decades after the main movies in a remote area on the fringes of civilization, check. New protagonist modeled after the old, check. Same old antagonist, check. Wandering about in desolation, check. A character buys the farm...double check. Tries to revive a flagging franchise through nostalgia alone, Stay Puff Marshmallow Man-sized check.
And like the Force Awakens, it's no masterpiece, but it's serviceable.
[spoiler]I like Paul Rudd but his character is completely waste of space in this film. Same goes for several characters, actually. Imo, it could have worked better if it was more centered on just a couple characters and their personal struggles and their ways of dealing with the past.
Also, there are some serious pacing issues. The first half was surprisingly ghost-free and kinda boring tbh.
I gotta give this movie credit, I really like how the ghosts get lassoed by the proton packs and stronger ghosts can grab the "rope" as if it were solid matter. Ghosts are quite literally ensnared, not merely weakened, as I incorrectly assumed.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 02, 2021, 10:29:19 PM
I didn't like that one precisely because a smart and/or mildly observant viewer will pick apart the premise to death.
I never mentioned the premise, but that was weak too. It's something an eighth grader would have picked to write about. But most premises weak or strong, can be saved by the actual script and the directing. This one wasn't saved, but I had the impression that's the way the director wanted it. Many of the positive reviews, praised the director (I won't even attempt to write his name, let alone try to pronounce it), and I got the impression that he is an acquired taste, who cultivates that feel in all of his movies. And most of those types of reviews also observed that his following was the devoted "in group" having achieved some sort of understanding. I dunno. I didn't have that sort of understanding. It's like the way I give Andy Warhol credit for captivating others with a painting of a soup can, while I just scratch my head.
Quote from: SGOS on December 03, 2021, 07:15:07 AM
Many of the positive reviews, praised the director (I won't even attempt to write his name, let alone try to pronounce it), and I got the impression that he is an acquired taste, who cultivates that feel in all of his movies. And most of those types of reviews also observed that his following was the devoted "in group" having achieved some sort of understanding.
You just described a fanboy following. It's one thing to admire someone or their work, it's quite another to see someone or their work as inherently high-quality. Obviously, even skilled people can lose their touch and have stinkers every now and then. And very few people do the twist ending thing well, let alone consistently well.
For this guy in particular, imo he made a splash with a couple really great movies and has been coasting on that wave of nostalgia ever since. His new movies are colored by his old movies, which should be judged on their own merits.
On the heels of Old comes Red11. It has more convincing acting, a much more clever script, but a lot weirder. I'm not going to say if I liked it.
Shang Chi: 9 parts Disney and 1 Part Marvel. There are elements of both in the feel of the film, but it's mostly the typical feel of "isn't that precious" Disney fantasy occasionally laced with Marvel's sense of humor, cleverness, and environments. I think the meld of the two studios will help Disney, while I will miss the electrifying Marvel qualities that brought so much life to Hollywood for the last 15 years. But I always assumed that Marvel's domination of the box office and big screen would not last forever. Nothing lasts forever, and I don't think Disney can perpetuate it or recreate it.
Shang Chi feels to me like an old fashioned kung fu movie, but with a Disney budget. I love it. If you remember the way fans reacted to the character of The Mandarin in Iron Man 3 (I think), this movie rectifies that in an amusing way. Near the end, the movie does turn into a fight with a hig CGI monster, though, and it becomes a bit hard to follow the action, even on the big screen. It's also predictable as hell, but I didn't mind it. I thought it was fun.
The Black Widow movie, however? Not worth the wait. Its...fine. Just nothing special. It sets something up for Hawkeye's Disney+ series, I believe, but I haven't seen that yet.
Here's hoping Spider-Man: Home Alone is actually good. I have hopes. The first Spider-Man was...meh. The second one, I loved. This one seems like it could either be as awesome as Infinity War or as much of a mess as Spider-Man 3.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 13, 2021, 08:10:17 PMThe first Spider-Man was...meh. The second one, I loved.
You mean Homecoming? It had that iconic ferry scene, imho the most relatable villain in the MCU, the most intimidating villain-threatens-the-hero scene ever, and a pretty okay climax.
It's my third favorite Spider-Man movie after Spiderverse and Far From Home. That's a high bar to reach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB5HTcFhCso
Chills.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 13, 2021, 09:41:18 PM
You mean Homecoming? It had that iconic ferry scene, imho the most relatable villain in the MCU, the most intimidating villain-threatens-the-hero scene ever, and a pretty okay climax.
It's my third favorite Spider-Man movie after Spiderverse and Far From Home. That's a high bar to reach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB5HTcFhCso
Chills.
Yeah, Homecoming. Since that was ANOTHER Spider-Man reboot in such a relatively short amount of time, I was simultaneously excited to have Spider-Man officially in the MCU and also kind of burnt out on the reboots. Granted, they kinda just skipped over this version's origin story, since they figured we'd be familiar with it already. We don't see the spider bite. We don't see Uncle Ben die. But in some ways, not having that stuff was kind of distracting, because it left me thinking, "Okay, but how DID this version of Spider-Man get his powers? Where is Uncle Ben? Is he already dead? Did he ever exist in this universe? Did he leave an impact on this version of Peter?" And then there were all of the changes. MJ looking and acting nothing like the source material, Aunt May being super young and constantly getting hit on. It was also a little weird that this version of Spider-Man was such a small time hero, being taken under Iron Man's wing.
It just took some adjusting to get used to this new version of Spider-Man, I think. The second movie won me over, but the first just didn't click with me. There's nothing really wrong with it, but it didn't feel like the same character I was so invested in back during the Raimi trilogy. Funnily enough, I think I care more about the new MJ than I do the new Spider-Man.
Whinerman has never amused me.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 14, 2021, 07:01:41 AM
Whinerman has never amused me.
Dude's a teenage orphan, what did you expect?
And on top of that, every other day, some mentor of his is trying to killing his gf. Dude can't sit down at Starbucks without having a car thrown at him.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 14, 2021, 03:16:54 PM
Dude's a teenage orphan, what did you expect?
And on top of that, every other day, some mentor of his is trying to killing his gf. Dude can't sit down at Starbucks without having a car thrown at him.
He's also a superhero. A whiney superhero. I have no sympathy for him, not since 1964 anyway.
Das Leben der Anderen ("The Lives of Others") 2006, Germany
Follows a Stasi operation in 1986 Berlin as they spy on a well-renowned playwright who has secretly grown disillusioned with the East German authority. Does a really good job of depicting the absolutely mental lengths the Stasi went to collect and store information on anyone and everyone; likewise does a very good job of humanizing, for better and for worse, the various operatives and informants. From terrified victims ratting out their neighbors and strait-laced operators who simply do their job as told, to Partymen who want to exploit this information for their own political and selfish gain, all of the characters feel real and not like caricatures. Very strong ending act, and the entire film does an amazing job of conveying the oppressive weight that fell upon the East during Soviet rule.
Winner of 7 Deutscher Filmpreis', a BAFTA, European Film Award, an Academy Award and a Golden Globe nomination and I think it's fully deserved; it beat "Pan's Labyrinth" for the Academy Award, and I think that's honestly a fair assessment.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 14, 2021, 05:00:32 PM
He's also a superhero.
Superheroes haven't been super in decades.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 14, 2021, 05:00:32 PM
He's also a superhero. A whiney superhero. I have no sympathy for him, not since 1964 anyway.
Spider-Man was originally created to be a super hero with relatable problems. He wasn't an alien with unlimited powers, like Superman. He wasn't one of the richest men alive, who could basically buy all of the super powers he wanted, like Batman. Peter's an ordinary guy who happens to live a double life as a super hero. He struggles to pay bills, because his hero work doesn't pay. He struggles to make time for his friends, family, and partners, because there always seems to be some problem for Spider-Man to fix. That's something I've always liked about his character.
On another note, I wonder how Flash will react to finding out that Peter is Spider-Man. If he gets screen time, that is. He hates Peter, but he's also Spider-Man's biggest fan. Finding out that they're the same person would definitely be confusing for him. I expect he'll change his opinion of Peter rather than the other way around, and he'll be one of the few people coming to his defense when he's accused of murdering Mysterio. In the comics, Flash joins the army and loses his legs, but he ends up merging with the white symbiote and becoming the hero Anti-Venom. He's also had the black symbiote at some point and played the role of Agent Venom. Either one would be cool to see, but they probably won't be in the next movie, unless there's an end-credits scene or something.
I can relate to being an orphan who was responsible for his uncle's death. Sounds just like my life.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 15, 2021, 05:43:23 AM
I can relate to being an orphan who was responsible for his uncle's death. Sounds just like my life.
It doesn't matter if it's something you personally went through. Traditional super heroes are like gods. Hell, some of them literally are gods, like Thor. And that's fine, but they're not really relatable. Spider-Man is a low-income young adult trying to get through life. His problems are real problems, and those problems are usually exacerbated by his status as a super hero. The irony of him secretly working for one of his biggest critics is also pretty interesting. Even though he's doing good things, that doesn't stop people from hating him. Because, as in real life, you can't please everybody, and people have to be divided on everything. He does eventually earn the city's trust, and even finds an ally in J. Jonah Jameson, but he has to work for that.
My favorite super heroes are like Spider-Man. Daredevil is another one. He has a job as a lawyer, fighting for justice in the day. But at night, he literally fights crime with his fists. Like Spider-Man, his double life gives him problems, and the risk of exposure makes him vulnerable. He can't just fly away like Superman, if somebody sees him without his glasses. It's also really interesting that he works in the justice system, because he believes in it, and yet when that fails, he goes out and delivers some vigilante justice. He's kind of a hypocrite, when you think about it.
Iron Man had a really good character arc where Tony Stark nearly died and was essentially bedridden for a while, so he had to pilot the Iron Man suit remotely via headset.
Tony's lying in a hospital bed, struggling to move his hand to grab a ball and simultaneously, his Iron Man suit is pinned down by debris and struggling to reach out and grab a bomb or something. Talk about parallelism.
There's a pretty funny part where Venom literally bites Iron Man's head off only to find out there's no one in there. Pranked!
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 15, 2021, 01:49:30 PM
It doesn't matter if it's something you personally went through.
I said that sardonically.
Watched Shang chi. The ten ring thing….yikes! That was awful…but you wanted to see how “awfuller†it got…..it got awfuller…..
The Card Counter included a lot of card playing and casino scenes, but the whole card counting thing was more like an environment to play out the real story, which was actually interesting, and had a slightly different Hollywood formula. For the first time, I actually understood the theory behind card counting. It's explained in a scene that lasts less than two minutes, so I'm hardly ready to head for Las Vegas right at this moment. Besides for me personally, I can think of better ways to earn money. I first noticed Oscar Isaac in Ex Machina, which was a movie good enough to get anyone's attention, so I've been kind of interested in him as an actor, and I think he's a pretty good one, although he's been around for 15 years.
Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2021, 07:46:15 AM
Watched Shang chi. The ten ring thing….yikes! That was awful…but you wanted to see how “awfuller†it got…..it got awfuller…..
I didn't think it was awful, but I had low expectations. In spite of the reviews and hype behind the film, the whole concept of kung fu, its generally wide interest not withstanding, rates really low as a genre on my list. I've never seen a kung fu film that didn't strike me as ridiculous. But after I saw a few, I've avoided them like the plague, so I'm hardly an expert. I waited for this to make it to the Redbox, because I wasn't about to waste my money at the theater. And then, the only reason I bothered renting it was because it claimed to be a Marvel movie.
I thought a few of the parts were clever, actually very clever, so I was surprised. Take all the kung fu out of the film, and I may have enjoyed it a lot more.
Quote from: SGOS on December 16, 2021, 08:06:22 AMIt's explained in a scene that lasts less than two minutes, so I'm hardly ready to head for Las Vegas right at this moment.
Casinos used to bounce card counters, has that changed?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 16, 2021, 11:30:39 AM
Casinos used to bounce card counters, has that changed?
Hell, I don't know. However, for what it's worth, and according to Oscar Isaac as he explained to his would be girlfriend in the movie, "Casinos don't do anything to you if you count cards and win modestly. If your counting and winning big, well then... ." I think that sentence was left unfinished, but I understood it to mean that they would take some kind of action.
I have no idea what the truth was there, or if there was any truth that they broke your fingers 20 years ago. When you think about it, there's nothing wrong with counting cards. It's a skill possessed by some blackjack experts, and you don't automatically assume a consistent winner at high stakes Texas Holdem' is cheating. Some guys are just good at what they do. I would assume there is less moral restraint by the casinos themselves that rig the slot machines and roulette wheels. I don't know that, however. It's just a guess. I don't gamble. I don't even find it very interesting.
I had a good run of cards at the Flamingo Hilton "a few years ago". The pit boss came 'round and watched me for a while. Then he told the dealer "He can stay, he's not counting." I cleared ~$5K that night.
I just saw Spider-Man: No Way Home. A friend of mine bought me a ticket out of the blue, which was cool of him. Seeing it in theaters was an experience. People went wild...several times. I can't say why without spoiling anything, but yeah. They knew what the fans wanted, and they gave it to them. Sometimes that kind of thing can come off as superficial and hollow, but this is fan service done right. I'd put this movie up there with Into the Spider-Verse, which was very similar in a lot of ways.
Spoilers below...
[spoiler]So yeah. Not only did we get Tobey Maguire's and Andrew Garfield's Spider-Men, we also got Matt Murdock from the Netflix series. So that's officially canon now. Very nice. He's only there for a minute, but his inclusion felt natural. Peter's in legal trouble, so he's helped by a lawyer. One who happens to know what it's like to live a double life. Flash turns out to be kind of a dick. He's still a Spider-Man fan, but he just wants to exploit him. Oh well...
Garfield Spider-Man getting his moment of redemption was well done. It made me stop and realize how good the acting is in this. Even Dafoe, with his goofy version of Green Goblin, felt simultaneously faithful to the original film and yet not out of place at all in the MCU. It probably helps that he ditches his mask pretty early on, in favor of a new look. All of the Spider-Men play off of each other very well. I wonder if we'll be seeing them again. Probably not, but it might be cool to get a Spider-Man 4 or Amazing Spider-Man 3, just to tie up any remaining loose ends. All we really get about how things are going is that Tobey has a complicated relationship with his MJ, and Andrew developed a bit of a rage issue. Andrew never really figured out what the deal was with his father, and this movie was the closest thing to the Sinister Six we've gotten.
I think they used some de-aging technology to make the villains look the same age as they were in their original films. Maybe Dafoe didn't need it, but I think Alfred Molina was de-aged a bit. If so, it was very convincing. Good enough to have me questioning if they really did anything to his face, at least.
I feel like there are a few unanswered questions, though. When the villains are sent back, do they alter the timeline so that they all live, or do they create new timelines for each? When Tobey and Andrew go home, are those cured villains there too, or are they still dead? If Venom is here, since he shows up in the mid-credits scene, that means he has to know a Peter in his universe, right? I was kind of confused about that. But I'm glad how that was handled. I didn't want Venom to become MCU canon. Fortunately for me, that Venom is still in his own separate universe, but he left behind a bit of the symbiote. I'm predicting it will attach itself to Flash, who will become Agent Venom in a future movie.
My interpretation of the ending is that Peter decided to leave MJ and Ned alone, because they were both happy, and re-inserting himself into their lives would put them both in danger. Noble, but goddamn it, Peter. You promised. These Spider-Men have a habit of leaving loved ones behind to keep them safe. Except Garfield, but you know how that ended. I wonder if they'll be back, or if he'll really just move on and find new friends and girlfriends.
The end-credits scene was practically a whole trailer. My god. Usually, it's just a few seconds long, just to tease us.[/spoiler]
Parasite, man was it due the credit it got.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5kzUpWAusI
I recently saw the trailer for the Sonic the Hedgehog 2 movie. It somehow evaded my notice at first. I..uhh...have mixed feelings about this. I--like a lot of people--had hoped they'd go full animation this time around, but no such luck. More of the same, then. Oh well. Jim Carrey also still does not look like Eggman. He has the silly mustache this time, but...yeah. Pretty much all the hopes people had for the sequel seem to be gone. But the last movie was decent, so maybe this one will be too. It's not the Sonic movie we wanted, but maybe it'll still be serviceable.
On the bright side, the robots look more like Badniks this time. Knuckles also seems pretty cool. I'll probably watch it, unless I hear reviews that it's just totally awful.
Based on the trailer, some have suggested that this could be a mixed adaptation of both Sonic 3 and Sonic Adventure. Certain scenes are suspiciously similar to scenes from the Adventure game, such as when we see water bursting out of the manholes. Or when Sonic's watching the police pass by from the top of the building, as he did just before meeting Chaos for the first time. Sonic and Tails also seem to be flying the Tornado towards what looks like a flying fortress (and an actual tornado, ironically). The Egg Carrier, perhaps? This could just be a coincidence, of course, and it probably is. You'd think if Chaos was going to be the central antagonist of the film, they'd show him in the trailer, but who knows? Maybe they'll pull a Batman v. Superman and show him in the second trailer.
Anyway, we see what looks like a Chaos Emerald, or maybe the Master Emerald? They changed a lot of the Sonic lore for the previous film, so who knows what they might change this time, but at least the emeralds seem to be making some sort of a comeback. Knuckles also appears to have a similar lightning-energy that gives him his strength, similar to Sonic's, which gives him his speed. This might be hinting at something. Maybe they're like living Chaos Emeralds or something? Maybe they were infused with their energy from birth, giving them their powers? I have to wonder if Tails will have a similar energy that gives him his power of flight, or if that will just be a natural ability of his. A fox twirling its two tails around to gain lift never really made sense, but Sonic never really obeyed the laws of physics anyway. I mean, he flies around on the wings of a plane, as if that makes sense.
My predictions for this movie: Eggman will somehow trick Knuckles into thinking Sonic is the enemy (as he did in the games, multiple times). While he hopes Knuckles will be able to kill Sonic, Eggman's probably working a different angle too. Since Knuckles is the guardian of the emeralds (presumably, that's still true), he may be planning to find Knuckles' secret hiding spot while he's busy fighting Sonic. Once he gets his hands on the Chaos Emeralds / Master Emerald, he uses them to power his ultimate weapon. At this point, Knuckles realizes he's been tricked and reluctantly teams up with Sonic. What's Eggman's secret weapon? Well, it could be the Death Egg, but that would be predictable. I think, in this adaptation, he'll use the power of the emeralds to fuel Metal Sonic, with the speed of Sonic and the strength of Knuckles. Knuckles will use his position as guardian to somehow bestow the powers of the emeralds onto Sonic, who will transform into Super Sonic and defeat Metal.
I find it odd that anyone had hope for a video game adaptation, let alone Sonic. Just play the games.
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 19, 2021, 11:38:14 PM
I find it odd that anyone had hope for a video game adaptation, let alone Sonic. Just play the games.
People liked the last one. My initial viewing of it was positive, and I still think it was fine, but it definitely wasn't anywhere near as awful as the first trailer made it look. And I'm not just talking about that original model for Sonic. I mean, it was like they were trying to make the movie look as cliched and terrible as possible with that first trailer. That trailer made me think that changing Sonic's model would be like trying to polish a turd.
Also, Detective Pikachu was a good movie. Way better than Sonic, IMO, but it somehow didn't get as much praise. Why aren't they making a sequel to that movie?
Also, also, if you don't think Sonic would work well as a movie...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJqZlkTHkDg
Watch this and tell me a movie in this style wouldn't work. Ever since Unleashed came out, Sonic fans have been asking for a CGI movie like what they gave us in the opening.
Spiderman: No Way Home was very good. Marvel might get back on track. But then Spiderman has always been one of their most popular. I think I like this one best of all, but it's splitting hairs.
Don't Look Up. Pretty simple and accurate. I liked it. It's a good telling of human culture. Also, the movie overall is a feeling I have been feeling for 15 years. It's the zeitgeist.
I liked Don't Look Up too. Rotten Tomatoes trashed it, although audiences seemed to like it. I would describe it as fun in kind of sickening way. It does a pretty good job of satirizing the dysfunctional government that democracy has become.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 20, 2021, 06:03:50 PMAlso, Detective Pikachu was a good movie. Way better than Sonic, IMO, but it somehow didn't get as much praise.
Imho, Sonic was definitely the better movie. But part of it could be expectations. People have high expectations for Pokemon, so when they come out with a movie that's good but not fantastic, it gets a pretty lukewarm reception. With Sonic, that trailer looked bad and I mean BAD, so when they reworked it and came out with a genuinely good movie, it got a standing ovation. (Hell, I saw it in theaters twice, which is unusual for me) Also, Jim Carrey unexpectedly stole the show, which really helped it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 26, 2021, 08:45:28 PM
Imho, Sonic was definitely the better movie. But part of it could be expectations. People have high expectations for Pokemon, so when they come out with a movie that's good but not fantastic, it gets a pretty lukewarm reception. With Sonic, that trailer looked bad and I mean BAD, so when they reworked it and came out with a genuinely good movie, it got a standing ovation. (Hell, I saw it in theaters twice, which is unusual for me) Also, Jim Carrey unexpectedly stole the show, which really helped it.
I was surprised when I heard that the Sonic movie was good. I didn't expect that changing Sonic's model would save the movie, since the trailer made it look so awful. When I saw it, I liked it, but it still doesn't live up to Sonic's potential. I expected something on the level of the Chipmunks movie, or Woody the Woodpecker, or any of those other movies where they take a cartoon character and put them in the real world. So yeah, when I saw that it wasn't that bad, I was pleased. But the movie was still held back by its use of live-action.
Detective Pikachu, on the other hand, used live action to its advantage, mixing with CGI based on the artwork of a well-known artist who makes Pokemon look more realistic. The Pokemon in the movie don't look out of place, unlike Sonic. They created a world that is much more believable and interesting. I also think the acting and humor was better in Detective Pikachu, but that might just be me. The Mr. Mime scene in particular was hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwasv_AImtI
Jim Carrey was fun in Sonic, and I'm glad he's returning, but Sonic the movie is no Liar Liar or Ace Ventura.
Don't Look Up
Satire with an all star cast about a couple of scientists that discover a comet that is going to wipe out Earth only to find out no one cares.
Not the best movie I've seen but worth a watch as it was inspired by current events.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on January 05, 2022, 10:03:37 AM
Don't Look Up
Satire with an all star cast about a couple of scientists that discover a comet that is going to wipe out Earth only to find out no one cares.
Not the best movie I've seen but worth a watch as it was inspired by current events.
Not the best for me, because it exaggerates human stupidity beyond what I consider reality. But then that's only based on my expectation of reality. But this is a purely technical criticism. While it's unsettling on those grounds, I loved this film. The writers and director seemed to know exactly what their goal was, and while it pushes limits of credibility, they get away with it. I like to hear a review from a flaming right winger and see how he/she was affected by the film. Will he blow it off as absurd, recognize himself, or believe the movie is unconstitutional?
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on January 05, 2022, 10:03:37 AM
Don't Look Up
Satire with an all star cast about a couple of scientists that discover a comet that is going to wipe out Earth only to find out no one cares.
Not the best movie I've seen but worth a watch as it was inspired by current events.
I thought it was pretty good, and completely designed to be understood by anyone possible.
[spoiler][spoiler]It's a metaphor for [spoiler]global warming.[/spoiler] Isn't it good?[/spoiler] The last thing character Mindy said affected me honestly.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 28, 2021, 01:02:06 PMDetective Pikachu, on the other hand, used live action to its advantage, mixing with CGI based on the artwork of a well-known artist who makes Pokemon look more realistic. The Pokemon in the movie don't look out of place, unlike Sonic. They created a world that is much more believable and interesting. I also think the acting and humor was better in Detective Pikachu, but that might just be me. The Mr. Mime scene in particular was hilarious.
I don't know if I can agree with you on any of that. Suffice it to say that realism is NOT what I want (https://poketouch.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/pokemon_detective_pikachu_movie_realistic_lickitung.jpg) from Pokemon. I think the green screen is more obvious in Detective Pikachu than Sonic, though it's a close call. And I was actually really annoyed by the drawn-out Mime scene. And to top it off, I think it was pretty bizarre watching Ryan Reynolds voice Pikachu. I like Ryan Reynolds and his sense of humor, but that's one biiizzzare combo - I dunno if his flippant/snarky demeanor is the right fit for Pokemon in general and Pikachu in particular.
In summary, I could have gone for a more cartoonish style with less, you know...death...and maybe more exploration/befriending/rivalry like in the games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKnBI3HzQZs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYwag1T-wRw
As far as jokes go, I prefer the former over the latter.
Rather enjoyed Encanto. Especially liked that the big strong one was a woman and the protagonist wore glasses. Still, after this and Coco I begin to wonder if Pixar has a problem with Abuelas.
From Hell It Came
No one else will even give this movie a second thought, but I saw it on my parent's black and white TV when I was five years old and I was terrified by the "Tabanga." Christ knows why. As rubber monsters from 50's B-movies go, this one is less convincing. Mostly because it doesn't have any articulation.
But, I recently picked up a B&W CRT TV (They still make them ?!?!?) and watched it again and I crapped my pant, although that had nothing to do with the movie.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 15, 2022, 06:05:12 PM
From Hell It Came
No one else will even give this movie a second thought, but I saw it on my parent's black and white TV when I was five years old
I enjoy rewatching those oldies that scared the bejabbers out of me when I was 10 too. I end up buying them, because they don't seem to be available any other way, but they are usually cheap, but what carries them mostly is the nostalgia. I seldom watch them more than once. The last one I watched was Lost Continent with Cesar Romero. I bought a copy, but I think it's on Utube.
Is it this one? It makes sense. It looks terrifying for a kid.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/dc/46/91/dc4691aa8655a9c30ba7eabbb556e0e9.jpg)
Remember giants bees and ants? I haven't slept for days and was scared for months probably. I was in primary school. Oh gawd. And I loved insects.
Big Bug Movies were a hit in the '50s. "THEM!" is the most rational of the lot, with "The Giant Claw" trailing way behind.
Enter "50 movies dvd collection" in Amazon's search window and you're on your way to wasting a huge amount of time. We watched "Teenagers from Outer Space" last night.
BTW, there will be some overlap in the boxed set. Getting fifty movies for $17.99 makes that painless.
Watched something the other night. Had Mel Gibson in it and some other people. Mel had this quite ridiculous English accent and I think it may have been the latest movie he has done…judging by this, I hope so. No, I don’t even remember the name of it….so…..there ya go…
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 16, 2022, 07:16:50 AM
... We watched "Teenagers from Outer Space" last night. ...
That's sounds like a scary movie.
John Wick. Caught most of it channel surfing. Not sure why I like it, but I do. Not quite believable--nobody could take the punishment he gets and keep on moving; or nobody can dish out that much mayhem in so short of a timespan. But I don't quite see this movie trying to be realistic, but yet I keep watching and keep being amused.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 16, 2022, 11:59:49 AM
John Wick. Caught most of it channel surfing. Not sure why I like it, but I do. Not quite believable--nobody could take the punishment he gets and keep on moving; or nobody can dish out that much mayhem in so short of a timespan. But I don't quite see this movie trying to be realistic, but yet I keep watching and keep being amused.
Clever movie though. After the pup's untimely demise, everything was legit, so they used it well, and took it from there with another 2 movies. :lol:
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 16, 2022, 02:23:01 AM
Is it this one? It makes sense. It looks terrifying for a kid.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/dc/46/91/dc4691aa8655a9c30ba7eabbb556e0e9.jpg)
GGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!1!!
Seriously, it's moving about as much as it does in the movie in this photo.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 16, 2022, 11:24:22 AM
That's sounds like a scary movie.
If you think Earth being seeded with food critters that look very much like lobsters yeah, it's kinda scary. But the subtle suggestion that the actors were making up their lines as they go along that worse.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 16, 2022, 07:16:50 AM
Enter "50 movies dvd collection" in Amazon's search window and you're on your way to wasting a huge amount of time. We watched "Teenagers from Outer Space" last night.
Oh, Mill Creek. I have, like,... nine of those boxes.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 16, 2022, 01:51:18 PM
Oh, Mill Creek. I have, like,... nine of those boxes.
Some Mill Creek, some very like.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 16, 2022, 07:16:50 AM
Big Bug Movies were a hit in the '50s. "THEM!" is the most rational of the lot, with "The Giant Claw" trailing way behind.
Enter "50 movies dvd collection" in Amazon's search window and you're on your way to wasting a huge amount of time. We watched "Teenagers from Outer Space" last night.
BTW, there will be some overlap in the boxed set. Getting fifty movies for $17.99 makes that painless.
Like I said, "Those old movies come cheap." I bought a series of the original Frankenstein Classics. I was excited and it was fun for a while, but then I couldn't wait to finish them. Movies have come a long way since the "Talkies."
Boss Lady and I provide additional dialog when the characters on the screen aren't saying anything. We frequently have to rewind up to five minutes to get back to the plot.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 16, 2022, 04:23:37 PM
Boss Lady and I provide additional dialog when the characters on the screen aren't saying anything. We frequently have to rewind up to five minutes to get back to the plot.
Many a year ago….my girlfriend and would on occasion pick up a cheesy porn and turn the volumn off, do a little weed and some drink and make up our own lines…..gotta tell ya….hell of a lot of laughter on those nights.
Quote from: aitm on January 16, 2022, 06:12:53 PM
Many a year ago….my girlfriend and would on occasion pick up a cheesy porn and turn the volumn off, do a little weed and some drink and make up our own lines…..gotta tell ya….hell of a lot of laughter on those nights.
We don't need the weed.
3 from Hell. It’s a Rob Zombie movie. Got it on Amazon for 3 bucks so I said fuck it and bought it. If I were to give it a Rotten Tomatoes score I’d give it a 50%. It’s definitely low budget but the made do O.K. Probably why I was able to buy it for 3 bucks.
Two guys and a gal?
The scenes of the Airborne divisions embarking and dropping into Holland are epic! How did I miss seeing this 1977 flick... I do not know
https://youtu.be/kRzmxox0L0k
Is that A Bridge Too Far? Can't see your video.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 01, 2022, 07:02:53 AM
Is that A Bridge Too Far? Can't see your video.
Yep that's the one. It is a freebie on YT. Some of the later battle scenes seem a bit wonky.
Quote from: Cassia on February 01, 2022, 12:19:52 PM
Yep that's the one. It is a freebie on YT. Some of the later battle scenes seem a bit wonky.
I liked the Polish colonel who kept trying to find out which side the planning officer was on.
Ghostbusters Afterlife.
This one didn't receive the highest accolades from Rotten Tomatoes, although I enjoyed it more than the others. I never thought any of the previous movies lived up to all the hype and acclaim they received, but I laughed out loud a lot in this one, and I enjoyed the characters more, even though they weren't such important Hollywood icons of the first two movies. I'd give it a 7 or 8.
The Green Lantern 2011 Ryan Reynolds
I think I remember being unimpressed, but damn, I couldn't remember a thing about it, but watching it tonight, I liked it quite a bit. Maybe back in 2011, we weren't acclimated to the superhero genre yet. It was put out by DC rather than Marvel too. I just looked it up on Rotten Tomatoes and they stiffed it pretty bad. Maybe with Marvel out of the picture, or maybe just taking a nap, or maybe with Disney not sure what to do with Marvel, it just seemed refreshing. Or maybe I've just been needing an injection of superhero stuff.
Is it Lantern or Lantren? Both sound wrong.
When I google "Green Lan"..., it anticipates "Lantern". I don't trust the internet on many things, but it's pretty good at spelling. My spelling is horrible. It always has been, I have a blind spot in that part of my intelligence, and I can't fix it.
(https://d29xot63vimef3.cloudfront.net/image/green-lantern-1960/1-1.jpg)
There is some sort of a lantern involved so it must be Lantern, right? :shifty:
The title of the comic, "GREEN LANTERN" may have clues buried inside. We need a de-obfuscater to be sure.
Into the spiderverse.
I had high expectations.
They weren´t met.
They were exceeded.
Moon fall. Worn out storyline...kinda interesting...a kinda dont look up thing..panic....s'okay but not worth planning a movie night out of it.
Also, watched kingsman last night...not saying boring, but I went to a bar halfway through cause I needed some type of excitment....so...there's that. Another rainy or snowy or end of life kinda movie
Quote from: aitm on February 10, 2022, 05:29:46 PM
Moon fall. Worn out storyline...kinda interesting...a kinda dont look up thing..panic....s'okay but not worth planning a movie night out of it.
Trudges back to the TV pit.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 04, 2022, 06:16:53 PM
Into the spiderverse.
A very well done animation that captures the Marvel feeling, even with an animated Stan Lee appearing in a brief cameo. Some sequences are so filled and fast, that I'll probably have to watch it again to pick up bits and pieces I missed the first time. I like the way they make fun of their own Spiderman cliches'.
The Last Survivors
A father shields his son from the chaos of WWIII's aftermath in the mountains, and they kill any intruders into their compound. But it turns out there was no WWIII, and civilization is still intact and functioning as it normally does. In fact, a functioning town actually exists within a few miles of the compound where they have been hiding out for the past 25 years. The son in a rebellious episode of wanderlust discovers civilization. But the real surprise in the movie is how stupid the premise is.
Tried watching "Eternals" last night. Probably 60+ years too old for it.
We saw Kenneth Branagh's Death on the Nile in IMAX today and it was very good, better than his interpretation of Murder on the Orient Express. I'm an Agatha Christie fan and this stayed true to the mystery while adding some twists. The entire cast did a very good job with their characters and the cinematography and music were well done.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 16, 2022, 11:01:38 PM
We saw Kenneth Branagh's Death on the Nile in IMAX
Drifting a bit, but does Greensboro have an actual giant screen IMAX, or is this just a multiplex theater with one screen bigger than the others? I very much enjoyed the original IMAX, and for special movies I would drive 80 miles to see them with it. I have to drive 50 anyway, but what they call IMAX here is just a slightly bigger screen, and while, it's a little better, it's not really what I call IMAX, and I don't find the upgrade worth it.
Quote from: SGOS on February 17, 2022, 07:19:24 AM
Drifting a bit, but does Greensboro have an actual giant screen IMAX, or is this just a multiplex theater with one screen bigger than the others? I very much enjoyed the original IMAX, and for special movies I would drive 80 miles to see them with it. I have to drive 50 anyway, but what they call IMAX here is just a slightly bigger screen, and while, it's a little better, it's not really what I call IMAX, and I don't find the upgrade worth it.
It is an IMAX theater, not an IMAX dome and it is not actually in Greensboro but High Point. I'm willing to pay for the larger screen and better audio for select films.
Quote from: SGOS on February 17, 2022, 07:19:24 AM
Drifting a bit, but does Greensboro have an actual giant screen IMAX, or is this just a multiplex theater with one screen bigger than the others?
You're thinking OMNIMAX, not IMAX.
I had never actually heard of IMAX Dome. I had to look that up. While it sounds interesting, I may be thinking of OMNIMAX, which was IMAX until a few years ago. Original IMAX from 1967 came in various sizes, but nothing less that say 5 stories high, with a very small aspect ratio. It was an intense experience, enough to make some people sick, although that was rare.
Quote
As soon as you walk into an IMAX theater, the difference in this format is immediately obvious -- the screen is gigantic! There are two different types:
IMAX theaters - A standard IMAX theater has a huge rectangular screen. A typical IMAX screen is 16 meters high by 22 meters wide (approximately 52 by 72 feet), but they can be much larger. The largest IMAX screen is 30 meters (98 feet) high. Imagine standing next to an eight-story apartment building that is wider than it is tall. That's how big the screen is! It is many times larger than the screen at a normal movie theater.
IMAX domes - An IMAX dome provides a hemispherical screen that wraps the entire theater. Domes can be up to 30 meters in diameter.
....................................
In an IMAX projector, the film is so heavy and large that a projector cannot use a claw to move it, and it is hard to hold such a big film frame perfectly flat with respect to the lens. Therefore, an IMAX projector is completely different from a normal projector:
The film moves through it [projector] horizontally rather than vertically.
A vacuum system sucks each image onto a piece of glass in front of the lens so that the image is oriented perfectly in front of the lens.
The shutter opens for a longer period of time than on a normal projector in order to let more light through. The bulb for the projector is a 15,000-watt, water-cooled xenon unit.
All of this advanced technology means that an IMAX projector weighs over 2 tons (1,800 kilograms) -- the equivalent of a small car! That's what it takes to get such a bright, clear image onto such a tremendous screen.
What they commonly call IMAX today is digital IMAX, but it's really just a marketing ploy. There are improvements over standard digital, but it is not as dramatic as actual IMAX. I've never heard of OMNIMAX until today. I assume it's the original concept.
I took a trip back in time….bout 68. Watchedâ€Hellfighters†with Wayne and Hutton. Not a bad watch. Old movies really show you how much acting has improved over the years. Still a bit of fun…and nostalgia.
We watched Cruella last night because I like Emma Stone. It was far more entertaining than I expected. Emma Stone was good but Emma Thompson as a sociopathic fashion designer was one of the most interesting villains I've ever seen in a Disney movie. The costumes were inspired.
https://youtu.be/EtA0hw_0Dps
I've watched The Nun today. LOL, it's terrible. I usually don't watch horror, but I thought I'd make a change today. Myeh.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 20, 2022, 10:19:23 AM
I've watched The Nun today. LOL, it's terrible. I usually don't watch horror, but I thought I'd make a change today. Myeh.
There's such a shortage of good movies these days that I fallen to renting a horror film now and then. I only do it if they get good reviews, but even then they all just seem like the same old horror cliche' over and over. Once in a great while I'll hit on one that doesn't seem that bad, but they're not apparently good enough for remember which ones those were.
Quote from: SGOS on February 20, 2022, 10:28:37 AM
There's such a shortage of good movies these days that I fallen to renting a horror film now and then. I only do it if they get good reviews, but even then they all just seem like the same old horror cliche' over and over. Once in a great while I'll hit on one that doesn't seem that bad, but they're not apparently good enough for remember which ones those were.
But The Nun was so obviously a failure that part was more disappointing, I think,lol. It's a series. and I had seen one of the Conjuring (2 maybe?) years ago, and it wasn't good but not this bad. I've watched the trailer of Annabelle (Same series) and all...they can do a lot of different stuff. But they just don't.
Girls' School Screamers. (1986) LOL It's terrible. Not Night of Demons terrible, but terrible.
A character drinks wine from a chalice (a flashback from 1939), as a proof of being a millionaire I think. LOL I think a silver chalice of that size would weigh a kilo or probably more.
Call Girl of Cthulhu
(119)
1 h 32 min
2021
18+
Carter is a struggling artist who's been saving his virginity for someone special. When he meets an enchanting escort, he believes he's found the one. Unfortunately, she's also "someone special" to an ancient cult that believes she is the chosen bride of its alien god, Cthulhu. Forced to mate with the tentacled deity, she becomes a vessel for the spawn that will destroy mankind
We watched Downfall: The Case Against Boeing. It was quite damning. When I watch documentaries I always keep in mind there could be another side to the story but in this case I don't think there is one-- it's profits over human lives.
https://youtu.be/vt-IJkUbAxY
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2022, 01:31:58 AM
We watched Downfall: The Case Against Boeing. It was quite damning. When I watch documentaries I always keep in mind there could be another side to the story but in this case I don't think there is one-- it's profits over human lives.
https://youtu.be/vt-IJkUbAxY
Does it mention Niki Lauda's lawsuit against them by any chance? Just recently learned of that.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 25, 2022, 02:02:15 AM
Does it mention Niki Lauda's lawsuit against them by any chance? Just recently learned of that.
No. I didn't know about that.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2022, 08:35:33 AM
No. I didn't know about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004
Yeah, apparently in the 90s Lauda had his own airline and one of his Boeing 767s engines decided to just reverse thrust, causing the plane to break apart over Thailand. Being the mechanic he was, Lauda personally led the investigation into the crash and discovered it was a software issue that wasn't limited to just the one plane.
Boeing, being Boeing, accused him of lying because it was actually his fault it crashed, and ended up in court over it and eventually were forced to settle with Lauda when all evidence pointed it to it being their fault.
Youtubers have no requirement to tell the truth.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 25, 2022, 05:29:30 PM
Youtubers have no requirement to tell the truth.
No kidding. Look at the Intellivision Amico.
So, what did everyone think about The Batman? I confess I'm not a good movie critic, I enjoy most movies I see. But I really liked it. Actually, for about the first 30 minutes, I felt like it was "trying too hard" at its emo vibe or whatever you want to call the mood it was aiming for. But, I got dialed into the story and started to really enjoy it. The conclusion was pretty epic.
Quote from: caseagainstfaith on March 06, 2022, 10:46:04 PMSo, what did everyone think about The Batman?
A very minor but oddly charismatic gang member was the spitting image of an internet-famous film critic. That alone was worth the price of admission imho. Definitely got a laugh out of me.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgiszjAWkAQ_8Mv.jpg)
As for the movie itself, it was dark and gritty and creepy AF, borderline too dark and gritty imho. Even Rorschach is telling this film to tone it down a notch.
It's not a masterpiece, but it was pretty good. It's one of the rare movies that relies on Bats doing some detective work as opposed to just punching stuff or whipping out the Batcard. I guessed a couple times and got it right and guessed a couple times and was horribly wrong a couple times.
Unlike other people, I wasn't too terribly impressed by the Batmobile, which to be honest, seems like a strange vehicle to use in a crowded urban hellscape with packed roads but plenty of alleyways and rooftops. Bats can either use his grappling gun to swing around the urban jungle or use his hoverplane instead of waiting in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Hell, he can use his handy bike when he absolutely has to hit the road, so there's basically no practical purpose for the Batmobile, but I digress.
The main villain (unlike an owl, I'm not gonna say who) was very good, no Heath Ledger but no Jared Leto either. Again, good but not superb. Gordon was good. Alfred was okay. Bats was okay. Everyone else was okay. Except the twins. The twins were 10 out of 10 magnifique.
Here's one for you guys:
What moves without stopping until the end,
requires a person have 13 bucks to spend,
entrances even those those who prefer Joker
who only a day later will say it was mediocre?
Laserblast: Remastered
IMDB: 2.7
1 h 22 min
1978
PG
"Ostracized teenager, Billy, finds a laser gun and terrorizes the town with it as he mutates with each blast. Now it's a race against time before the aliens return to claim the weapon...and his life."
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B07BSLH4LV/ref=atv_hm_hom_1_c_lZOsi7_2_2
Not enough goat sex.
Phantom from 10,000 Leagues
Mutated monster from the sea arrives (1955)
1 h 20 min1955
NR
Soviet spies, including the obligatory Mata Hari clone, try to steal some damn thing. Good guys win, didn't see that coming.
I like he title with that one because they didn't understand that Jules Verne was referring to the distance traveled while underwater, not the depth they reached. The ocean is deep, but not quite that deep.
Quote from: the_antithesis on March 12, 2022, 06:33:00 PMI like he title with that one because they didn't understand that Jules Verne was referring to the distance traveled while underwater, not the depth they reached. The ocean is deep, but not quite that deep.
I was in the fifth grade when I hit that bump. Teacher explained it to me.
Shang-Chi, surprisingly really good. Great choreography that shows it's heavy influence on the old Hong Kong cinema, mixing modern fights, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" mythical flying fights influenced by various traditional martial arts, and even some Jackie Chan humor-influenced fights.
Stories good, main-bad is actually surprisingly well done for a Marvel villain imo. Surprised how under-the-radar this one went.
Sir Run-Run Shaw created the Hong Kong Dong movies. "You have two weeks to film. If you're not done you still have to clear the studios for the next epic."
Gf fell asleep midway through the phantom menace.
"Not as good as the others you showed me." She said before dozing off.
Atta girl.
They had to pack in several origin stories. It was a intro to the rest of the movies. I think it did its job.
Quote from: gawdzilla sama Jr. on March 13, 2022, 10:57:28 PMThey had to pack in several origin stories. It was a intro to the rest of the movies. I think it did its job.
I both like it and hate it. The pod racing stuff was one of its better ideas. Seeing more streamlined looking star ships made me wonder how technology moved backwards, since this is supposed to be a prequel, but I still like the designs.
I really don't like how young they made Anakin. He should have been the same age as Luke was in A New Hope. When the Jedi Counsel says he's too old to be taken in, I'm like, "Too old? Do you take all of your Jedi straight from the cradle? Da fuq?" It also makes a mess of things with his love interest, who is clearly a grown woman when they first meet. They
look the same age in later movies, but according to this one, she's got like ten years on him.
I love Darth Maul's design, but his portrayal was very boring. He had practically no lines, no personality. Fortunately, the Clone Wars series would later redeem the character, but The Phantom Menace didn't do the character justice.
I don't find Jar Jar as annoying as others do. He's irritating, yes, and his humor is juvenile. But when people complain about him, I always think back to the original trilogy, and how they had a walking rug who communicated exclusively through growls. I find them equally annoying. Which would you rather watch, the Gungan parts of The Phantom Menace or the Christmas Special? The latter had a lot of things wrong with it, but the number one reason it should never have been made is because having an entire cast of characters who just growl at each other is...just painfully stupid.
Quote from: gawdzilla sama Jr. on March 13, 2022, 10:57:28 PMThey had to pack in several origin stories. It was a intro to the rest of the movies. I think it did its job.
I think it did it's job in a boring way.
There were things I liked. Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson...
But I really think Jar Jar is not a good character, to put it lightly. The idea that C3PO was built by Anakin also seems needlessly shoehorned in. And they had two whole episode to find a better place for him to come in naturally, if they wanted to. It didn't
have to be in episode one. Especially if they already took on so much.
Also, the CGI was good at the time. But... maybe as an adult, maybe after being spoiled for years with increasingly better CGI, it is starting to look worse. To me, at least.
The pacing of the story is slow. Slower than the other films, and it shows even more due to it being interrupted by faster-paced and flashier bursts of action than the originals had.
Anakin is way too young for Padme.
Though, yes, Blackleaf; the Jedi took in babies. Once even got sued for kidnapping one.
So he was too old for the order.
Maul is cool, but fleeting.
The trade federation is boring.
... I could go on.
There were things it did right. But few and far in between, imho.
I ignored the trip "through the planet coreee".
See, this is why I've given up on Star Wars. Right here. Conversations like this one.
QuoteI don't find Jar Jar as annoying as others do. He's irritating, yes, and his humor is juvenile.
Yeah, I never found that argument all that convincing; like people forgot Ewoks were a thing.
My problem with him is... he is kinda really racist, like the Nemonians or w/e the trade federation race is... like Mickey Rooney in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" bad.
Ewoks were cool enough. They were very silly, yes. And their abiltiy to take down the emperor´s top squadron is overreached. But they were competent enough in their own way. And you are watching a space fantasy story about laserswordwielding wizardknights. So it didn´t take me out of the story, Personally. And at least they weren´t up in your face, constantly interjecting and slowing the story in favor of poorly excecuted slapstick or whining.
Same with chewbacca.
Jar jar did.
Ewoks as Viet Cong surrogates. Made me smile.
If the Ewoks had either rebel-supplied weapons or fearsome beasts or something the least bit threatening in their arsenal, it'd make sense that they unexpectedly took down some troopers and AT-STs.
But in the movie, they had literal sticks and slings. IIRC, they rolled some logs at an AT-ST and it fell over. I'm supposed to believe that these armored walkers can't handle a few logs? It'd be like expecting a car to crash because it ran over a banana peel. It's pure cartoon logic.
Yep, low-tech warfare vs. high-tech. Mr. Charles appealed to the luddites in the US.
Ewoks success was only overlooked as much as it was due to it being against the "bad guys". One could imagine the screaming it was reversed. "We got a 180 ton walking stabilized tank tripping over a rope?" Get me the designer...better yet, just bring me his head.
Something about a conquistador who lived there ~500 years ago and is now very grumpy. Why he's killing people isn't clear.
IMBD 2.4.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 06, 2022, 11:56:55 PMA very minor but oddly charismatic gang member was the spitting image of an internet-famous film critic. That alone was worth the price of admission imho. Definitely got a laugh out of me.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgiszjAWkAQ_8Mv.jpg)
Funny. The Nostalgia Critic just made a joke about that in his review of Mask of the Phantasm.
I see Poe Dameron/Duke Leto Atreides has a new movie out, "Moonshot"? (I think that's the name. IMDB agrees.)
I've seen Being the Ricardos. I don't know what to think about it. I didn't get bored while watching it, but something's not in place about this movie. I have no idea what though. It feels like the story floats on a very wide area, and then suddenly falls from a narrow path too fast boom it is the end. May be I didn't get it.
I saw the Sonic 2 movie last night. It was pretty good. Definitely an improvement over the first one, in my opinion. It didn't go where I was expecting it to. Some of their decisions were a bit weird, and I still wish they would make a fully animated Sonic instead of doing this live action with CGI characters thing, but for what it is, it's good. I'd go into spoilers, but you know...
[spoiler]Spoiler tags no work.[/spoiler]
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Beasts were only mildly fantastic. And I still don't know where to find them. 2/10.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 08, 2022, 11:43:09 PMFantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Beasts were only mildly fantastic. And I still don't know where to find them. 2/10.
I'm a kaiju in my day job, don't complain about mundane beasts, they're the fun ones.
And #3 will be out on the 15th. Can't wait.
Quote from: gawdzilla sama Jr. on April 09, 2022, 05:44:00 AMAnd #3 will be out on the 15th. Can't wait.
Yeah, I got invited to see #3 in IMAX, so I'm legally obligated to see the first two.
From what I've seen so far, not nearly as charming/endearing as the HP movies.
And I swear, JKR is following the Star Wars method of naming characters. "His name is Din...uhhh...*racks brain*...Juurin." "Whew, that was an intense five-second brainstorming session. Let's break for lunch."
*JKR looks at an amphibian enclosure* My main character's name will be Newt...uhhh...Salamander...no, too obvious...Scamander." Genius.
You come up with that many names that immediately associate one with the Wizarding World.
Merplin
Also, I'm going to have a wizard who transforms into a dog and I'm going to call him Canis Lupus Familiaris.
And like 20 years later, I'm going to tell you that he's gay over Twitter.
Quote from: gawdzilla sama Jr. on March 31, 2022, 07:17:40 PMI see Poe Dameron/Duke Leto Atreides has a new movie out, "Moonshot"? (I think that's the name. IMDB agrees.)
"Moonknight"?
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 09, 2022, 05:49:48 PM...And like 20 years later, I'm going to tell you that he's gay over Twitter.
I was following the books when they first coming out. Honestly, I've thought Dumbledore was gay back then when I read it. And didn't even think on it that people would think otherwise. Yeeears later, when I saw the discussions around the web, I was surprised but couldn't remember why I thought that way, and it turned out a lot of adults did too when we talked about it with a few friends. Then as many people said it, it was that he didn't have any relations and described his relationship with him as "We were more than friends". It's too subtle because back then it was supposed to be that way in a children's book. There wasn't an open fight about putting gay-trans gender characters in children's books and movies, in media. I mean people didn't insist on this kind of stuff openly. Also think about it like this. Writing for children and young adults are the way to go with fantasy, if you want to be read and make money. Writing a high quality adult fantasy book that would be widely picked up is immensely, ridiculously difficult. You could ask that to any editor. So the border line becomes graphic violence and sex scenes and that doesn't make an adult book in my opinion.
Young generations, and by that I mean people 10 to 15 years younger than me are way too literal compared to us. Because they are social media; meme, caption culture kids. Things are written down, pasted on to each other, captioned over and over again. It's a weird 'written' culture that is akin to the old 'spoken' culture before printing press. There is little space for imagination and what is called information between the lines.
When I talked about Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles with a few young people in recent years, how I saw them and liked them 20 something years ago, it was almost like we were talking about different books. They don't get why I think something is when there is no solid, clear indication of it. It's really very interesting and coincidentally Rice's case was a very suitable example content wise. For some reason, they have a very strong desire to see the protagonist as a love interest, for example lol. But the thing is in Rice's universe, vampires see humans like the roast chicken we see on the plate and she doesn't compromise. So their desire never gets satisfied. Vampires don't even have any actual relations with humans. So they don't like that. When I said because she is reading human species from a fantasy one, they've told me there was nothing pointing to that kind of reading at all. LOLOL
Well, literature doesn't work that way. I know it sounds too big. Writers shouldn't compromise while writing, but one era's subtle detail becomes other era's lie. And in my opinion, there are quite interesting things happening there from perception-reception theories to cultural appropriation...and then some. I swear, human understanding of things keep changing so fast, nothing can catch it.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on April 13, 2022, 11:54:08 AMWriting for children and young adults are the way to go with fantasy, if you want to be read and make money. Writing a high quality adult fantasy book that would be widely picked up is immensely, ridiculously difficult. You could ask that to any editor. So the border line becomes graphic violence and sex scenes and that doesn't make an adult book in my opinion.
Hmm. You may be right about that. Also, children/YA are probably more likely to pick up the fantasy book in the first place.
Pitching children/YA fantasy: So these kids stumble through a closet and into the magical land of Azerolands and a wise old wizard tells these twins that they're the chosen one but we don't know which one is the chosen one and orcs attack so they have to find the dragon refuge to get the amulet of kings from the last dragon before the evil sorceror Evilor can get his evil hands on it. Also, one of the major characters is a Jesus allegory.
Pitching adult fantasy: So the main character is Shadowweaver Darkbane and he lives in the land of Dark Shadowmoorspire. He was sentenced to the dungeon for a crime he didn't commit and his family was massacred. Now, he's back to kill the evil queen - his sister. But not before she starts a 5-way war that ends of up killing or molesting half the cast in vicious battles. Only the one with the best story will win.
QuoteYoung generations, and by that I mean people 10 to 15 years younger than me are way too literal compared to us. Because they are social media; meme, caption culture kids. Things are written down, pasted on to each other, captioned over and over again. It's a weird 'written' culture that is akin to the old 'spoken' culture before printing press. There is little space for imagination and what is called information between the lines.
Interesting hypothesis, but I'm not quite sold on that, seeing as my generation has a "written culture" as well - plenty of comics and captions and seemingly obvious stuff spelled out.
In fact, I'm not so sure we're all that good at reading between the lines ourselves. I know some warhammer people who don't seem to have gotten the memo that the whole setting is a cautionary tale: endless war and rampant xenophobia is a bad thing and leads to bad results. No society that goes to war for generations comes out of it happy.
QuoteFor some reason, they have a very strong desire to see the protagonist as a love interest, fro example lol.
IIRC, the protagonist as a love interest of the vampire is somewhat common in vampire stories. Buffy, Twilight, Underworld, etc.
QuoteBut the thing is in Rice's universe, vampires see humans like the chicken we see on the plate and she doesn't compromise. So their desire never gets satisfied. Vampires don't even have any actual relations with humans.
From a vampire's perspective, human-vampire romantic relations is a combination of zoophilia and pedophilia, so yeah, not kosher.
Had fun at "Uncharted". Kept score of the wonky bits. Had to take my shoes off to continue the count.
Dumbledore turning out to be gay is one thing. I missed that when I read the book, but whatever.
Where in any of the seven books is Hermione said to be black? You'd think her skin color would come up at least once, considering how inbred the wizarding world is. Would have given a different angle to that whole "mud blood" thing too. I swear, it seems like the author thinks she can win points just be retroactively declaring her characters to be minorities.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 13, 2022, 12:40:35 PMHmm. You may be right about that. Also, children/YA are probably more likely to pick up the fantasy book in the first place.
Yep. I've watched a few editors in the field explaining the situation and talked to a few published British writers (not well known, but selling) online about it some time ago. Apparently, it has various dynamics from people being able to have places like Amazon printing their own just like that without being accepted by an editor to the genre being worn out with certain themes...etc beyond the one you mentioned.
QuotePitching children/YA fantasy: So these kids stumble through a closet and into the magical land of Azerolands and a wise old wizard tells these twins that they're the chosen one but we don't know which one is the chosen one and orcs attack so they have to find the dragon refuge to get the amulet of kings from the last dragon before the evil sorceror Evilor can get his evil hands on it. Also, one of the major characters is a Jesus allegory.
Pitching adult fantasy: So the main character is Shadowweaver Darkbane and he lives in the land of Dark Shadowmoorspire. He was sentenced to the dungeon for a crime he didn't commit and his family was massacred. Now, he's back to kill the evil queen - his sister. But not before she starts a 5-way war that ends of up killing or molesting half the cast in vicious battles. Only the one with the best story will win.
Are these actual plots or have you made them up on the spot?
See, the difference is not just about the fantasy elements, it is about how the text is written. The vocabulary count, how the plot is handled. (Twilight has around 25 K word vocabulary. While Ursula has 85 K +, Rice probably has around 60 K I'm guessing. Buffy is a far less, it's a script.) Not the word count of course. The vocabulary which makes the 'how' part of how something's written, not what kind of content or theme is based on. It could be very simple, absurd or even ridiculous but written by a master who knows what he is doing, it is gonna stay on the bookshelves for decades. It doesn't have to be popular. How much sense does it make. Of course, there is the rarest and most precious kind of writer who invents something unique, and then it is not going to matter much if his vocabulary was close to a 100K or not. But, ay there's the rub. That's the real thing, it is very hard to come by and most of it has happened thousands of years ago. There is a legitimate reason why good editors and literary critics are fucking major league assholes. Because while we say, 'very hard to come by' to feel good, actually this doesn't happen, lol. As you brought it up, almost everything put out there automatically falls into some allegoric category, which we all are familiar. Otherwise, it wouldn't be recognisable. Creating an original content from what is familiar, in an unfamiliar manner consistent in itself that makes sense to different culture/class of people, that moves people to push their horizons, and become universal is the real deal. That requires a genius. There are only several in history. Taking something in essence everyone knows and creating something new; a new way of looking at things... It's crazy, man. Fucking crazy. But then there is a man called Cervantes, and for all our sakes we should ignore the son of bitch in this conversation.
(This subject is also related to another phenomenon. Today, movies are turned into simple booklets as novels/short stories after they come out and it sells. From my personal point of view, it is an abomination. Because the difference between something created as literature and something created as movie from a script -although they are both written material- is that the former has the limit as far as the reader's imagination goes - which is virtually infinite and unique to every reader- while a movie is what we see something written from someone else's imagination. And a movie in most cases compared to a book has to show you something to be believable and make sense. Not tell it. A book can tell it, show it, describe it; can do it in many different forms. The between the lines space of a movie is always smaller than a book. That's the natural structure of the medium. These are the main reasons why we generally think a movie sucks, if we have read the book it's based on, exceptions aside. And when it is reversed this time the booklet sucks, but then how can it not? And apart from its form, why is it even called a book, ffs.)
QuoteIn fact, I'm not so sure we're all that good at reading between the lines ourselves. I know some warhammer people who don't seem to have gotten the memo that the whole setting is a cautionary tale: endless war and rampant xenophobia is a bad thing and leads to bad results. No society that goes to war for generations comes out of it happy.
LOL. Yeah, I get it. While that's the personal imagination unique to every person part, I think it is also related to what I was saying about literal mindedness. Now, lol, I know you'll say that if something there going on an as the big Picture in the world created, clearly described, how is not seeing it literal mindedness? Because there is a paradox with this. Or rather, it is a two ended issue folding out on each other. Literal and metaphoric mindedness. Like the concept of context which is closely related to it. If you start to put things in context -which we do automatically when ponder into things- there will always be another one high up, side ways from some other context to carry it. Where does it end, how do you pick up the right, useful one?
That's about the way of thinking we have developed. We all were born in 20th century. We continue to divide and divide and then name things. We all are children of standart education which is based on 'text culture' beyond a 'written' one. And going further we are 'prose' children. With the invention of modern state, scientific revolutions and most importantly standard education, generations keep move further away from 'poetic thinking'. By 'poetic', I don't mean the genre of poetry, or some accumulation of cheesy literary product filling old books, exactly like I didn't mean/think young generations don't have some 'written culture' and so that's why the meme culture is like a 'verbal' one before the 'written' -again before- the printing press as you took it in my post. (Which is a quite a literal way to take it, don't you think? How can I think a generation or two just coming after me don't have a written culture in the first place.) Because all these can exist together; actually verbal and written culture(s) of any kind have always existed together. And the meme culture is also a reaction to 'things' going on too prose and textual for the last century; to the diminishing verbal culture with a new plane and mediums.
And all that shapes how we think and see, interpret things around us. Be it history, politics or simple daily events. The negative part of meme culture and the way of thinking that's evolved from it that it reduces and simplifies too much by its nature and in some cases kill a thing's meaning, dynamics of how it occures or happens. Just like too much prose-textual mindedness reduces imagination and dimension of the way of thinking. "Imagination is much more important than knowledge" is not something chic he said. It carries a very important message. Also some sort of a cautionary tale in this case. Also, explaining and pointing out everything on paper or in a movie is related to literal mindedness in audience too. It's a demand.
QuoteInteresting hypothesis, but I'm not quite sold on that, seeing as my generation has a "written culture" as well - plenty of comics and captions and seemingly obvious stuff spelled out.
Allow me to give an example from your general posts, but please do not take this as some sort of a negative remark, opinion about your person. It's just a good example. (If there wasn't any difference between the way generations-people think, a change for any direction in any scale, that would be absurd and not to mention very bad.)
You often post shots about order of operations, on how most people do not know about it. By the way, I know that -at least think that- you want people to know/remember very basic things like this, just like you feel about geographical knowledge. I agree with you, and everybody with a lick of sense would. Because you are right. That's not it. I personally care more about people not feeling any responsibility of remembering/knowing things like this than the thing itself.
However, from what I see around on the net, the generations mentioned tend to interpret this as some sort of sign of 'stupidity' and things has gone further away to think that if ballots had some similar equation on it to allow people to vote if solved correctly, things would be different. Because 'math is hard' and you need to have some sort intelligence or higher vision to get it. Math is hard, yeah. But, no. It wouldn't make a smidge of difference in anything. For starters concerning the example, that's not 'Mathematics', maybe at most arithmetics. Yes, Mathematics is related rationality, science, logic...etc, but ordinary people do not use Mathematics in daily life (not need, just not use), they only use the four operations, and it does not come up in some form that they would need to remember or. of op. daily. That's a part of primary school curriculum and everyone who clicked 18 today instead of 0, has passed or will pass that class. But after that, it's safe to say that none of them actually has used it or will use it.
Also, forget the order of operations, people who actually understand/know Mathematics easily miss the allegory you easily recognise and describe up there, appear clueless in face of obvious metaphors, allegories, points made...etc; what's in front of them. You can observe this while interacting engineers. That's not a joke. (It's a generalisation of course and in my opinion it is a legitimate one. Exactly like the generalisation of people in social science with STEM.)
The problem is the understanding; the way of thinking that being aware of things like -again to continue with the same example- order of operations has an affect on perception-reception of people of events around them, is a symptom of literal thinking. An extreme one of that. And it's related to the meme culture because these are pic shots put on the internet to show something, but it doesn't tell anything about people other than they just don't know or remember that very specific thing. That's it. It gets interpreted in countless ways, gets carried to unreasonable contexts and that produces opinions and visions about people, that society, their culture the world in general. And becomes a rule in a way. Which is ridiculous, because it has nothing to do with real life; the real issues why people act so stupid in a pandemic, what happens in the elections, the crazy conspiracy theories. And nothing can be changed/accomplished by teaching people about these things or by interpreting them as showing how most people are stupid, ignorant...etc because the problem is the feeling the responsibility of learning, remembering, being curious about them that counts. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with understanding literal things in life. Actually, it's quite the opposite. Taking that kind of responsibility for that kind of knowledge as a human being is required to be learned by completely different means.
QuoteIIRC, the protagonist as a love interest of the vampire is somewhat common in vampire stories. Buffy, Twilight, Underworld, etc.
From a vampire's perspective, human-vampire romantic relations is a combination of zoophilia and pedophilia, so yeah, not kosher.
Yeah, sure. (Agreed with the second part.) Because they belong to a new era. It's not even 30 years old. Just the fact that the audience desire constantly to see humans -actually themselves- in some work with absolute power, or with super powers explains a lot about our era or what sucks about it.
Anyway, if you take it from the point how rational and consistent those works work in themselves, you'll see they're barren, and fast food kind of products. This is how the themes of some genre gets worn out, thinner and thinner. A few examples from the previous example.
In Rice's universe, not all humans can be transformed to vampires. Most of them die in the process and very few of them survive as the new species. So there is no sure or easy decision; fast food short cuts in the plot. Because vampires are an anomaly of nature, the part of the life map noone knows about. They are a very little group, most of them don't even know each other, and in that little group just several could actually bear the time, change and adopt. The rest go/has gone 'mad' or 'die' because if you can't change, how do you adopt to change? And how many times? They do not have any relations with humans because that's not even a question. A creature like a vampire simply cannot fall in love with a one like human. Why and how it would be? Besides being foods, humans do not, cannot possess anything interesting or attractive for an intelligent being who has lived a couple of hundred years, let alone thousands. Forget thousands, can you imagine living the whole eras of the early modern Europe, and fall in love with a human who was born in 1980s? How do you make sense of it on page, make it believable beyond any action genre?
And their irresistable, violent thirst for blood is coming from not being able to satisfy the simple daily appetite remaining from being a human, drinking-eating, the distort version of some worldly needs. They feel the desire stronger -they feel everything more- as what they are but they can't eat, drink... or satisfy, have any of it. (Like the zombie pirates in the Pirates of the Caribbean in a way, lol.) When we humans eat and drink, we just don't nourish our food need. We satisfy a lot of different things from need for company to pleasure with taste, to go out to do some social place...etc. Countless things. The cycles of a day for example. They can't do that. We constantly change. They never do. We grow up and if lucky, die at an old age. Our one day is not like the other. One day we get up, we are fine, on the next day everything sucks. They always feel the same. And they need to go all that alone. They are indestructible, but say, a vampire can make himself deaf by just screaming. And they are completely vulnerable in their day sleep which is pretty much like death. A few have special powers, but most don't. But you can't sneak upon any vampire. And again no one knows, there is no known rule to any of that. They are beautiful because they are chosen that way as a human as much as possible, so they could allure their food easily. The only gain is to be immortal and unlimited movement.
Being a vampire sucks like hell in Rice's universe. It's a horrible life. (Just like being human in a way, lol.) Because if this had been real, it would have been something like this. Because the story is about how precious it is to be temporary, mortal. It's telling about humans without using any human. Think about the whole existence, the universe, being alive. Thank fuck, we are gonna die. And why all things evolved to end in their scale. Not like True Blood or Vampire Chronicles tv series, or Twilight... No consequences. Just eternal youth, power and beauty. Euphoria. Nothing interesting in it. It just repeats it self, and naturally try to get more extreme and 'sextreme' just to keep going. Does that ring a bell?
(Not just about vampires as a genre in this sense. As much as I love Tolkien, Terry Pratchett is the winner for me with his take on elves in Lords and Ladies.)
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 14, 2022, 09:52:28 AMDumbledore turning out to be gay is one thing. I missed that when I read the book, but whatever.
Where in any of the seven books is Hermione said to be black? You'd think her skin color would come up at least once, considering how inbred the wizarding world is. Would have given a different angle to that whole "mud blood" thing too. I swear, it seems like the author thinks she can win points just be retroactively declaring her characters to be minorities.
She is not from the wizarding world. She is from the muggle world. Her parents are muggles. I have no idea what you are talking about? Where is she black?
If it is some new series or a new movie, it is just a casting thing, it doesn't matter at all if she is black or Chinese to be honest?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on April 14, 2022, 12:19:50 PMAre these actual plots or have you made them up on the spot?
A little of column A, a little of column B. Some are thinly-veiled references to actual fantasy plots (Chronicles of Narnia, Skyrim, Game of Thrones) or generic references to whole genres ("dark" urban fantasy)
The pitches are intentionally terrible as a sort of satirical take on fantasy novel conventions. If it helps, imagine Morty pitching his heist script or his awful scorpion story.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 14, 2022, 12:56:34 PMA little of column A, a little of column B. Some are thinly-veiled references to actual fantasy plots (Chronicles of Narnia, Skyrim, Game of Thrones) or generic references to whole genres ("dark" urban fantasy)
The pitches are intentionally terrible as a sort of satirical take on fantasy novel conventions. If it helps, imagine Morty pitching his heist script or his awful scorpion story.
LOL. OK. Hmm you are writing?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on April 14, 2022, 01:05:51 PMLOL. OK. Hmm you are writing?
I've had a couple ideas. One of them takes place near a swamp, so basically, I've just been researching swamps plus their flora/fauna off and on for the past couple of years without actually writing any scenes.
I want venus flytraps, so there needs to be nitrogen-poor soil, but that means poor crops so how is this small town going to have enough food to support itself? Maybe...
*several hours later*
(https://media.phillyvoice.com/media/images/tumblr_mlp72jf4Ev1rvcvbio1_500.2e16d0ba.fill-735x490.jpg)
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 14, 2022, 01:12:38 PMI've had a couple ideas. One of them takes place near a swamp, so basically, I've just been researching swamps plus their flora/fauna off and on for the past couple of years without actually writing any scenes.
I want carnivorous plants, so there needs to be nitrogen-poor soil, but that means poor crops so how is this small town going to have enough food to support itself? Maybe...
*several hours later*
(https://media.phillyvoice.com/media/images/tumblr_mlp72jf4Ev1rvcvbio1_500.2e16d0ba.fill-735x490.jpg)
LOL. Yeah, I'm familiar with that very situation. It seems you are on the right path, if I understood anything from writers' general advice.
For example, Pratchett famously said: "Stop reading more fantasy, you have already read enough. Research a [real] subject you are interested in and work that into a fantasy. (Badly paraphrasing, lol.)
So yeah, I say, you should go on. Who doesn't like carnivorous plants?!
Quote from: drunkenshoe on April 14, 2022, 12:44:45 PMShe is not from the wizarding world. She is from the muggle world. Her parents are muggles. I have no idea what you are talking about? Where is she black?
If it is some new series or a new movie, it is just a casting thing, it doesn't matter at all if she is black or Chinese to be honest?
Okay. So, in the Harry Potter universe, the gene pool for witches/wizards was severely limited, making their society essentially a big inbred trailer park. However, some witches/wizards choose to get together with Muggles, and their non-inbred children are often labelled "Mudbloods." Hermione is one of those people.
Now, Hermione was consistently portrayed as white, like most of the British characters. However, there was a sequel play called The Cursed Child, in which Hermione was portrayed as black. The justification was basically, "I didn't ever say she wasn't black."
Here's the thing, if Hermione was black, that would have been very relevant. Think about it. If Hermione had a non-magical parent, that Muggle was most likely the black parent. Probably the mother, because she has the surname Granger, which sounds like a white person name.
So... When Malfoy called Hermione a Mudblood, he was essentially calling her the N word, if her having a black parent was the thing that made her stand out. You'd think that would come up? Clearly, Hermione was not originally planned to be black. Rowling was just trying to turn one of her characters black, in an artificial attempt to make her cast more inclusive.
No, muggles can give birth to wizards, the book mentions several.
"Dad's a muggle, Mum's a witch. Bit of a shock for him when he found out." (From memory, "Chamber of Secrets".)
Re watched "Knight and Day"....still a fun watch. Silly but fun.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 15, 2022, 07:49:16 AMNo, muggles can give birth to wizards, the book mentions several.
"Dad's a muggle, Mum's a witch. Bit of a shock for him when he found out." (From memory, "Chamber of Secrets".)
Typically, a "Mudblood" is a magical person born with a non-magical parent. But I did look it up, and apparently neither of Hermione's parents were aware of any magical heritage. Of course, they could have been magic and not known about it. But then, how did they find Hermione? Is it like with Force sensitives, where they use some mysterious method to locate them?
I don't know. Just seems odd. Especially considering how knowledgeable Hermione was or the Wizarding world. How did she even know what a Mudblood was? If she didn't grow up hearing it, why does she care if someone calls her that? I'd think it would be like someone calling me a Flibber Thwapper. Like...okay? I'm crushed, because you called me this word that means nothing to me. Just devastated.
Spells are used to locate candidates for Hogwarts. Beau Batons, et al., may use something different.
Hermione can be played by any oppressed minority because the racism of that world is based on the ability of using magic or not, which is thought to be a genetic trait. But creating Hermonie and her parents as white (it's also a vanilla family, parents are rule/law abiding dentists) from the beginning has more gain to the story, because kids seeing a white kid being discriminated and bullied the way happens to their minority friends in reality very important for obvious reasons. They see the reverse all the time everywhere from RL to media, movies and it is normalised in a specific way. It's saying, this can happen to anyone-any group, if you do not take stance against it.
The 'Mudblood' slur is used for mixed 'race' people in this sense and can be used for everyone who has the ability of using magic without coming from only wizarding families, regardless of their skin colour, any different physical traits. Of course, because of the extreme inbreeding among some wizarding families, they would have similar physical traits. And it would be fitting to make them white.
This is the cautionary tale of the Harry Potter story. Rowling created a world based on a fantasy kind of point to racism, any kind of discrimination as a metaphor, so kids could clearly understand that besides being evil how moronic and pointless it is. Hermonie is a brilliant, talented kid but most importantly, she is very driven and hard working child with good conscience.
There are also "Squibs" in the wizarding world as opposed to "Mudbloods", who are nonmagical pople born to magical parent(s). So squib is another slur word, if you think about it. And technically, the two squibs I remember from the books who are both white can also be portrayed by any oppressed minorities too. That's pretty worse as a circumstance than the other, if you think about it, but not widely discussed as far as I'm aware. (Tells a lot about human culture in RL.) Imagine that all your family and almost everyone in the society you live have magical ability, but you. Hard life. (Not surprisingly, we have one bad squib, one good one. The matter of making choices. You can be a footman to a one Voldermort minion and support him, or fight against fascism.)
The protagonist, Harry Potter character himself has a similar position in the equation. He is badly treated in his aunt's home, seen inferior to his cousin. He is actually an abused child and an outsider in his own home, he didn't know any other. In the wizarding world, he has been seen as a hero since he was orphaned. He is "the boy who lived" against Hitler himself. So when he changes worlds, he travels between opposite stations in life. When he arrives to Hogwarts, he is a celebrity and there is more than enough room for him to act like traditional kind of douchebag, esp. thinking his life is/has been hell back home. But he chooses to act completely the opposite. Without any idea of that world, Harry doesn't like Malfoy from the first moment from the way he acts and talks. I think, there was a conversation about being a 'true' wizard there too.
So, Rowling has created a world where kids can see many different kinds and versions of discrimination through mixed and entertwined positions and situations, different angles to carry kids around through them so they could get aware this is not one way road, but problem is always the same. And she is telling them noone can take their choice away, which is the only thing truely belongs to them in life; the only real thing about who they are. Because life is not about being chosen (to be bestowed with some super power, a name station at birth, the family and the place they were born in), but about making choices.
Well, it's been a long time, but I loved reading those books. I used to pre-order and cancel everything for a week when the book arrived. You know, eating a favourite snack and talking to yourself with loud gasps aind sighs. :D I'll always be a kid that way. I even thought about buying a few merhcandise.
I understand that the hype, esp with movies repelled a lot of people. The trick with involving child content like this is avoding all that. I don't know if it is true, but apparently the book series have more adult fans than children. It wouldn't surprise me. I wish more adults have read it, esp in the current sewage we are wading through. The shit is getting thicker and thicker. I wish we could get a new series like this one too. It doesn't have to be in the same genre. I just want a rich world with light, humourus telling and a strong flow. Sigh.
USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage (2016)
The real story is so sad and interesting..and this flick just is not, somehow. A few bright spots maybe.
Your Highness. It's satire, absurd comedy...it is making fun of myths and legends. It's entertaining and juvenile, and underrated I guess. LOL
Not a movie, but new series. Barry. Kinda awkward and weirdly a black comedy of mayhem and normal odd ball life. Fun watch.
Took Boss Lady to see "Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore." This one should "save" the whole series.
I saw Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. I liked it. It's different than a typical Marvel film, but I appreciate it for that reason. It's darker, creepier, bloodier. As you probably got from the title, it involves hopping through the multiverse, almost Rick and Morty style. When travelling to a new universe, you never know what to expect. What customs might be different, how differently events played out, what characters might exist that aren't in the main universe. It allows them to treat much of the cast as expendable. After all, if they die in this universe, they still exist in another universe, right?
I could tell that some people made the mistake of bringing their little kids to this. They see the name "Marvel" and assume it's family friendly. Do not bring little kids to this. While it isn't overly gory, it's just the right amount of blood, loud noses, and disturbing imagery to give them nightmares. So viewers beware.
That being said, if you like MCU stuff, you'll probably enjoy this. As with many of their movies and shows, having a thorough experience with previous MCU content will enhance your experience. Otherwise, you may miss out on some of the context. In particular, I recommend watching Wandavision before this.
That's pretty much all I can say without getting into spoilers.
I was disappointed with Madness of the Multiverse, partly because unlike most others, hands down, Dr. Strange was my favorite Marvel movie, and I went in with high hopes. This second film was kind of like watching a movie written and directed at Salvador Dali. Things happened like they happen in a dream, with visual images lacking continuity. While the surreal dream like quality of the film appealed to me, I found the story disjointed and not very compelling. What made Marvel the new breath of life to a lack luster movie industry over the last 10 or 12 years, was that Marvel excelled brilliantly at telling stories and created relatable characters, even though they might be outrageously zany. This was more like watching a Walt Disney film. While Disney does a good thing, no Disney movie ever packed the intensity and the wallop that Marvel put out most of the time. I think Disney has a formula they go by. It's successful one, but they can't duplicate what seems to come almost naturally for Marvel. I give it a 6 out of 10.
The new Doctor Strange is actually incredibly good and I'm not sure why it's getting "meh" reviews - I love that it mixed almost campy old-school horror with modern horror + had a lot of references to old school horror movies, some of the action was just unexpected as fuck, the "mind-fuck" scenes were exactly that... it was just overall a really well directed film that managed to fuse Marvel comic book movie action with respect for classics like Nightmare, Shining, and of course films like "The Evil Dead" which Raimi directed.
It is 100% not a movie I would recommend taking your children to, some of the action is actually really dark and creepy. Other than that, Wanda was always my favorite going back to Ultron and I'm curious to see what becomes of the character, I love that they have incorporated her story more the last few years... and holy shit, does this movie set up some really interesting future plot lines if Marvel wants to stay creative and switch things up from their previous formula. It seems like a lot of the newer Marvel IPs have been going that route, so interesting to see if they can kinda find that magic again like Guardians did for the universe.
Tl;dr - I really liked it, and I don't get the criticisms being harsher on this movie than 99% of Marvel movies that share the same "flaws".
Edit - Hadn't read the previous 2 posts when I posted that.
QuoteWhat made Marvel the new breath of life to a lack luster movie industry over the last 10 or 12 years, was that Marvel excelled brilliantly at telling stories and created relatable characters, even though they might be outrageously zany.
For what it's worth, I really enjoy what they have done with Wanda because in some ways she feels like the most relatable character for me - her, Starlord and Thor in their own ways.
Rewatching Chronicles of Riddick.
I know, I know, not everyone's cup of tea, especially people who loved Pitch Black.
I admit, the first 30 minutes are kinda lackluster - confusing scenes, a couple expo dumps, a seeming lack of focus, etc. Oh and the first couple of fight scenes have an unfortunate strobe light effect - disorienting and annoying the audience.
The first quarter of the film kinda sucked, which is a shame since that's when most people decide to either stick with it or tune out.
After that stumbling start, it gets much, much better. Strong fight scenes. Intriguing lore. Quippy, quotable dialogue. It's a big dumb action movie, but it's a very good dumb action movie.
Some stuff doesn't completely make sense, but this movie runs on Rule of Cool, so that's acceptable.
The set design is positively stunning. The statuesque scifi-roman Necromonger aesthetic. That three-headed mask. The Used Future spaceships. The force guns. Those freaky half-dead telepath interrogators. Even the mercs have their own strange fashion and culture, which makes for a hell of a juxtaposition with the orderly and disciplined Necromongers.
I quite like the actors, too. Keith Urban, who went on to be the face of Billy Butcher in The Boys. Thandiwe Newton, who went on to great fame playing Maeve in Westworld. Linus Roache, who went on to play King Eckbert in Vikings. And Colm Feore, who just kinda went on. He had fantastic villain chops, so that's unfortunate.
Quote from: aitm on May 03, 2022, 03:41:29 PMNot a movie, but new series. Barry. Kinda awkward and weirdly a black comedy of mayhem and normal odd ball life. Fun watch.
I´ve watched the first season.
Loved it. The car scene with his warbuddy really made everything click. That episode was pure gold.
Also, being a theatergeek myself, added another layer of self-depricating humor.
Will watch season 2. And 3 when it comes.
Riddick quote: "20 mile buffer zone, 30 klicks (km) to the hangar"
Are you guys metric or not??!
LOL, I always forget Pitch Black is supposed to be a part of some series. I just can't do it, I can't connect them. I think it will always be just a stand alone movie for me.
I told my brother that I'm excited for that new Elvis movie and that I particularly liked the focus on Elvis being broken up about MLK Jr's death in the trailer.
He shhhed me and told me that I was spoiling the movie. And not in a sarcastic way.
He's genuinely mildly upset that I "spoiled" something that happened decades ago. Smh.
Ok, so yesterday I watched that 1999 South Park movie on YouTube, and it was pretty good.
I liked its message about how parents are willing to blame everything (tv, movies, etc) for their children's bad behavior but themselves.
I thought the singing in the film was pretty good, a decent parody of the singing in a lot of '90s Disney films.
I'm not a big South Park fan or anything, but I did enjoy this movie quite a bit.
I remember this scene from when I was a kid but had no idea what it was from. Turns out it was C.C. & Company, the Joe Namath starring vehicle which he made shortly after winning at that sporting ball game he plays.
Saw Morbius (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5108870/) tonight.
Going into it, I didn't know Morbius was a Marvel character until the beginning comic scene always shown with their movies.
As is the case with most Marvel movies, it begins with the origins story of the character. Good thing, too, since I was completely unfamiliar with who Morbius is. First of all, he's played by Jared Leto, who's hot as heck (there's a yummy shirtless scene - the buffed one, not the necrotic one), and I was surprised (good surprised since I like him as an actor) to see Matt Smith in the film (I wonder if that's his real body in shirtless scene). I think the ending was rushed a bit, but overall it was a good movie. The way it ended hints at a second movie, yet that doesn't appear to be a definite (especially with how most people reacted negatively to the movie, which I just don't understand. I enjoyed it well enough. I give it a solid 6/10).
Quote from: Sorginak on June 09, 2022, 12:15:25 AMSaw Morbius (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5108870/) tonight.
Going into it, I didn't know Morbius was a Marvel character until the beginning comic scene always shown with their movies.
As is the case with most Marvel movies, it begins with the origins story of the character. Good thing, too, since I was completely unfamiliar with who Morbius is. First of all, he's played by Jared Leto, who's hot as heck (there's a yummy shirtless scene - the buffed one, not the necrotic one), and I was surprised (good surprised since I like him as an actor) to see Matt Smith in the film (I wonder if that's his real body in shirtless scene). I think the ending was rushed a bit, but overall it was a good movie. The way it ended hints at a second movie, yet that doesn't appear to be a definite (especially with how most people reacted negatively to the movie, which I just don't understand. I enjoyed it well enough. I give it a solid 6/10).
Morbius is in the same category of "Spider-Manless Spider-Man villain movies" as the two Venom movies. They're not in the same universe as the MCU, since they had no involvement from Disney, but there is a multiverse now, so... None of that makes these movies good or bad. Into The Spider-Verse was one of the best Spider-Man movies yet, after all, and it wasn't part of Disney's MCU either. I just find the concepts of these villain movies to be fundamentally flawed. You take a character like Venom, who is inseparable from Spider-Man, and you turn them into an anti-hero who has never even heard of Spider-Man, since they can't use Spider-Man for legal reasons. Maybe with some good execution, they could work, but I've yet to be won over to them, and I don't expect I will for Kraven or any of the others coming down the pipeline.
From what I hear, they're trying to set up a Sinister Six, but I don't know how that's going to work if they're not...you know...sinister? They're portrayed as good guys. Sure, Venom and Morbius eat people, but it's okay, because the people they eat are bad. The Sinister Six are supposed to get together to destroy Spider-Man, but none of them have any motivation to hate Spider-Man, since they don't even know he exists. Well, the black symbiote kinda knows who he is, since they apparently have a hive mind that connects across universes, but this Venom has never met Spider-Man. So what are they even going to do with these characters?
There's potentially one good thing to come out of them, though. One of the end credits scenes in No Way Home implies a piece of Venom's symbiote was left behind when Brock got sent back to his universe. Maybe we'll get Agent Venom in the MCU.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 09, 2022, 02:54:15 AMInto The Spider-Verse was one of the best Spider-Man movies yet
Amen. In fact, I consider it the best out of all the Spider-Man movies (Second is Far From Home, third is No Way Home, just barely edging out Homecoming. Spider-Man movies have been amazing lately!)
Into the Spiderverse was the first to really delve into the multiverse, gave us Spider-Gwen, made the Kingpin fearsome again, had a fantastic comic-book art style, excellent character moments, banging soundtrack (I'm not even really into hip-hop, and I really like What Up Danger and Sunflower), and was overall absolutely meme-tastic.
Jurassic World Domianaria...dominus...domo...the third one.
Pros: they say in the movie that birds are technically dinosaurs and I literally squeed!
Cons: they also say "we have got" And no, I'm not going to let this go!
Headscratchers: you might ask yourself why the main cast survives while the extras get chomped like popcorn. The secret to surviving in one of these movies is to hold your hand out like you're telekinetically pushing the dino away. 65% of the time, it works every time! I do it myself all the time with alligators. *looks down at arm stump*
You might ask yourself what sort of weapon would would work well against a dino. Well, you're in luck because the answer is a spear. Practical, useful, easy to learn, dependable, lightweight - the humble spear has it all! There's a reason why this is weapon is found all over the world and was probably the second weapon ever used by humans after simply hurling rocks. It's real simple, if a dino or anything else charges you, you hold out your spear and stick them with the pointy end. Easy peasy! Or you can charge them and similarly stick them with the pointy end. Also viable.
Does any character make use of this ingenious technology? Not really, no.
From what I've heard, the new Jurassic World movie got people again with the false advertising. They make it look like the whole movie is about dinosaurs out in the world, interacting with humans, but then the movie takes us to an isolated island. Again. But this time, it's made by BioSyn, so it's totally different. Know that scene in the trailer, with the T-rex walking into one of those outdoor theaters you only ever see in fiction? Not even in the movie. Only existed for the advertising, to give us a false impression of the movie. They blue ballsed us again! lol
They also had this weird shaving cream commercial (do they even need advertising? Cause I'm pretty sure that people would buy shaving cream regardless) and I shit you not, in the movie the villain picks up a can of shaving cream for literally no reason. Stupid.
Also, in case I haven't made it clear, there is no way in hell any of these characters would survive that doesn't involve character shields. The dinos are so fast and strong and aware that they might as well be Dark Souls bosses.
So I picked up the movies of Dave Wascavage. He's the guy who made Suburban Sasquatch.
I can't remember the last Jurassic film I saw, so I'm probably not caught up to watch the new one.
Quote from: Sorginak on June 11, 2022, 06:58:49 PMI can't remember the last Jurassic film I saw, so I'm probably not caught up to watch the new one.
IMO, the first is still the best, but Lost World is also good. Those were the only two based on books written by Michael Crichton, although even those were pretty loosely based on his books. Funny thing is Crichton was approached multiple times to write a sequel, but he turned everyone down, until Spielberg himself asked. You don't say no to Spielberg. lol
Everything after Lost World was made without Crichton's involvement, and likely without his approval, but he'd already given them the movie rights. Jurassic Park III is a divisive film, but in my opinion, it's fine. It has some problems, but I found it to be an overall enjoyable movie, and at least it doesn't have raptors defeated by a girl practicing for her gym class. The Spinosaurus has been one of my favorite dinos since first seeing the movie. It's just such a terrifying creature.
The first Jurassic World movie was okay. It's basically a soft-reboot, with a plot a little too similar to the original Jurassic Park. The coolest thing about it was seeing the park open to the public. While this does contradict the message of the first film, that message was kinda bullshit anyway. The problem with the first park wasn't that life...uh...finds a way. It was that the only thing separating the dinosaurs from the guests was an electric fence, on an island with a tendency for unpredictable weather. That, and they refused to pay a fair wage to the man who was solely responsible for programming the island's entire operating system, leading to him taking a deal from a rival company, and sabotaging the park. In the end, however, you know how it goes. Scientists try to play god, and the unpredictable nature of what they have created leads to all hell breaking loose. Out of the three Jurassic World movies, the first was the most solid, and was a good place to start a new trilogy. It was basically to Jurassic Park what The Force Awakens was to Star Wars.
Fallen Kingdom was a bit divisive. I personally enjoyed it, even if it wasn't exactly what the trailers made it look to be. I found the new hybrid dinosaur to be scary and cool. It's a kind of "shut your brain off and go for the ride" kind of movie, but it didn't get too ridiculous to break my suspension of disbelief.
Dominion, the one that just came out, doesn't sound promising. I'm not planning to see it in theaters, but maybe I'll stream it some day, if I happen to have the right streaming service at the time.
I remember one critic, writing in response to the previous Jurassic Park film, "Shut down the damned park already!"
Why is anyone watching Jurassic Park movies? Only the first one was any good and it wasn't that great.
Quote from: SGOS on June 12, 2022, 07:52:27 AMI remember one critic, writing in response to the previous Jurassic Park film, "Shut down the damned park already!"
Most of the movies don't have an operating park. They tried to make one in Lost World, but they were pretty much all loose, and never got the new location off the ground. The third was like a secret location, a Site B, which is in ruins at the start of the movie. Jurassic World was open to the public, and it seemed to be working. Guests were safe, until they decided to play god and make a hybrid monster. They let it loose when they assume it climbed out, and leave the door open like idiots. Even then, they should have been able to tranquilize it, and that would have been the end, but the dinosaur somehow knew to remove the tracker from its body. Lots of plot convenience to bring that park down.
But it turned out that park was doomed from the start, because they built it by an active volcano, which goes off a few years later. No park in Fallen Kingdom. At this point, everyone is convinced the dinosaurs would be useful for military purposes. Somehow. They're buying and selling on the black market.
No idea how Dominion manages to bring everything back to an island. I'm still wrapping my head around how they managed to create multiple trailers and teasers to convince us the dinosaurs would all be loose, just so they wouldn't be... It's my impression it's another secret operation, though. More silliness about the dinosaurs being used by the military.
So I recently rewatched Striking Distance starring Bruce Willis and Sarah Michelle Geller and I kind of noticed how my own attitudes toward certain political... things have changed in the last thirty years.
Here's a brief clip showing what I mean:
The plot of Striking Distance starring Bruce Willis and Rebecca Romain Stamos is surprisingly convoluted, but the basics are there is a killer who murders women and chucks the bodies in the river. Bruce Willis and his father enter a police chase of the killer and after a spectacular wreck, Willis is injured, his dad is killed and the killer got away.
Note how in the background while Willis has this big scene mourning his dad, the killer's trunk pops open and a dead woman in a bright red dress flops out. It's almost a comedy shot. It made me realise what was going on here and what was going on throughout the movie.
The women in this movie are not people, but props. This is fair enough as it's a serial killer plot from the early 90's. The dead bodies are just props in these cases, regardless of gender. But it's egregious here. Most of the victims are essentially nameless and faceless (even if both are shown in the film at some point). Then in the convoluted plot when the killer starts killing women close to Bruce Willis, they are little more than women in refrigerators (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge). We don't even see two of them before their demise and the third, we are only shown the killer stalking her to pad out the run time. Even Melissa Sue Gilbert isn't there for much. She really doesn't even amount to much of a damsel in distress at the end. It's there, but weak. Even worse, the dispatcher from the office is also killed in Willis's bed for some god-unknown reason. Most likely as a cheap fakeout for the audience to think it was Billie Jean King who was killed and then to breath a sigh of relief when it was only the Asian woman.
I don't know. I'm still processing all this, but it makes me think that a plot like this wouldn't fly today. (I didn't say wouldn't get made. It just wouldn't fly) I've been trying to figure out what you would need to change to make this work and I have no idea. First of all, it centers on a mentally ill serial killer (thanks, Silence of the Lambs), which is it's own bundle of twigs. We could flesh out some of the victims so that their deaths have some kind of actual impact, but the plot was busy distracting you with Willis's family tree. Like, they're all cops, apparently. You have some of the victims be men, but I don't know how that would work. It's like the problems in this plot are bone deep and there is nothing to be done to correct it.
Still, it's nice to see Timothy Busfield.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 12, 2022, 11:26:54 AMBut it turned out that park was doomed from the start, because they built it by an active volcano, which goes off a few years later.
I don't get that They shelled out a dragon's horde worth of money to build that park and it's only operational for a few years afaik even if the dinos didn't break free. The board of directors would have a fit!
And a lot of the plot revolves around people trying to poach the dinos and use them for their own nefarious purposes. Well, the movies do jack all to resolve any of that. In fact, my headcanon is that the poachers are ultimately successful offscreen. How's that for a happy ending!
I lived on or near seven volcanoes while I was in the USN. None of them ran me off. Etna and Penatube were the most active.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 19, 2022, 06:45:23 PMI lived on or near seven volcanoes while I was in the USN. None of them ran me off. Etna and Penatube were the most active.
Well, I assume you didn't invest countless billions into futuristic park attractions and resurrected dinosaurs. I dunno. I'd think at least one of the investors would be like, "How about we built this thing somewhere safer, like...San Antonio or something?"
You'd want it to be isolated and uninhabitated, yet capable of supporting a large amount of wildlife. Not a whole lot of options. Maybe one with an active volcano hindering development. Could probably get it for cheap, too. Might be a good idea to set up shop there if the science dept says that a major eruption in the next 100 years is unlikely...
The area doesn't have to be isolated or uninhabited. Just don't open the gates wide open for your dinosaurs to walk out. If you accidentally create a super intelligent dinosaur that pulls a Houdini, tranq it and/or kill it ASAP.
I've been playing this game called Jurassic World Evolution 2. I have a dinosaur safari in the middle of Canada. Turns out, it's super easy just to keep the dinosaurs and the people separate. lol
"Nature will not be contained!" or some such. The pteranodons (sp?) would escape from a place with no roof. So there is no 100% safe location. Now, given the number of lawyers on this planet, if you absolutely had to have a place that won't end up in you getting sued Mars would be the next best options. (But watch out for Space Godzilla.)
Here are a couple of interesting videos on the subject.
TLDW: There are two solutions for keeping a dinosaur park safe.
1. Use real dinosaurs, unlike the genetic hybrid monsters of the movies, and keep them in big terrariums that will allow you to simulate the dinosaur's natural habitat. If the dinosaur escapes, the difference in the oxygen levels of the open air will make them dizzy and easy to recapture.
2. If you insist on the original Jurassic Park philosophy of fake, crowd pleasing dinosaurs in open areas, use bigger pens to keep the dinosaurs happy and create the illusion of freedom.
You could create an amazing illusion of freedom if you just give them their own planet or something.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/654/895/9ee.png)
(https://images.viacbs.tech/uri/mgid:arc:imageassetref:shared.southpark.global:1bde722e-ede5-48c0-9d58-437913655398?quality=0.7)
Ah, shit. They figured it out. Time to cancel Earth. It was a fun experiment while it lasted.
Kong was in a terrarium at the start of the last movie.
I'm going to go see the Buzz Lightyear movie with a girl I like tonight, so it's very unfortunate that we will surely both be tranformed into gays by the power of liberal Hollywood and a .2 second animation of women kissing.
I've been on the internet for years, and man, have I seen some things. But apparently this is different - this is ultra-concentrated gayness that works differently than run-of-the-mill gayness that we're all exposed to a daily basis.
I've gotta say, it's weird to believe that homosexuality is 100% a choice and also believe that viewing media with a brief gay kiss can force you to be gay against your will. But I guess these people know what they're talking about since they know so much about the efficacy of prayer and how masks won't stop covid.
To prepare for my inevitable transformation, I have purchased the following products deemed essential for a gay lifestyle:
An Elton John cd, a Cher cd, a Top Gun VHS tape, a Brokeback Mountain DVD, a lifetime subscription to NPR, the entire Saga comic book series (for some reason), denim overalls that don't quite fit, a vape, booty shorts, evening gloves, and a tiara.
I completely missed the "controversial" gay kiss. And I was looking for it! It was literally up there for 1/4 of a second. I must've blinked and missed it!
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 22, 2022, 08:48:09 PMI completely missed the "controversial" gay kiss. And I was looking for it! It was literally up there for 1/4 of a second. I must've blinked and missed it!
Ah. Easy to edit out, then. How convenient. How much you wanna bet that scene doesn't exist in many countries? It's the Rise of Skywalker lesbian kiss all over again.
Also, I heard the Buzz Lightyear movie was kinda meh.
Lots of places banned the movie because Pixar wouldn't remove the scene. Silly theists.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 22, 2022, 08:48:09 PMI completely missed the "controversial" gay kiss. And I was looking for it! It was literally up there for 1/4 of a second. I must've blinked and missed it!
Since you missed it:
https://fb.watch/dPQ8ID4dal/
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 22, 2022, 11:20:05 PMAlso, I heard the Buzz Lightyear movie was kinda meh.
It was actually really good, tbh.
The plotline definitely would've worked as a Marvel movie. If you go into it expecting that sort of conflict + character growth formula, it's great.
The moral of the story was nice and all, but I'm going to be real with you guys, I 100% agree with the villain. Hell, in most movies with this sort of situation, the "bad" guy is the hero!
Highlights:
* At the beginning of the film, there's a literal battletech dropshop. I'm not joking. (https://i.redd.it/z13wg5tck8691.png)
* First 1/4 of the movie was pretty much Factorio. Not exaggerating.
* Felt like generic brand Starcraft, too.
* So many cat jokes. But they were purrfect!
* So much power armor and I love it.
Reading the reviews for Lightyear and apparently there are skyhigh expectations for a Pixar movie.
Is it the best Pixar movie ever? No, not by a light-year. Is it better than 50% of the other Pixar movies? No, probably not. But by normal, reasonable standards, it's a 7/10 decent film, especially if you're a scifi fan. You could certainly do a lot worse.
The Edge of Tomorrow. Better than I expected. I just can't stand the actor.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 28, 2022, 02:24:22 AMThe Edge of Tomorrow. Better than I expected. I just can't stand the actor.
Tom Cruise is okay, but any movie where Bill Paxton dies is a good one*. And in that movie he dies a shit ton of times.
*Apologies to Sean Bean.
I've played a lot of X-COM games like Edge of Tomorrow. It was really tough getting Otto Zander out of that terror site alive. 😓
The Black Phone (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7144666/)
QuoteAfter being abducted by a child killer and locked in a soundproof basement, a 13-year-old boy starts receiving calls on a disconnected phone from the killer's previous victims.
https://youtu.be/3eGP6im8AZA
Let me first just state that it is an amazing movie, one of the best I have seen in a while. I would rate this movie ten out of ten stars.
There are only two things I want to touch upon.
First, the sister is my favorite character in the film. Yeah, she's got a Jesus thing, but honestly it adds to her character in such a good way that you can overlook it.
Secondly, it is never explained why the abductor kills these boys.
I'm trying to get into dumb, no thinking movies. So I thought, action movies! Well, it i snot going bad, but at some point they look all the same I guess.
The Gray Man. It wasn't as bad as I expected. OK, I guess. I don't like the actor, but surprisingly he works. I first thought, him? But then I got why they picked him.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 29, 2022, 02:52:24 PMI'm trying to get into dumb, no thinking movies. So I thought, action movies! Well, it i snot going bad, but at some point they look all the same I guess.
The Gray Man. It wasn't as bad as I expected. OK, I guess. I don't like the actor, but surprisingly he works. I first thought, him? But then I got why they picked him.
Have you tried any of the John Wick movies? I find them rather mindless and full of action (most of which is impossible to pull off; but they do a good job of mapping the moves). The good guy wins--the bad guys lose----yep, my kind of movie. I also like the Equalizer movies (including the old BBC star in the series); extreme bad guys and extreme good guy winning. Mindless, but full of action.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 29, 2022, 08:34:04 PMHave you tried any of the John Wick movies? I find them rather mindless and full of action (most of which is impossible to pull off; but they do a good job of mapping the moves). The good guy wins--the bad guys lose----yep, my kind of movie. I also like the Equalizer movies (including the old BBC star in the series); extreme bad guys and extreme good guy winning. Mindless, but full of action.
I've seen the first one. I didn't know anything about it, so when they murdered the poor puppy, I automatically liked the rest of the movie, lol. How are the others? I've also read that John Wick kills 299 people in all 3 movies. It's easy to remember because of the number.
Equalizer... Sounds familiar, but I know I haven't seen it. I'll check that out.
Somebody reminded Conair. I've seen it, but don't remember anything, lol.
Good to see something close to combat shooting in the Wicked movies. Been nearly a half century for me.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 30, 2022, 04:56:21 AMI've seen the first one. I didn't know anything about it, so when they murdered the poor puppy, I automatically liked the rest of the movie, lol. How are the others? I've also read that John Wick kills 299 people in all 3 movies. It's easy to remember because of the number.
Equalizer... Sounds familiar, but I know I haven't seen it. I'll check that out.
Somebody reminded Conair. I've seen it, but don't remember anything, lol.
For me, Conair fits into this category--mindless (I call it chewing gum for the mind) action.
The 1985 TV series is generally good--Robert McCall plays the Equalizer, and I think it ran for 4/5 years or so. Denzel Washington plays the Equalizer in 2 movies I think--top notch mindless action. The current TV series is not all that good.
Comic book movies are mindless action in my opie.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 30, 2022, 09:51:14 AMComic book movies are mindless action in my opie.
I agree. So are some of the westerns and sci fi books.
Edger Rice Burroughs books are like that. Tarzan and John Carter of Mars--many volume sets of each. Loved the Chessmen of Mars--it added another set of squares around the board and added a new man with it's on unique moves. In HS I made a board like that and then played the game according to the rules given in the book. It was, at least for me, quite fun.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 30, 2022, 11:30:07 AMI agree. So are some of the westerns and sci fi books.
Edger Rice Burroughs books are like that. Tarzan and John Carter of Mars--many volume sets of each. Loved the Chessmen of Mars--it added another set of squares around the board and added a new man with it's on unique moves. In HS I made a board like that and then played the game according to the rules given in the book. It was, at least for me, quite fun.
Burroughs was so formulaic I could call the ending when I was in high school. Same with the Doc Savage pulps.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 30, 2022, 03:35:03 PMBurroughs was so formulaic I could call the ending when I was in high school. Same with the Doc Savage pulps.
I agree--which is why I've read the John Carter of Mars series and the Tarzan series in high school. It chewed up time and did not require any deep thinking. He also had a bunch of other books dealing with the middle of the Earth (Pellucidar) and westerns . He can provide mindless action reading for months!
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 30, 2022, 06:07:25 PMI agree--which is why I've read the John Carter of Mars series and the Tarzan series in high school. It chewed up time and did not require any deep thinking. He also had a bunch of other books dealing with the middle of the Earth (Pellucidar) and westerns . He can provide mindless action reading for months!
So many other authors who weren't shite.
Has anyone seen Thor: Love & Thunder? Would be nice to get an opinion from someone who doesn't think it's part of a radical feminist agenda to...something.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 03, 2022, 05:52:53 PMHas anyone seen Thor: Love & Thunder? Would be nice to get an opinion from someone who doesn't think it's part of a radical feminist agenda to...something.
I'll get to it in a bit.
Joker sequel news!
Joker 2: Folie à Deux
Let me just say, I love the title. Artsy, French (aka artsy), with a nice little double entendre - meaning shared psychosis/madness (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C3%A0_deux) but also literally meaning "folly of two". It depicts their criminal careers in general and fight against Bats in particular as folly.
Lady Gaga will play a big role in this movie, almost certainly as Harley Quinn (hence the title)
And it'll be a musical, as befitting poor Arthur Fleck locked away in Arkham Asylum, spiralling through madness. Paradoxically, he's never been more free. His only companion, the haunting melodies in his soul. Until she shows up...
Didn't see it, but the paper reviewed a new movie called Bodies Bodies Bodies. It's about trust fund babies having a drug-fueled party and then shit goes sideways.
I'm-a give it a pass. I don't want to see trust fund babies do anything. Fortunately, I usually get my wish.
Just watched Encanto on Disney+. I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but it's a very good movie. Good story, good message, pretty visuals. It's choreography made me feel like I was watching a play at the theatre. I was kinda meh on some of the songs, but I'm generally not into musicals anyway (although I'm glad they've been making a comeback). Sometimes the lyrics go by a little too quick for me, but that's why subtitles are a thing.
Saw Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero last night. I was pleasantly surprised with the story. I was worried about some things I saw in the trailer, but it was executed well. Pan and Piccolo were the best parts of the movie. Seems Gohan is taking a bit too much after his dad in the fathering department, leaving Piccolo to, once again, play the role of surrogate father.
Visually, it was a mixed bag. It looks awesome at certain key moments, but looks weird and awkward at other times.
The movie is funny, with some clever gags. It's also oddly pervy. It comes from a character you wouldn't expect. Bulma has her butt right in the camera for a few seconds, and Cheelai's clothes are very skin tight. You can see everything.
Overall, it's a good movie, but I wish they'd have used Broly's type of animation instead.
I just finished rewatching Elmer Gantry for the first time in decades. What a great movie! I think it may be my all time favorite, but there are a few others that might give it a run. I do think it's Burt Lancaster's best, bar none.
I just finished my umteenth viewing (on YouTube) of The Baltimore Bullet. It's a pretty good movie about a couple of pool players who want to win the big bucks from the guy with the big bucks.
It's got some pretty good actors in it: James Coburn, Bruce Boxleitner, Jack O'Halloran (Jaws, from James Bond fame) and Omar Sharif (he's the guy with the money). Oh, and Willie Mosconi.
Have any of you seen it?
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 04, 2022, 09:15:15 PMJack O'Halloran (Jaws, from James Bond fame)
Jaws was played by Richard Kiel. O'Halloran was offered the role but turned it down.
He did play Non in the first two Superman movies.
I Lurch a little when I hear Keil's name.
Quote from: the_antithesis on September 04, 2022, 11:58:02 PMJaws was played by Richard Kiel. O'Halloran was offered the role but turned it down.
He did play Non in the first two Superman movies.
My bad! I looked him up on Google, and so I see you're right. Amazing resemblance, though!
Don't feel bad. I thought "Rock n Roll Hoochie Coo" was Led Zeppelin for the longest time.
Yeah, I just listened and I can certainly see (or hear, as the case may be) why you'd've thought so!
I was also pretty dumb as a kid.
Watched Thor: Love & Thunder today. I liked it. I was a little nervous they'd make Thor look bad so they could try to elevate his female replacement, but I'm happy to report that that is not the case. Jane is powerful as Thor, but she's actually not on his level. She uses a weaker weapon, although they give Mjolnir a new ability so that it wouldn't just be an inferior version of Stormbreaker. The villain is also well done, with a clear motive and a logical goal.
However, if you expect the Guardians of the Galaxy to be an integral part of the story, just don't get your hopes up for that. They're around for about five minutes, and then they're gone. It was like they thought to themselves, "I know we set up this Thor + Guardians of the Galaxy mashup thing, but now that we're writing this, it doesn't really make sense. I mean, Thor is literally a god. He kinda makes the other guys obsolete when it comes to battle."
There's also one joke in the movie that was already so old when this movie came out. And it wasn't even a one-time joke, but a recurring one, like they think anyone above the age of five would be laughing their asses off. If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm referring to.
I've seen people on the internet complaining about it, but this is one of those times I do not understand the critics. There are some people who are like, "Nothing in the MCU after End Game was any good, except Spider-Man: No Way Home." Come on, guys. Wanda-Vision? What If...? Loki? Moon Knight? Most MCU shows/movies are still good, or at least okay. The only outright awful MCU things, IMO, have been Eternals and She-Hulk. There have always been stinkers in the MCU.
That being said, there are some things in Phase 4 I still haven't seen. Namely Hawkeye, Ms. Marvel, and all those Groot shorts. And none of them particularly interest me, so...
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 15, 2022, 01:23:24 AMThat being said, there are some things in Phase 4 I still haven't seen. Namely Hawkeye, Ms. Marvel, and all those Groot shorts. And none of them particularly interest me, so...
I recommend Hawkeye. With some exceptions, it's a pretty grounded and heartfelt story. Like the other tv shows, it takes a few episodes for it to really fire on all cylinders, but imho it's a decent christmas made-for-tv movie (I know it's a series, but it feels more like a long movie)
I watched Die Hard for the first time yesterday (in my defense, late is better than never) after a certain animated scifi comedy series referenced it heavily. Walkie Talkie Die Hard, indeed.
I've gotta say, it mostly held up well. Man, they had some big hairdos in the 80s! Also, workplace sexual harassment. And casual cocaine use at work. And "futuristic" touchscreens that seem antiquated now.
Also, some things didn't quite make sense, like dangling from a rope attached to the rifle (I'm pretty sure either the rope or gun would snap) and the classic jumping away from a nearby explosion. But some stuff was spot on, like smacking into a glass window and the pane mostly stays intact, so he has to shoot it to break it, then break through with his body. Also, bleeding a lot and then feeling like crap is unexpectedly accurate, especially for an action movie.
The movie had a surprisingly slow start with no foreshadowing, which I thought was odd. I doubt it would've kept my attention if I didn't already know that there'd be action.
Alan Rickman and the rest of the villains were great, especially their introduction. Casually sauntering into the building and cutting the lines. Very nice. I particularly liked the bazooka scene. Though it's surprising that neither that explosion nor the rooftop explosion were enough to cause enough structural damage to the skyscraper. The must've overengineered the hell out of it.
That said, this movie is phenomenal. I see now its influences everywhere, from the unlikely action hero trope to killing the henchmen one by one trope, the ubiquitous villainous monologues, even the explosion reversal trope like at the end of that Pickle Rick episode.
I especially noticed that Die Hard seems to be at about the point where more modern slang that I know really started taking root. Though I found it disappointing that the famous catchphrase, "Yippie Ki Yay, muthafathasa" was basically whispered at a quiet moment rather than shouted during a roaring gunfight.
All in all, solid movie, would watch again. Is it the best action movie, ever? Imho Terminator 2 still holds that spot, though Fury Road came close to dethroning it. YMMV, of course.
Is it a Christmas movie? Absolutely! Kinda. Maybe?
P.S. - I hate that guy who told him to take his shoes off. Also, giving advice to a nervous passenger on how to "survive a flight" at the END OF THE FLIGHT was bafflingly stupid and I'm not yet convinced that whole scene wasn't a fever dream or somehow spliced in by Quentin Tarantino.
My favorite nemesis type characters are played by Alan Rickman and Christipher Walken.
(http://s3.crackedcdn.com/articleimages/wong/walkenrepeat2.jpg)
(https://vodzilla.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hans-gruber-700x291.jpg)(https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MCDHAPO_EC587.jpg?resize=1200,800)
Who is your fav "bad guy/girl" actor?
Actors who took the villain to the next level.
Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Hannibal Lecter
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.6dcbd98f30a758b318d6675216377786?rik=xAiKaDS3oshM%2bA&riu=http%3a%2f%2f3.bp.blogspot.com%2f-F3pGNJl-nm0%2fVfD-xzXO9mI%2fAAAAAAAkNcU%2fmHpeNNZu1O4%2fs1600%2fSilence_of_the_Lambs-1991-MSS-094.jpg&ehk=TJOMpJ3KJgRnDWMVGpR53xS4aH2Ae7LE36xu8j7Sv%2fo%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.a6da34d6aa2748ccaa95396635b8ee13?rik=mJmgFwml%2bgA1Gg&riu=http%3a%2f%2f3.bp.blogspot.com%2f_29WlDIl0Qbo%2fTEtF89O-4dI%2fAAAAAAAAAu8%2fQw9596oNzoU%2fs1600%2fKathy%2bBates_Misery.jpg&ehk=GOearJ%2bihPYDTm3DoJDvKT5aTOwmNKRUqy7IC6T9XzQ%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0&sres=1&sresct=1)
Margaret Hamilton at the Wicked Witch of the West
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/65/8d/1a/658d1af433f23ccb79027d86de950d7e.jpg)
Tim Curry as Dr Frank-N-Furter
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.9eaa7e290cc94939e0fda9c4169c54ec?rik=LIqt01Ofwar3Dw&riu=http%3a%2f%2fimages2.fanpop.com%2fimages%2fphotos%2f3000000%2fDr-Frank-n-Furter-frank-n-furter-3031729-1197-1491.jpg&ehk=rSXS2ZGzwXhSU5KODVKUOD%2b2EkfQ%2fvY%2fwDFSKlDQbPw%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
Glenn Close as Alex Forrest
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/headstuffuploads/2017/09/18142148/emaifeatures.jpg)
@GSOgymrat, oh yeah...some really juicy ones there. I think Glenn Close was responsible for ruining a whole lot of potential extramarital affairs!
One of my favorite old villain's was Jack Palance--and Vincent Price. Christopher Walken seems to always play oddball characters and when it is a villain he is exceptional. Kathy Bates can play any kind of character and is a very good villain.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on September 20, 2022, 01:41:19 PMActors who took the villain to the next level.
Glenn Close as Alex Forrest
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/headstuffuploads/2017/09/18142148/emaifeatures.jpg)
Lakewood Mall Multiplex, Lakewood, CA. ('burb in LA somewhere.)
Two movies playing. Ask my girl which she wanted to see, "A" or "B"? ("Fatal Attraction" or "Fatal Beauty"?) She called "A", and got freaked out at the bunny scene. I would have chosen Whoopi.
Quote from: Cassia on September 20, 2022, 11:14:31 AMWho is your fav "bad guy/girl" actor?
Tim Curry. Hands down.
Anthony Hopkins in...literally everything is also a fantastic villain.
Wayne Pygram as Scorpius in Farscape, Walter Koenig as Bester in Babylon 5 (Bester is the male equivalent of Dolores Umbridge IMHO), Ian McKellen as Magneto, etc.
Apparently old, insane/fanatical white guys is a big trigger for me LMAO
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 20, 2022, 06:45:34 PMTim Curry. Hands down.
Anthony Hopkins in...literally everything is also a fantastic villain.
Wayne Pygram as Scorpius in Farscape, Walter Koenig as Bester in Babylon 5 (Bester is the male equivalent of Dolores Umbridge IMHO), Ian McKellen as Magneto, etc.
Apparently old, insane/fanatical white guys is a big trigger for me LMAO
Curry has that incredible Cheshire cat-like grin!
(https://i.redd.it/qkd8mn8i4j661.jpg)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Tennel_Cheshire_proof.png)
He lures you in with it, then he breaks out the slasher smile! Chilling. His villains are usually master manipulators, too. I might be the last person on Earth who remembers Earth 2, but every time he said "poppet" to that little girl was creepy as hell.
Just trying to Curry favor.
My favorite villain of the past couple of decades was the psycho assassin Anton Chigurh, portrayed by Javier Bardem in the Coen Brothers' film "No Country For Old Men"
Quote from: Luther Martini on September 21, 2022, 09:54:18 AMMy favorite villain of the past couple of decades was the psycho assassin Anton Chigurh, portrayed by Javier Bardem in the Coen Brothers' film "No Country For Old Men"
Oh yeah, that dude was something else.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/80/df/4b/80df4bd6bc57f2f2bd240cb676065cee.jpg)
QuoteWho is your fav "bad guy/girl" actor?
No one mentioning Christoph Waltz is bothering me, or Jeremy Irons as Scar. Or James Earl Jones as Vader.
Christopher Lee.
So, I'm watching Die Hard 2 because I'm hooked at this point and I'm not even done with it yet and I have questions.
Do people really beg cops not to tow them like this? "Pretty please let me off with a warning, my aunt'll pissed, I'm a cop (the rules don't apply to cops, I guess?), and it'll be Christmas soon!" Has that ever worked for anyone?
WTF is wrong with that old lady spontaneously bragging about her taser, brandishing it, and then divulging about testing it out on her dog? That's animal cruelty and besides that, creepy AF. Mrs McClaine oughta call the cops on her!
Beeper + telephone lines LOL. Man, I do NOT miss that!
Who TF builds baggage conveyor belts in such a way that they will literally kill someone if they lay on top of the belt? OSHA would have a field day.
Also, what's with that cop not shutting down the airport when a dude got friggin' brutally killed there? Nowadays, some guy brings nail clippers through customs and they send in a bomb squad (a slight exaggeration for comedic purposes)
I don't understand this movie's internal logic!
Edit - the bad guy points a gun at his subordinate, who just stands there as he pulls the trigger (why?) and expects the guy to keep working for him. If I was a henchman and I even heard of my boss doing that, I'd be out. Who in the right mind would work for someone who'd try to kill them?
Watched 1/2 of the second Die Hard.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 23, 2022, 08:10:08 PMSo, I'm watching Die Hard 2 because I'm hooked at this point and I'm not even done with it yet and I have questions.
Most of your questions can be answered with the phrase "directed by Renny Harlan."
I'm glad I'm not the only one on Die Hard lately. Now, as someone who loves the first movie and enjoys the second, I will say that you
can watch Die Hard 3 AKA Die Hard With a Vengeance, but you don't have to. I like Die Hard 2 because it is a pure sequel. It exists to give you more of the same. But, in spite of that, it manages to have a few nice twists and plays on the Die Hard formula. I recently added it to my collection because I remembered really liking it when it came out and for the most part, it held up.
Die Hard 3, however, I was not as happy with at the time. It has its charms, but it not only abandoned the Die Hard formula (watch the Renny Harlan Film Cliffhanger starring Sylvester Stallone if you want that) but started to eat itself as a franchise, the way all franchises do these days. There's one scene in particular that bugs me that tries to ape the scene where John McLaine and Hans Gruber meet face-to-face, but it's no where near as clever. It's actually very stupid.
The later day Die Hard movies you should treat as the late sequels they are. I think I watched one of them and, eh...
Personally, I was more interested in the movies that copied the Die Hard formula, like Cliffhanger and Under Siege, arguably Segal's best movie, but I didn't watch any of his other movies.
Quote from: the_antithesis on September 23, 2022, 11:56:30 PMMost of your questions can be answered with the phrase "directed by Renny Harlan."
https://i.imgur.com/5tCjged.mp4
That doesn't even sound like a real name, and I've known polish people.
QuoteHis films include A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, The Adventures of Ford Fairlane, Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger, The Long Kiss Goodnight, and Deep Blue Sea.
He seemed like a big deal in the 90's.
Ford Fairlane sounds made up. And not just made up in the sense that all human language is an inherently arbitrary mapping of abstract concepts to mouth movements and corresponding air vibrations, a sort of shared fictional framework that subtlety influences our very thoughts themselves, pushing them into well-worn grooves of mainline respectability, diminishing the scope of human cognition into limited, easily-digestible mouth noises (in all your travels, have you ever seen a star's supernova?), I'm talking about made up in the sense that it sounds like a computer scanned a phonebook and then generated random names.
I thought there were only 3 Freddie movies, tops.
There's a Cliffhanger movie? Let me guess how it ends, on a cliffhanger? LOL
Never heard of The Long Kiss Goodnight. Romance movie or childhood bedtime story? Or some sort of Alabaman combination of the two?
I think Deep Blue Sea was a documentary I never saw.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 24, 2022, 12:54:18 AMFord Fairlane sounds made up. And not just made up in the sense that all human language is an inherently arbitrary mapping of abstract concepts to mouth movements and corresponding air vibrations, a sort of shared fictional framework that subtlety influences our very thoughts themselves, pushing them into well-worn grooves of mainline respectability, diminishing the scope of human cognition into limited, easily-digestible mouth noises (in all your travels, have you ever seen a star's supernova?), I'm talking about made up in the sense that it sounds like a computer scanned a phonebook and then generated random names.
You wish.
I'm trying so hard to finish Die Hard 2 but I almost lost it when the bad guys threw grenades that I swear, took around 30 seconds to explode. WTF.
And then there's that icicle scene...
And I got really discouraged when the bad guys (all military, btw) said their camp was being approached from three sides without specifying which sides. It'd be like pilots saying to watch your supper time. Dafuq. Hell, they could say "southern quadrant, but they were on the move" and that'd be more believable.
I'm very close to just giving up.
Just finished it. I think I'm stopping there.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 24, 2022, 07:11:31 PMJust finished it. I think I'm stopping there.
Save the IQ points.
I just finished watching that movie "Class of 1984" with my dad. At first, I expected it to be the typical high school movie, but it was much more than that: it had car explosions, gang fights, gore, etc. And I thought the high school I used to go to was bad.
I'm not going to spoil too much, just in case anyone here hasn't seen it yet.
It definitely had me on the edge of my seat, just waiting to see what would happen next.
Great movie! Would definitely recommend, especially since it's free on Tubi (that's how I watched it, btw).
But yeah, excellent movie.
Quote from: the_antithesis on September 23, 2022, 11:56:30 PMMost of your questions can be answered with the phrase "directed by Renny Harlan."
I'm glad I'm not the only one on Die Hard lately. Now, as someone who loves the first movie and enjoys the second, I will say that you can watch Die Hard 3 AKA Die Hard With a Vengeance, but you don't have to. I like Die Hard 2 because it is a pure sequel. It exists to give you more of the same. But, in spite of that, it manages to have a few nice twists and plays on the Die Hard formula. I recently added it to my collection because I remembered really liking it when it came out and for the most part, it held up.
Die Hard 3, however, I was not as happy with at the time. It has its charms, but it not only abandoned the Die Hard formula (watch the Renny Harlan Film Cliffhanger starring Sylvester Stallone if you want that) but started to eat itself as a franchise, the way all franchises do these days. There's one scene in particular that bugs me that tries to ape the scene where John McLaine and Hans Gruber meet face-to-face, but it's no where near as clever. It's actually very stupid.
The later day Die Hard movies you should treat as the late sequels they are. I think I watched one of them and, eh...
Personally, I was more interested in the movies that copied the Die Hard formula, like Cliffhanger and Under Siege, arguably Segal's best movie, but I didn't watch any of his other movies.
I liked die hard 4.0
But i will grant it is just a good action flick. One could have just made the character another cop instead of 'john McLain'and it would have lost none of it's strengths, nor does it harken back to the classic die hard films.
I just re-watched Tribes (with Jan-Michael Vincent and Darin McGavin) for the first time in a few decades. It was just as good as I remembered it being. It's about a hippie type dude who gets drafted into the Marines, with McGavin as his drill instructor. If you haven't seen it, you might enjoy it.
Anybody watched "Romper Stomper"?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 25, 2022, 01:02:23 PMAnybody watched "Romper Stomper"?
never heard of it. Is it any good? I'll Google it and check it out.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 25, 2022, 03:36:31 AMI liked die hard 4.0
But i will grant it is just a good action flick. One could have just made the character another cop instead of 'john McLain'and it would have lost none of it's strengths, nor does it harken back to the classic die hard films.
I think for me why the Die Hard series ended after the second is that they didn't get Bonnie Bedelia back for any of the following movies. You can read the original as a metaphor for the McLaines, particularly John, dealing with their domestic problems. Kind of like Scott Pilgrim Vs the World where the protagonist views the problems in his life as video games or Japanese cartoons. Therefore, at the end of the movie, they had resolved those issues. This makes it jarring when those problems came back in Die Hard 3. That and John transferred to LA in 2 but back to New York for 3? Not buying it. Not even for a dollar.
This may be why Die Hard 2 isn't as good because there is no metaphor that I can see in it. It's all surface. All well and good, but ultimately unfulfilling aside from the Return of the Jedi effect where the movie is elevated not within itself but by it's relationship to a superior film. I guess I enjoy it more as a feature-length epilogue for the original. Were John and Holly able to keep their marriage together after the first film? Of course they did, you idiot. Don't be stupid. Solid as a rock. They find themselves in another terrorist situation and that's not even a question.
It makes Die Hard 3 a little bit like Exorcist 2. The original exorcist demonstrated that science was no help in these matters, so the first thing the sequel does is introduce a pseudoscientific device that actually is a big help, I guess.The McLaines worked things out. Oh wait, no they didn't.
So, the later movies don't quite do it for me. They have their charms, but actions movies from the post-CGI era kind of leave me cold as the action scene become more and more ridiculous. I did like the bit where the bad guy lets McLaine talk to his daughter and she says "There are four left, daddy." or whatever and the bad guy just looks at her.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 25, 2022, 02:16:09 PMnever heard of it. Is it any good? I'll Google it and check it out.
It's a sub-culture study, and I was interested going in. It's not for the squeamish.
Did not care for Elvis. It's was more of a music video of flashing images of the things we know about Elvis. Maybe there is nothing more to know. Probably not, now that I think about it. I did like Elvis, just not the movie.
John Wick IV, March 2023.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10366206/
For Spooktober, I've decided to watch a bunch of old scary movies. First on my list, Demon Knight
Fun fact: Billy Zane stuffed an actual sponge in his mouth for this scene. (It's this movie's equivalent of Viggo Mortensen breaking his toe, you just have to tell everyone)
Let me just tell ya, I love everything about this movie. The tone is all over the place, heart-attack serious one moment to comedic, downright silly the next. And the tonal whiplash just makes the gore that much more disturbing, since it mostly comes when you least expect it. And the pacing is mostly pretty good, you never have too much downtime, something is always happening.
Billy Zane is an incredibly memorable villain - so incredibly evil and yet so charming! He's the kind of guy you just want to have a drink with, you know? Affably evil! He really kills it in every scene.
And this movie is just a plain ol' baddass action movie with explosions and gunshots and face-punching and surprisingly good practical effects. Remember those? Such talent!
There's a religious message throughout and it's about as subtle as a 2x4 that the characters are literally protected by the blood of Jesus (and latter day saints), yet it's somehow not overly preachy about it. And I find the "rules" of how this stuff works to be fascinating, with a lot left open to the imagination. And really, the religious message here can be summed up as just "don't be selfish and help protect other people, even if it requires sacrifice" with is pretty much almost every Marvel movie's message, so there's not much I can object to.
Funny dialogue, fantastic action, genuinely horrifying moments, enough worldbuilding that you could make several Film Theory videos out of, and all in a scant 90 minutes. What's not to like?
Demon Night was fun, but there's a reason the Tales From the Crypt stopped at two. It's been thirty years since I've seen... hold on... *checks google*... Bordello of Blood, but I remember not liking it at the time. IMDb says it bombed and scrapped plans for a third film in the trilogy, although the film Ritual had Cryptkeeper scenes added on video to complete the trilogy.
Bordello of Blood was pretty bad. So bad that it was pretty much the end of the Tales from the Crypt movies. It coulda been a franchise, with a new movie every couple of years, but no...
The Giant Claw, Ray Harryhausen's worst movie.
If you are a sucker for romantic period movies like me....IDK, maybe it's the music?
Reeve was a superman in real life, and as a bonus he was atheist. This link works for me.
https://tubitv.com/movies/641581/somewhere-in-time
Quote from: Cassia on October 05, 2022, 04:04:05 PMIf you are a sucker for romantic period movies like me....IDK, maybe it's the music?
Reeve was a superman in real life, and as a bonus he was atheist. This link works for me.
https://tubitv.com/movies/641581/somewhere-in-time
Wow! One of my favorite movies of all time. When I first saw it, I shocked myself that I liked it--no, loved it! The written description of it leaves me neutral and would not have bothered with it; I was sort of trapped into watching it. Don't exactly know what grabs me; I don't try to analyze and just watch it!
I put it in the same category of Fried Green Tomatoes--love it; don't analyze it and just watch it (many times).
Saw AVATAR again in the theater, 3D and all. Can't wait for the sequel.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 05, 2022, 08:01:12 PMSaw AVATAR again in the theater, 3D and all. Can't wait for the sequel.
I thought the movie was great--and the way it handled 3D was perfect. Hurt Locker--hated that it beat out Avatar for picture of the year.
Couldn't watch "Hurt Locker", lost a couple of cousins doing that shit.
There's a trailer for the new Super Mario movie with Chris Pratt's Mario voice.
I can't even imagine wanting to see that.
I saw the trailer. Went into it expecting a train wreck. Now, I think it will be...fine. I was actually impressed with Jack Black's Bowser voice. I couldn't even tell it was him. Keegan Michael Key's Toad was also decent. Definitely prefer his version over listening the shrill voice of the games' Toad for a full length movie.
Chris Pratt, though... No. His voice just doesn't fit. And since he's a main character, that's a bit of an issue.
I'm also annoyed that they seem to be implying that Mario isn't from the Mushroom Kingdom, and he was somehow teleported there. In Yoshi's Island, it was confirmed that Mario and Luigi were from the area. They were raised there by their unseen parents.
So, here's what happened. I recently learned of filmmaker Jack M Sell. Never heard of him? Me either. I'm into rock bottom cinema, so I went and found all three of his films on Youtube. I could post the videos or links here, but you don't deserve that.
Oh
My.
Fucking.
GAWD.
These movies are terrible. Truth be told, I've only "watched" one while fiddling with Minecraft so far. His Spy thriller/Bond parody Deadly Spygames. This one stars Sell as a super secret agent who.. does shit. I'm not completely sure what the plot is, but it eventually had something to do with finding a short film Sell had made previously (!) Once our hero got it, the film stopped cold dead while "Tippi" Hedron (?!?) shows the film to a boardroom full of guys or something. She's also not in the room with them. That is, she's in the room in close ups, but in wide shots, she simply disappears. Almost like the biggish star they got for the film shot all of her footage separately.
The short film is called Black Christmas and is not, not, NOT to be confused with the movie by Bob Clark or either of the remakes. It involves a small boy who sees his mommy kissing Santa Claus and he snaps and goes crazy and stabs them to death in a POV shot before being apprehended by the police. And if that sounds like the opening to John Carpenter's Halloween, by golly, you're right. There are probably several such "homages" in this film, but the only other one I noticed was as the killer, now grown and dressed like Santa Claus, stumbles to the apartment to kill the teenagers, we hear "...ho...ho...ho...ho..." that is similar to the "...ki...ki...ki...ki... ...ma...ma...ma...ma..." from Friday the 13th.
This horror short is not very good. Several of the kills are in slow motion and I'm not sure if that's how the original short was released or if they added this effect in post for it's inclusion in this spy movie. Probably the former, though.
The quality of the short is hard to judge because it's been shoehorned into a spy movie under the weak, weak, weak retcon of the killer being the grandson of a Soviet general and this information leaking out would be very bad for the Ruskies or something. But "Tippi" keeps interrupting the film to smug opine on it and restate shit she'd already said, mostly crap about the Russian general and whatnot.
This was a slog, people. A goddamned slog and I have two more film to plow through.
One is called Outtakes, which had a trailer before this movie. It's a "comedy" in the vein of the Groove Tube and Kentucky Fried Movie. KFM is a classic, but Groove Tube was lame and Outtakes is an even worse version of the Groove Tube based on the trailer. I had started watching it a little, which opens with the premiere of the film Outtakes(?). Celebrity impersonators start showing up and it just goes on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever...
They had an Asian woman, possibly a transvestite, as Dolly Parton although the name is slightly changed to be "funny." Then a black guy in a leather suit pretends to act like Eddie Murphy. A guy trying to be Prince arrives and then gets back into his limo and leaves the movie-- so far the closest portrayal of a celebrity thus far. And then another transvestite pretends to be Liza Minnelli after a mind concussion and can only communicate through song.
That's where I stopped and if I'm smart, I will not go back.
Jack M Sell has one other credit. It's another vanity project, but not necessarily his. It's called The Psychotronic Man and, unlike the above two, does not appear to be a comedy. Star Peter Spelson is also credited as a writer. So this was probably his idea and Sell was just for hire or a friend helping him live the dream or whatever. It seems to be the only Sell movie with any presence online, mostly because Rifftrax lampooned it in 2017. It's probably the best of the bunch. I don't have very high hopes, but I'm still saving it for last.
I bet most people have seen movies by Alan Smithee and didn't know who he was.
They've retired that.
Alright, so...
I finshed watching Outtakes and it is as bad as I thought. It's maybe bafflingly bad, as in how can someone have such a bad sense of humor so as to have every single joke fail like this?
I'd run down the bits, but really, why? They're not funny.
Well, that isn't entirely true. The phone company commercial parody where a cat answers the phone and gets an obscene phone call made me chuckle, but that may be only funny in context.
The main problem is the bits go on for way to long and don't have enough jokes in them to justify the length. For example, another bit that was almost funny is a tattoo removal shop that does so with a chainsaw. This goes on for twenty seconds, I timed it, and it still went on for too long. That's amazing!
Another weird thing is how dated it feels. I mean, it was made in 1987 but it feels more like something from the late 70's/early 80's. There's a talk show segment with a young gay man as a guest and AIDS isn't even mentioned. This tells me the script probably was mostly from the late 70's/early 80's which is why the jokes are dated. Either that of Jack M Sell has a terrible and dated sense of humor for 1987.
On the plus side, if you can call it that, we get to see some more of Black Christmas. I am mildly obsessed since the short doesn't appear to be anywhere online or on Sell's website. So it basically constitutes lost media, although I'll bet he still has a copy of the full short somewhere. Here it is presented as an overlong and spoileriffic movie trailer, but we do get some additional footage not seen in Deadly Spygames, such as when one teenager before Santa stabs him to death yells out "Scotty, beam me up!" I assume in the full short he was established as a trekkie and this was kind of funny. I mean, what last words.
Overall, it was also a goddamed slog. Perhaps more so because comedy was this thing's only reason to exist. It's not funny. The nudity isn't titillating. They keep reprising the goddamned repetitive theme song. That short the director had made is cut into this thing to pad out the runtime. Bits that could have been funny are robbed of their punch by not being edited properly.
I have to say, this is not making me excited for Psychotronic Man. Reviews on IMDb call it boring. I guess if it's just boring rather than actively painful, it will be an improvement.
Okay. I needed a break from the films of Jack M Sell. In the video game thread I mentioned my love for the Mattel Intellivision video game console from the early 80's. One of my favorite games on that system was Bomb Squad where the player has to defuse a bomb to prevent a building from blowing up. They said the game was inspired by the 1974 movie Juggernaut. For some reason, I never thought of checking out that movie, so today I watched it.
Juggernaut is about a bad guy who placed several bombs on a cruise ship to extort money and it's up to Dumbledore to save the day.
The first Dumbledore, that is, who passed away after the second movie.
This is one of those 70's "box pictures" that has the cast of reasonable stars in a strip a the bottom of the poster. Quite a cast here. Besides Richard Harris, we have Omar Sherif, David Hemmings, Anthony Hopkins, Shirley Knight, Ian Holm, Clifton James and Roy Kinnear.
Truth be told, I don't know who half of those people are, but I'm sure they're nice people.
The movie is a slow burn. We're about a quarter of the way into it before we get the bomber plot. It's an ensemble piece with everyone playing their part, I guess, to fill the run time if nothing else.
That may not be fair, but I can kind of see why they don't make movies like this anymore. Having such a wide cast of characters and multiple, if related goals lacks the focus that people like in a movie these days.
There's a lot less to the bomb defusal that I would've expected. Probably because clever devices in a bomb are difficult to communicate to a film audience. So instead, we spend time with the passengers on the ship and you can tell it's a British movie and not American because no one is acting like petulant children. Not even the children. This pads out the run time and your mileage may vary if you'd rather see the bomb squad crew working to solve the problem or the passengers trapped on the ship worrying about their predicament.
I will say the ending, while satisfying in a movie sense was a bad move on Dumbledore's part. This is spoilery but also cliched.
The bad guy turns out to be the guy who taught Dumbledore all he knows and he's down to the detonator. He has a red and a blue wire. One will disarm the bomb, the other will blow it up in Dumbledore's face. There are several bombs on the ship. Dumbledore talks to the guy and says he's planning to cut the blue wire, so if it blows, the rest of the team will know to cut the red wire. So this is personal. The bad guy is already going to jail for being a dick. The only difference here is if he tells Dumbledore the wrong wire, he kills him, but the ship will be safe. So it makes no sense for the bad guy to tell Dumbledore to cut the wrong wire, the blue wire in this case because the team already knew he was going to cut the blue wire. This is important. So in a tense, dramatic moment, Dumbledore cuts the red wire and nearly doomed everybody. He doesn't say he's going to cut the red wire against what the bad guy said and contrary to his original plan. If he was wrong, the rest of the team will think he'd cut the blue wire and cut the red and gotten blown up and the ship would sink. It was a movie moment, but careless of Dumbledore to take a chance in that moment and not tell the team until after he would have blown up if he was wrong.
That said, it was an enjoyable enough movie. Weird seeing Hopkins and Holm when they were young.
Psychotronic Man (1979)
It occurs to me that I watched the films of Jack M Sells in reverse order and now I'm concerned it may be like playing a record backwards and summon demons who will punch me in the stomach.
I had stated earlier that I had hopes that Psychotronic Man would be that best of the lot. It is. It's still not good. Maybe I should explain.
When watching bad movies, there are various ways to "enjoy" them, note the quotes. Most want a movie that is dense with unintentionally funny things so it becomes a comedy. Others have a more masochistic streak and "enjoy" being bored when the movie has scenes and shots that go on for far too long and lacks proper structure to justify the scene in the first place. Still other latch onto one or two elements in the movie and write a kind of fanfiction version of the movie in their head because they see potential for the ideas, it's just the movie itself fails to take advantage of them.
Psychotronic Man falls into the later category. There's something here despite the poor direction... probably more the poor editing.
The first asset is its star. Just look at him:
(https://cdn.allhorror.com/uploads/2018/03/yBXGfHsYlvzqRqhppIIrYPQyste-1366x445.jpg)
Finding actors with some kind of unique look is one of the reasons to dig into Z-grade schlock like this. Peter Spelson has such a unique look. He reminds me of the dealer for Las Vegas Poker and Blackjack on the Intellivision.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ3cwlhWsAE5JFb.jpg)
The plot, if you can call it a plot, is threadbare. Not a lot happens, but in the hands of the right director and editor, it could be good. Too bad we have Jack M Sell doing both.
Our hero, Rocky, is a barber with a drinking problem. He closes his shop early to drive around rural Illinois while drinking an unidentified liquid from one of his barber bottle things. He pulls over and passes out only to awaken with his car levitating in the air. He awakens the next day at home, thinking it was a dream and now he has weird headaches. He goes to the doctor who listens to his weird story, but is otherwise dismissive. Rocky tries to go to work the next day, but shit in his shop move around on their own and he just leaves. He goes back to where he'd parked the night before and meets the old man who lives in a house nearby. The old guy is the sort of asshole who'd be wearing a MAGA hat today. They get into an argument and Rocky uses his psychotronic powers to kill the guy. The cops are investigating the murder. Fortunately, Rocky left his barber's smock nearby and he becomes a person of interest. His doctor tries to rat him out and Rocky force throws him out the window. But the cops find clues and go to Rocky's home and he tries to make a run for it. Then a overlong car chase happens and then an overlong foot chase, then the cops corner him on the roof of a building with sharpshooters and then it's over... OR IS IT?
That plot description makes the movie sound much more watchable than it really is. I didn't touch on many of the plot points, like how Rocky is having an affair with the woman who owns the beauty salon next to his shop (and they have a mostly tasteful sex scene where the nudity is implied. Shocking after all the pubes in Sell's later movies). Ultimately, most of it doesn't seem to be going anywhere and how Rocky got his powers is not really explained.
Also, you may notice he doesn't seem to use his powers very much. Maybe it does since summaries, by definition, cut out big stretches of nothing. But, for most of the movie, there is little reason for him to have super powers because he doesn't use them. I suspect it's because they didn't have a good special effects department that could do very much. So it comes across pathetic.
That's a good word for the whole movie: pathetic. It's the little movie that couldn't. It's a pathetic thriller that's not very thrilling with a supernatural element that really is not super about a main character that is pathetic. He's an unlikable drunk who's cheating on his wife, but you still feel sorry for him. He's the last person who should get super powers and he's also the last person who would even want super powers. Being able to move things with his mind did him no favors. He moved up from being a shitty person to a murder because he really had no idea what he was capable of. And then trying to use those powers to get out of the jam he was in only made things worse.
All of that sounds like it could have been a great movie to me, but this movie really isn't it. It's just too boring. I suppose fixing this movie could be a good exercise for a film editing class. They'd probably cut it down to thirty minutes, but it would be a tight thirty minutes.
So, that's it for the filmography for director Jack M Sell. He still has a web page and probably still tries to find work, but nothing on IMDb. The problem is he's like a high schooler who likes doing the essay questions on final exams because they found if they just keep writing, the teacher grading their paper will just assume they know what they're talking about and give them a good grade. This is not good filmmaking. All three of his movies need an editor and two of them should probably just be thrown in the garbage. There's nothing in them.
So, Psychotronic Man gets an extremely weak recommendation. It's not good. It's very boring. But I like it the best of the three Jack M Sell movies.
Sometimes bad movies are fun. Mystery Science Theater made a 20+ year success out of showing bad films.
Gone are the days when drunks hosted the Friday movie, after the 11:00 o'clock news.
"Attack of the Crab Monsters". What, oh what, is attacking the scientists?
Started watching the wolf of wallstreet the other day. First time.
Turned it off shortly after he married the blonde. Was tired.
The acting was good and all. Not harking on anyone. But i don't know... it just didn't click for me. I could take it or leave it at this point. May just erase it without seeing the whole thing.
Watched
Where the crawdads sing.
I'd give it a solid 7/10
A young girl in the south of the US basically brings herself up.
She ends up on trial for murder. It's alright to watch if you're at a loose end and have a couple of hours to kill.
The last five minutes are the most interesting.
I'm not sure if this will get a theatrical release or not, but I'm SUPER excited for the Guardians of the Galaxy Christmas special, which'll have to tide me over until GoTG3.
I know, I know, it seems goofy and silly and kinda stupid but...*long pause* damn, I thought it'd think of something for that last half of that sentence.
If we get anything insightful or heart-tugging about any of the characters, it'll be worth the price of admission.
QuoteI know, I know, it seems goofy and silly and kinda stupid but...
So... their normal movies?
But joking aside, I am actually kinda happy to see a comedy coming out - esp. within the GotG world. Not what I expected, but a pleasant surprise.
Disney+ cant screw up comedy, can they? They cant go like 6/100, I refuse to believe it.
Also, Christmas specials hardly ever go wrong.
*pulls out the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet to reveal a Star Wars Christmas Special VHS tape inconspicuously housed in a blank VHS sleeve, "SCP-001" is scrawled on the sleeve with red ink*
47 meters down, not worth your time, imho.
Also, decided to just delete the wolf of wallstreet.
Might just see it sometime, but i with some hindsight; i wasn' enjoying the story itself.
Netflix's "All Quiet On the Wester Front".
If you want to feel like shit, watch this movie. It's exactly as depressing as you would expect.
That is a complement to it, but still.
Apparently the usual suspects didn't care for it:
(https://i.redd.it/6g3bsjwqi4x91.png)
Quote from: Shiranu on November 02, 2022, 04:16:50 PMNetflix's "All Quiet On the Wester Front".
If you want to feel like shit, watch this movie. It's exactly as depressing as you would expect.
That is a complement to it, but still.
Not many "like" an accurate, realistic war movie.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 02, 2022, 05:39:16 PMApparently the usual suspects didn't care for it:
"I can't believe a man who actually served on the frontlines of a war that cannot ever hope to be even slightly described by words - we could say outright horrifying in the most literal sense of the word, demonic and devoid of humanity as well, but that's not a billionth of the accuracy needed - ... I cant believe he would not write a puff piece convincing our youth to go to war.
Stupid libtards hate war, what a bunch of pansies. Not like me, I would have killed 10,000 of those French before the end of the movie. Yeah."
Edit - Upon re-reading it, the sardonic humor of an (presumably) American cheering on the Germans killing the French because he is too stupid to realise that just because the movie was from the German perspective doesn't mean he has to cheer for them was lost on me. Also, the humor that he probably would have been fighting for the Germans in at least one of those wars...
There's also the unfortunate fact that literal nazis weren't fans of the book either, apparently for similar reasons, forcing the author to leave for Switzerland, then the US. Now there's a hill to die on.
It's strange for people who live such peaceful, comfy lives far removed from warfare attempting to gatekeep what makes a good war movie, disappointingly but unsurprisingly deciding that a feel-good glorification of war is best. I feel like opinions would change rapidly when faced with the pervasive uncertainty and terror and sorrow of actual warfare.
Finally, it's mildly annoying that such natural perceptions and wishes for a better world are branded as "liberal" and therefore worthy of scorn and opposition. I would like to say that such people would jump into a volcano if told that liberals disapproved of such an activity, but alas, this world would never be so fortunate.
Doctor sleep.
I really liked this one. Which is kind of odd as it's completely different from stanley kubrick's the shining. It's q completely different pace of film, less scary, different genre altogether.
But somehow, after the first 15 minutes or so, that difference which initially had me weary, becomes irrelevant. The story works, in a weird way. I like everyone's acting. Even the kids'. And the moments that we do see the shining shine through, are fun in a dorky yet respectful way.
Often, when we want a sequal, we tend to want the same thing but slightly different because we want to relive the original.
And it can work in that regard. Die hard 2 is pretty fun, even as it makes fun of itself for being a sequel. Empire strikes back took what worked in new hope, expanded on it and gave it a killer hook.
But how often does this work for horror movies? I stopped watching after saw 2. I don't care for nighmare on elmstreet number seventeen.
But aliens was a better sequel than most because it dared to go a different route and take on a different tone than the original.
I applaud the filmmakers and stephen king for making a sequel that dared tl be different, but still clearly tied to the origonal. They pulled it off, imho
I would recommend this lne
Black Panther 2. 10/10. Badass Seal of Approval.
I'm not joking. This movie is amazing. It is everything I wanted in a Black Panther sequel and more. I watched it with a friend and we cried, laughed, were on the edge of our seats, and cried again. Very touching.
If you like Marvel movies at all or Black Panther 1 even a little bit, you have to go see this movie. If you're in traffic, take the shoulder to the nearest movie theater. If you're in a plane, parachute down. If you're babysitting, take the kids with you. Do whatever you gotta do to make it happen.
I don't want to spoil anything, so I'll just describe the colors I saw. I saw a lot of white, some white/black, a ton of blue, some aquamarine, and even a this odd shade of aquamarine that I can only describe as "lower" blue than all the rest. Definitely eye-catching.
Is that "Wakanda Forever"?
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 12, 2022, 08:58:43 AMBlack Panther 2. 10/10. Badass Seal of Approval.
I'm not joking. This movie is amazing. It is everything I wanted in a Black Panther sequel and more. I watched it with a friend and we cried, laughed, were on the edge of our seats, and cried again. Very touching.
If you like Marvel movies at all or Black Panther 1 even a little bit, you have to go see this movie. If you're in traffic, take the shoulder to the nearest movie theater. If you're in a plane, parachute down. If you're babysitting, take the kids with you. Do whatever you gotta do to make it happen.
I don't want to spoil anything, so I'll just describe the colors I saw. I saw a lot of white, some white/black, a ton of blue, some aquamarine, and even a this odd shade of aquamarine that I can only describe as "lower" blue than all the rest. Definitely eye-catching.
Interesting. Out of all the Marvel movies from this phase that I'd expect to be great, the Black Panther sequel without Blank Panther wasn't one at the top of the list.
"Blank Panther" :chortle:
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 17, 2022, 11:30:47 PMInteresting. Out of all the Marvel movies from this phase that I'd expect to be great, the Black Panther sequel without Blank Panther wasn't one at the top of the list.
ikr? I went into this blind only seeing a poster with Shuri, the Queen, and the Dora Milage on one side and some weird-looking people on the other side. I braced for a generic Marvel face-off. But it was very different than what I expected.
I'll also note that I was one of only a couple white people in the whole theater. That's unusual. Not bad, just different. I reminded myself to be on my best behavior, a model minority lol.
Is the young lady who spouted the racist comments in the first movie in this one?
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 18, 2022, 01:57:46 PMikr? I went into this blind only seeing a poster with Shuri, the Queen, and the Dora Milage on one side and some weird-looking people on the other side. I braced for a generic Marvel face-off. But it was very different than what I expected.
I'll also note that I was one of only a couple white people in the whole theater. That's unusual. Not bad, just different. I reminded myself to be on my best behavior, a model minority lol.
A movie featuring a mainly black cast, during the era where all the white guys on YouTube are complaining about Marvel going "woke," is mostly watched by black people? Say it ain't so. lol
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 18, 2022, 05:11:41 PMA movie featuring a mainly black cast, during the era where all the white guys on YouTube are complaining about Marvel going "woke," is mostly watched by black people? Say it ain't so. lol
Yeah, it turns out that people like watching fictional characters who look like them. Shocker. I don't like just throwing around the R-word, but the people saying that it's horrible and woke are Re....allly reallly wrong.
Going into this movie, I knew literally nothing about the movie's antagonists, but I am 100% on board with them. No spoilers, so I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 18, 2022, 04:01:36 PMIs the young lady who spouted the racist comments in the first movie in this one?
In fairness, she called a CIA operative a colonizer, which is not really all that far off.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 18, 2022, 10:00:26 PMIn fairness, she called a CIA operative a colonizer, which is not really all that far off.
So she surrendered the high ground quite easily.
Mel Brooks - History of the World, Part 1
Today on things that wouldn't last 5 seconds in modern society, despite it's glaring necessity as a film that portrays Romans and their legacy on mankind in perhaps the most historically accurate light... despite being a comedy...
It's Mel Brooks; you know it's gonna be good. Particularly the amount of call-backs and slow burn jokes are truly just from an era of movie writing long past - it's not "better", it's not "worse", it's just a product of it's time.
Kinda like the almost sickening levels of sexism Mel Brooks shows in the film... but I would like to think, given his own facial expressions, that even he was sickened men actually behaved like this and was just making fun of them.
----
On that note, started rewatching Blazing Saddles and my lord... I have not heard so many n words dropped since... uh... *insert mumble rapper who rhymes black person with black person*.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 19, 2022, 06:17:55 PMOn that note, started rewatching Blazing Saddles and my lord... I have not heard so many n words dropped since... uh... *insert mumble rapper who rhymes black person with black person*.
My favorite line from Blazing Saddles: "As honorary chairman of the welcoming committee, it is my privilege to extend to you a laurel and hardy handshake."
"Fought Dix!"
Quote from: Shiranu on November 19, 2022, 06:17:55 PMMel Brooks - History of the World, Part 1
Today on things that wouldn't last 5 seconds in modern society, despite it's glaring necessity as a film that portrays Romans and their legacy on mankind in perhaps the most historically accurate light... despite being a comedy...
My favorite gag in the Roman chase scene is where the Roman soldiers are 420 blazing and one of them asks the other:
"You care if it falls?"
"What?"
"The Roman Empire."
"Fuck it."
*laughs*
Also, if you look closely during the Roman scenes, you can see pale marble statues missing arms (deliberate anachronism)
QuoteIt's Mel Brooks; you know it's gonna be good. Particularly the amount of call-backs and slow burn jokes are truly just from an era of movie writing long past - it's not "better", it's not "worse", it's just a product of it's time.
Exactly. It had amazing gags that absolutely would definitely be well-received if produced. Maybe.
Though in seriousness, it's pretty strange that no one has done this sort of a historical anthology comedy since. It wouldn't be that hard to do a Scary Movie treatment of historical events and personalities.
QuoteKinda like the almost sickening levels of sexism Mel Brooks shows in the film... but I would like to think, given his own facial expressions, that even he was sickened men actually behaved like this and was just making fun of them.
It absolutely was. The French king in particular was quite the SOB. "I detest violence." *shoots peasant out of the air*
Imho, his Piss Boy doppelganger, who is genuinely kind, is meant as a scathing rebuke of his character. A lowly peasant with more humanity than the king.
Note that none of the leaders, from Torquemada to Caesar to the Senators to King Louis, are nice or well-adjusted people.
QuoteNote that none of the leaders, from Torquemada to Caesar to the Senators to King Louis, are nice or well-adjusted people.
Almost like inbred man-children who were pampered from birth beyond belief, and given the right to end entire villages or nations as a birthday gift at 13 aren't exactly fit to be emperor or king - even with education they mostly missed more than hit.
Can't imagine why there is tomes upon tomes, poems upon poems of people crying about how horrible monarchy is... hmm...
Nope, just cant see the connection.
QuoteThough in seriousness, it's pretty strange that no one has done this sort of a historical anthology comedy since. It wouldn't be that hard to do a Scary Movie treatment of historical events and personalities.
I would love to do a Biblical comedy, or even a realistic drama with none of the mysticism (just setting, no lore), but given the current climate... eh...
Maybe once I have the ability to get out of the country.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 19, 2022, 10:32:49 PMAlmost like inbred man-children who were pampered from birth beyond belief, and given the right to end entire villages or nations as a birthday gift at 13 aren't exactly fit to be emperor or king - even with education they mostly missed more than hit.
Yep. A lot of ink is spilled condemning the person and their personal failings, as if the Roman Emperors or the French Kings or modern dictators suffered from unique psychological problems, which if removed, would lead to just and prosperous reigns.
Much less attention is paid to the system that took a child and rewarded (or at least not punished) a LOT of misdeeds, from small to large to global, invested them with almost unlimited power, and then set them loose in the world. The road to hell was already paved before any of these people could walk.
The world could benefit from a similar shift in perspective for current manchild billionaires and "populist" right-wing demagogues.
It was hard to remember if I was talking about medieval kings or the current aristocracy, to be honest.
Even on the inbreeding part...
Well done but depressing German fuhrerbunker docudrama movie "Downfall". Link below works for me.
https://ww6.0123movie.net/movie/downfall-10637.html
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51W45N1877L._AC_SY580_.jpg)
I prefer the original title 'der untergang'
It's not dubbed, i hope?
The version I saw wasn't dubbed.
Good! Think it would lose much of it's strength otherwise.
Weird thing to translate only the title but keep the original language though.
I'm a nitpicking little bitch, i know.
I hate reading subtitles, so I didn't get very far into it.
The Mysteries of Chaco Canyon (1999)
I went to this place a few years ago - it's an amazing place. Walls that tower above you, like castles from Europe - 5 stories high, in a semi-circle that could have housed thousands if it was meant for that.
But it was something more special - it was part of a both solar and lunar chart that spanned dozens of miles... requiring 11 generations to study the skies, study the geometry needed to build these places, and then align them in such a way that walls align with the solar and lunar equinox.
Imagine asking someone to do that today.
Imagine what this place must have been like... 5 stories tall, likely painted or covered with carvings... it would have rivaled any cathedral, mosque, synagogue or temple you could find in the world today.
But the climate changed, and evil people likely invaded. The locals say that the people of Chaco held too much power, and this is what lead to their downfall.
Either way, something we can learn from. An amazing place, but only 1 of so many that the United States buries under landfills, shopping mall parking lots and fracking operations.
We disrespect so many, what can we expect?
Just watched Avatar 1 in anticipation of Avatar 2 (a good friend of mine is a big fan, so I gave it a shot)
As this extended trailer shows, I think Avatar lays the groundwork for a fantastic PS3 game.
I'm joking of course, but I'm not exaggerating much. I truly thought I was watching a video game movie.
Most of the characters are flat and easily forgettable, the story is okay but incredibly derivative, and the CGI is absolutely gorgeous most of the time. Definitely the MVP of the film.
But it bothers me that humanity is portrayed as cartoonishly sadistic and lacking empathy. I know, I know, cue the real history where that portrayal was spot on. But if I have to hear another macho "get some" or one more physical disability slur...
Maybe I'm one of those bleeding heart scientists or that inexplicably conscientious pilot, but I kinda feel like if we found alien life, especially intelligent alien life whose full capabilities are unknown to us, we'd be a little bit more peaceable. If Supcom has taught me anything, it's that being nice to aliens and other humans is a good idea.
And speaking of other scifi, I can't help but feel like almost everything in Avatar was done better in other media. A strange alien world with all sorts of exciting wildlife was done better in Alien Planet. A positive portrayal of natives was done better in...take your pick. And more specifically, a western outsider assimilating into the tribe and fighting back against colonial injustice was done better in Dune and District 9. The Gaia hypothesis was done better in Endless Legend. The ecological message was done better in Fern Gully. Even really specific stuff like communing with the spirits of the dead under a tree was done better in A Song of Ice and Fire.
You'd think that all those shared tropes with other stuff I like would endear me to Avatar, but it just makes me appreciate that stuff even more.
One last thing that really, really bothers me about megahits like this is that they might inadvertently teach a sort of luddism. The triple threat of industrialism, militarism, and profit motive is rightly condemned, but not a lot of care is made to make sure that the audience learns the right lessons from that. Presumably, the audience's take-away is that industrialized civilization is inexhorably expansionist and militaristic and materialistic and a hunter-gathering is a more fulfilling, noble lifestyle and we should all smash our cars, put on loincloths, and go swing from trees. I dunno, maybe I'm blowing certain scenes out of proportion, but I honestly did get more than a whiff of that in my viewing.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 24, 2022, 05:52:26 AMJust watched Avatar 1 in anticipation of Avatar 2 (a good friend of mine is a big fan, so I gave it a shot)
I watched the extended (3:16ish) Avatar in prep for this one. Honestly, the second one was better than the first. I am a sucker for cetaceans.
Yeah, the longer cut is much better.
Obligatory:
Weirdly, I had just found the Avatar boxed set and noticed there was an extended cut in it. Box has been on the shelf for years.
You know, I never saw Avatar. I feel like I dodged a bullet.
I don't like the "Friday" movies.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 24, 2022, 12:01:25 PMI don't like the "Friday" movies.
There's like thirteen of those, right?
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 24, 2022, 12:02:56 PMThere's like thirteen of those, right?
Only if you go to the right camp.
Yep; I respect Avatar for what it is, but it's just not really my cup of tea.
An over-glorified tech demo for the masses, stretched into an hour-something long film. 5-10 minutes would have been fine, and told the entire story just as easily (if not better).
Another nitpick that kinda wooshed by me at first but has me scratching my head is that Jake's change of allegiances could be seen coming a couple light years away.
This guy hops into the Avatar body, doesn't even wait for the physical before going trapezing off, gets lost in the woods, meets this girl...yadda yadda yadda, hair sex yadda yadda yadda, barely eats, literally doesn't do anything except sleep, play Navi, and talk about Navi.
And to be honest, I get it. His life sucks and people treat him like dirt. He's simultaneously Joe from Family Guy and Meg from Family Guy.
His choice is so completely predictable and without any conflict that I'm surprised there wasn't a twist or something. Maybe it's just me, but I would've loved more of a conflict. Like a brother who's totally loyal to Scarface or Taserface or whatever that guy calls himself. Or a family. Or a fortune waiting for him at the end of the mission. Something, anything, to create some internal conflict. FFS tertiary characters in Game of Thrones get more and better development than this!
I find speculative evolution fascinating. Especially when it's of fictional alien species. Avatar delivers on that very well, with plants and animals that feel strange, but very believable. That fiber hive mind thing they have going on with that Eywa being is interesting. Being able to plug into an animal and share your thoughts, or into a plant and hear voices of nature communicating with itself.
"EWA HEARD YOU!!!!" Rather like the times the fast movers appeared to deliver some TLC to our fraternal brothers in the black pajamas.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 27, 2022, 12:34:56 PM"EWA HEARD YOU!!!!" Rather like the times the fast movers appeared to deliver some TLC to our fraternal brothers in the black pajamas.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/9caae7b9662a3eeeb52e82f93a780d8b/tenor.gif)
...What?
Phantoms with napalm to keep Charlie warm.
I don't know what you're referring to, but it would have been nice if Eywa didn't wait until the 11th hour to get involved.
"Dang. Almost all the blue people are dead now. I should do something, I guess..."
C. 1970, Southeast Asia.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 27, 2022, 12:15:44 PMI find speculative evolution fascinating. Especially when it's of fictional alien species.
If that does it for you, you should check out Alien Planet and The Future Is Wild.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 27, 2022, 12:51:37 PM(https://media.tenor.com/images/9caae7b9662a3eeeb52e82f93a780d8b/tenor.gif)
...What?
I'm afraid I'm getting too drunk to follow this thread. 😵�💫
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 27, 2022, 09:59:28 PMIf that does it for you, you should check out Alien Planet and The Future Is Wild.
I think I've seen The Future is Wild, back when it first aired. Alien Planet is difficult to Google for, though. Can you be more specific?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Planet
Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022)
2.5/4
I like the vintage sets and costumes, sharp looking actors, computer graphics. Didn't get very much involved in the story. A common sentiment these days. The constant references to beloved HP characters get old when you know they won't show.
When you said HP at first I thought you meant HP Lovecraft. I was like "Oh, is Yog-Sothoth in this one?" Then I thought it might be HP sauce, but I was just being silly.
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 31, 2022, 01:55:21 PMWhen you said HP at first I thought you meant HP Lovecraft. I was like "Oh, is Yog-Sothoth in this one?" Then I thought it might be HP sauce, but I was just being silly.
The Cthulhu?
Quote from: Cassia on December 31, 2022, 10:53:13 AMFantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022)
2.5/4
I like the vintage sets and costumes, sharp looking actors, computer graphics. Didn't get very much involved in the story. A common sentiment these days. The constant references to beloved HP characters get old when you know they won't show.
It's to keep the events relevant to the larger Potterverse.
Quote from: Cassia on December 31, 2022, 10:53:13 AMFantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022)
2.5/4
I like the vintage sets and costumes, sharp looking actors
Imho, that's the only part they got right.
Maybe injecting Lovecraft mythos is the only way to save the HP universe.
"Harry Potter and the Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young"
I'd watch that.
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 31, 2022, 03:24:44 PMMaybe injecting Lovecraft mythos is the only way to save the HP universe.
"Harry Potter and the Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young"
I'd watch that.
HP Lovecraft's Dream Cycle is essentially that.
IIRC, some SCP stories are basically HP blended with Cthulhu.
Avatar 2
Solid all-around film. Enjoyable and moving. It's a helluva action movie, too. Vicious at times. And surprisingly similar to Wakanda Forever. Expect LOTS of comparisons from critics.
The CGI is fantastic and a lot more seamless. I worried that the faces or water physics might not be 100% right, but imho, they're spot on.
The story is a lot more straightforward with a lot less headscratchers. More believable characterization and motives, too. No more Unobtanium, thank Eywa. No spoilers, but the Earthers have much more sensible reasons for an any-means-necessary approach to Pandora.
Again, no spoilers, and this is something that anyone who has picked up a history book ever will already know, but humans are still cold-hearted bastards with bastard filing. And yes, they still say "get some" like total trogs. But they're actually somewhat clever this time around.
The Na'vi people on the other hand, seem to have shifted quite a bit. The first movie had them as wise and noble warriors spiritually in touch with nature. At the beginning of the second movie, they're just fierce warriors bordering on Mujahideen.
*shows out of context footage of Na'vi brandishing space rifles and firing them sidewise or "gangsta" style*
(they remember that they're spiritual later on, so I guess they just kinda forgot that for a while so the movie could happen)
The dialogue continues to be most godawful thing about this film series. I think that's why I never hear anyone quote it. If I have to hear "bro" or "get some" one more time...
I'm not joking, the dialogue is like filler text that I write when I'm stuck with writer's block and can't figure out a scene. Except this is a hundreds of millions of dollars budget with a small army working on it, and I'm just a dude banging on a keyboard.
*Na'vi kid picks up space rifle*
"Come on bro, like do the thing bro"
*Na'vi kid puts it on his butt and fires it with his tail*
*Gun discharges and causes a small stampede*
"Sick bro like omg bro, that was like so like...bro."
I wish I was joking about that. This movie is going to get savaged so hard in parodies that I might have to start referring to my IRL brother as my "mother's other son" just to avoid using saying anything resembling "bro" cause I might cringe myself to death.
Finally, I just want to say that all the aquatic life is super gorgeous if a bit outlandish (you can tell they're alien because they have extra stuff - extra eyes, extra blowhole, extra flippers, etc) There are no brakes on this imagination train - or possibly 8 sets of brakes, 19 chimneys, and 2 cabooses.
A couple parts I forgot to mention:
The human spaceships are absolutely gorgeous, so be sure to not blink during the 10 seconds they're on screen.
The humans use spider robots to build their buildings and they're so friggin' adorable that I want to buy one.
I stopped stressing on movies about 60 years ago. (Yul Brenner building Aztec pyramid in Texas? Cool.)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 05, 2023, 09:48:21 AMI stopped stressing on movies about 60 years ago. (Yul Brenner building Aztec pyramid in Texas? Cool.)
(https://otakukart.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Rick-and-Morty-Jerry-Talking-Cat-e1659986229603.jpg)
Well, call me Jerry because I find the insinuation that I can't have fun and ask questions to be condescending.
(though I probably won't like the real answers to my questions)
I'm more outsin than insin.
I haven't seen any movies on the big screen for a long time, because of my cataracts, but I had the surgery on my right eye, and next week I'll be getting it on my left eye. After that I'll get glasses, since I'll still need them, and then I'll be able to see well enough to actually watch a movie. I'm pretty sure Avatar will be the first one I'll be seeing.
I can see well enough to watch movies on YouTube though, so I watch ones I like, such as My Name Is Nobody, with Henry Fonda and Terrence Hill. It's among my favorite western movies.
🤠
Don't blow up those new eyes! I've had a dozen "procedures" on my eyes, and I can now see well enough to run over pedestrians selectively.
Just saw Blue Man Group: Water Way by Jims Cameraman.
It was pretty good. Visually impressive. Good storytelling. Personally, I found the story to be stronger this time than in the first movie. Lots of tense moments. It's a long movie, but it doesn't feel that way.
Don't know how much more I can say without spoiling it. Looking forward to the third one, though.
Glad this long wait paid off. I was suspecting Jims Cameraman would have overwritten it over years of rewrites, turning it to mush.
I'm looking forward to seeing Tom Hanks's new movie.
Pinocchio?
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 12, 2023, 12:51:39 AMPinocchio?
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNzg3OTEzMTgtYWU0OC00YTI0LWIxOTAtNmRkNTc0Nzg2YWU1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjY1MTg4Mzc@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg)
(http://www.impawards.com/2014/posters/st_vincent_ver7.jpg)
I don't know why I posted this poster from 2014, but suddenly I thought of it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2023, 07:23:37 AMDon't blow up those new eyes! I've had a dozen "procedures" on my eyes, and I can now see well enough to run over pedestrians selectively.
I'm just about to go into surgery, I'm really looking forward to being able to see again! 🥸
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 12, 2023, 02:36:13 PMI'm just about to go into surgery, I'm really looking forward to being able to see again! 🥸
Good luck on your surgery!!!
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 12, 2023, 02:36:13 PMI'm just about to go into surgery, I'm really looking forward to being able to see again! 🥸
My last eye surgery they gave me Fentanyl and I was out for ~eight hours. Boss Lady was pacing the ceiling waiting for me to restart. (This was before it was banned, obviously, the surgery was done at a hospital.)
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 12, 2023, 08:34:47 PMGood luck on your surgery!!!
It went wonderfully! I can see
so much better, the bus ride back from SF was awesome! 🤓
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 13, 2023, 08:05:46 PMIt went wonderfully! I can see so much better, the bus ride back from SF was awesome! 🤓
That is great news! I had the same experience.
So I'm looking at my YouTube feed and apparently, there are dragons in the new Dungeons and Dragons movie. Where do they come up with these ideas?! Did you guys know about this, because man, I am on the edge of my seat over here. If they mention that it also has a subterranean prison under a castle, I might lose it!
If you lose it, it might be as hard to find as Waldo!
Well, I've just finished watching A Man Called Otto. I have to say, no movie has ever brought so many tears to my eyes. And I almost never cry when watching movies. On a scale of one to ten I'd give it an eleven! Tom Hanks was already one of my favorite actors, but now he's definitely number one.
👍
Watched The Phantom Of The Open...
A true story about an amatuer golfer who blagged his way into the British Open.
Hilarious.
Nope
I don't know why I watched Nope. I have been meaning to check out Jordan Peele. I've only see a little of Kay & Peele, so it's interesting that a comedian has shifted into a horror director, but okay.
I don't know exactly what to think. I am reminded of Tremors, but Tremors is the superior movie. I don't think that's an insult. For one, the guy who wrote the script had been working on it for two decades. That's time to polish it to a high gloss. Second, Tremors has a very basic concept and the whole movie hinges on this: idiots who have to think their way out of a situation. Nope is a bit more complicated than that, which isn't bad, but feels like... less. It's not as strong.
Part of my problem is I read up on spoilers before I saw the movie, which may have actually been a detriment here. It's a slow burn and learning what the hell is going on is the hook to keep you engaged. Which probably speaks to how weak the story is without this. If it don't work for JJ Abrams, it don't work for Jordan Peele. Relying on a mystery to sustain your movie makes it weaker.
The performances are okay, I guess, but I'm not sure about the characters. OJ is a stoic cowboy or something which means he don't talk much of show as much emotion as he could. His sister Emerald is kind of loud and brash and somewhat obnoxious. There are a couple other characters, but really, who are they?
I suppose Jupe has a bit of character as he's so traumatized by the Gordy incident, that when talking to someone about it, he doesn't talk about the incident but the SNL sketch that lampooned it, which seems bad taste, even for SNL and Chris Katan.
So there's a bunch of stuff going on and it doesn't all quite jell together. I mean, the creature could have just killed all of them in the first place, but didn't and I don't know why other than there'd be no movie. Could have killed them any time, but then the movie would be too short.
So, I don't know what's going on here. We'll see if any of this stays with me of if I forget everything about it.
If you watch it twice you'd be twice as confused.
The 1953 'War of the Worlds' they were pretty obsessed with coffee at the field command post. Almost like they needed something for the girl to do, LOL.
I do like this part:
Pastor Dr. Matthew Collins : If they're more advanced than us, they should be nearer the creator for that reason. No real attempt has been made to communicate with them, you know?
Pastor Dr. Matthew Collins : Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.
Forrester : It's seen him!
Pastor Dr. Matthew Collins : Thou anointest my head with oil. My cup runneth over. And I will dwell in the house of the Lord, forever.
[Martians kill Pastor Dr. Matthew Collins]
"Everybody knows when you wave the white flag you want to be friends."
Watched Don't Worry Darling.
An absolute pile of crap.
Harry Styles can't act. I know that he's a good looking bloke and all that business, but for crying out loud.
Saw Avatar 2 Sunday. Scenery, 3D, special effects are the very best I've ever seen. The story line not much (if any) above average. Length--could easily be cut down. I had a problem with the motivation many of the main characters. Sully, after the return of the 'corporation' figures it is safer to just run this time. ???? He had the opposite message in the first movie. So, they go from the jungle to the sea; as though the corp. can't find him anywhere on the planet. When the corp was kicked off the planet in the first movie, one human remained (and stayed human) with Sully and his people. He is accepted and made part of that tribe/group. The bad colonel who died, had had a mind and personality flash drive made of him prior to his death in the first movie; of course he is once again the main protagonist and wants to kill Sully. At the end, while the colonel tries him damnedest to kill Sully and his family, the human is made to be a translator for the bad guy. Sully and colonel fight to the end and the human aids Sully and helps get him to safety. The colonel is dead at the bottom of a sunken ship--except the human also brings him to the surface and saves him--but tells nobody. Ah, foil to get to movie 3. Except what fucking reason does this human have to save the colonel (even tho they turn out to be father and son) after the colonel does his best to kill all that the humans holds dear--and all the death and destruction he has caused to the planet. I guess there has to be a bridge of some sort to get to the last two movies (already in the can). Or something. I do recommend the movie, but for the special effects and scenery.
It's almost like movies don't have to be strictly logical.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2023, 10:10:44 AMSaw Avatar 2 Sunday. Scenery, 3D, special effects are the very best I've ever seen. The story line not much (if any) above average. Length--could easily be cut down. I had a problem with the motivation many of the main characters. Sully, after the return of the 'corporation' figures it is safer to just run this time. ???? He had the opposite message in the first movie. So, they go from the jungle to the sea; as though the corp. can't find him anywhere on the planet. When the corp was kicked off the planet in the first movie, one human remained (and stayed human) with Sully and his people. He is accepted and made part of that tribe/group. The bad colonel who died, had had a mind and personality flash drive made of him prior to his death in the first movie; of course he is once again the main protagonist and wants to kill Sully. At the end, while the colonel tries him damnedest to kill Sully and his family, the human is made to be a translator for the bad guy. Sully and colonel fight to the end and the human aids Sully and helps get him to safety. The colonel is dead at the bottom of a sunken ship--except the human also brings him to the surface and saves him--but tells nobody. Ah, foil to get to movie 3. Except what fucking reason does this human have to save the colonel (even tho they turn out to be father and son) after the colonel does his best to kill all that the humans holds dear--and all the death and destruction he has caused to the planet. I guess there has to be a bridge of some sort to get to the last two movies (already in the can). Or something. I do recommend the movie, but for the special effects and scenery.
Sully's motivation changes because he has kids to protect now. After they were taken hostage, it became clear that his family was a target, so he left to try to protect him. They would have been fine, if not for the helicopter leading the bad guys straight there. lol
The colonel will not be the villain of the third movie. I think they're setting up a redemption arc for him. It was confirmed that the villains of movie three will be other Na'Vi, to show that they're not all innocent.
As for why the kid saved the colonel, I don't know. Because he's not evil? Because he could see that his father really did care about him, although he tried to hide it? Technically speaking, even if the colonel died, he could have been brought back in another body anyway, but this one has been humbled not only by his defeat, but by his rescue.
I think the kids took the high road with the pseudo colonel. This may be what makes him switch sides. For fun, they could be going both ways with another colonel clone. Nothing to stop that. The Jar Head Clan believes in redundancy.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 14, 2023, 03:08:10 PMI think the kids took the high road with the pseudo colonel. This may be what makes him switch sides. For fun, they could be going both ways with another colonel clone. Nothing to stop that. The Jar Head Clan believes in redundancy.
Yeah, but it takes a while to grow an avatar. I think that's why Sully was able to grow a family in between movies.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 14, 2023, 01:59:42 PMSully's motivation changes because he has kids to protect now. After they were taken hostage, it became clear that his family was a target, so he left to try to protect him. They would have been fine, if not for the helicopter leading the bad guys straight there. lol
The colonel will not be the villain of the third movie. I think they're setting up a redemption arc for him. It was confirmed that the villains of movie three will be other Na'Vi, to show that they're not all innocent.
As for why the kid saved the colonel, I don't know. Because he's not evil? Because he could see that his father really did care about him, although he tried to hide it? Technically speaking, even if the colonel died, he could have been brought back in another body anyway, but this one has been humbled not only by his defeat, but by his rescue.
I should have watched the movie with you--you could have explained the hard parts to me. :)))))
BTW, I will watch 3 and 4.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 14, 2023, 03:18:56 PMYeah, but it takes a while to grow an avatar. I think that's why Sully was able to grow a family in between movies.
No issue taken with that. But the memories would be implanted in the "second wave" of returning humies*. Just pick the end point of the implants where you him to be when he's decanted. I suspect he was being recorded right along. Less time for the 3rd gen to hit the ground running. (There was a scifi story like that. Man kept waking up in strange places. Turned out he had clones all over the solar system and they were awakened as needed.)
*Rocket's pejorative.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 14, 2023, 03:18:56 PMYeah, but it takes a while to grow an avatar. I think that's why Sully was able to grow a family in between movies.
Sully's avatar grew on the trip out from Earth, yes?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 14, 2023, 04:11:47 PMSully's avatar grew on the trip out from Earth, yes?
Sully's avatar was made for his brother, who died before the mission. They recruited Sully to avoid wasting the avatar.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 14, 2023, 06:41:01 PMSully's avatar was made for his brother, who died before the mission. They recruited Sully to avoid wasting the avatar.
True, but Sully said "Hey! They got BIG!" when he saw his avatar after they landed.
Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania
Preamble
This movie had a rating of 48% with critics and 84% with audiences, so going into this was something of a risk. And it made an underwhelming impression on Angry Joe and company - suffice it to say that buying a ticket was a risky move for me.
And I'm pleased to announce that it was a pretty solid 7.5/10 film. Not the best MCU film by a long shot, but definitely worth your time.
Though I have to warn you, you have to understand both the other Ant-Man movies and the Loki TV show or you're going to be pretty lost on this one. Also, it couldn't hurt to have a basic understanding of quantum mechanics (it references super basic stuff like Schrödinger's cat) and concept of the multiverse, specifically the MCU multiverse. Suffice it to say that this movie is more geared towards comics geeks who already know this stuff than complete newbies.
The movie itself
The first act is mercifully short, and we get to the quantum world in short order. And the quantum world is so gorgeous and trippy, it's nothing short of amazing. It's like that famous scene in Doctor Strange spiraling through the multiverse but for much, much longer. Everything is so strange yet beautiful, it's so interesting and imaginative - everything from the "people" to the landscape to seemingly background things are all so strange and unpredictable! By far the strongest part of the movie and worth the price of admission in and of itself.
The plot...well it's pretty basic. Not terrible, just pretty formulaic. Let me know if you've seen this before - characters are thrust into a strange world, struggle to acclimatize, meet the Big Bad, gotta fetch a MacGuffin, then finally fight the Big Bad in the climax, etc. My biggest gripe with this film is that it played it safe when it could've thrown us a HUGE curveball. Very disappointing.
Also, while the MCU can make Vulture and Lizard and He Who Remains badass, nothing can make MODOK a viable silver screen character. The movie would have been perfectly fine without him. Better, probably.
He Who Remains was absolutely great in this movie, and I love all of his scenes. And while I was disappointed that he didn't quite live up to the hype, he's still a huge force to be reckoned with and the ongoing main antagonist of the entire MCU. People who have seen Loki or read the comics know what I'm talking about. Those who don't...well imagine Doctor Who but evil and with a arsenal of future tech. Arguably more of a threat than Thanos and that's without factoring in the ensuing instability of the timeline. This guy reshapes reality in a way that makes The Snap look weak in comparison. I can't wait to see what happens when stuff really gets chaotic.
The Longest Day (1962, B.W.). Certainly, an epic film. The best parts for me were the Nazis' reactions in subtitles.
Quote from: Cassia on March 12, 2023, 10:47:30 PMThe Longest Day (1962, B.W.). Certainly, an epic film. The best parts for me were the Nazis' reactions in subtitles.
"Where are they headed?"
"FOR ME!!!"
Dungeons and dragons: honor amongst thieves
Dumb but fun.
Better than any right for it to be.
If you are a dnd fan, you will probably enjoy.
Watched it with a few fellow dnd fans, and we had a blast.
I really, really want that movie to be good. But from what little of seen, it seems like they were trying to make a comedy, but without decent jokes, which is a bit of a problem.
Stuff like "here's a complex puzzle that we have to solve to cross a bridge, I hope it doesn't fall down before I explain its intricate rules. The bridge fell down. Oooh noo." *laugh track*
"We raised the dead to ask 5 questions, I hope I don't waste the questions. Oops, I wasted the questions." Oooh noo. *laugh track*
I really, really hope that's not their best material, because sheesh.
I didn't see any of the trailers or anything. Went in dark.
But I'll be honest: the graveyard scene got a good laughed out of me and my friends. We probably found it the best scene in the film.
Might not be your cup of tea, hydra. But I felt like it had heart. Having low expectations probably did help though.
I've recently been watching movies on YouTube. Yesterday I saw one called The Magic Christian, which had nothing to do with religion (It was the name of a ship). It was about a very rich man (Peter Sellers) who "adopts" a homeless guy (Richard Starky aka Ringo Starr) and proceeds to show him that people will do anything for money.
An extremely surreal flick! 😎
Then I watched another Ringo Starr movie called Caveman, which also had Shelley Long. Now that was hilarious! 🤣
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 25, 2023, 11:19:26 AMI've recently been watching movies on YouTube. Yesterday I saw one called The Magic Christian, which had nothing to do with religion (It was the name of a ship). It was about a very rich man (Peter Sellers) who "adopts" a homeless guy (Richard Starky aka Ringo Starr) and proceeds to show him that people will do anything for money.
An extremely surreal flick! 😎
Then I watched another Ringo Starr movie called Caveman, which also had Shelley Long. Now that was hilarious! 🤣
Now watch Son of Dracula starring Harry Nilsson and Ringo Starr.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 25, 2023, 10:59:29 AMMight not be your cup of tea, hydra. But I felt like it had heart. Having low expectations probably did help though.
It might not be my cup of tea just because I've been exposed to so much of this stuff that it takes a lot to really impress me. But if it's better than the 2000 movie, it'll be decent enough to warrant a watch.
Lol, I just now remember that I saw both the 2005 movie and the Book of Vile Darkness film and wow, did I have those memories repressed! Like Remember Sammy Jankins level of repressed. It must've been truly vile to warrant that sort of self-inflicted memory loss.
Now I'm watching One Million Years BC, starring Rachel Welch. Not bad, but not the one I'm looking for. I remember a movie with cavemen in which the characters come across something they've never seen before: a camel. As they're checking it out one of them raises its tail and gets a face full of camel shit. I haven't found it yet, so I'll just have to keep looking. 🐫🐪
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfY6DxhnfKo
Instead of more D&D, I want to see an authentically medieval fantasy movie.
Not Tolkien stuff, but actual historical medieval stuff, like gold-digging ants and magic talismans and a hellmouth and a cephalophore and kinda stocky, heavy-set dragons who breathe acid and have underground liars. Possibly an amphibious dragon or one that rejuvenates by bathing in blood.
I rewatched the D&D Book of Vile Darkness movie. 4/10
The most direct-to-DVD movie I've ever seen in my life. The plotline isn't too bad, and some of the actors are pretty good but some are horrible. But it's really undone by poor costuming/setwork and poor CGI. This is weird, because usually bad movies are the other way around, with good setwork and CGI, but terrible plot and acting. So this is a bit of an anomaly. This honestly feels like a LARPing session gone awry than a movie. :/
(https://i.imgur.com/XI2cDzm.jpg)
This guy is the sole redeeming part of the film. This actor steals every scene he's in. I think he's supposed to be a Vermin Lord (spellcaster who takes on vermin-like qualities) but he seems to behave more like a Worm That Walks (spellcaster who only appears to be human but is actually an aberration and when threatened, disincorporates into a pile of vermin).
He's diabolical and corrupting and badass. After seeing him in action, I want to roll up a character just like him. My favorite scene was when he "helped" a grieving widow by returning the missing soldier's ring to her. On touch, the ring gave her tormenting visions of the agonizing moments of her husband's death. To add insult to injury, while she was occupied, he touched the orphan's beloved teddy bear, infesting it with centipedes and other vermin. And he unleashed this psychological torment casually and for no reason at all other than a small amount of pleasure, acting like people are nothing more than amusing toys to him. What a fun villain!
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 25, 2023, 08:43:17 AMDungeons and dragons: honor amongst thieves
Dumb but fun.
Better than any right for it to be.
If you are a dnd fan, you will probably enjoy.
Watched it with a few fellow dnd fans, and we had a blast.
So, how much of a fantasy Guardians of the Galaxy is it? Seems like what they were shooting for.
Quote from: the_antithesis on March 26, 2023, 11:14:38 PMSo, how much of a fantasy Guardians of the Galaxy is it? Seems like what they were shooting for.
You know, that works. But less Marvel inkoken. More dnd injokes
Quote from: the_antithesis on March 26, 2023, 11:14:38 PMSo, how much of a fantasy Guardians of the Galaxy is it? Seems like what they were shooting for.
I would actually be 100% okay with that. But only one goofball. If they're all goofballs, it doesn't work. One goofball, one smart alek paired with the mascot, one action heroine, and one boisterious bruiser. Goofy, smart, serious, adorable, and loud/strong guy. Perfect mix.
Would a non DND person enjoy this? Asking for a friend.
Translate "inkoken" from Dutch to English
Dutch to English
inkoken
Translations
inkoken Verb (kook in; kookt in; kookte in; kookten in; ingekookt; )
inkoken, (door koken dikker makenverdikkeninbindendoor koken verdikkenindikken)
thicken, to Verb (thickens; thickened; thickening)
concentrate, to Verb (concentrates; concentrated; concentrating)
reduce, to Verb (reduces; reduced; reducing)
condense, to Verb (condenses; condensed; condensing)
boil down, to Verb (boils down; boiled down; boiling down)
Machine Translations
inkoken boil down gt
inkoken boil down mst
inkoken boil down gt
gt-Google Translate; mst-Microsoft Translate
*injokes
Obviously :p
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 27, 2023, 10:55:35 AMWould a non DND person enjoy this? Asking for a friend.
Honestly, think being dnd-knowledgeable will increase the fun factor.
Without it, I wouldn't dare to recommend it if you are on a budget or if time constraints make you have to pick and choose which film you can go watch in theaters.
I found it pretty funny and pretty good overal. But it is not a brilliant masterpiece either.
Low expectations. No foreknowledge of the trailers. Watching it with likeminded nerdy friends. First cinema in over half a year. = great night.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 27, 2023, 10:55:35 AMWould a non DND person enjoy this? Asking for a friend.
No, you have to fill out a character sheet in order to buy a ticket and you better calculate your thaco correctly! And you can never break character or you'll be thrown out. And yes, that includes bathroom breaks.
In all seriousness, D&D movies are mass-marketed so hard that I would be stunned if any part of that movie wasn't instantly recognizable by lay people.
Dragons, dungeons, fighters, barbarians, rogues, wizards, fireball, etc - all these concepts are ubiquitous and pretty straight-forward.
I don't expect them to mention Vecna or the Far Realm or Warforged or anything like that, but I would be over the moon if they do.
I'm seventy-two, going on thirteen. I'll give it a shot. After Mr. Wicku!, of course.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 27, 2023, 02:42:49 PM
Ken Burn's "Civil War" theme was not an oldie, but is a goodie.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 27, 2023, 04:40:29 PMNo, you have to fill out a character sheet in order to buy a ticket and you better calculate your thaco correctly! And you can never break character or you'll be thrown out. And yes, that includes bathroom breaks.
In all seriousness, D&D movies are mass-marketed so hard that I would be stunned if any part of that movie wasn't instantly recognizable by lay people.
Dragons, dungeons, fighters, barbarians, rogues, wizards, fireball, etc - all these concepts are ubiquitous and pretty straight-forward.
I don't expect them to mention Vecna or the Far Realm or Warforged or anything like that, but I would be over the moon if they do.
You know, there's a character in the Goblins online comic named "Thaco," and I'm only just now realizing where that name came from.
Have any of you seen The Seven Faces of Doctor Lao? Tony Curtis plays several of the characters to perfection. 🤠
Randall
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 08, 2023, 09:22:30 PMHave any of you seen The Seven Faces of Doctor Lao? Tony Curtis plays several of the characters to perfection. 🤠
Many years ago. Remember it positively.
(http://filmfanatic.org/reviews/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/7-Faces-of-Dr.-Lao-Poster.jpg)
(https://i.redd.it/k4exzz7nsbsa1.jpg)
(https://i.redd.it/92j7t6be5qsa1.png)
I actually want to see the Mario Bros movie now.
Fun fact: I was briefly subbed to Knight's Watch while they were covering the travesty of Game of Thrones season 8 because I thought they might have some sword-related insights but it was just the usual criticisms we all know by heart so it didn't exactly break new ground.
Then it covered some show I thought was actually really good and got great reviews and they slammed it for the most bizarre reasons which were very poorly supported (just looked it up, it was Loki and they complained that Loki was "emasculated" for showing remorse for his evil past and not being the cutthroat backstabbing type anymore. A guy can change, jeez!), so I unsubbed.
I kinda hate to see channels spew this sort of uber negativity, often with clickbaity titles like "[movie] is the WORST movie EVER!" and often with the rainbow flag despite it not really having anything to do anything. You know the drill: two genders, male and political, two races, white and political, two sexualities, straight and political. Uggh.
It's one thing to review and critique stuff. Even the most well-made show could still use some constructive criticism. But just trashing a show because it didn't suit your tastes is lazy, petty, and more than a little bit entitled. It really sucks to see a guy who actually has some smarts and insights into historical stuff sink so low when it comes to pop culture.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 10, 2023, 01:56:14 PM(https://i.redd.it/k4exzz7nsbsa1.jpg)
(https://i.redd.it/92j7t6be5qsa1.png)
I actually want to see the Mario Bros movie now.
Fun fact: I was briefly subbed to Knight's Watch while they were covering the travesty of Game of Thrones season 8 because I thought they might have some sword-related insights but it was just the usual criticisms we all know by heart so it didn't exactly break new ground.
Then it covered some show I thought was actually really good and got great reviews and they slammed it for the most bizarre reasons which were very poorly supported (just looked it up, it was Loki and they complained that Loki was "emasculated" for showing remorse for his evil past and not being the cutthroat backstabbing type anymore. A guy can change, jeez!), so I unsubbed.
I kinda hate to see channels spew this sort of uber negativity, often with clickbaity titles like "[movie] is the WORST movie EVER!" and often with the rainbow flag despite it not really having anything to do anything. You know the drill: two genders, male and political, two races, white and political, two sexualities, straight and political. Uggh.
It's one thing to review and critique stuff. Even the most well-made show could still use some constructive criticism. But just trashing a show because it didn't suit your tastes is lazy, petty, and more than a little bit entitled. It really sucks to see a guy who actually has some smarts and insights into historical stuff sink so low when it comes to pop culture.
The Shadiversity guys are insufferable alt-righters when it comes to their opinions on Western media. I like their videos covering medieval trivia, but they really should stick to what they know. And their alternative channel "KNIGHTS WATCH?" The self-proclaimed "guardians of Pop-Culture and fandom?" How pretentious.
I've seen them make a few historical mistakes in their medieval videos as well, so I hadn't kept up with them - disappointing to see that they are even shittier than I remember.
Also... the Metatron has some pretty absolute shite historical takes, which is a shame when those two are amongst the premier "medieval equipment" channels.
Ahem... now for the reason I came here... to share my shit take...
The new Marvel movie looks absolute shit, and even the "omg wokeism!" crowd can be right once or twice - it looks like woke garbage, even if they have been wrong 99% of the time about other movies in that regard.
You're referring to this? The title confused me. I was like, "What Marvel movie? There's a million of them." No, no. The Marvel movie...The Marvels.
Okay. Crappy movie title aside, this trailer looks... Eh. It exists. It doesn't look awful. It just doesn't hook me. I don't see the appeal. I don't really care about these characters. The idea of them switching places every time they use their powers is...interesting. I guess I want to know why that's happening, and what they do with it. But other than that, I guess I'll just wait to hear the reviews. I'll just have to be careful who I listen to, since we already know there's a certain group of people who will accuse it of being "woke," simply for having female leads.
Yeah, that one.
It's the pr-campaign, the listening to the radio and hearing about how amazing it is to have an Arab lead in marvel, the cringe humor, the fact that blonde sexist is in it... it's all just... bleh.
I can over look that stuff when the movie doesn't also look meh, but don't have a shitty movie AND shitty intentions, that's just bad manners.
I hate it because it's cheap corporate pandering, they hate it because it's womenz... I guess we are kinda the same, but I'de like to think I have the moral high ground of the two at least.
I dunno, calling it woke strikes me as a bit of a stretch. I mean, it's just a team-up action movie that just happens to feature 3 women. If they were male instead of female, I don't think anyone would call it woke. If having women automatically makes a film woke, then a TON of movies are apparently woke.
Confession: I adore cosmic/space marvel stuff (Kree, Skrulls, Shi'ar, Guardians of the Galaxy, Thanos, Warlock, Nova Corps, Annihilus, Negative Zone, etc) - I love it to pieces. So I'm super down to see that. Plus, Captain Marvel seems to have been reworked in a positive way - and I think she'll be a lot more enjoyable for audiences in an ensemble role rather than a solo act.
It's possible that this movie is setting up Annihilation, which I am 9000% down for. If and when Annihilation comes out and if it's any good at all, I'll probably watch it many times in theaters.
Marvelous, simply marvelous! 👍🖖
Why don't they make a movie about the real Captain Marvel?
(http://www.captainmarvelculture.com/images/split2.jpg)
Didn't they?
I dunne, haven´t kept up with the superhero movies.
Became too much to keep track of. Especially when the series began.
Just kidding. Here's the original Marvel Family
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/W/IMAGERENDERING_521856-T1/images/I/61GSLz0lPrL.jpg)
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 13, 2023, 02:49:14 AMDidn't they?
I dunne, haven´t kept up with the superhero movies.
Became too much to keep track of. Especially when the series began.
For most of those movies, you can go in blind and be just fine. Maybe miss an easter egg or two or be confused by a post-credits teaser at worst. Only the big crossover and event movies are the ones that require some prep. In that way, they're very similar to the comics.
There's a truly daunting number of comics out there. I've seen people ask which comic they should start with first and it always struck me like asking which grape they should eat first out of a bunch. Does it matter? I started reading Iron Man when Iron Man was literally dead, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just sit down and enjoy or don't.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 13, 2023, 11:12:43 AMFor most of those movies, you can go in blind and be just fine. Maybe miss an easter egg or two or be confused by a post-credits teaser at worst. Only the big crossover and event movies are the ones that require some prep. In that way, they're very similar to the comics.
There's a truly daunting number of comics out there. I've seen people ask which comic they should start with first and it always struck me like asking which grape they should eat first out of a bunch. Does it matter? I started reading Iron Man when Iron Man was literally dead, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just sit down and enjoy or don't.
Well, I know its my personal problem. I´m an all or nothing kinda guy. And I want to know everything I can, before moving on.
It's also why I am reading Terry prattchets discworld in order.
Next book doesn't entire me as much as the others, and I need to order it still. But I refuse to skip ahead with the Books I already have.
Pure personal problem
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 13, 2023, 12:30:05 PMWell, I know its my personal problem. I´m an all or nothing kinda guy. And I want to know everything I can, before moving on.
It's also why I am reading Terry prattchets discworld in order.
Next book doesn't entire me as much as the others, and I need to order it still. But I refuse to skip ahead with the Books I already have.
Pure personal problem
Good god. You're the kind of guy who start watching TNG at season one.
As soon as I detect that any social agenda has been subliminally embedded in a movie, I lose all interest. Don't try to sneak in some message unless that is the main point of the movie. It is just as cheesy as brand promotion was getting back in the 90s or when actors use the Oscar awards as some sort of platform to make a statement. It's not the correct venue and it turns me off.
(https://thestrategystory.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/image-1.png)
In "Repo Man" Our Hero eats straight out of a can labeled "FOOD". So you shouldn't watch that movie.
Anyway, what's wrong with seeing a Bud Light? It actually happens IRL.
Quote from: the_antithesis on April 14, 2023, 12:54:27 AMGood god. You're the kind of guy who start watching TNG at season one.
I actually started with the pilot - Encounter at Farpoint. I thought that was decent. Back when Troy looked like a cheerleader, Riker was clean-shaven, and Q was combative and judgy.
The show kinda dragged a bit and nearly lost me, but the Borg got me hooked.
RIP Tasha Yar. We hardly knew ye.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 14, 2023, 07:06:07 AMAnyway, what's wrong with seeing a Bud Light? It actually happens IRL.
Unlike me chilling at my apartment with a brewski, movies are productions seen by millions of people. They're expected to tell a story and once in a while, they may have some artistic merit as well. Excessive product placement essentially turns them into giant, feature-length commercials. While some commercialization is expected just to offset the cost of the film, corporations not only advertise before and after a film, now they're essentially pasting themselves within the story of the show and being a part of the plotline.
This is the result:
I wouldn't mind product placement if it was subtle, but god. It's so obvious when they do it. The can of Coke always has to have the name facing the camera. The movie has to stop and hold on the image of the product, to make sure we see it. It makes sense, they'd pay to be noticed, but it really takes you out of the experience when you're watching it.
My living room has all kinds of product placement. IRL in action.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 14, 2023, 10:18:58 AMI actually started with the pilot - Encounter at Farpoint. I thought that was decent. Back when Troy looked like a cheerleader, Riker was clean-shaven, and Q was combative and judgy.
The show kinda dragged a bit and nearly lost me, but the Borg got me hooked.
RIP Tasha Yar. We hardly knew ye.
I was disappointed that Worf kept getting his ass kicked. I thought he was supposed to be such a tough guy, but he seemed like such a woos. 🖖
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 14, 2023, 11:49:32 AMI
I was disappointed that Worf kept getting his ass kicked. I thought he was supposed to be such a tough guy, but he seemed like such a woos. 🖖
Wuss, but yeah. The idea was to make the big bad look dangerous because he beat up Worf, but Worf always gets his ass kicked, so it don't really work.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 14, 2023, 11:21:13 AMMy living room has all kinds of product placement. IRL in action.
I get the real life set part, but when they are obviously selling product; I get enough of that everywhere else. It's sneaky as well. It was a 4-star movie to me, now it's just a three. Just waiting for top-40 music to become product ads as well and then I'd listen to it less than I do now but that's almost impossible.
Explain "obviously selling", please.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 14, 2023, 01:04:02 PMExplain "obviously selling", please.
Remember in The Walking Dead, when someone risked their life to get another character their favorite Crush soda?
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 14, 2023, 03:55:03 PMRemember in The Walking Dead, when someone risked their life to get another character their favorite Crush soda?
Never watched that idiocy. But is it better to create fake products for movies rather than reflect the real world? Asking for a friend.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 14, 2023, 04:06:46 PMNever watched that idiocy. But is it better to create fake products for movies rather than reflect the real world? Asking for a friend.
If they liter the world in a natural way, then I don't care. It's just a problem when it's obvious. When they put extra focus on it, to make sure you noticed.
Sure you're not seeing too hard?
Yeah, like that.
(https://i.redd.it/vogucnc8ha831.jpg)
Five in a row. I win.
The race isn't worth the prize.
Quote from: Cassia on April 14, 2023, 09:40:51 PMLike this, LOL?
Okay, this one sometimes walks the line, where it seems self-aware in how ridiculous the product placement is. But other times, it's just annoying.
I guess we should remove anything that could possibly have a tie-in with anything else.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 18, 2023, 12:41:19 PMOkay, this one sometimes walks the line, where it seems self-aware in how ridiculous the product placement is. But other times, it's just annoying.
There was this guy where I worked who would bring a box of Kripsy Kreme to work just about every day. He would have some with his coffee and then just leave them in the break room. He did became a notably larger man over the years and his kindness earned him the handle "Krispy Kreme Kris" or just "Krispy".
Straining at gnats and swallowing camels. What else is the 'net for?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 18, 2023, 04:43:34 PMStraining at gnats and swallowing camels. What else is the 'net for?
Games!!
SCIENCE! 🤣
Definitely not porn. Absolutely not that.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 18, 2023, 06:25:10 PMDefinitely not porn. Absolutely not that.
Porn--isn't that a type of game???
Only if you do it right... 🤣
"Then She Found Me". The acting was good, but the plot was kooky. The thing that I found interesting is a bit part was played by a guy who looked a lot like Salman Rushdie, LOL. I guess I never put it together till now.
Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore.
I rather enjoyed it, graphically speaking, especially. Depp's replacement was a cool-wicked lookin dude but I'm still not sure if he was Dumbledore's gay lover or not? Also, Dumbledore's lost son looked so much like a young Snape, that confused me too. Not reaching the depth of the HP series.
Quote from: Cassia on April 26, 2023, 11:02:31 PMFantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore.
I rather enjoyed it, graphically speaking, especially. Depp's replacement was a cool-wicked lookin dude but I'm still not sure if he was Dumbledore's gay lover or not? Also, Dumbledore's lost son looked so much like a young Snape, that confused me too. Not reaching the depth of the HP series.
"Is Dumbledore gay?"
"Yes.:
Crowd goes wild.
It actually happened that way at convention where Rowling was the star speaker.
And yeah, Mads is mad! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mads_Mikkelsen
These guys actually make some interesting points about Luke in the Disney trilogy. I actually felt a similar way after watching the movies. I didn't feel that Luke was acting out of character at all. I still question how Leia didn't realize Luke wasn't really there, though, given the reveal that he was Force projecting himself. At least the final movie of the trilogy shows that passing objects to others through the Force is a thing, which explains how he gave her those dice if he wasn't actually there.
Imagine if a power like that was taken full advantage of. Got a powerful McGuffin the villain wants? He's about to take it from you? Just use the Force to pass it to someone on another planet. It's the universe's biggest game of Monkey in the Middle. Or maybe you've snuck into an enemy's base and found their plans. Pass it off to your allies, so they can take immediate action. It seems implied that the power is exclusive to Force users with a strong connection, like Luke and Leia, or Rey and Kylo Ren, but that kind of power could easily be exploited in creative ways.
Leia knew Luke was going to die there. Their bond was that tight.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 03, 2023, 03:08:34 AMthat kind of power could easily be exploited in creative ways.
That's why writers need to be very, very careful about doling out superpowers. A lot of powers can be used in creative ways and it'll wreck your story if you don't account for that. Especially if they could plausibly use the power to get out of a dangerous situation and don't.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 03, 2023, 03:38:21 PMThat's why writers need to be very, very careful about doling out superpowers. A lot of powers can be used in creative ways and it'll wreck your story if you don't account for that. Especially if they could plausibly use the power to get out of a dangerous situation and don't.
You mean like DBZ and the Instant Transmission? Fans often asked why Cell couldn't transport away when Gohan was obliterating him, especially considering Goku demonstrated earlier that the whole finger on your forehead thing was not necessary. When he teleported in the middle of a Kamehameha, that made the Instant Transmission so incredibly overpowered. So why didn't Cell save himself with it? Same goes for Buu at the end of the series, since he also learns how to do it...somehow.
Fortunately, in these situations, there is one explanation that often applies. They were under pressure. It's easy to fumble when you're taken off guard. Ki control and the Force are both similar in the sense that it takes concentration and a clear mind to make the most of your abilities.
Heck, this isn't even limited to super natural powers. Remember when Palpatine told Anakin to kill Dooku? Fans often ask why Dooku didn't immediately blow Palpatine's cover right then and there, since he no longer had anything to lose. Why did he just sit there? Well, because he was in shock. Not only because he just suffered a major injury in battle, but because his closest ally just stabbed him in the back.
I just came back from seeing...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/The_Super_Mario_Bros._Movie_logo.png/2401px-The_Super_Mario_Bros._Movie_logo.png)
I was pleasantly surprised. I know reviews for this movie have been mixed, with audiences typically liking the movie and critics dunking on it, and I wasn't totally sold on it after seeing the trailers myself. I did not like Chris Pratt's Mario voice, and I didn't like that he was from "the real world." However, when I actually sat down and watched the movie, neither of those things bothered me at all. The execution was really well done. We even see at the start of the movie that Chris Pratt could do a stereotypical Italian accent if he wanted to, but the director must have thought it would be better to go with a more realistic Brooklyn accent instead.
The voice cast in general was very good, and generally an improvement over the games, which isn't saying much. Listen to Toad's game voice and tell me you'd want to listen to that for an hour and a half. Or listen to Bowser's voice in Super Mario Sunshine and tell me Jack Black wasn't so much better. The only game voice I'm attached to is Charles Martinet, who thankfully does get a small cameo in the movie.
Typically when there's a "real world" and a fantastical world for the hero to be thrust into, the real world portion of the movie is the weakest part. You just sit through it, waiting for the hero to get to the fantasy world, so it can get good. The real world stuff was actually well done, though. I was never bored during any of it.
I find it funny how certain people complain about Peach being a "girl boss." People who make that complaint show how shallow their experience with Mario is. I have a pretty casual relationship with Mario games, but even I know Peach has been a playable character since Super Mario Bros. 2. Her being a capable badass is nothing new. Even in games where she's the damsel, she's still sometimes using her brains to aid Mario, like in Paper Mario.
As for Mario, some were concerned he would basically be portrayed as this incompetent idiot who can't do anything right. I figured from the start that he'd start off weak and grow to be powerful by the end of the movie, since starting him off as powerful would be boring and leave little room for growth. Well, neither prediction was right, actually. Right from the start, Mario is platforming around Brooklyn like a natural. It's only when he's introduced to the strange Mushroom Kingdom that he is shown to be lacking. Which, to be fair, nothing in the real world could prepare you for floating brick blocks, magic mushrooms, and man-eating piranha plants. After only one day of training, Mario has mastered the obstacle course. It basically equates to a short training montage. Anyone complaining about this, I suspect, has some serious political goggles on.
And then there are people complaining about Bowsers motivation, like it isn't consistent with basically every single Mario game ever made. Why do these people think Bowser is constantly kidnapping Peach? He even lied to his son Bowser Jr. and told him Peach was his mother. Come on, people. Pick up a controller. That being said, I never realized Mario was basically cucking Bowser this whole time. It makes sense, but since the games don't typically have much dialog, it never occurred to me that Bowser would see Mario as his romantic rival. I just figured he hated Mario because he always ruins his plans, same as why Eggman hates Sonic.
Speaking of Sonic, people always seem to be comparing this movie to the two Sonic movies. I don't consider them to be in the same ballpark. The Sonic movies were incredibly loose with the source material. They basically created their own canon, which is fine. I don't mind alternative canons, but the movies are so held back by their live action medium. They basically went the same route as every cartoon turned live action movie, with the animated character tied to a real human babysitter. In the second movie, they tried fix this by pushing the human characters off to the side with their own side plot, but they couldn't help but go with that really confusing bridezilla side plot. The Sonic movies are fine at their best, but are weighed down by their more questionable decisions. I would honestly rather they start over with an animated movie series than continue down the road they're currently on.
By contrast, the Mario movie is more like what I wanted for the Sonic movie. It's animated, for one. Second, it respects the source material. It's not one-for-one the same. The Mario bros are from Brooklyn, and I'm pretty sure there was no Kong Kingdom in the DK games, but aside from that? It's very Mario. The characters have the right personalities and motivations. The world's rules are exactly what you'd expect after playing the Mario games. It's basically a Mario game brought to the big screen, minus the shrill and annoying voices of the games. The sad thing is, Sonic games typically have a lot more emphasis on story and lore than Mario games, and yet it is the Sonic movies where they decided to just ignore the original canon and make up their own.
I'm glad Miyamoto kept such a close eye on Illumination. I'm sure that kept it to a high level of quality, and I hope he continues watching them like a hawk for the sequels and related projects. That being said, there are some Miyamoto-isms which bleed into the movie, which aren't positives. Miyamoto famously ruined the Paper Mario series. It's likely because of him that the Toad character of the movie is just named Toad. Like...every other Toad in the kingdom. That's like me calling other people Human. It's a minor complaint, which doesn't affect the movie too bad, but I do wish Miyamoto would knock that shit off.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 03, 2023, 07:41:19 PMRemember when Palpatine told Anakin to kill Dooku? Fans often ask why Dooku didn't immediately blow Palpatine's cover right then and there, since he no longer had anything to lose. Why did he just sit there? Well, because he was in shock. Not only because he just suffered a major injury in battle, but because his closest ally just stabbed him in the back.
True. But in fairness, sith backstabbing is so pervasive (one of only two ways to get promoted from apprentice to master) that it's not that much of a shock. Though Dooku might not have known that or it might've happened far sooner than he anticipated or whatever. So that gets a pass.
But when you introduce game-changing stuff like force healing or hyperspace ramming, it creates all sorts of questions about why these techniques weren't used in other situations and it eats away at a show's internal consistency.
The solution a lot of shows come up with that imo works best is that such boons are due to some external intervention or one-use item or other such contrivance and are thus a limited time opportunity. That way you can do something super cool without breaking the show's internal consistency.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 03, 2023, 08:25:33 PMI find it funny how certain people complain about Peach being a "girl boss." People who make that complaint show how shallow their experience with Mario is.
I suspect that it's from conservatives who caught a sneak peak of Peach in a non-princessy attire and assumed the rest and leveraged the fact that the audiences typically do very little fact-checking and just eat up whatever's on offer.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 03, 2023, 09:52:28 PMI suspect that it's from conservatives who caught a sneak peak of Peach in a non-princessy attire and assumed the rest and leveraged the fact that the audiences typically do very little fact-checking and just eat up whatever's on offer.
(https://static1.cbrimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/peach-toad-mario-bros.jpg)
Oh my god! What did they do to Peach? She doesn't dress like that! They're trying to make her more masculine to be appealing to the woke mob!
(https://w7.pngwing.com/pngs/1021/957/png-transparent-princess-peach-mario-kart-8-deluxe-super-mario-kart-super-mario-bros-mario-kart-super-mario-bros-video-game-mario-bros-thumbnail.png)
...Okay! So she wore that exact same outfit before. But what about the halberd? Peach has never used weapons before!
(https://oyster.ignimgs.com/mediawiki/apis.ign.com/super-smash-bros-next/7/77/Smashpic300soocprjgscopejgwpirgh03ihnh3h.jpg)
God damn it! Why won't this video game character conform to my narrowminded view of what femininity is?
Yeah, and the Super Princess Peach video game has her in a starring role rescuing Mario. Definitely part of the woke mob that cropped up recently. Oh, that game was released in 2005? Hrrmm...
Moviebob notes that those conservatives walked back their criticismsof SMB when the movie became a hit. That and none of them said much about the most woke movie this year, Cocaine Bear.
Moviebob himself is a bit of a controversial figure, I guess. So take that for what it's worth.
Quote from: the_antithesis on May 04, 2023, 02:06:59 AMMoviebob notes that those conservatives walked back their criticisms of SMB when the movie became a hit.
Go woke, go broke. Or not. Mostly not.
Guardians of the Galaxy 3 out of ten.
It kills me to type this, but it was bad. Like really bad. I don't recommend seeing it, especially if you liked the first two.
I went into it expecting a wacky action comedy with a gang of misfits who also love each other like family. That's the formula.
The third movie was basically Schindler's List, both in tone and substance. Way way WAY too dark and gruesome and cruel. So many scenes were gooey and disgusting and kinda gruesome and morbid. It was super messed up in ways that the "controversial" mutineer action scene in GOTG 2 never even came close to touching.
The whole experience was like expecting Weekend at Bernie's and getting The Reanimator. Or expecting Air Bud and getting Old Yeller. Or expecting Thing from The Adams' Family and getting Stephen King's The Thing instead. This movie is like that teleporter accident Star Trek The Motion Picture. Almost all the lightheartedness is gone and replaced with something seriously repugnant. They veered way too far off the tried and true formula.
Almost all the new characters are unlikable, with the notable exception of the best friend a man could ask for.
The songs - normally fairly apropos and meaningful to the point of sometimes being a part of the plot like Brandy - mostly didn't mean much in this movie.
I don't know what happened, it's like the creative team just gave up or phoned it in and it shows. And I'm just now looking it up, an audience score of 95 on Rotten Tomatoes. Who TF are these people?? Are they bots? Or pod people? 80% from critics which is somewhat more realistic, but even that is much more than it deserves. The CGI was good, some of the action scenes were fairly good, maybe two songs were good, and the ending was decent, that's it.
And I know this is a weird nitpick, but since we're in Game of Thrones Season 8 territory here what the hell - they didn't even save the galaxy in this one! It's in the frickin' name!
I'm watching a review and it seems the main problem was too many irons in the fire - too many characters to handle (don't tell GRRM!) and thus even some core cast are barely in this movie, let alone the secondary or tertiary characters.
The reviewer said that Marvel was considering a stand-alone film for Rocket and Groot which would focus on Rocket's backstory while GOTG3 would deal with - no spoilers - the character introduced at the end of GOTG2. That would work much, much better and this film would be a lot less crowded.
Hell, almost anything else would have been better. Honestly, I would've gone a completely different direction - start off with some hijinks and bickering in some minor job, they meet this new character, get sucked into their whole deal, the situation deteriorates and becomes literally galaxy-destroying, some action scenes, some character growth. Since this is the last hurrah for these characters, maybe they have some valiant last stand against some multiversal threat or something. Simple, easy, very formulaic and predictable, but it can be tweaked to have some twists and turns.
I mean, the first one was basically an Indiana Jones MacGuffin ripoff with scifi substitutions and a cameo from Thanos. And the second one is basically Saturn Devouring His Son with two sideplots - a sibling rivalry/reconciliation and a pirate mutiny that ends like The Odyssey. I love these movies, but the basic plotlines aren't super duper complex. Simple isn't necessarily bad.
Just crank out another simple plot again with a lot of heart and emotional growth and you're golden. Simple.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 04, 2023, 09:07:29 PMI don't know what happened,
What happened? James Gunn got fired for stupid reasons and it took Disney way to long to fix that mistake and by the time they did, he'd gotten a job at DC fixing the fuck out of that dumpster fire. But they managed to bring him back to finish the trilogy which got all the ideas he was going to do in future movies into this one, where they would fit, I guess. That and he may have been a bit salty at how the mouse treated him, so here we are.
And yet...
(https://i.redd.it/pz1i1761cuxa1.png)
Woodstock? 👍👏🖖
Spoilers!
But yeah, the first half is super serious with lots of bickering and generally unpleasant (as opposed to the normal light-hearted bickering with moments of awesomeness) amidst absolutely disgusting scenery/props (that'll be fun for audiences who recently ate), and the second half is just the saddest stuff you'll ever see in a Marvel film. We're talking Watership Down meets Section 731. Subverted expectations are tight!
And the character arcs are kinda satisfying but not very satisfying. No one has this mind-blowing arc or anything, every character just kinda moves on with their life.
Arc one: orphan kid becomes a galactic hero
Arc two: hero becomes godlike, gives it all up for his friends
Arc three: guy sobers up, gets some "me time" or something
I just figured out why I like the second movie so much - the final confrontation is basically the Dagoth Ur battle from Morrowind.
1) the hero is called to the lair of a villainous god
2) they talk frankly, with the villain attempting to win over the hero to his cause
3) the villain and hero ultimately reach an impasse
4) the hero attempts to destroy the villainous god to no avail (what a grand and intoxicating innocence)
5) the hero attacks the source of the villain's godlike power, instantly killing the villain along with his power. The hero resists the temptation of godhood.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 12, 2023, 01:27:39 AMI just figured out why I like the second movie so much - the final confrontation is basically the Dagoth Ur battle from Morrowind.
1) the hero is called to the lair of a villainous god
2) they talk frankly, with the villain attempting to win over the hero to his cause
3) the villain and hero ultimately reach an impasse
4) the hero attempts to destroy the villainous god to no avail (what a grand and intoxicating innocence)
5) the hero attacks the source of the villain's godlike power, instantly killing the villain along with his power. The hero resists the temptation of godhood.
Dagoth Ur didn't casually mention giving the player character's mother cancer, though. lol
Guardians 3. Fun. Spinoffs pend.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 12, 2023, 09:07:08 AMDagoth Ur didn't casually mention giving the player character's mother cancer, though. lol
True, though he did casually mention his intent to invade the rest of the continent. Potato, potatoe.
You say potato, I say tomato. 🥸
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 12, 2023, 08:38:45 PMTrue, though he did casually mention his intent to invade the rest of the continent. Potato, potatoe.
Bah. Who cares about them? Bunch of pricks anyway. lol
Did he say he wanted to invade all of Tamriel, though? I thought he just wanted to drive the empire out of Morrowind and turn it into an independent nation. Doesn't sound so bad, as long as you ignore all the xenophobia.
That and he may or may not have intended on spreading the Blight to turn the whole province into zombies. Not sure about that one. Seemed like he maybe considered it a form of evolution. And for the player character, it was. Makes the Nerevarine immortal and immune to common diseases. For most, it kinda sucked, though.
Guardians of the Galaxy III. Fun.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 13, 2023, 02:42:36 AMDid he say he wanted to invade all of Tamriel, though?
Yes, it's towards the end of the dialogue when he allows you to ask him questions. If you ask him his plans with the brass golem, he says that he'll "liberate" the island of Vvardenfell, then Morrowind, then the rest of Tamriel.
QuoteI thought he just wanted to drive the empire out of Morrowind and turn it into an independent nation.
That's what he says just prior to his conquer-the-continent speech. Clearly, his goals are somewhat fluid.
QuoteThat and he may or may not have intended on spreading the Blight to turn the whole province into zombies. Not sure about that one.
Oh, that's intentional. If you ask him what his plans are for the Heart of Lorkhan, he straight up tells you that the Blight storms are intentional and that in time, he'll expand it until it affects "every mortal in Tamriel".
At the end of the speech, even though he sometimes says that he only wants to drive the Empire from Morrowind, that's only part of it. He has designs on the whole continent and every mortal in it and the whole "revolutionary" angle is just a smokescreen masking another would-be-conquerer.
Druk
In english known as ´another round´.
Really good danish film, I think starring Mads mikkelson as a high school teacher who, along with some friendly colleagues, decides to become permanently slightly intoxicated.
At times funny. At times sad.
Always a good watch.
For my next film, I've decided to watch a more fun, light-hearted, and less violent film. Thus, I chose Inglorious Basterds.
I think I might be a bit of a grammar nazi myself, because I loathe that particular misspelling eye dialect (an intentional error used to convey a poor education)
I loved Brad Pitt's odd accent, pretty much all the actors were great, excellent shot composition as well.
Though I have to wonder at a lot of the plot - almost all the allied spies were fairly conspicuous and even a bad detective could ferret them out, the Basterds are especially conspicuous and it beggars belief that they could operate without discovery for any length of time, scheming out in the open in front of the SS was almost the dumbest thing I saw, second only to Hitler being awfully light on security and no one needing to use the loo during a long movie. I know, I know, rule of cool, style over substance, Bellisario's Maxim. Point taken.
Still, I enjoyed the best German villain since the one from Enemy at the Gates. Quite a few surprises which caught me completely off guard. Bravo.
Overall, I'd say it was good, if for no other reason that it allowed me to hear my favorite language spoken with flawless flair - Italian. :P
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 17, 2023, 09:40:38 PMFor my next film, I've decided to watch a more fun, light-hearted, and less violent film. Thus, I chose Inglorious Basterds.
I think I might be a bit of a grammar nazi myself, because I loathe that particular misspelling eye dialect (an intentional error used to convey a poor education)
I loved Brad Pitt's odd accent, pretty much all the actors were great, excellent shot composition as well.
Though I have to wonder at a lot of the plot - almost all the allied spies were fairly conspicuous and even a bad detective could ferret them out, the Basterds are especially conspicuous and it beggars belief that they could operate without discovery for any length of time, scheming out in the open in front of the SS was almost the dumbest thing I saw, second only to Hitler being awfully light on security and no one needing to use the loo during a long movie. I know, I know, rule of cool, style over substance, Bellisario's Maxim. Point taken.
Still, I enjoyed the best German villain since the one from Enemy at the Gates. Quite a few surprises which caught me completely off guard. Bravo.
Overall, I'd say it was good, if for no other reason that it allowed me to hear my favorite language spoken with flawless flair - Italian. :P
That bar scene was intense.
Yeah, I really liked that scene, though I'm kinda iffy about everyone being so spring-loaded at a moment's notice, especially while drunk. Apparently, those beers were spiked with IDGAF juice mixed with "I hope a MF would" pills. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I liked Guardians III. The mob is cool when they can't get along. Rocket finally got his backstory.
Ant Man III Quantumania was pretty good. In my mind, better than anything since the final episode of Infinity Wars, but the quantum realm created by Disney wasn't like any quantum realm I've ever heard of. But the movie did have the Marvel feel from back when Stan Lee was still around.
Quote from: SGOS on May 26, 2023, 03:39:11 PMAnt Man III Quantumania was pretty good. In my mind, better than anything since the final episode of Infinity Wars, but the quantum realm created by Disney wasn't like any quantum realm I've ever heard of. But the movie did have the Marvel feel from back when Stan Lee was still around.
I've heard such conflicting opinions about this movie. I haven't been keeping up with MCU stuff lately. It's just way too much. I hear they're going to slowing down with that stuff now, which is a relief. Quality over quantity would be nice.
Not a fan of any Antman movie. I'll give it a shot when it's free-ish.
Quote from: SGOS on May 26, 2023, 03:39:11 PMAnt Man III Quantumania was pretty good. In my mind, better than anything since the final episode of Infinity Wars
*coughs in Wakanda Forever and Multiverse of Madness and the third Spider-Man movie* but yeah, it's definitely better than most.
Quotethe quantum realm created by Disney wasn't like any quantum realm I've ever heard of.
Which quantum realms have you heard of? Because this is the only movie I can recall to explore the sub-sub-atomic. I agree that a LOT of artistic license was taken, but since we have very little idea what's going on at that level, it's a fertile area for wild speculation and just throwing spaghetti at the wall, so to speak.
QuoteBut the movie did have the Marvel feel from back when Stan Lee was still around.
Agreed.
My Little Mermaid
Of course, the cartoon version is a classic and nothing can compare, so I won't. The live action version was decently-made and followed the cartoon very closely, I think. It's been a while since I've seen the cartoon. I think the only huge deviation is that we see husbando Eric's family and learn a lot more about him. I don't remember his backstory being fleshed out in the cartoon. Flounder was pretty fuggly-looking in the live action. Sebastian was okay, but not as expressive as his cartoon version.
As far as acting, Ursala and King Triton really steal the show. Especially Ursala. Holy moley, they're acting their hearts out for a movie that will probably get buried under successive remakes.
Ngl, one scene had me reacting like this:
(https://pagesix.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/03/peter3.jpg?quality=75&strip=all)
All in all, I'd say it's a fun time.
And before I forget about the "controversy", yes Ariel is black in this one. Roughly 50% of the cast is black. My personal headcanon is that this island is located somewhere in the Caribbean (as opposed to near Denmark in the cartoon) so the racial composition makes logical sense. There are tons of tropical species present, manatees, the weather seems warm, the water is crystal clear and not particularly cold, etc. Lots of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction, imo.
I think they made Ariel black knowing it would stir up controversy. It's free advertising. The people who hate the Disney remake movies anyway will complain, spreading the word, and people who like the movies will hear about it and go see it. Some will go see it BECAUSE they know the racists hate it.
I don't care either way. I've been over this Disney remake era for a long time. Even if Ariel looked exactly like her animated counterpart, I still wouldn't go see it. I'd be more interested in seeing it if it were based on the original story instead.
I hate Disney, and I specifically hate the little mermaid movies because I personally think it is a pedophilic figure. What's that? A child, an adult? It's a sexualised child. It's the first one probably. Children don't look like that, they look like the characters in Miyazaki movies. We all did look like that as kids.
But unfortunately, it is a beloved cartoon figure, nobody will stop them from watching any of it. And there was a video compilation showing black little girls watching black Ariel and their face light up, they astonishingly say things like 'oh my god she is black!' and so on. I think I've even heard something like 'she is like me!', not sure. They looked so happy about seeing it, I felt anger. They couldn't let kids have that without poisoning it. So from that point of view I'm glad they made it, and that every racist piece of shit hate it. I sincerely hope, they drown in their own vomit and die voicing that much hate about a children's movie character. Who cares even it's a real character, but then it's a mermaid. A fucking mermaid! They are so fucked up, they can't let kids have fun with a movie made for kids. Why? Because it is now black, but before it was white. oh wow, a black mermaid, where is the world going to.
Because of stuff like this I will always support this kind of woke up of characters. Honestly, the way I see it the whole thing is about 'It is ours, how dare you take it from us', nothing more. Even over here white skinned racist piece of shits say so horrible things, it is physically nauseating. It's that bad.
Black, Asian elves, sorceresses... They should do it more. I don't care what's the 'original'. It's been clear from the beginning actually. It is stupid to think there could be an enlightenment without forcing people. If you don't poke the eye with this kind of stuff, they will never accept it or get used to it. It will never get normalised. Yeah sure, it stirs 'controversy'-lovely term to cover what really goes on- 'they hate it more' blah blah... They can hate it all they want. It's a matter of time. As generations pass, it is going to be the most normal thing in the end. It seems this is the only way, considering the level of humanity in general.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 27, 2023, 02:12:36 AMI don't care either way. I've been over this Disney remake era for a long time. Even if Ariel looked exactly like her animated counterpart, I still wouldn't go see it. I'd be more interested in seeing it if it were based on the original story instead.
I'd be more interested if they made a movie out of "Prudent Hans"
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 02, 2023, 10:57:44 AMI hate Disney, and I specifically hate the little mermaid movies because I personally think it is a pedophilic figure. What's that? A child, an adult? It's a sexualised child. It's the first one probably. Children don't look like that, they look like the characters in Miyazaki movies. We all did look like that as kids.
But unfortunately, it is a beloved cartoon figure, nobody will stop them from watching any of it. And there was a video compilation showing black little girls watching black Ariel and their face light up, they astonishingly say things like 'oh my god she is black!' and so on. I think I've even heard something like 'she is like me!', not sure. They looked so happy about seeing it, I felt anger. They couldn't let kids have that without poisoning it. So from that point of view I'm glad they made it, and that every racist piece of shit hate it. I sincerely hope, they drown in their own vomit and die voicing that much hate about a children's movie character. Who cares even it's a real character, but then it's a mermaid. A fucking mermaid! They are so fucked up, they can't let kids have fun with a movie made for kids. Why? Because it is now black, but before it was white. oh wow, a black mermaid, where is the world going to.
Because of stuff like this I will always support this kind of woke up of characters. Honestly, the way I see it the whole thing is about 'It is ours, how dare you take it from us', nothing more. Even over here white skinned racist piece of shits say so horrible things, it is physically nauseating. It's that bad.
Black, Asian elves, sorceresses... They should do it more. I don't care what's the 'original'. It's been clear from the beginning actually. It is stupid to think there could be an enlightenment without forcing people. If you don't poke the eye with this kind of stuff, they will never accept it or get used to it. It will never get normalised. Yeah sure, it stirs 'controversy'-lovely term to cover what really goes on- 'they hate it more' blah blah... They can hate it all they want. It's a matter of time. As generations pass, it is going to be the most normal thing in the end. It seems this is the only way, considering the level of humanity in general.
I Googled it. Apparently, Ariel is 16, and her prince is 18. That's not an unacceptably big difference is it? It's better than Snow White, at least, who was 14 in her movie. I don't remember Ariel being very sexualized in the original movie, unless you just think bikinis are inherently sexy.
If you're referring to other things in the movie, the priest's "boner" turned out to be his knee. It's more obvious when you see the character from a different angle. The priest is short and has stubby legs. Still, Disney "corrected" this is future releases, so his knee wasn't bent in that scene. The phallic imagery on the box art is real, though. That slipped by.
I'm looking forward to The Last Voyage of the Demeter, but I have to wait until August. 👹
The Flash was not fun or interesting to me at all. It's another of the most recent superhero movies that won't make it to my private collection. And I'm sick of the plot where heroes wonder around the multiverse encountering strange characters and situations. It's either a failing formula, or a formula the writers don't know what to do with. Must be the writing. Years ago, Stargate SG1 had several episodes that visited the multiverse, and they were some of the better episodes.
Quote from: SGOS on June 29, 2023, 05:45:11 PMAnd I'm sick of the plot where heroes wonder around the multiverse encountering strange characters and situations.
That's been a thing for a looong time - The Odyssey, Sulliver's Travels, Alice in Wonderland, etc. To be honest, it's pretty much how most stories do worldbuilding. If you've ever wondered why movies have the trope of the protagonist on a journey to a distant land to find some macguffin in order to defeat X'anathar the Evil (he's the evil guy), that's why. It's overdone and hackey sometimes, but it's how you keep the plot moving.
QuoteStargate SG1 had several episodes that visited the multiverse, and they were some of the better episodes.
That's because they had the time to properly build up anticipation/dread and drip-feed their new locales. Other shows just whisk the hero away from one strange new world to another at a frenetic pace so the audience is more confused than intrigued.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 29, 2023, 06:18:30 PMSG1:.... That's because they had the time to properly build up anticipation/dread and drip-feed their new locales. Other shows just whisk the hero away from one strange new world to another at a frenetic pace so the audience is more confused than intrigued.
Yes, yes. That nails why and how they made it interesting. Usually one parallel dimension in the multiverse where they had to solve a specific problem and then return, rather than just skipping from one world to the next to view some oddity, and then on to another. Making up odd worlds is not storytelling that I call great story telling. It's like difference between taking a bus tour of London, or renting a loft and becoming part of the city, rather than just gawking at it from the outside.
Odd how those alternate realities always seem to have laws of physics that allow our existence... 🤔
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 30, 2023, 02:04:59 AMOdd how those alternate realities always seem to have laws of physics that allow our existence... 🤔
My headcanon is that there is plenty of space in the multiverse that is absolutely desolate or otherwise unlivable and no one goes there because of that.
The "hubs" between worlds are usually pretty prosperous because of a steady influx of travelers and trade.
I can't for the life of me figure out why this hasn't been made into a movie or at least miniseries.
* It's an action extravaganza with a sizable and devoted fanbase. Huge nostalgia factor.
* Themes of environmental degradation, political unrest, and war are still highly relevant
* The rights are probably dirt cheap, so it wouldn't cost very much to purchase the rights.
* You probably couldn't get Kucan (Kane) to do any action scenes anymore, but you could at least get some voice work from him. Anyone else can be recast no sweat.
Star Trek: Into Darkness, 2013 playing on AMC, IFC now
4/5 The young Spock was so cute! Enjoyed it, CGI and all.
Did you like the Kahn reboot?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 12, 2023, 09:13:19 PMDid you like the Kahn reboot?
He just keeps showing up, LOL. Bad ass dude once he thawed out. This is the first of the 2,000's Star Trek movies I have seen....any recommendations on the next one I should see?
I liked INTO THE DARKNESS. Boss Lady likes Idris, so it's win-win.
I usually like Gerard Butler, but Kandahar was not one of his best. The script had a lot of unexplained twists that didn't flow very well. I felt confused too much of the time. Butler did OK. He's a pretty good actor. I think he should have passed on this film though.
Hell, I feel confused most of the time just living life... 🦧
Bloodhounds in Netflix. Five stars. Violent, sometimes even a little bit gory, but not disturbing like how some creepy movies are. I loved it.
It's more of an eight-episode series, with each episode an hour long.
(https://lwlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/summertime-katharine-hepburn-1108x0-c-default.jpg)
Summertime,1955
Katharine Hepburn at 48 is radiant and shows such depth. Edgy subject matter for that era and well, Venice is Venice as it always has been.
Oppenheimer. Got a bang out of it.
Wow! I just watched a great movie on YouTube called Time Trap!
It's about some people in a cave where Time moves very slowly. I really hope they make a sequel, I'd pay to see it on the big screen.
I just watched a great Sherlock Holmes movie on YouTube called Game of Shadows, with Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes, and Stephen Fry as his brother Mycroft. I gotta say this is the best Sherlock Holmes movie I've ever seen!
🤠
There's another movie before that one.
Too Big To Fail is an old movie I missed at the time. The Big Short actually covered the banking failure with a lot more clarity. But "Too Big" did capture the government bungling and the banks ability to manipulate the government into saving them.
We have been told, the banks were too big to fail, and the movie did not argue that issue. When it first happened I trusted the government, because they told me the world would collapse if the banks were not saved, but later I realized that I had no reason to believe that, and a few reasons to believe it was just a new banking scam to fix the first scam. The failure was due to deregulation that started decades earlier. The housing collapse started under Bush, and the problem fell into Obama's lap, who in response, filled his inner circle with advisers, who were all part of the banking system that came up with the worthless bonds that collapsed when people started losing their homes, and then the banks managed to sell a bailout (only for the banks) as a remedy, <surprise, surprise>.
Not all the banks needed a bailout and a few would have survived on their own, and the banks took the money and paid themselves bonuses with it. This is well known, but no administration has dealt with it. I don't know if I understand the bailout correctly, but getting accurate information from banks or the government is never going to happen. Even the movie portrayed confusion and panic, but didn't support or deny my suspicions. Economics is not science. It is political, and politics is not science. Economics is the domain of talking heads and mostly propaganda. Not that economics doesn't affect us all. Economics is like religion and affects us all even when it's just propaganda.
Quote from: SGOS on August 06, 2023, 06:54:39 AMToo Big To Fail is an old movie I missed at the time. The Big Short actually covered the banking failure with a lot more clarity. But "Too Big" did capture the government bungling and the banks ability to manipulate the government into saving them.
We have been told, the banks were too big to fail, and the movie did not argue that issue. When it first happened I trusted the government, because they told me the world would collapse if the banks were not saved, but later I realized that I had no reason to believe that, and a few reasons to believe it was just a new banking scam to fix the first scam. The failure was due to deregulation that started decades earlier. The housing collapse started under Bush, and the problem fell into Obama's lap, who in response, filled his inner circle with advisers, who were all part of the banking system that came up with the worthless bonds that collapsed when people started losing their homes, and then the banks managed to sell a bailout (only for the banks) as a remedy, <surprise, surprise>.
Not all the banks needed a bailout and a few would have survived on their own, and the banks took the money and paid themselves bonuses with it. This is well known, but no administration has dealt with it. I don't know if I understand the bailout correctly, but getting accurate information from banks or the government is never going to happen. Even the movie portrayed confusion and panic, but didn't support or deny my suspicions. Economics is not science. It is political, and politics is not science. Economics is the domain of talking heads and mostly propaganda. Not that economics doesn't affect us all. Economics is like religion and affects us all even when it's just propaganda.
Indeed. The bail-out aftermath is disgusting. I think that BS really helped bring on the MAGA crap we have today.
I generally did the opposite of the current market. I admit it is mentally challenging to buy when everyone is selling, and prices are still dropping. I bought a rental house when the real estate market crashed back in 2008. Paid $40K cash for a small but tight house and am slowly "selling" it to some young family members for pennies on the dollar. They are so grateful, given how their friends are struggling. Zillow has it at 260K now. I am officially older, lol and I have much more risk aversion. In fact, I am heavily into fixed income investments now, something I never thought I would do. Hey, a 5% CD or bond is nothing to sneeze at.
Quote from: Cassia on August 06, 2023, 08:09:26 AMHey, a 5% CD or bond is nothing to sneeze at.
That's what my dad does. Steady income.
I have most of my extra money in iBonds, and I just stashed a bunch more in those 5% CDs, which mature on Jan 5 when the Treasury will let me buy another iBond. I have a mutual fund, which isn't doing well at the moment.
I've just watched, on YouTube, a movie that I saw decades ago and forgot how great it was. The Adventures of Baron Munchauson is maybe the stupidest, most ridiculous, FUNNIEST movie I've ever seen! If you haven't seen it I highly recommend that you do so at your earliest convenience. You'll be very glad you did.
Robin Williams as the King of the Moon is my favorite part, but the rest of it is awesome as well.
I give it 3 thumbs up! 🤣
Have you ever seen the silent version?
No, I didn't even know that there was a silent version.
People tend to be quiet about it.
Watching "The Fifth Element" and pondering "slightly greasy solar atoms."
The other day I saw a sequel to Hellboy. It was very good, especially since it had Mila Jovovich playing the Queen of Blood. And she's still perfect! 😍
I've been wondering about that one. I'll have to give it a look.
I definitely think it's worth watching, I expect you'll enjoy it a lot. It's absolutely full of action and drama. 🤠
I just watched a mad mad mad mad madcap movie on YouTube called It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World!
I'd never seen it before, and I had loads of fun watching it!
🤣
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 08, 2023, 08:01:18 PMI just watched a mad mad mad mad madcap movie on YouTube called It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World!
I'd never seen it before, and I had loads of fun watching it!
🤣
My brother and I saw it in the converted storefront movie theater in the one-horse one-stoplight town I grew up in. We tried telling the 'rents about it but were laughing so hard they gave up and went to see the late showing.
I recommend the gas station scene!
Big W!
Jimmy Durante - he had a million of 'em.
Well, 350,000 of 'em anyway...
🤣
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 08, 2023, 08:01:18 PMI just watched a mad mad mad mad madcap movie on YouTube called It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World!
I'd never seen it before, and I had loads of fun watching it!
🤣
Saw that movie in the early 60's on a (then) huge screen. It was called cinerama I think and it was supposed to revolutionize movies. That movie was okay--had a few laughs and the effect was sort of like old 3D without the glasses. I really don't remember much about it.
Yeah, that gas station scene was maybe the funniest in the whole movie! 🤣
The funniest scene for me was when Jim Backus wakes up in the dark thinking he's gone blind screaming, "I can't see! I can't see!" Someone opens the blinds and he is overcome with agony by the blinding light. Of course, it's a sight gag, so you had to be there.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 09, 2023, 12:39:05 AMYeah, that gas station scene was maybe the funniest in the whole movie! 🤣
"This is a little girl's bike."
So I'm watching Rodan AKA 'Giant Monster of the Sky Radon' with subtitles. I'm 30 mins in and so far, no Rodan. Just a giant bug and miners who hate each other.
Quote from: the_antithesis on August 13, 2023, 08:36:43 PMSo I'm watching Rodan AKA 'Giant Monster of the Sky Radon' with subtitles. I'm 30 mins in and so far, no Rodan. Just a giant bug and miners who hate each other.
They were still working the whole kaiju thing. Remember, it wasn't until they sent the scientist to Odo Island that we saw Gojira, and then only a head-and-shoulders shot.
It's different because Gojira was building up to Gojira. Gojira would wreck something or sink a boat or whatever. We didn't get to see him, but the mystery of what was doing this shit was all heading to Gojira.
Rodan, OTOH builds up to to these giant bugs and then when Rodan shows up is like, oh and also Rodan is here.
Weirdly, it kind of reminds me of the 2014 Godzilla movie that had these uninteresting monsters wrecking shit and then suddenly: and also Godzilla, I guess. I suppose that's interesting. I might have had a better time with G2014 if I had seen Rodan and made this connection.
I saw a Jack Black movie today called Nacho Libre. It was really funny and I had a good time watching it, though I care little about wrestling.
That's about Mexican wrestling, which is the real sport.
Yeah, I was once slightly interested in wrestling, a couple of decades ago. The luchadors were fun to watch because of their acrobatics.
Disney has been going through a rough patch lately:
Essentially, Disney has been trying to become the King of Streaming and this has required a TON of content generation. But they own a ton of beloved franchises, so it's no biggie to pump out a couple new releases, right? Sadly, they under-performed, which wouldn't be that bad, but they under-performed with huge budgets.
My mental picture of a Disney exec trying to explain the quarterly profit charts:
I'm exaggerating of course, it's not *that* bad. In fact, Disney's still leading the pack (https://deadline.com/2023/07/disney-2023-box-office-summer-marvel-indiana-jones-1235431049/), and of the top 20 grossing movies lately, the House of Mouse owns 5 of them.
I haven't crunched the numbers, but I feel like that's much less than previous. *pause* Okay, I've crunched the numbers (https://www.the-numbers.com/market/distributor/Walt-Disney). The market share went down from a peak, but man, that was a high AF peak. It really looked like Disney was going to conquer the planet in 2019. I guess every sales blitz has its Endgame, so to speak.
But the Marvel franchise definitely hit a bit of a slump since 2019, and its latest slew of TV shows and movies hasn't quite captured audiences like it used to. Personally, I liked quite a lot of it - Wandavision was great, Loki is basically Doctor Who but better imo (don't @ me), Wakanda Forever was amazing, I loved Moon Knight, I liked Multiverse of Madness, Black Widow was good, Quantumania was fascinating but somewhat disappointing - though I admit to not even watching quite a few of the releases. Marvel definitely had a lot more missable content in phase 4.
Star Wars has been going completely nuts lately, with seemingly everyone and their clone getting their own TV show. Personally, my tastes are the complete inverse of MatPat - I really liked Obi Wan and Book of Boba Fett and the Mandalorian and I thought Andor was a real snoozefest. If you disagree, I dare you to watch the first three episodes of each series and while you're watching, write down on a sheet of paper what happens and how it made you feel. Aint no way Andor tops Mando or Boba Fett. Maybe Obi Wan, because that kinda hinges on how you feel about young Leia. Personally, I think she was fine. And I haven't even talked about
Bad Dad Batch. It's a crying shame animation isn't taken as seriously as live action, because that show has a lot of heart. Not every episode is a masterpiece, but it is damn good overall.
Is Star Wars tanking? I'm not sure. I think it definitely hit a slump with Solo and the Sequel movies and the shows appear to be allowing it to crawl out of the hole it dug for itself. Is it diluting its brand by putting out far too many shows too quickly? Maybe.
Imho, MatPat is hitting on a good idea to sandwich the experimental, risky releases in between much less risky sure-bet releases. You don't want a series of flops to stain your reputation. Amirite, DC?
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 13, 2023, 09:45:54 PMDisney has been going through a rough patch lately:
Essentially, Disney has been trying to become the King of Streaming and this has required a TON of content generation. But they own a ton of beloved franchises, so it's no biggie to pump out a couple new releases, right? Sadly, they under-performed, which wouldn't be that bad, but they under-performed with huge budgets.
Netflix is the King of Streaming, but even at that, Netflix produces a lot of so-so content on it's own, with just a couple that were overwhelmingly good, so if Disney is to become King, it's going to need better something; storytellers, I think, and storytellers that specialize in their areas of expertise. Disney was supreme in what it originally did. I'm not saying they should stick with that one thing, and maybe that original content is not as important as it once was. But I have an impression that they are too far out of their comfort zone and unable to find their footing.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 13, 2023, 09:45:54 PMBut the Marvel franchise definitely hit a bit of a slump since 2019, and its latest slew of TV shows and movies hasn't quite captured audiences like it used to. Personally, I liked quite a lot of it - Wandavision was great, Loki is basically Doctor Who but better imo (don't @ me), Wakanda Forever was amazing, I loved Moon Knight, I liked Multiverse of Madness, Black Widow was good, Quantumania was fascinating but somewhat disappointing - though I admit to not even watching quite a few of the releases. Marvel definitely had a lot more missable content in phase 4.
I've been a big Marvel fan too. In my lifetime, I can't remember a franchise that's dominated the big screen and captured the hearts of movie goers to that extreme. But your post 2019 favorites have disappointed me in a big way. With the exception of Wanda Vision, which captured my attention with a fresh premise.
I still ponder whether Disney wrecked Marvel, or if Marvel had just run it's course. Phase I was still peaking at it's finish, even though it underutilized Captain Marvel, who was the most exciting character that came along since Iron Man. She saved the day in the last 10 minutes of Endgame, and then she disappeared as if some producer decided she wasn't Marvel material.
But I did wonder in the late stages of Phase I if Marvel could keep up such a phenomenal run. Everything runs it' course after years, but doesn't flop so embarrassingly at the end.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 13, 2023, 09:45:54 PMIs Star Wars tanking? I'm not sure.
I can't say anything about Star Wars. I never found it interesting, except for the first movie.
We need to get through the writer's strike too. I'm not sure though. Is there a bunch of unused creativity lurking there?
Finally watched dune.
Loved it.
It was fun to see in many ways how it kept to the original book, yet how different it was in my mind.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 14, 2023, 12:26:52 PMFinally watched dune.
Loved it.
It was fun to see in many ways how it kept to the original book, yet how different it was in my mind.
The bulbous Harkkonen craft were interesting, as well as their ludicrous level of lethality when fully unleashed, presumably when pesky las-shielding is no longer an issue (las guns + las shielding = giant kaboom)
Though I got really frustrated with that movie's lack of explainations for anyone new to the franchise. Even simple stuff like the importance of spice, the sandworms' hatred of rhymthmic vibrations, the cultural aversion to robotics in general and thinking machines in particular, and the Emperor/Noble houses/Spacing Guild political state of the empire was given short shrift, if any.
Spice allows the Spacing Guild to "fold space" and thus allows instantaneous travel between planets. Handy, that, for an interstellar empire.
Oh, and the Harkonnen knew the Atreides ships had had their shields removed and stored to prevent accidental activation.
QuoteIs Star Wars tanking? I'm not sure.
As a Star Wars fanatic for about 30 years now, I would say yes at a corporate direction level... but there is a very dedicated team of writers, animators, and cinematographers who are trying their hardest to keep it afloat even while being handicapped by terrible working conditions, terrible buzz-trends having to be shoehorned in, and just trying to clean up the narrative mess that was left behind.
(And for that third one, that's not aimed purely at Disney - Clone Wars did much the same for Ep2 and 3.)
Star Wars will be fine, it just needs to stop being treated like a golden goose or a money printing machine and be treated with respect again. At it's best, it is single-handedly the best fantasy media invented since like... the Iliad or Gilgamesh.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 14, 2023, 02:50:41 PMThough I got really frustrated with that movie's lack of explainations for anyone new to the franchise. Even simple stuff like the importance of spice, the sandworms' hatred of rhymthmic vibrations, the cultural aversion to robotics in general and thinking machines in particular, and the Emperor/Noble houses/Spacing Guild political state of the empire was given short shrift, if any.
https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Dune_Wiki The book was published in the '60s, so they avoided explaining the more mundane things, and got on with the movie.
Yesterday I watched a Steve Carell movie called Dinner for Schmucks that was pretty good. Not among my all-time favorites, but certainly watchable.
Today I'm watching a Danny Devito movie called Other People's Money. I'll let you know how it turns out.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 14, 2023, 03:22:33 PMYesterday I watched a Steve Carell movie called Dinner for Schmucks that was pretty good. Not among my all-time favorites, but certainly watchable.
My favorite quip was when one guy a the dinner asked the blind artist if he was any good, and the artist replies, "I don't know."
Quote from: Shiranu on August 14, 2023, 02:55:17 PMStar Wars will be fine, it just needs to stop being treated like a golden goose or a money printing machine and be treated with respect again. At it's best, it is single-handedly the best fantasy media invented since like... the Iliad or Gilgamesh.
Tolkien would disagree, but yeah, you're right.
It's an incredible setting filled with magic, aliens, droids, even scum and villany. One could write almost any sort of story in that setting. Even seemingly one-note characters like the clones and Mandalorians can be greatly expanded upon in satisfying ways. Hell, you can even write stuff into it if you're careful. As long as you have some sort of armed conflict, you're golden.
This series was written as an homage to old timey serials, but looking back, people have a voracious appetite for serials!
Quote from: SGOS on August 14, 2023, 05:30:56 PMMy favorite quip was when one guy a the dinner asked the blind artist if he was any good, and the artist replies, "I don't know."
That was also my favorite line in the movie! 🤣
But I think the funniest scene was when the blind guy turned off the lights and thought no one could see him! 😎
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 14, 2023, 06:30:15 PMThat was also my favorite line in the movie! 🤣
But I think the funniest scene was when the blind guy turned off the lights and thought no one could see him! 😎
Yeah, I forgot about that one. I just remember the movie from years ago. It was nonstop nonsense, kind of like Mad Mad Mad World.
Yeah, that's a good one!
Well, I finished watching Other People's Money, and it was OK, but I probably wouldn't watch it again.
Quote from: SGOS on August 14, 2023, 08:29:32 PMYeah, I forgot about that one. I just remember the movie from years ago. It was nonstop nonsense, kind of like Mad Mad Mad World.
BIG W!!!!
I saw the big W before any of the characters did! Maybe we viewers were supposed to, though. 🤔
That's the impression I got, back in 1963.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 14, 2023, 09:21:36 PMI saw the big W before any of the characters did! Maybe we viewers were supposed to, though. 🤔
I don't think I did, but in a later rewatch I spotted it much earlier.
It was available before a context was known.
I guess putting this here is as good as anywhere else.
Yesterday I was telling a friend that I was in the process of reading Ambrose Bierce's wonderful book The Devil's Dictionary, and she asked me if I had ever read his short story called An Occurance At Owl Creek Bridge. I had not, so she recommended that I do so at my earliest convenience. So last night I Googled it, and enjoyed it greatly. Then today I called her to let her know that I had read it, and she said there was a movie about it. So I did a search for it at YouTube and found a short version of it, and read in the comments that there is a full version. So I did a search for that and found an audio version that was wonderful!
Now I've seen several versions of it, and they're all great! I can highly recommend it with full honors!
🖖
Damn, I just discovered that there's a Twilight Zone version! I must watch, it's like an addiction! 🤪
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 18, 2023, 01:34:23 AMDamn, I just discovered that there's a Twilight Zone version! I must watch, it's like an addiction! 🤪
That is one of my fav, if not my all-time fav Twilight Zone! I loved it when I first saw it and saw it again just last week and it is still my fav!
It was totally awesome! 🤩
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 18, 2023, 11:17:02 AMIt was totally awesome! 🤩
It was and is! I don't want to ruin it for anybody but one cannot beat the way the ending surprise is handled. I do not remember any Twilight Zone ending better, or even a better Hitchcock ending for that matter.
When I read the short story I wasn't really surprised by the ending, but I was satisfied, given that the protagonist was a dirty traitor. 🤫
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 18, 2023, 04:25:07 PMWhen I read the short story I wasn't really surprised by the ending, but I was satisfied, given that the protagonist was a dirty traitor. 🤫
"GEORGIS IS MUH HOME!" It was still "these United States" rather than "the United States". One mantra was "The Union is the sum of its parts, not the master of them."
I'm rewatching Pirates of the Caribbean and I guess I misremembered one scene because I could've sworn that the big reveal that the pirates are undead happened a lot differently in my head than in actuality.
In my head, Elizabeth dines with Barbarossa, he talks about the curse, she grabs a knife, he says something menacing and she stabs him, staggering him backwards towards the window into the moonlight, revealing some skeletal features. She runs out of the cabin, sees the skeletal crew, then he tells her she best be believing in ghost stories because she's in one.
In reality, she stabs him, runs into the skeletal crew, then he comes out after her, revealing *gasp* he's a skeleton too! (we know)
The one in my head is better than the real one because the big reveal is more gradual and not all at once. Because once you've seen the skeletal crew, it kinda ruins the reveal that he's a skeleton too. In mine, you know that something is definitely up with him but aren't entirely sure until the big reveal with the crew.
Also, they really romanticize the hell out of Caribbean pirates. The real ones wouldn't make you walk the plank (they'd just throw you over) or bury treasure (they don't part with valuables easily except at port), but they were absolutely brutal when they wanted to be. If merchant vessels surrendered on sight to the black flag, they'd be relatively nice and just take everything of value and leave everyone alive (sometimes they'd take prisoners, especially if they captured the vessel) But if the merchant vessels attempted escape or fired on the pirates - either with cannon or musket - the pirates would have no problem hoisting the red flag and just massacring pretty much everyone they come across. They were less like Robin Hood and his merry men and more like gang members.
Watched ~30 minutes of "Oppenheimer".
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 31, 2023, 06:47:44 PMWatched ~30 minutes of "Oppenheimer".
Is it good? Did the Allies win? No spoilers!
He destroyed the worlds. Should be enough for anybody to accomplish.
I saw it a couple of weeks ago, and it was pretty good. I just wish they'd have concentrated more on the physics than the politics.
I didn't sit through it. maybe when it come to cable.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 31, 2023, 06:28:21 PMI'm rewatching Pirates of the Caribbean and I guess I misremembered one scene because I could've sworn that the big reveal that the pirates are undead happened a lot differently in my head than in actuality.
In my head, Elizabeth dines with Barbarossa, he talks about the curse, she grabs a knife, he says something menacing and she stabs him, staggering him backwards towards the window into the moonlight, revealing some skeletal features. She runs out of the cabin, sees the skeletal crew, then he tells her she best be believing in ghost stories because she's in one.
In reality, she stabs him, runs into the skeletal crew, then he comes out after her, revealing *gasp* he's a skeleton too! (we know)
The one in my head is better than the real one because the big reveal is more gradual and not all at once. Because once you've seen the skeletal crew, it kinda ruins the reveal that he's a skeleton too. In mine, you know that something is definitely up with him but aren't entirely sure until the big reveal with the crew.
Also, they really romanticize the hell out of Caribbean pirates. The real ones wouldn't make you walk the plank (they'd just throw you over) or bury treasure (they don't part with valuables easily except at port), but they were absolutely brutal when they wanted to be. If merchant vessels surrendered on sight to the black flag, they'd be relatively nice and just take everything of value and leave everyone alive (sometimes they'd take prisoners, especially if they captured the vessel) But if the merchant vessels attempted escape or fired on the pirates - either with cannon or musket - the pirates would have no problem hoisting the red flag and just massacring pretty much everyone they come across. They were less like Robin Hood and his merry men and more like gang members.
Yes, however pirates would rarely engage a real naval warship. They would try to run if discovered. They just didn't have the discipline or firepower to stand up to a real fighting ship, much like today.
Oh, god. There's a whole bunch of things about the reality of pirates and pirating that movies tend to ignore. CGP Grey has two videos on the topic, in fact, but we're not here for historical accuracy. It's a fantasy.
However, I never liked the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and I especially hated Jack Sparrow. Back then, I would say that I wanted a swashbuckler but instead I got the gay town drunk. I hated it and it baffles me that people found it at all compelling a character.
Weirdly, I recall liking the second better than I would have thought. They put some amount of effort into it, I guess. When that British dud shows up about 2/3rds of the way through the movie kind of burnt out on chasing Jack Sparrow between the first and second. I dunno, I kinda liked that when they could have just not had that actor come back. I also liked the beginning of the third where Sparrow's punishment is to be surrounded by himself. Seems like a fitting punishment to me.
Fortunately, I was divorced by the time the next two came out so I didn't get dragged to see them... there's an anti-marriage message for you. So, I have no opinion on those ones other than "Are they still making these things?" Kind of like the Saw franchise.
Long ago, I read a comment by Johnny Depp that he got sick of playing that character. I was never impressed by that franchise, and never understood why it was so popular. Different strokes, I guess.
When Florida still belonged to Spain the USN had to go into (currently Jacksonville) and clear out a nest of pirates.
Quote from: the_antithesis on September 03, 2023, 02:04:38 PMHowever, I never liked the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and I especially hated Jack Sparrow.
I kinda liked what they were going for - an antihero without a plan and such persistence, cunning, and phenomenal luck that he somehow manages to come up on top.
When the writers made him the hero, they really messed up, not only because he's not a hero but because making him the pov kills his mystique.
Also, and maybe my gaydar is off, but how is he a gay character? He's quickly established as a cad with all the working ladies at the house of ill repute at the pirate-friendly port. He also galavanted with Elizabeth that night, though he seemed to be more into the rum than her (it wouldn't have worked out between them anyways)
Sure, he's not very muscled, has an odd outfit to say the least, and isn't a very serious person, but none of those things are particularly gay-coded or straight-coded, right?
I like Jack Sparrow for a number of reasons. Just look at his introduction into the first movie. You see him sailing into port, looking proud and capable. He grabs the rope and jumps down, and we see not only is his ship tiny, but it's also sinking. He's constantly in these ridiculous situations that contrast well with his high opinion of himself. He has absolutely no shame, and can spin anything into a positive.
"You are without a doubt the worst pirate I've ever heard of."
"But you HAVE heard of me."
Also, funny story. Disney executives didn't like Johnny Depp's execution, because they thought he was acting gay. I'm pretty sure his character is just meant to be perpetually drunk. Of course, they changed their tune when the movie released, and Jack Sparrow was the movie's most popular character.
I don't mind Jack Sparrow and I liked the dark filthiness of the sets. I found Orlando Bloom boring to watch for some reason. I would like it better if the movies were more historical and less supernatural; simply because the subject matter is interesting enough to me. I still thought the ghost ship was pretty cool. We live along the 'treasure coast' so finding artifacts is not uncommon here after a hurricane or big winter storm.
Now, "Master and Commander" was pretty great, IMHO. There was a TV series based on C. S. Forester's fictional Lt Hornblower and I recall enjoying that as well.
Sparrow was a jackanape.
Quote from: Cassia on September 05, 2023, 03:46:55 PMNow, "Master and Commander" was pretty great, IMHO. There was a TV series based on C. S. Forester's fictional Lt Hornblower and I recall enjoying that as well.[/color]
I read the Hornblower books while I was in high school (Class of '69) while living in a small (pop. ~7,000) town in Indiana. I nearly killed the librarians with requests for definitions of nautical terms that weren't readily available in "Wide Spot", Indiana.)
Read
Hornblower and the Hotspur followed by
Starship Troopers.
As I recall, the most successful pirate was a Chinese woman...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 05, 2023, 03:47:31 PMSparrow was a jackanape.
Had to look that one up--but, yeah, I have to agree.
Quote from: Cassia on September 05, 2023, 03:46:55 PMI don't mind Jack Sparrow and I liked the dark filthiness of the sets. I found Orlando Bloom boring to watch for some reason. I would like it better if the movies were more historical and less supernatural; simply because the subject matter is interesting enough to me.
I liked the supernatural aspect of it, since sailors in general and pirates in particular have historically believed in all sorts of superstitions and tall tales, though they should've kept it ambiguous. Like a pirate went overboard and said he was saved from drowning by a mermaid and there's naught nearby but manatees, that would be a fun little wink to the history-savy audience.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 05, 2023, 07:26:01 PMHad to look that one up--but, yeah, I have to agree.
The word was era-appropriate.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 05, 2023, 07:50:28 PMI liked the supernatural aspect of it, since sailors in general and pirates in particular have historically believed in all sorts of superstitions and tale tales, though they should've kept it ambiguous. Like a pirate went overboard and said he was saved from drowning by a mermaid and there's naught nearby but manatees, that would be a fun little wink to the history-savy audience.
If you tattoo a roster on one ankle and a _____ on the other you'll never drown. (Long time since I thought of that one.)
Quote from: Cassia on September 05, 2023, 03:46:55 PMI don't mind Jack Sparrow and I liked the dark filthiness of the sets. I found Orlando Bloom boring to watch for some reason. I would like it better if the movies were more historical and less supernatural; simply because the subject matter is interesting enough to me. I still thought the ghost ship was pretty cool. We live along the 'treasure coast' so finding artifacts is not uncommon here after a hurricane or big winter storm.
Now, "Master and Commander" was pretty great, IMHO. There was a TV series based on C. S. Forester's fictional Lt Hornblower and I recall enjoying that as well.
The movies are based on the original Disney ride of the same name. It included skeletons who were affected by some cursed treasure.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 05, 2023, 07:50:28 PMI liked the supernatural aspect of it, since sailors in general and pirates in particular have historically believed in all sorts of superstitions and tall tales, though they should've kept it ambiguous. Like a pirate went overboard and said he was saved from drowning by a mermaid and there's naught nearby but manatees, that would be a fun little wink to the history-savy audience.
The legends are fine and all, but I just get tired of the onslaught of made-up bullshit we are subjected to everyday which when compared to natural mysteries, just tend to represent human fears and paranoia.
Take the legend of Sleepy Hollow. I don't need the legend to be true to appreciate it. In fact, I would have loved if a goofy, scientific Johnny Depp character came to town and just debunked the whole thing and found there was simply a murderer. Instead, we have a resurrected headless dude running around and he can't go onto church grounds. Fuck that, LOL.
Speaking of Hunter Biden, I'm watching a movie called Hunter Killer, with Gary Oldman.
Pretty good so far, but I haven't yet finished it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 16, 2023, 08:03:34 PMSpeaking of Hunter Biden, I'm watching a movie called Hunter Killer, with Gary Oldman.
Pretty good so far, but I haven't yet finished it.
Well?
Asteroid City: Director Wes Anderson is an acquired taste, I suppose. I loved Moonrise Kingdom, so I started following him. Nothing yet rises to that level in my opinion. But I can't NOT watch his films. I end up trying to decide whether it's worth it or not. I'll see his next one too. I can't look away.
Wow, that was intense! Great acting, great plot, great action, great suspense. 😎
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 16, 2023, 09:06:38 PMWow, that was intense! Great acting, great plot, great action, great suspense. 😎
Clearly, there was none of that. The point is that there is no point. There are probably other sub points as well, but I'm still searching for those. It's like looking at a Jackson Pollock painting, but without having any visceral response.
I just finished watching Sunset, with Bruce Willis, James Garner, Malcolm McDowell and others. I thought at first it was going to be a western, but it turned out otherwise.
It was very enjoyable.
Sunset Blvd?
No, just Sunset. It was about Wyatt Earp consulting on a movie about himself, and his friendship with Tom Mix. It was a completely fictionalized account, based on a true story.
I just finished watching Stone of Destiny, about a group of Scottish students who broke into Westminster Abby to "steal" the Stone that was stolen by the English in 1296.
Based on a true story, it was a very good movie!
While I think this might be a decently faithful adaptation at best and don't particularly have high hopes, it could be a decent popcorn flick for Halloween. Personally, I think that Afton learned how to cheat death by fusing human souls to inanimate metal, but something went awry. But that's just a theory, a film theory...
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 21, 2023, 09:32:04 PM
While I think this might be a decently faithful adaptation at best and don't particularly have high hopes, it could be a decent popcorn flick for Halloween. Personally, I think that Afton learned how to cheat death by fusing human souls to inanimate metal, but something went awry. But that's just a theory, a film theory...
That is literally the game lore. The animatronics are powered by "remnant," which are the memories of the dead that are somehow extracted as a physical material. They can also be possessed by agony. It seems that when someone dies in the FNaF universe, their soul is split into multiple parts, with memories, emotions, and pain being distinct things that can exist independently and possess physical objects to give them sentience. In this way, it's possible for what was one person to possess multiple things, if your agony is injected into one thing and your remnant is injected into something else.
As for the movie, it doesn't look like it would appeal to me. We already have video game canon, meta video game canon that treats the original game canon as at least partial fiction, and book canon, and now it looks like the movie is doing its own thing too. The lore is just a complete mess at this point.
Edit: Well, technically speaking, it's not the soul itself per say, but objects apparently absorb remnant and agony from the people around them. If there's a tragedy somewhere, objects in that location may contain agony that can be extracted. It's implied that this creates the illusion of haunted objects, although the distinction seems pretty superficial. Whether an animatronic is possessed by a soul or remnants of a person's memories, it's still a supernatural thing giving sentience to a physical object.
The boat
A rather unique horror movie that works on suspense more than anything else.
Really clicked for me, on of the better horror movies i've seen of late; discomforting rather than trying for an actual scare.
8.5/10
This one?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7468616/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
That is the one, yes.
I had seen people generally liked it less than i did.
Still, clicked for me.
Not seen it. Boss Lady's call on scary. She's not seen the shit I have so I let her pick 'em. I sit quietly, dentures grinding at times.
Well, in any case, it has zero gore, if that is something to win her over.
I'm getting dragged to see Saw. I hate those kinds of movies, but I like watching movies with people and it's a squid-pro-quo sort of thing, so hopefully it's good.
"A Haunting in Venice". Poirot v. ghosts. One of Boss Lady's favorite characters. Beautifully done, I miss Venice.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 26, 2023, 05:24:16 PM"A Haunting in Venice". Poirot v. ghosts. One of Boss Lady's favorite characters. Beautifully done, I miss Venice.
Watching "a discovery of witches" mini-series this week. Awesome so far. It is so cool when you see a scene shot right where you were standing. Happens a lot with Venezia.
When I was stationed Sicilia Venezia was one of my favorite stops. We sent monthly "shopping busses" out with bored wives looking to spend some of hubby's bonus money. I got paid to count heads off, count heads on, and call the embassy if the sums didn't match. Otherwise my time was my own.
Saw X definitely wasn't my cup of tea, but it wasn't bad. Though I did notice a plot hole or two. Actually, more like a plot crater. But overall, it had a surprisingly good message.
I don't ever think I'd watch a movie like that again, but I didn't throw up.
I just watched a funny Jackie Chan movie, called Spy Daddy. Of course it was full of fun and great stuntwork, as are all of his movies.
Oh, I see that it's actually called The Spy Next Door. The channel I watched it on renames the movies, I guess for copyright reasons.
Watching "Knives Out" again. The story stands up well. With the Poirot movies Boss Lady is in hog heaven.
Damn! I was going to go to bed, but YouTube put up Nothing But Trouble, and it's just one of those movies I simply must watch! I can't help myself! 🤣
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 05, 2023, 01:36:06 AMDamn! I was going to go to bed, but YouTube put up Nothing But Trouble, and it's just one of those movies I simply must watch! I can't help myself! 🤣
Don't think I've ever seen it, but considering the actors I see starring in it, it must be pretty funny.
Oh yeah, it's among the funniest movies I've ever seen! Dan Akroyd is the Big Boss, and he is totally insane! Only he could wear a fake nose that looks like a penis! 🍆 🤣
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 05, 2023, 02:13:42 AMDon't think I've ever seen it, but considering the actors I see starring in it, it must be pretty funny.
Jack and Rick Evans will tell you everything you need to know about this movie. Possibly the most important point is at 23:10
Hey, thanks for posting that!
I read some years ago that Chevy Chase didn't like the movie, and didn't want to make it. But I thought he did a pretty good job anyway.
And Dan Akroyd was off the hook! He played the judge, but he also played Bobo,one of the ugly diaper babies.
It's such a fun movie, I think I might watch it again today!
🤣
Rango was epic! I wasn't expecting much, but I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it!
Johnny Depp, Ned Beatty and Stephen Root were the only names I recognized, but there were a lot of others I didn't.
It was a fun movie to watch, even though it was computer animation. It was very well done! I think I can highly recommend it. 🤗
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71hgVcumO0L._AC_UL480_FMwebp_QL65_.jpg)
Now I'm watching one called Megamind, another computer animation, that's basically about Superman (by another name: Metroman) vs Lex Luthor (by another name: Megamind - he's bad to the bone). It's even got a Lois Lane character and a Jimmy Olsen character.
But Megamind defeats Metroman, then finds out that it's no fun being a super villain without a superhero to fight against, so he creates an adversary to give his life some meaning. But his new creation decides it's more fun being bad.
🖖
Well yeah.
Just finished watching it. It was a lot of fun! And they all lived happily ever after! Well, not Hal...
😱
Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life was action-packed, full of adventure and great stuntwork. But I can't respect tomb raiders who aren't trained archeologists.
🥸
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 07, 2023, 09:46:44 PMLara Croft Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life was action-packed, full of adventure and great stuntwork. But I can't respect tomb raiders who aren't trained archeologists.
🥸
Didn't care for that one, it kinda killed the franchise I think.
Well, this was the first of the franchise I've seen, so maybe I'll check out some of the others.
I'd never seen the movie Evolution, but I won't be able to say that anymore. At least Dan Akroyd didn't have a dick for a nose in this one! 🤣
It was a lot of fun, especially since I had no idea what to expect. It seems like it was just a long shampoo commercial, but oh well, I'd consider using Head & Shoulders!
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 07, 2023, 10:26:16 PMWell, this was the first of the franchise I've seen, so maybe I'll check out some of the others.
I have read she did many of her own stunts and even got hurt on occasion.
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 07, 2023, 10:26:16 PMWell, this was the first of the franchise I've seen, so maybe I'll check out some of the others.
There's only the first movie, "Laura Croft, Tomb Raider." I quite liked it. Caveat: I never played Tomb Raider, the game.
The movie Before and After was really good. Starring Liam Neeson and Meryl Streep, so how bad could it be? Very dramatic, well acted (of course), with a good plot. Kind of a tear-jerker though.
OK, this time I've got only two words for ya:
Big Trouble.
And two names:
Tim Allen, Patrick Warburton.
What a hilarious movie! 🤣
Had no idea what to expect, couldn't stop laughing! 😎
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMGExOThjYjMtYzA2MC00OTZhLWEzMDYtMTAwZmViMGU4OTE4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDk3NzU2MTQ@._V1_.jpg)
That's quite a cast.
Yeah, hell of a good movie! I might watch it again very soon.
Just saw another Tim Allen movie, this one called Crazy on the Outside.
It also had Sigourney Weaver, Kelsey Grammer, and the guy who played J. Jonah Jamison in the Spider-Man movies (he did some commercials as well).
It wasn't as funny as the other Tim Allen movie I watched, but it was very good.
J. K. Simmons
Yeah, that's the guy!
He's definitely a face.
Most people do.
Do what?
Sounded like herd of sheep.
It's the Police. They have you surrounded.
I'd roll my chair over their toes.
Was it a ghost story? Was it a time travel story? Was it both?
Only your hair dresser knows for sure!
From Time to Time was intriguing and enjoyable.
Nearly four hundred pounds on all four wheels. It's got ... features you won't see for years. A fridge for example.
I won't see a fridge?
Quote from: the_antithesis on October 12, 2023, 01:55:03 PMI won't see a fridge?
You got a wheel chair with a fridge on it? I need one for meds that have stay cold. Plug into my van for recharging.
Wet Hot American Summer
I didn't like it.
This is strange to me as I really liked the State on Mtv and this movie was made by and full of people from the State. But it was just nonsense that went all over the place and then it ended. Maybe it was trying to subvert traditional narratives but if so, it discovered why we have traditional narratives: because it's boring otherwise. Would have worked better if some of the jokes landed, but they just didn't. As such it turned out to be more funny weird than actually funny.
I guess this is what happens when guys who normally write 5-15 min sketches try to write a feature-length film. Those you can load the weird into them until it becomes funny. This had too much room for the weird to breathe, which you should never ever do with weird. Air is poisonous..
So I didn't like it so I doubt if I'll watch any of the later day follow ups because who honestly fucking cares to see any of these characters ever again for as long as you live, for as long as one stone rests on top of another.
Fuck this movie.
Disappointing.
Never saw it. Now I guess I never will. 🫡 🖖
Rewatched Amélie poulain.
Such a terrific movie.
Should be on everyone´s list of 100 movies to watch before you die.
Killer Elite was pretty good. Action packed, good cast (Robert De Niro, Jason Statham), and a good plot. 🖖
That's a remake?
Yeah, 1975 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073240/
I didn't know it was a remake. Was it as good as the original?
Actually, reading the plot sketch, it doesn't sound like the same plot.
It's not a remake. Wikipedia says both movies are based on different novels.
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 13, 2023, 09:17:23 PMI didn't know it was a remake. Was it as good as the original?
Actually, reading the plot sketch, it doesn't sound like the same plot.
I haven't seen either, that's why I asked.
Currently watching ´old´.
Heard from some that it was proof that m. Night shamalan still had it.
The premise is interesting, but it is from the book it is based on.
The acting from most of the crew is pretty good. Especially the young adults playing children. And I guess m. Night has a hand in that.
But I am not impressed by the dialogue, nor the cinematography.
The first ´reveal´ of what is going on, on the Beach, with the older kids was laughable.
I don´t know, maybe I am undeservably harsh on m. Night.
Guess that it also doesn´t help that I didn´t really feel like watching this one.
The gf is in a halloween horror mood and has been wanting to watch a great many of the Flicks they put out on tv.
I don´t mind horror, but once a week is more than enough. I wouldn´t want to watch Romcoms every other day either.
Anyway, just turned it off as I was typing this. The gf fell asleep on the couch.
Ringing endorsement, I know.
That movie was really bad. And the "twist" is equally bad.
I still don't even know why it's secret. Cause I guarantee you, lots of people would volunteer.
And I've noticed a bunch of movies which are overly harshly critical of laboratory experimentation in general and also consequentialism. You can't throw a stone in scifi or post-apocalyptic movies without seeing this refrain time and time again. And to be honest, it kind of irritates me. It almost has an air of anti-intellectualism, which I'm not entirely sure was unintended.
In short: let's have more hero scientists in fiction than villain scientists, please?
Yeah, less Lex Luthor and more David Banner! 😎
Tonight, I watched Demolition Man for the first time because apparently it's really nostalgic for a lot of people and it just hit its 30-year-anniversary.
It's...okay. Some things aged better than others... *smashcut to the villain doing a "ching chong" impression when he sees some people wearing paddy hats*
Plot and themewise this movie is a worse version of Judge Dredd (1995) - which also features Stallone and Rob Schneider so I don't think I missed much by watching that instead.
The future setting has basically no internal logic and falls apart when you think about it for even a second (every restaurant is a Pizza Hut, really?)
Sandra Bullock is an absolute delight and aside from suddenly being really, really good at violence and surprisingly okay with getting batoned by her partner, her character is pretty funny, charming, and makes sense in the world. Also, she's the most developed character out of everyone in that movie.
Wesley Snipes is pretty entertaining in a villain role but I didn't really buy him as a legitimate threat. He mostly seems to laugh until he gets beat, which is kind of lame. Also, like half the attacks made against him seem to hit and do real damage, which is unusual for a villain. He gets beat up pretty severely in almost every encounter. You could throw a pillow at him and there's a good chance he'd slip on it and fall down. I haven't seen a villain take so much damage since Home Alone.
But the Schwarzenegger library joke was so close to being prophetic that it's actually kind of nuts.
Pizza Hut? Are you in Europe? Because it's Taco Bell and that's kind of the joke. No one expects either franchise to win an all-out franchise war.
The one I watched said Pizza Hut lol. I didn't realize that there were multiple versions. Seems like a lot of effort for a not-great joke.
I saw that movie so long ago that I don't remember what fast food franchise was depicted, but I don't much care to watch it again in any case. It was a bit amusing, but that's about it. 🙄
So, we finished ´old´.
It did not get much better, for my part.
Gf didn´t mind, but doesn´t think it is great either.
John Wick 4 in da hous. Five coming soon.
I just finished watching another Jackie Chan movie, called The Medallion. Of course it was very good, what Jackie Chan movie isn't? This one also had John Rhys-Davies, who's been in a bunch of good movies, like Raiders of the Lost Ark.
😎
Jeez, another Jackie Chan! This time a sci-fi, in which he gets to climb around and fight on top of the Sidney Opera House! What a ride! 🎡🎢
It was called Special Agent, and it was even more fun than the last one was! 🦘
I adore jackie chan.
John Wick 4. Fun watch, especially we know JW5 is possible. I noted that several characters used the "protecting my face" move with the garment of their choice. Kimono used that way by one of the traditionally dressed bad guys in the kitchen fight.
I saw JW1, but that's the only one so far. I'd definitely be into watching more of them.
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 17, 2023, 11:33:57 AMI saw JW1, but that's the only one so far. I'd definitely be into watching more of them.
Me and Boss Lady have the current four on disk. This after I said "let's wait for the boxed set." I was just out of the hospital and she had a week off work, so bleep it, Amazon delivers.
Very informative. To summarize this nearly hour long video, writers and actors want to make art. Executives don't give a fuck about art. They want money now. They see movies as products to be sold, and they'd rather sell sequels than takes risks on something new. Executives want to make writers and actors obsolete, replacing them with AI. Effects studios bid for projects, meaning that the studios that promise to do the job the cheapest get the jobs. Executives think we're all idiots who will go to see movies just because they're from a series that we recognize, like Star Wars, and that we won't notice if the quality of the movies drop significantly.
I seldom go to a movie theater to see a movie. I do watch quite a few on YouTube, though. Right now I'm watching one called High Spirits (no, it's not about Cheech and Chong in the afterlife 🤪), very appropriate for the season.
Peter O'Toole is about to lose his Irish castle if he doesn't come up with a bunch of money, so he decides to claim that it's haunted. Trouble is, there are no ghosts. He and his staff set it up to pretend there are, though, and try to fool a group of tourists into believing it. But they're not buying it and try to leave, but are kept from doing so by some real ghosts who show up.
What a romp!.🤣
I haven't finished it yet, so I don't yet know what happens. I'll let you know later.
Well, I finished it, and you'll be glad to know that they all lived (or not) happily ever after! 👻
Jeez Jackie Chan made a bunch of movies! I just finished another one, this one was called Mr. Nice Guy, and of course it was action packed and great fun to watch. He wasn't very nice, either, at least to the bad guys. I loved watching him fight with construction tools and equipment! At the end he completely demolished the bad guy's mansion with a dirt hauler! 🤪
Watch ´drunken master 2´.
It is a jackie-chan gem.
In this time of deadly wars the culture wars are still raging, and Disney has become a key target. Rumblings about cast changes to the new Disney "Snow White" production. Fans reacting negatively to Rachel Ziegler's attitude and modern take on the classic story, and some say the 'Dwarfs' look more like seven baristas. Seems they are reshooting with a different actress. Now I have to go see it.
Being the somewhat "detached" weirdo that I am, typically focusing more on the sets and costumes and aura of a film, it may take me multiple viewings to get the detailed storyline, but that means I can enjoy films over and over, LOL. Not sure I would have been captivated by these costumes. Looks like the 60-70s hand-me downs I got from my cousins in the 80s. I do like low-riding bell-bottoms cuz they work on a thin frame.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/07/14/12/73217161-0-image-a-155_1689335676216.jpg)
Carnaby St. threw up.
I just finished watching Kung Fury for about the 666th time. It never grows old! I hope they make a sequel soon, there have been rumors that they might. 😎
I just finished watching an old movie with one of my all-time favorites - Burt Lancaster. The movie is Mr. 880, about a Secret Service agent (Burt Lancaster) who's looking for a counterfeiter. The "bad guy" turned out to be a sweet old man that Burt didn't want to bust, but of course he had to do it anyway.
Pretty good movie, made way back (1950) when movies were about good stories instead of flashy special effects.
I thought I'd seen Hudson Hawk, but I guess I was mistaken. It was a lot of fun, with Bruce Willis, James Coburn and Danny Aiello. Oh, and the lady from Groundhog Day, Andie MacDowell.
Hudson Hawk is the reason I drink cappuccinos.
I've never tried one. Are they any good?
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 22, 2023, 11:28:33 AMI've never tried one. Are they any good?
Lived IN Sicily for three years. Lived ON cappuccino for three years.
Chaos walking
I don´t rally know about this one.
Like the cast. Tom holland, mads Mikkelsen, Daisy ridley.
(Not the biggest 'Rey´ stan but she does act her role well in those SW-flicks. It is just not written well.)
Premise was alright. But, not having read the books, I feel like I am missing much needed context.
A movie doesn´t have to explain everything, but this, to me at least, didn't give me enough to understand quite a few things.
Also feel like they just shouldn´t have had the aliens actually show up if they were going to do so little with them. Keep ´em more mysterious, could be handy in case you make a sequel. Just keep the far of spackle-noise and a Quick view of the town, maybe. Not even sure of the latter.
It has it's moments. But overall; lukewarm.
Couldn't gen up any caring for that one. Still only 1/2 through.
More than fair
Watched "The Firm" with Tom Cruise. I thought it was a "The Devil's Advocate" redo, but it actually came out years before. Decent flick. Wife Jeanne Tripplehorn is gorgeous and played Dr. Beth Garner in Basic Instinct. 3.5/5
Also watched "How to lose a guy in 10 days". Some too-clever lines and cute moments but the story was so obvious. Kate Hudsen looked pretty. Matthew McConaughey annoys me for some reason. He's like that dickhead jock you knew in high school. 3/5 cuz I'm a sucka for romance comedy.
I can't be the only one who has movies playing continuously in their head, can I? Watching "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death". Very SoCal.
I'm not really partial to westerns, but I can watch them occasionally. I just finished one called God's Gun, with Lee van Cleef, Jack Palance and Richard Boone. I haven't seen Richard Boone since he was in Have Gun Will Travel, waaay long ago!
This movie was pretty good, about a gang of hoodlums, led by Jack Palance, who are making all kinds of trouble.
Lee van Cleef is a priest who gets killed fairly early in the plot, and he also plays the brother of the priest, who has to avenge his brother's murder.
🤠
So I watched a critique about both Avatar movies and I've gotta say, I think it hit upon a good point.
Avatar made a big splash for its CGI, but its ideas weren't particularly well received or conceived. We've all seen at least half a dozen movies which explore colonialism and its injustices or environmental destruction by modern society against comparatively less technologically advanced peoples. Dances with Wolves. Fern Gully. Lawrence of Arabia. Heart of Darkness. Last of the Mohicans. Last Samurai. Captain Planet. We've had this message hammered home time and time again - modern lifestyle kinda sucks, imperialism sucks, racism sucks, environmental destruction sucks, and "primitive" peoples aren't so primitive and the Earth and nature and all that jazz is something to be cherished.
Avatar's main problem isn't the message - that we should treasure nature and learn to respect it and not bulldoze the crap out of it is a message that everyone to the left of Rupert Murdoch can agree with - the problem is that Avatar explores this issue in such a lazy way that it turns people off.
For starters, there's such a stark black-and-white dichotomy between humans and Na'vi. Almost every human is either a piece of garbage and almost every Na'vi is pure good. I'm not saying they have to be totally balanced - but jeez, we can't have any treehugging humans? Imagine Captain Planet with no human environmentalists. That's Avatar.
My idea to spruce up the series would be to have an outpost of humans who actually really like Pandora and try their best to observe and study without harming the natural world, which makes some intuitive sense to me because that's how lots of people behave here and now. Plus, don't make me feel bad about liking spider-bots. They're so lovable! Ahem, the treehugging humans of course would be outvoted by the militaristic, expansionist ones and we could have some fantastic story just about humans taking divergent, mutually-exclusive approaches to Pandora specifically and nature in general. Instead, we get humans vs
Tau Na'vi. Cowboys VS Indians. That's just fundamentally uninteresting - not the least of which is that we already know that the Na'vi are going to win. (Unless you want to depress everyone)
The video guy points out one scene in particular as a missed opportunity - a Na'vi is gravely unwell and some of the rare not-awful humans are trying to scan her and figure out what's wrong. But before they can do much, they're whisked aside so that a shaman can somehow fix the problem (surprisingly quickly and without much difficulty, too). That would've been a nice time to showcase that a modern lifestyle, as crummy as it may be, also has some things going for it, like modern medicine. Hell, maybe both societies have beneficial things that they can learn from the other. But nope, tribal healing trumps modern medicine. Hooray.
Another thing is that humans have such awful motivations. Mr...Selfish? My mistake...Mr Selfridge states outright that the only reason they're on Pandora is for profit. Just money and nothing else. Not a new home for humanity. Not for scientific research. Not even for cultivating a better understanding of an alien species like the Na'vi. I guess humanity doesn't give a crap about aliens.
It's just such a bleak setting for anyone who isn't a Na'vi. Earth sucks. Human militarism sucks. Human corporatism and consumerism sucks. Human racism sucks. Humanity sucks. The end. Everyone happy with that message?
Would a tree hugger volunteer for Pandora?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 24, 2023, 06:33:42 AMWould a tree hugger volunteer for Pandora?
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/697/828/3e9.jpg)
Maybe?
It's been confirmed that the third movie's antagonists will be a group of Na'vi who are less than virtuous. Also, I think the main theme of the second movie is about what it means to be family not environmentalism. The environmentalism is there, but it's a minor point. Both the protagonist and the antagonist are fathers. Both come from military backgrounds, yet have wildly different approaches. Sully is firm, but he listens to his wife and children, and he respects their opinions. They give up their home and community to live in safety, but they're okay because they stick together. They have an adopted daughter (Space Jesus), who they treat no differently than their biological children.
Quaritch, on the other hand, doesn't even know he's a father at first. Once he does, he essentially kidnaps his son from the only home he's ever known to try to win him over. It doesn't work. The son rejects him. The two can't be more different. However, even after all that Quaritch did, his son does save his life. So maybe a small part of him cares for his biological father? Probably something to be explored in the next movie.
You know, I still haven't seen these movies.
It really shouldn't feel like I dodged a bullet, James Cameron.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 24, 2023, 06:33:42 AMWould a tree hugger volunteer for Pandora?
There are actually some humans there in the first movie, who are there to study or build relationships with the Na'vi. The whole reason the Na'vi speak English is because of the schools humans built for them. Although, they shouldn't logically ALL speak English as fluently as they do. I would hope if we ever found alien life and had the ability to get to them, studying them would be our primary concern, but maybe that wouldn't be profitable enough.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 24, 2023, 12:41:27 PMThere are actually some humans there in the first movie, who are there to study or build relationships with the Na'vi. The whole reason the Na'vi speak English is because of the schools humans built for them. Although, they shouldn't logically ALL speak English as fluently as they do. I would hope if we ever found alien life and had the ability to get to them, studying them would be our primary concern, but maybe that wouldn't be profitable enough.
Well, hopefully when we do meet extraterrestrial life, we don't turn out to be the Ferengi.
Quote from: the_antithesis on October 24, 2023, 12:21:03 PMYou know, I still haven't seen these movies.
It really shouldn't feel like I dodged a bullet, James Cameron.
Don't give it a chance.
Very few of Na'vi speak English. You must have been getting popcorn when Tully talked about his transition to Na'vi.
All I really know about the movies is in here:
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 24, 2023, 12:52:56 PMDon't give it a chance.
Very few of Na'vi speak English. You must have been getting popcorn when Tully talked about his transition to Na'vi.
I assume you were meaning to quote me. The Na'vi may have their own language, but they barely use it in the movies. I expected to have to read more subtitles in the second movie, since the aquatic Na'vi seem more isolated than the forest variants, but that wasn't the case. Everyone conveniently speaks English.
Quote from: the_antithesis on October 24, 2023, 12:55:09 PMAll I really know about the movies is in here:
I am deeply upset by the culture appropriation of the Na'vi by this woman. Next thing you know she will have a bow and arrow or something.
FFS Blackleaf. Ever watched an Italian movie? It's filmed IN ITALIAN. But you saw it dubbed into English.
Terence Hill and Bud Spencer are always a lot of fun to watch! In Double Trouble they're even more fun than usual!
Terence Hill is a stuntman who flies ultralights for fun. Bud Spencer is a musician who plays a jazz saxophone.
They are exact doubles of a couple of rich guys who have assassins out to kill them. The rich guys hire, for a million bucks, the stuntman and the musician to pretend to be them for a week.
A wild romp ensues!
🤣
I saw them in a Western. They were visiting Mom in the most gawdawful shanty and they're woofing down the grub.
Spencer: This is better than you used to make when we were kids. What is it?
Mom: I don't know. It had been circling the cabin for three days, so I shot it.
Yeah, that sounds like them! 🤣
My favorite Terence Hill movie is My Name is Nobody, with Henry Fonda. He was in a movie a long time ago with Ernest Borgnine called Super Fuzz that was funny as hell. But I have a great fondness for the westerns he does with Bud Spencer.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 24, 2023, 01:58:41 PMI assume you were meaning to quote me. The Na'vi may have their own language, but they barely use it in the movies. I expected to have to read more subtitles in the second movie, since the aquatic Na'vi seem more isolated than the forest variants, but that wasn't the case. Everyone conveniently speaks English.
I assumed that was due to the translation convention (foreign language sounds foreign at first, then appears translated/dubbed so that the audience can understand it with the implication that it's not really english)
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 24, 2023, 05:31:54 PMI assumed that was due to the translation convention (foreign language sounds foreign at first, then appears translated/dubbed so that the audience can understand it with the implication that it's not really english)
Ah. Maybe. Given how hard they went to make the alien world look real (seriously, none of it is real, not even the water), it's a little odd they stop their mission for total immersion at the alien language.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 24, 2023, 01:58:41 PMI assume you were meaning to quote me. The Na'vi may have their own language, but they barely use it in the movies. I expected to have to read more subtitles in the second movie, since the aquatic Na'vi seem more isolated than the forest variants, but that wasn't the case. Everyone conveniently speaks English.
I don't know who you thought you were quoting, but it wasn't me. Even if you included my post, because you didn't read it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 24, 2023, 07:21:26 PMI don't know who you thought you were quoting, but it wasn't me. Even if you included my post, because you didn't read it.
...What?
Another great Hill/Spencer flick: Odds and Evens! I really enjoy the fight scenes these guys have, they're so comical! 🤣
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 24, 2023, 02:04:26 PMFFS Blackleaf. Ever watched an Italian movie? It's filmed IN ITALIAN. But you saw it dubbed into English.
Actually, for some of the bigger movies, they got actors from all over and they would speak their own language on set and then it was dubbed. Must've been great to shoot that way with three to five languages being spoken in one scene.
Forgive me, not a movie but it could have been. I am no Trekie but I wandered into a Voyager episode on HBO Max where a former Borg called 7 of 9 had to navigate through a radioactive nebula by herself with the crew in stasis and a hologram of a doctor. She was absolutely fantastic (what a voice), so I went back to an episode when she was being extracted from the collective. Fascinating, as Spock would say. I never knew this version of Trek was so good as I guess I didn't see them when they were issued.
Voyager episodes can be kind of hit or miss (do yourself a favor and skip Fairhaven and don't watch Threshold without a beer and a webcam for a live reaction video) but they were generally pretty ballsy and could be seriously good or unintentionally hilarious.
Seven of Nine is one of Trek's most interesting characters, even though she was initially brought onboard for sex appeal. Just goes to show the wonders good writing can work.
My favorite episodes: Equinox, Living Witness, Course: Oblivion, the Year of Hell two-parter, Scorpion, and basically any other episode with the Borg.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 25, 2023, 10:20:48 AMVoyager episodes can be kind of hit or miss (do yourself a favor and skip Fairhaven and don't watch Threshold without a beer and a webcam for a live reaction video) but they were generally pretty ballsy and could be seriously good or unintentionally hilarious.
Seven of Nine is one of Trek's most interesting characters, even though she was initially brought onboard for sex appeal. Just goes to show the wonders good writing can work.
My favorite episodes: Equinox, Living Witness, Course: Oblivion, the Year of Hell two-parter, Scorpion, and basically any other episode with the Borg.
I immediately associated the Borg with religious hive-think. 7of9 is the reluctant atheist, LOL.
Quote from: Cassia on October 25, 2023, 12:18:22 PMI immediately associated the Borg with religious hive-think. 7of9 is the reluctant atheist, LOL.
I'm not entirely sure what the writers intended, but I've always gotten big communist vibes off them, which intially sounds like kind of a stretch but their totalitarian and anti-individualist tendencies arguably make that less of a three-pointer and more of a layup.
Though you're correct that Seven's experience is strongly reminiscent of someone being deprogrammed from a destructive cult.
The basic set of the Star Trek series is an excellent backdrop to explore the edges of human knowledge. There is the stuff we know we don't understand and then all that stuff we don't even know we don't understand yet, and Star Trek can ponder away with babes in catsuits, nonetheless. The movies if have seen were quite good too.
The OG Star Trek only ran from '66 to '69, the same years I was in high school. I read my first scifi book* two years earlier. When I got into some quality scifi (Heinlein, et al.) I stopped watching the TV stuff. Inadequate.
*Bullard of the Space Patrol, written the year I was born, 1951.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 26, 2023, 08:49:29 AMThe OG Star Trek only ran from '66 to '69, the same years I was in high school. I read my first scifi book* two years earlier. When I got into some quality scifi (Heinlein, et al.) I stopped watching the TV stuff. Inadequate.
*Bullard of the Space Patrol, written the year I was born, 1951.
My father liked the original Star Trek for the mini-skirts and go-go boots, I am sure. However, they put a put a black chick and an Asian dude on the bridge.
Uhuru was a groundbreaker.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/154AAOSwdZdjDTLB/s-l1600.jpg)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 26, 2023, 08:49:29 AMThe OG Star Trek only ran from '66 to '69, the same years I was in high school. I read my first scifi book* two years earlier. When I got into some quality scifi (Heinlein, et al.) I stopped watching the TV stuff. Inadequate.
*Bullard of the Space Patrol, written the year I was born, 1951.
I turned 10 in '66, the year my parents got divorced, and neither wanted me, so they packed me off to a boys' camp in East Texas where we didn't have any TVs. That was OK, though, 'cause we had lots of stuff to do. But I didn't even know ST existed until years later, so I only ever saw it in reruns. 🖖
I went to a kind of camp "a few years ago". Only saw "MASH" on summer reruns the first five(?) seasons, one episode a year. Didn't really think triage was that funny.
Summer Camp. Not for us. My parents just gave us BB guns and a house key, LOL.
My camp wasn't a summer camp, I was there for about a year and a half. I skipped the 5th grade completely, we went on many hikes, canoe trips at Caddo lake, and canoed down the Sabine River from Gladewater in northeast Texas to the Gulf of Mexico. Took us 7 weeks and a day.
🛶
"Rear Window" starring James Stewart, directed by Hitchcock. Great flick, it's been years since I have seen it. Another reminder of just how hard most new movies suck.
I used to love people-watching in a crowded place. Nowadays, not so much. Solitude, or near-solitude are my favorite states.
(https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/MSDREWI_EC022.jpg?w=1296)
I just finished watching a fun movie with a great cast.
Last Vegas!
It had Deniro, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Kline and Michael Douglas. Oh, and Mary Steenburgen!
About some old guys who wanted to throw a bachelor party for the one (Michael Douglas) who was getting married to a lady half his age.
Best one I've seen for a while.
I went out and watched Five Night's At Freddy's. Worth a watch imo.
Let's just say that I have a theory about the cameos...
And although it kinda dragged at the beginning, I was pleasantly surprised by how it turned out. It ticked off most of my boxes and added an additional layer of intrigue - lucid dreaming and not just that - we're talking about HP Lovecraft Randolph Carter type dreaming, where the boundaries between dream and reality are significantly blurred. This Freddy is not all that different from another Freddy...
At times, it's surprisingly heartwarming and at times, deeply unsettling. I'm particularly unsettled by the idea that you don't necessarily have to visit the Pizzeria to encounter them.
Though I wish it was just a tad more creepy/suspenseful like the video game and went more into the kids' tragic past (anyone up for Midnight Motorist?) especially the Crying Child.
The villain was fantastic, though. I'd love to see him come back.
The mauritanian.
Pretty damn good.
Never heard of it before.
Nor knew the particularly story.
Tropic Thunder was a lot of fun. Had an all-star cast:
Ben Stiller
Robert Downey Jr
Jack Black
Tom Cruise
Nick Nolte
Matthew McConaughey
John Voight
Martin Lawrence
Hollywood making fun of itself!
If I hadn't read the cast list I would never have recognized Tom Cruise! 🤩
I recognized Tom Cruise. My ex-wife didn't believe me, but after a couple minutes she relented.
Quote from: the_antithesis on November 05, 2023, 01:20:26 AMI recognized Tom Cruise. My ex-wife didn't believe me, but after a couple minutes she relented.
I just watched the new top gun movie. Really sucked hard on the cash-cow-teats of the first one, so even more predictable; but it was still pretty OK, if you like to get 'the feels', I guess. That idea that everyone knows better than the big general is so common in our society. From the electronic techs in my company to the air condition repair guy...they all should all be the boss for just a week a get a dose of reality.
I just watched Angry Joe and company tear into Five Night's At Freddy's so I feel the need to clarify my take on it.
This movie is not a masterpiece by any means and the actual horror is pretty toned down, obviously to keep it PG-13 because let's face it, it has a fairly young demographic. Though they should be able to ramp it up in future installments.
Also, the B plot of the film is neither inherently exciting nor done well and it takes up a LOT of runtime. I mean, it'd be pretty good as an Outer Limits episode, but not for a feature film.
Though I will defend the need for a B plot - every single character in this franchise is damaged in some way and the main theme of this franchise is dealing with traumatic loss. So yeah, you're going to have characters whose noodles are already al dente before they've even laid eyes on Freddy. So you have to be patient about getting to the main attraction, so to speak.
That said, this movie doesn't really have much draw as a stand-alone horror movie (it can't hold a candle to heavy-hitters like The Exorcist), which is how critics approached it, but it was decently entertaining as an extended cutscene for FNAF fans who have already played the games, which is how viewers approached it. Hence the wide gulf between critics and audience.
It being pg13 actually explains to me why they took the route they did with cgi over actual animatronics.
Haven´t watche it, just seen trailers. Nor did I play the games, though I know what they are like.
Not using actual animatronics seemed like an odd call. You can get much scarier with those.
I saw a trailer, that's about all I need.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 06, 2023, 09:06:22 AMIt being pg13 actually explains to me why they took the route they did with cgi over actual animatronics.
Haven´t watche it, just seen trailers. Nor did I play the games, though I know what they are like.
Not using actual animatronics seemed like an odd call. You can get much scarier with those.
But they...did use real animatronics. Sometimes it's people in costumes, but they used practical effects.
Oh really? Looked like cgi in the trailers, but that will be my bad.
Maybe I am mixing some things up? Could have sworn it looked cgi.
Glad to hear it though: if ever a movie had to have practical effects...
Still won´t go see it, probably, though.
I just watched The Rob Squad do a reaction video about The Truman Show, which I've never seen. Then YouTube put it up for me to see, so now I'm watching it! I already knew the basic plot, having seen commercials for it over the years, and I'm looking forward to seeing Jim Carey play Truman.
But first I have to watch The Mark Thompson Show, which used to be on KGO until the station got switched to all sports, all the time.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 06, 2023, 01:50:53 PMOh really? Looked like cgi in the trailers, but that will be my bad.
Maybe I am mixing some things up? Could have sworn it looked cgi.
Glad to hear it though: if ever a movie had to have practical effects...
Still won´t go see it, probably, though.
Yeah. From what I've heard, the set designers went to great lengths to make the experience as immersive as possible. I don't think they used CGI at all, but I could be wrong. The problem with the movie has more to do with its writing. Its tone is kinda...off. It never really gets scary. It's pretty much what you'd expect, considering its target audience is mainly children. They're not going to make a rated R horror film and alienate most of their audience. I think they were probably aiming for a Goosebumps type of experience.
Found a movie I saw once, decades ago, called The Challenge.
Stars Darren McGavin. Also has James Whitmore, Sam Elliott, and Mako. I didn't know who Mako was then, but I've seen him in several things since.
Not a bad flick as war movies go.
Okay...maybe it wasn't that great of a movie lol. FNAF has always been one of those things that requires that you ignore a lot of stuff in the name of the Rule of Cool.
I watched a movie on YouTube called Prince of Space, an MST3K movie, that wouldn't have been worth watching had it not been for the snide comments of Mike and his robot buddies. It was about aliens from a planet called Crack Whore, or at least that's what it sounded like. They wanted to take over the Earth, but were thwarted by a bootblack who was secretly a superhero that no one had ever heard of before.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 04, 2023, 11:30:19 PMTropic Thunder was a lot of fun. Had an all-star cast:
Ben Stiller
Robert Downey Jr
Jack Black
Tom Cruise
Nick Nolte
Matthew McConaughey
John Voight
Martin Lawrence
Hollywood making fun of itself!
If I hadn't read the cast list I would never have recognized Tom Cruise! 🤩
I still haven't seen it! Note taken.
Jurassic World Dominion 3/5
The subplot was a globetrotting, superfluous anti-Corp distraction. You would think dinos running around town would be enough. I ended up surfing the net while it was on. Another computer graphics wonder.
Saw it once enough.
I watched a movie called Alien Conquest yesterday, and I'm so glad that aliens no longer have to be portrayed by humans in silly makeup or suits. So computer graphics does have a role.
I just got to see Shanghai Noon, with Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson! I knew it was gonna be a lot of fun, and I wasn't wrong! Action all the way, like any other Jackie Chan movie. Loved every moment of it. 🤪
Something called Defendor popped up on my YouTube feed, so I clicked on it, expecting something similar to KickAss. Boy, was I wrong!
I didn't even know its star was Woody Harrelson. I think this was the best movie I've seen him in, although I haven't yet seen the one about Larry Flynt, which I think was probably very good.
Woody plays a guy who isn't very bright, but dresses up in a sort of costume and fights crime.
I can highly recommend this one!
I googled Woody Harrelson and checked out his list of roles on IMDB. In doing so, I found that he's in something called The Freak Brothers, which I remember from decades ago. Woody plays Franklin Freek, with John Goodman playing Fat Freddy. I've only seen a little bit of it so far, but it's pretty damned funny! 🤣
They made an animated Freak Brothers? In 2020? Produced by Courtney Solomon? WTF?
What's next Trashman starring Jason Statham?
I remember The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers being a comic book when I was much younger. I'm glad to find an animated version of it, especially with Woody!
Just watched a movie on YouTube called A Stand Up Guy, about a small-time crook who decides to rat on his buddies, gets put into the witness protection program, and becomes a stand up comic.
Only name I recognized was Bob Saget. Pretty good movie, worth watching. Well acted, good plot, characters are likeable.
Glad I watched it. 👍
Currently halfway through the goldfinch.
It isn't actually good so far.
Gf doesn't seem to like it either. But she's rhe 'lets finish it in case it turns out to be good after all' kind of gall.
Honestly, she's watched a particular movie so bland and bad three times, each time forgetting how much she didn't like nor remember it. Each time finishing it, despite me saying she didn't like it the last time :D
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZmEzMzk5ZjYtZTdlZC00ZGEwLTgxMmYtY2VmYWQwYzQzMDZmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTUzMTg2ODkz._V1_.jpg)
4 PM Central Time/USian, tomorrow. Wheeeee.
I just finished watching a movie from 1964 called Fail Safe.
Great cast, a lot of tension and very suspenseful. The acting was really good, as you would expect from such a line-up.
Scary as hell!
The plot was a bit like Dr. Strangelove, but without the comedic parts.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 03, 2023, 07:28:41 PMI just finished watching a movie from 1964 called Fail Safe.
Great cast, a lot of tension and very suspenseful. The acting was really good, as you would expect from such a line-up.
Scary as hell!
The plot was a bit like Dr. Strangelove, but without the comedic parts.
Yeah, a classic. Who was the young translator again?
Larry Hagman was the translator.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 03, 2023, 08:14:57 PMLarry Hagman was the translator.
Yeah, the progeny. His Russian was flawless, rated one of three top translators. The other two were professors of the language.
Just watched another great Jackie Chan romp, called The Tuxedo. Even more wild than his usual movies!
Watched 'the batman'
Honestly? Big 'the dark knight rises' fan. And a great fan of the dc animated flicks.
But perhaps apart from arguably 'the joker', if it counts, this is the best batman movie i've ever seen.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 04, 2023, 03:32:34 PMWatched 'the batman'
Honestly? Big 'the dark knight rises' fan. And a great fan of the dc animated flicks.
But perhaps apart from arguably 'the joker', if it counts, this is the best batman movie i've ever seen.
Might give it a shot. Not a fan of whiney superheroes, but maybe. (Don't know if this iteration skips that, haven't seen it yet.)
Well let's be honest, ever since adam west, batman has always been at least a bit emo. That is true.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 04, 2023, 03:37:35 PMWell let's be honest, ever since adam west, batman has always been at least a bit emo. That is true.
He was a comic book character, and yeah, emo. I couldn't stomach him when I was in school kid. Get Smart was more fun. (I had a shoe phone for a while, issued by the US government.)
I got to watch the original Steve McQueen movie, The Blob, from 1958! I guess I must have seen it decades ago, but didn't remember it very well. For the time it was a pretty good movie. At least the alien wasn't a person in a silly suit.
I thought there was a scene with the Blob coming out of a sink drain, but that never happened. Maybe I have Mandela syndrome...
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2023, 08:18:57 PMI thought there was a scene with the Blob coming out of a sink drain, but that never happened. Maybe I have Mandela syndrome...
Yer thinking of the 1988 remake... possibly the sequel, Beware of the Blob AKA Son of the Blob
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 08, 2023, 08:30:38 PMYer thinking of the 1988 remake... possibly the sequel, Beware of the Blob AKA Son of the Blob
Yeah, the hair salon, right?
Well blow me down! 🙄
Now I'm watching The Day of the Triffids, which I thought had Leonard Nimoy in it. Just more Mandela effect, I guess. 😎
Turns out that was Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2023, 09:05:41 PMNow I'm watching The Day of the Triffids, which I thought had Leonard Nimoy in it. Just more Mandela effect, I guess. 😎
Turns out that was Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
As I remember the movie was decent or better. The book was/is one of my favs.
I guess I must have seen it decades ago, but I don't remember any of it. I'm about a third through it so far, and I'm hoping it'll get better.
Couldn't find the clip from Beware the Blob, but it's about 35 minutes in:
I gave up on Triffids for now, in favor of Damnation Alley. I saw this one decades ago, but it's another one I barely remember at all.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2023, 09:05:41 PMNow I'm watching The Day of the Triffids, which I thought had Leonard Nimoy in it. Just more Mandela effect, I guess. 😎
Turns out that was Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Nimoy was in "THEM!" but didn't get a credit line. He was a GI working in the center where they screened reports for giant ant reports.
I like telling nurses and aides about the triffids, the rolly thing that holds the IV bags has five "feet" like the aliens.
Yeah, I saw that Nimoy was in Them when I looked at his IMDB list of movies. Another one I'm hoping to see again soon.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2023, 11:02:37 PMYeah, I saw that Nimoy was in Them when I looked at his IMDB list of movies. Another one I'm hoping to see again soon.
You gotta see "The Giant Claw".
That's one I haven't heard of. I will indeed check it out if I get the chance.
OK, I found it on YouTube, so I'll watch it asap.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2023, 10:45:42 PMI gave up on Triffids for now, in favor of Damnation Alley. I saw this one decades ago, but it's another one I barely remember at all.
I see that this movie has Madagascar hissing cockroachs! Too bad they're not the least bit dangerous. 🪳
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2023, 11:27:17 PMThat's one I haven't heard of. I will indeed check it out if I get the chance.
OK, I found it on YouTube, so I'll watch it asap.
I buy the boxed set, "50 Nightmare Worlds!" and the like. 50 really bad movies for the price of one ticket to a theater with solid gold popcorn.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 09, 2023, 12:12:48 AMI see that this movie has Madagascar hissing cockroachs! Too bad they're not the least bit dangerous. 🪳
BUT! They're mutants.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 09, 2023, 07:30:27 AMI buy the boxed set, "50 Nightmare Worlds!" and the like. 50 really bad movies for the price of one ticket to a theater with solid gold popcorn.
Too bad you don't have a couple of robots to watch them with you! 🤖
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 09, 2023, 12:20:53 PMToo bad you don't have a couple of robots to watch them with you! 🤖
Me & Boss Lady do our own riffs.
Went to see Godzilla: Minus One. It's really good. Pacing is a little all over the place sometimes, but the movie does a very good job making you care about its human characters. Godzilla in this movie is pretty freaky. Shin Godzilla looked uglier and scarier, but this Godzilla is fucking psychotic. In most movies, when Godzilla kills someone, it's not out of malice, but because it either feels threatened or simply didn't notice you. This Godzilla sees you, and it wants you dead. It's extremely aggressive. Because this movie takes place just after World War II, the country is still recovering after being nuked, its weapons decommissioned, and it's up to the private citizens to come up with their own solution. What they come up with is pretty smart. The movie kept me guessing, and I didn't see that ending coming. And never have I wanted Godzilla to die so much.
My only major gripe is that Godzilla's motivation seems unclear. When it kills people, it doesn't eat them. It just crushes them, flings them, or blows them up. So it isn't motivated by food. All we're told is that it is expanding its territory, so I guess that's why it's destroying everything? It sees humans as competition for resources? I'm not sure what those resources could be though, since deep sea fish are the only things it apparently eats.
[SPOILERS BELOW]
They changed up Godzilla a bit. Its beam attack, instead of a steady stream of energy, fires at a spot in the distance, and it's like an atomic bomb going off, blowing away anything in the vicinity. When it charges this attack, it's hurts itself. This doesn't seem to bother it much, though, because it heals ridiculously fast. The thing is like Cell from Dragon Ball. You have to completely destroy it or it will come back.
The movie has some sequel bait at the end. I'm not sure how to feel about that. This movie was a good standalone film, and I'm not sure how it will go if they expand on the story. If they bring in a second monster for Godzilla to fight, would Godzilla then become the good guy? That would feel kinda forced, unless they can pull a Terminator 2 on us somehow.
[SPOILERS ABOVE]
I hope they keep this up. The children's Godzilla & Co. wasn't much to begin with and then went down hill.
In other news, Red Kong is coming!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 14, 2023, 07:50:34 AMI hope they keep this up. The children's Godzilla & Co. wasn't much to begin with and then went down hill.
In other news, Red Kong is coming!
I've always found the idea of King Kong being on the same level as Godzilla to be completely ridiculous. Godzilla's powerset varies depending on the interpretation, but one thing he always has? Fucking nuclear laser breath. How does a giant gorilla shrug that off? lol
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 14, 2023, 01:29:43 PMI've always found the idea of King Kong being on the same level as Godzilla to be completely ridiculous. Godzilla's powerset varies depending on the interpretation, but one thing he always has? Fucking nuclear laser breath. How does a giant gorilla shrug that off? lol
The fight on Victoria Island was rife with near misses and spectacular reflexes.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 14, 2023, 01:29:43 PMI've always found the idea of King Kong being on the same level as Godzilla to be completely ridiculous. Godzilla's powerset varies depending on the interpretation, but one thing he always has? Fucking nuclear laser breath. How does a giant gorilla shrug that off? lol
(https://media1.tenor.com/m/FDufXiYp1HkAAAAd/king-kong-son-of-kong.gif)
I just finished watching Star Trek Into Darkness. Great movie! Nothing but action from beginning to end! Good plot, great acting, a very enjoyable time was had!
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 22, 2023, 12:59:47 AMI just finished watching Star Trek Into Darkness. Great movie! Nothing but action from beginning to end! Good plot, great acting, a very enjoyable time was had!
First time I saw Benedict Cumberbatch. Lovely villain.
Yeah, I kinda missed Ricardo Montalban as Kahn, but Cumberbatch did a very good job of playing a bad guy.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 22, 2023, 10:51:33 AMYeah, I kinda missed Ricardo Montalban as Kahn, but Cumberbatch did a very good job of playing a bad guy.
High Snicker Factor with Ricardo. Couldn't help myself.
Watching a movie sponsored by the Podiatrist Association. Called "Tojira". Not sure what to make of it, but it has sole.
Just finished watching The Survivors, with Robin Williams, Walter Matthau and Jerry Reed! Great movie, and Robin Williams and Walter Matthau are two of my favorite actors.
I remember watching that one, but that's all I remember.
Well, you should probably watch it again, it would be worth your time. I really enjoyed it, and might just watch it again myself.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 24, 2023, 09:26:11 PMWell, you should probably watch it again, it would be worth your time. I really enjoyed it, and might just watch it again myself.
Not motivational.
Vincent Schiavelli, the subway guy in Ghost, was (briefly) in a western with Gene Wilder and Harrison Ford, called The Frisco Kid.
Very well done, and a lot of fun!
And Gene didn't do a whole lot of yelling in this one. 🤣
The Color Purple 💜
It was a very emotional movie to say the least. Great musical numbers, too. And an overall good message. I can see why the book was such a hit.
Wait. They made a musical out of the Color Purple?
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 26, 2023, 12:08:55 AMWait. They made a musical out of the Color Purple?
Wkik says the 2023 movie of the same name is a "coming-of-age musical period drama" and having seen it, I concur with this assessment.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 26, 2023, 01:04:35 AMWkik says the 2023 movie of the same name is a "coming-of-age musical period drama" and having seen it, I concur with this assessment.
Well, Whoopi.
Just finished watching Real Steel, with Hugh Jackman. Reminded me of that old Twilight Zone episode called Steel, with Lee Marvin and Jack Klugman.
It also reminded me a bit of Robot Jox, but those robots were gigantic.
I bet the kid in this one had a lot of fun! 🤖
As I was watching A-X-L again, just as the robot dog was attacking a guy, I got a notification for a TBBT video about Sheldon getting attacked by a dog! 🤣
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 26, 2023, 10:15:23 PMJust finished watching Real Steel, with Hugh Jackman. Reminded me of that old Twilight Zone episode called Steel, with Lee Marvin and Jack Klugman.
How weird since this came across my plate today, so I recently looked it up. And there's a reason you're reminded. Both are based on the same Richard Matheson 1956 short story, also called "Steel" like the Twilight Zone episode.
Godzilla Minus One
There's been a lot of buzz over this movie, so I decided to see for myself.
Incidentally, the movie-going experience has become a nightmare, as usual, and the meme stocks are doing super good because I saw this in an AMC and was surprised that a cockroach didn't scan my phone ticket thing.
So, a lot of the hype is that it may be the best Godzilla movie ever made with Dark Knight-esque Oscar buzz (remember how that turned out?) So, is it?
I dunno, but it's pretty good.
I will say that it has strong focus on the human characters, particularly the main character who has a heartbreaking arch who must overcome multiple personal obstacles to earn the victory he gets at the end. Godzilla movies often have scenes of people talking in a room, which makes sense. A giant fire-breathing lizard is a problem that will take planning and cooperation to solve, but they're usually boring and I find myself wondering where the big lizard who breaks stuff is. Well, I didn't do that here. It's compelling drama. They could rewrite it so they're deciding who gets the last Mallowmar and it would work, probably. I won't disappoint you by attempting to summarize the plot. Just see the movie. It's good.
I should note that unlike the Godzilla movies of my youth that were all dubbed poorly, this is subtitled, so a lot of reading. And I still got into the characters. The cherry on top is the monster attacks are pretty cool, too.
Truth be told , I haven't been watching the "monsterverse" movies because I don't care. So I don't have much of a yard stick for the state of special effects. I don't really watch movies anymore.
But, the monster attacks are pretty cool. Big G is used sparingly because of all the human plot to hold the movie up, but when he is used, they fucking use him. He's pretty fucking brutal in the initial attack. The devastation is also weighty They made it look like the city was just fucked.
The effects are important because the movie was allegedly made for less than $15million and has so far grossed $77M. I guess many of the big block busters have underperformed lately. So Godzilla Minus One is a lesson to Hollywood. So maybe we'll get a bunch of cheaper but better movies in the future. However Hollywood is pretty good at taking the completely wrong lesson, so time will tell.
So it's a good movie, but I'm not sure if it's a great movie. I'll have to let it sit and see if I feel any compulsion to watch it again. That doesn't happen as often as it used to. It's a matter of whether it stays with me or not.
My Super Ex-girlfriend is a romantic comedy, which I'm not usually into, but it was cute, fun, and it had a lot of good action scenes. I only knew one of the actors, though, Rainn Wilson, from The Office, which I've never watched a full episode of.
Gojira Minus One manifests the angst the Japanese people felt after finding out the military and government had lied to them about the progress of the war for years. "A new and terrible weapons" indeed.
I saw the original (the Gene Barry mangled version (but we didn't know that at the time) at the drive-in c. 1957.) I thought it was cool. Strangely, Rodan scared me more than Godzilla. That Rodan was on the level of "The Giant Claw".
The new Gojira features an experimental Shinden fighter, very cool.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/W/MEDIAX_792452-T2/images/I/51iB0xCAh2L.jpg)
The gf, a kindergarten teacher, is on holiday.
Which means she can stay up later and likes to watch tv and movies with me.
She tapes a lot of them, with the digicorder. But our tastes often don't mix very well.
She tapes 'songbird'.
I read the premise and already had my doubts. I told her i couldn't imagine it being a great film, but she kept being interested.
We are giving it a chance now.
I'm not 20 minutes in, but i am already fearing my gut feeling was right.this seems like an utter, boring, mess.
Believe me, you are not missing out if you've never watched this.
If i get persuaded, throughout the film, i'll amend my statement. But it would have to start kicking ass real hard, real fast.
That said, sometimes, she picks out great films that i wouldn't have given a go.
Yesterday we watched 'in darkness' and that was a gem.
Edit: on 'songbird' even the gf fell asleep at 21 minutes.
I stand vindicated in my prior assesment.
Flaming heap of garbage.
Boss Lady and I are generally synced. I like Poirot enough to sit through them with her, and we both like monumentally stupid movies, like "Lesbian Vampire Killers". The spectrum wanders around a bit in the middle.
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 27, 2023, 10:31:18 PMGodzilla Minus One
There's been a lot of buzz over this movie, so I decided to see for myself.
Incidentally, the movie-going experience has become a nightmare, as usual, and the meme stocks are doing super good because I saw this in an AMC and was surprised that a cockroach didn't scan my phone ticket thing.
So, a lot of the hype is that it may be the best Godzilla movie ever made with Dark Knight-esque Oscar buzz (remember how that turned out?) So, is it?
I dunno, but it's pretty good.
I will say that it has strong focus on the human characters, particularly the main character who has a heartbreaking arch who must overcome multiple personal obstacles to earn the victory he gets at the end. Godzilla movies often have scenes of people talking in a room, which makes sense. A giant fire-breathing lizard is a problem that will take planning and cooperation to solve, but they're usually boring and I find myself wondering where the big lizard who breaks stuff is. Well, I didn't do that here. It's compelling drama. They could rewrite it so they're deciding who gets the last Mallowmar and it would work, probably. I won't disappoint you by attempting to summarize the plot. Just see the movie. It's good.
I should note that unlike the Godzilla movies of my youth that were all dubbed poorly, this is subtitled, so a lot of reading. And I still got into the characters. The cherry on top is the monster attacks are pretty cool, too.
Truth be told , I haven't been watching the "monsterverse" movies because I don't care. So I don't have much of a yard stick for the state of special effects. I don't really watch movies anymore.
But, the monster attacks are pretty cool. Big G is used sparingly because of all the human plot to hold the movie up, but when he is used, they fucking use him. He's pretty fucking brutal in the initial attack. The devastation is also weighty They made it look like the city was just fucked.
The effects are important because the movie was allegedly made for less than $15million and has so far grossed $77M. I guess many of the big block busters have underperformed lately. So Godzilla Minus One is a lesson to Hollywood. So maybe we'll get a bunch of cheaper but better movies in the future. However Hollywood is pretty good at taking the completely wrong lesson, so time will tell.
So it's a good movie, but I'm not sure if it's a great movie. I'll have to let it sit and see if I feel any compulsion to watch it again. That doesn't happen as often as it used to. It's a matter of whether it stays with me or not.
Minor spoilers, but I love that the conflict comes down to volunteers choosing to work together to defeat Godzilla. No conscriptions, just people who believe in the plan and want to do something about it. To paraphrase from memory, my favorite line goes like this: "This country has treated life very cheaply. Kamikaze fighters, planes built without ejector seats or parachutes. Not anymore. We're not making any more sacrifices. This time, we fight for life."
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 29, 2023, 01:13:43 PMMinor spoilers, but I love that the conflict comes down to volunteers choosing to work together to defeat Godzilla. No conscriptions, just people who believe in the plan and want to do something about it. To paraphrase from memory, my favorite line goes like this: "This country has treated life very cheaply. Kamikaze fighters, planes built without ejector seats or parachutes. Not anymore. We're not making any more sacrifices. This time, we fight for life."
And the military needed to take blame for all that death and destruction. OR they needed to get the fuck out of the way.
BTW, I'm not aware of any fighters that made it to combat that had ejector seats during the war. The kikusui units didn't need, obviously, and with so much fighting taking place over the oceans ejector seats didn't seem like a good idea, the development would eat resources needed elsewhere.
Just finished a movie called Skiptrace, with Jackie Chan and Johnny Knoxville. They were very good together, as would be expected. Another great action packed thriller, set in some pretty exotic locations, like Mongolia and Hong Kong.
Top notch! 👍
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 22, 2023, 12:59:47 AMI just finished watching Star Trek Into Darkness. Great movie! Nothing but action from beginning to end! Good plot, great acting, a very enjoyable time was had!
I'm glad you liked it. For me, though, it was the first and so far only movie that ever made me leave the theater angry. I thought the first third was awesome, which made it all the worse when the last two thirds were the most horribly scripted garbage I've ever seen. And I'm a Godzilla fan, so it's not like I'm some cinema snob who's above watching garbage. SF Debris did a good review of it which pretty much matches my thoughts, so I won't repeat them here, but man... that movie made me mad. I still haven't watched Star Trek Beyond because of it: that movie could be the best thing ever made, and I'd still refuse to see it just because of how much the one before it put me off.
Quote from: the_antithesis on December 27, 2023, 10:31:18 PMGodzilla Minus One
There's been a lot of buzz over this movie, so I decided to see for myself.
Incidentally, the movie-going experience has become a nightmare, as usual, and the meme stocks are doing super good because I saw this in an AMC and was surprised that a cockroach didn't scan my phone ticket thing.
So, a lot of the hype is that it may be the best Godzilla movie ever made with Dark Knight-esque Oscar buzz (remember how that turned out?) So, is it?
I dunno, but it's pretty good.
I will say that it has strong focus on the human characters, particularly the main character who has a heartbreaking arch who must overcome multiple personal obstacles to earn the victory he gets at the end. Godzilla movies often have scenes of people talking in a room, which makes sense. A giant fire-breathing lizard is a problem that will take planning and cooperation to solve, but they're usually boring and I find myself wondering where the big lizard who breaks stuff is. Well, I didn't do that here. It's compelling drama. They could rewrite it so they're deciding who gets the last Mallowmar and it would work, probably. I won't disappoint you by attempting to summarize the plot. Just see the movie. It's good.
I should note that unlike the Godzilla movies of my youth that were all dubbed poorly, this is subtitled, so a lot of reading. And I still got into the characters. The cherry on top is the monster attacks are pretty cool, too.
Truth be told , I haven't been watching the "monsterverse" movies because I don't care. So I don't have much of a yard stick for the state of special effects. I don't really watch movies anymore.
But, the monster attacks are pretty cool. Big G is used sparingly because of all the human plot to hold the movie up, but when he is used, they fucking use him. He's pretty fucking brutal in the initial attack. The devastation is also weighty They made it look like the city was just fucked.
The effects are important because the movie was allegedly made for less than $15million and has so far grossed $77M. I guess many of the big block busters have underperformed lately. So Godzilla Minus One is a lesson to Hollywood. So maybe we'll get a bunch of cheaper but better movies in the future. However Hollywood is pretty good at taking the completely wrong lesson, so time will tell.
So it's a good movie, but I'm not sure if it's a great movie. I'll have to let it sit and see if I feel any compulsion to watch it again. That doesn't happen as often as it used to. It's a matter of whether it stays with me or not.
I've seen every Godzilla film at least once, and Minus One is the only one where I ever felt scared for the main characters. They really outdid themselves with this film. I was particularly impressed with how well the soundtrack triggered an emotional response in me. The track "Divine," for example, is exactly what hopelessness sounds like.
No props for the original Serizawa? He went kamikaze in the hope of saving the world. No greater love...
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 30, 2023, 02:46:55 AMI'm glad you liked it. For me, though, it was the first and so far only movie that ever made me leave the theater angry. I thought the first third was awesome, which made it all the worse when the last two thirds were the most horribly scripted garbage I've ever seen. And I'm a Godzilla fan, so it's not like I'm some cinema snob who's above watching garbage. SF Debris did a good review of it which pretty much matches my thoughts, so I won't repeat them here, but man... that movie made me mad. I still haven't watched Star Trek Beyond because of it: that movie could be the best thing ever made, and I'd still refuse to see it just because of how much the one before it put me off.
Lucky for me I have very low standards when it comes to movies! 🤣
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 30, 2023, 02:46:55 AMI'm glad you liked it. For me, though, it was the first and so far only movie that ever made me leave the theater angry. I thought the first third was awesome, which made it all the worse when the last two thirds were the most horribly scripted garbage I've ever seen. And I'm a Godzilla fan, so it's not like I'm some cinema snob who's above watching garbage. SF Debris did a good review of it which pretty much matches my thoughts, so I won't repeat them here, but man... that movie made me mad. I still haven't watched Star Trek Beyond because of it: that movie could be the best thing ever made, and I'd still refuse to see it just because of how much the one before it put me off.
I haven't seen it, either, but you might want to consider giving Star Trek Beyond a chance. Simon Pegg took over writing it and corrected the trajectory a bit. Maybe not enough, but the RedLetterMedia guy, who is a massive Trek nerd, gave it the high praise of saying that it's like there's something you love that you thought was dead and then there's a blip on the monitor. It's not completely dead yet. It is the one of those three films that he actually enjoyed.
Watching "Quatermass and the Pit", 1967. I only saw part of it the first time. 16 years old and a driver's license. It was a good year.
Recently I watched "Hunting Emma", a 2017 film from South Africa (dialog in Afrikaans with English sub-titles).
I thought that it was a good movie, not great, but good in that it was a feel good, victim kicks ass flick with good cinematography.
WARNING: The rest of my review is just a big fucking spoiler!!!! -- ok, you've been warned The main character, Emma Le Roux, is a mid 20's kindergarten teacher who is traveling by car for the holidays to her father's farm in a remote part of the Karoo, when her car breaks down. The area is too remote for cell phone coverage, so she walks down the road to see if she can find any help. Not far away, she comes upon a group of 6 men who were in the process of transporting a large shipment of illegal drugs when they were stopped by a traffic policeman. As she approaches, she witnesses one of the men shooting the police officer. Seeing Emma, the men decide to rape and kill her.
When the men are distracted by the not yet dead policeman escaping, Emma seizes the opportunity to break free and escape with a knife carelessly left behind by one of the men. Before the men realizes that she is gone, she gets to her car, and picks up her hiking gear from the trunk, and flees into the veld. Realizing that she has escaped, the men begin their pursuit of Emma.
In a series of flashbacks, the viewer learns that Emma was trained in survival and self defense from the time that she was a small girl by her father, Jacques, a former Special Forces Commando, and surviving in the wilderness of the veld was a part of her childhood experience.
So, the plot begins to unfold in a classic tale of the hunters becoming the hunted, as beautiful sweet young Emma draws upon the skills she learned years ago from her father, and kills the murderous assholes one by one as she makes her way through the wilderness to the family home.
I enjoyed the movie. The plot was fairly simple, and although there were a few twists, it was mostly predictable. The hunted, a young woman who seems at first to be a likely victim, overcomes the odds to become the victorious heroine, and the bad guys all die in miserable ways. So, if you are into that kind of story, watching it is a feel good experience. Also, the movie, filmed in the Karoo of South Africa, was visually stunning.
Totally not intended, but pretty interesting observation.
Note: When viewed on YouTube, the video would loop. So that's why it ends abruptly. It's meant to loop seamlessly. lol
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 04, 2024, 11:37:12 PM
Totally not intended, but pretty interesting observation.
Note: When viewed on YouTube, the video would loop. So that's why it ends abrupted. It's meant to loop seamlessly. lol
Fun historical fact: in the US, tomatoes were banned for a while.
We look at that today and think they were stupid as hell for banning such an obviously quite safe and nutritious fruit (yes, it's a fruit). The thing is, at the time wealthy people were eating off pewter plates... It didn't take long for people to get suspicious of the tomatoes.
Of course, at the time, people in other parts of the world (and also some parts of the US) were eating tomatoes and surviving just fine, so that was a big hint that the tomatoes themselves weren't the problem. Eventually Robert Gibbon Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gibbon_Johnson)and Michele Felice Cornè (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Felice_Corn%C3%A8) helped allay American fears, while Alexander W. Livingston (http://www.saveseeds.org/biography/livingston/index.html) made them look much more appealing by selectively breeding those big round tomatoes we know today (for some reason, he has a french-language wiki page but not an english-language one, despite you know, being an American historical figure)
As he didn't make the wiki I would suspect those that did were Francophones.
Nightshade fruits do have small amounts of toxins that deter insects, most can handle it. Best to not eat a lot of green tomatoes. The plant world is a secret chemical battlefield.
When I was a kid we often had fried green tomatoes. Very tasty!
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 05, 2024, 10:53:25 AMWhen I was a kid we often had fried green tomatoes. Very tasty!
Well you gonna rate that movie?
It's a movie?.🤔
So I just watched an interesting theory...a film theory...about Fight Club.
Fight Club is a strange movie with an unreliable and unnamed narrator with a heckuva twist towards the end. Like a bunch of films (Joker and Blair Witch 2 come to mind), just piecing together what really happened and what didn't happen is an open question for the audience.
So what if I told you that neither Tyler Durden nor Marla Singer are real? Marla is not a real person but another alter ego - Marla represents the narrator's feminine side as opposed to Tyler representing his masculine side.
Source (https://www.jackdurden.com/)
(technically, Tyler Durden is the narrator's real name - hence the plane ticket with his name on it - but that name is used in the movie to refer to the narrator's alter ego, a hypermasculine but immature and ultimately rejected version of the narrator, hence his "death". So for simplicity's sake I'll use Tyler Durden for the character played by Brad Pitt and narrator for the character played by Edward Norton)
The most compelling hint imo is that very few people ever directly interact with Marla, very similarly to the Tyler Durden persona. She's very much like a ghost in the world yet the narrator cares about her deeply.
Never heard of it, but I'll check it out if I can.
Good chick flick night when doubled with "Steel Magnolias".
Quote from: Cassia on January 05, 2024, 11:50:48 AMWell you gonna rate that movie?
I love that movie. Great acting and great story. And it was the first movie I took my future (#2) wife. We both love it and it is still good to watch to this day. Took her to The Last of the Mohicans for the second movie of my future wife. And I love that one, too; the theme song is one of the best songs of all time.
The Last of the Mohicans was a great movie!
I think you need to be more specific.
Well, hardly anyone remembers the next-to-the-last Mohican.
QuoteLeather Stocking (1909) directed by David Wark Griffith;
The Last of the Mohicans a 1911 version starring James Cruze directed by Theodore Marston;
The Last of the Mohicans (1920), starring Wallace Beery;
The Last of the Mohicans (1932), a serial version starring Harry Carey;
The Last of the Mohicans (1936) starring Randolph Scott and Bruce Cabot;
Last of the Redmen (1947) starring Jon Hall and Michael O'Shea;
The Iroquois Trail (1950) starring George Montgomery;
Fall of the Mohicans (1965) starring Jack Taylor, José Marco (José Joandó Roselló), Luis Induni and Daniel Martin;
The Last of the Mohicans (1968);
Last of the Mohicans (1977);
The Last of the Mohicans (1992), starring Daniel Day-Lewis.
I guess I was referring to the last The Last of the Mohicans. I don't think I've ever seen any of those inferior ones.
"Drums Along the Mohawk" is a good period piece. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031252/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
I finally got to see Mystery Men, which is kinda misnamed, since there was a woman in the mix.
It was a lot of fun, good plot, great cast.
🤣
I thought Son of the Mask would be a wild ride, but it was even more wild than I expected!
I didn't recognize very many of the actors, but Ben Stein made a brief appearance (lets just say he lost a lot of face), and one of the ladies who played Monk's assistant (Traylor Howard).
Johnny English Reborn was funny, with Rowan Atkinson reprising his role as the eponymous Johnny English. Kind of a cross between James Bond, Maxwell Smart and Mr. Magoo.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 10, 2024, 01:31:10 AMJohnny English Reborn was funny, with Rowan Atkinson reprising his role as the eponymous Johnny English. Kind of a cross between James Bond, Maxwell Smart and Mr. Magoo.
They made a second movie after all this time? And it's actually good?
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 10, 2024, 02:43:04 AMThey made a second movie after all this time? And it's actually good?
Reborn is from 2011.
The third movie, Johnny English Strikes Again came out in 2018.
I still haven't yet seen Johnny English 2, but I plan to look for it today. Hope I can find it, and that it's free.
Not that I can't afford it, it's just that I don't know how to spend money with my phone, and don't care to learn how, since I'd probably spend all my meager savings if I knew how to do so.
You just said you'd watched Johnny English 2. You're looking for 3.
Oh, I see! I was under the impression that the second movie was different from Reborn, but, having googled it, I discovered that, indeed, I am looking for the third installment of the franchise.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!🖖
(https://www.spectatornews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/ouroboros-uroboros-serpent-snake-vintage-woodcut-2G4FFEW-820x900.jpeg)
Watches Johnny English Reborn.
Searches for second film in the series.
The Lake, a Hollywood/Thailand joint production. Badly dubbed, zippers showing, plot diaphanous. Loved it. On Prime.
Well, I got to see the third in the series, Johnny English Strikes Again. It was just as silly as the first two were! We even got to see Rowan's cute little butt! 🤣
I finally got to see the Dr. Phibes movies. Phibes was abominable in the first one, but then he rose again.
A lot of inventive ways to kill people! 💀😱
"Predestination". Australian production of a movie "based on" "All You Zombies", by Robert Anson Heinlein. Convoluted time travel story about a person who is their own mother and father. Good atmosphere, our Hero is believable. He makes a living writing unwed mother stories.
"I know where I came from, but what about all you zombies?"
2014, Ethan Hawk and Sarah Snook.
Recommended for Halloween or to trip out some stick-in-the-mud.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 15, 2024, 06:46:32 AM"Predestination". Australian production of a movie "based on" "All You Zombies", by Robert Anson Heinlein. Convoluted time travel story about a person who is their own mother and father. Good atmosphere, our Hero is believable. He makes a living writing unwed mother stories.
"I know where I came from, but what about all you zombies?"
2014, Ethan Hawk and Sarah Snook.
Recommended for Halloween or to trip out some stick-in-the-mud.
Or to trip out someone who's tripping out?
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/3oKGzhms9ZvdlqGGJ2/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 15, 2024, 06:46:32 AM"Predestination". Australian production of a movie "based on" "All You Zombies", by Robert Anson Heinlein. Convoluted time travel story about a person who is their own mother and father. Good atmosphere, our Hero is believable. He makes a living writing unwed mother stories.
"I know where I came from, but what about all you zombies?"
2014, Ethan Hawk and Sarah Snook.
Recommended for Halloween or to trip out some stick-in-the-mud.
I read that a long time ago. Great story! I didn't know it was made into a movie, I'll see if I can find it on YouTube.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 15, 2024, 10:26:02 AMOr to trip out someone who's tripping out?
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/3oKGzhms9ZvdlqGGJ2/giphy.gif)
Mandelbrot zooms are probably good for that! 😵
La sociedad de la nieve.
Really good movie.
Never saw alive, bur i'm wondering if this one was better.
There have been three feature films based on the incident and uncountable documentaries and references in tv show and the like. The 1993 movie apparently dumbed things down and tried to make a feel-good movie out of it, I guess.
I just finished watching a movie on YouTube called Asockalypse, about aliens who need our socks to power their ship. Some stoners have to stop them by using cannabis, which is like kryptonite to the aliens.
Pretty funny, with a beautiful babe (one of the aliens) named Bubbles, who is very...bubbly.
Anybody else watching the Monarch series on Apple+?
I would if I had Apple+.
The budget is lavish.
I've just finished watching The Last Supper! What a strange movie. Among the cast were Cameron Diaz, Ron Perlman, Bill Paxton (briefly), and Jason Alexander (even more briefly).
No special effects, no intense stuntwork, just a very intriguing story.
💥
Cloverfield was scary as hell! I had no idea what to expect, so I was completely unprepared for it.
It was kind of like a Godzilla movie, in which one of the characters is about to go to Japan but the giant monster attacks New York instead, before he can leave. The monster doesn't look like Godzilla, but it was just as mean and nasty!
I think I need therapy after seeing it! I know the characters in the movie will.
😱
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d5/46/fd/d546fd772f79de412c31c938868f61ae.jpg)
I thought I remembered people being disappointed by the monster in Cloverfield. I never saw it myself.
I don't know where the title of the movie came from - maybe the main character's name was Cloverfield?
🤔
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 22, 2024, 10:42:55 PMI thought I remembered people being disappointed by the monster in Cloverfield. I never saw it myself.
I don't know why anyone would be disappointed in the monster, it was pretty terrifying.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 22, 2024, 10:42:55 PMI thought I remembered people being disappointed by the monster in Cloverfield. I never saw it myself.
They were disappointed it wasn't Voltron. (https://screenrant.com/cloverfield-movie-connection-voltron-movie-fan-theory-explained/)
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 22, 2024, 10:43:27 PMI don't know where the title of the movie came from - maybe the main character's name was Cloverfield?
🤔
Wasn't it 'found footage', with ny totally levelled the place it was douns was renamed cloverfield.
Qomething like that
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 22, 2024, 10:02:22 PM(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d5/46/fd/d546fd772f79de412c31c938868f61ae.jpg)
Reminds me of Matt Frank's concept for a version of Godzilla more resembling his namesake. Gojira is a combination of gorilla and kujira (whale). So he made a gorilla-whale.
(https://i.redd.it/msyytvrg8dlb1.jpg)
Most, if not all, footage from Cloverfield was supposed to be "found footage". It was "pieced together" after the military snuffed our first interstellar visitor. Rude, that.
Ultraviolet, with Milla Jovovich, was pretty good. A lot of action, weird plot, but I didn't know any of the other actors.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 27, 2024, 12:04:16 AMUltraviolet, with Milla Jovovich, was pretty good. A lot of action, weird plot, but I didn't know any of the other actors.
Yeah, that plot was strange. Imagine some weird virus causing a dystopia...
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 27, 2024, 12:34:04 AMYeah, that plot was strange. Imagine some weird virus causing a dystopia...
"It can't happen here."
Repeat as needed.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 27, 2024, 12:34:04 AMYeah, that plot was strange. Imagine some weird virus causing a dystopia...
I'm still waiting for a zombie movie where people are actively denying the zombies' existence even as they're being torn apart by a group of them.
In The Walking Dead comic books, one character willingly walks up to the zombies to be devoured. It was played as tragic and sad and terrifying in the comic when in real life, it'd either be unremarkable or they'd be weirdly lauded for their "principled" politically-orthodox stance.
Just finished watching Redneck Roots, a pretty funny story about, well, rednecks. Don't know any of the actors, but they did a good job.
Rednecks come from being out in the sun to work a farm.
Yeah, a radio guy in the movie encouraged his listeners to wear plenty of sunscreen because the region had enough rednecks already. 🤣
This has to be one of my favorite movie scenes ever. Musical prodigy is fascinating. My sweetheart has a classical background in music. A rock band auditioned him a few weeks ago. He just nailed it (including that long piano solo from "Riders on the Storm" by The Doors. He found the sheet music online.) Afterwards they mentioned that he knew their songs better than they do and they have been playing many of them since High School.
Didn't that emperor guy play in Howard the Duck? 🦆
🤔
Oh, I think he may have played in Beetlejuice as well.
Beuller Beuller
In 2003, Jones pleaded no contest to a charge of soliciting a minor to pose for nude photographs and had subsequent arrests for failing to update his sex offender status.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 30, 2024, 02:35:05 AMBeuller Beuller
In 2003, Jones pleaded no contest to a charge of soliciting a minor to pose for nude photographs and had subsequent arrests for failing to update his sex offender status.
LOL
"Swamp Monster". Bella Lugosi 'Nuff said.
Just finished watching The Contract, with Morgan Freeman and John Cusack. As per his usual, Morgan Freeman (who's been making movies since 1964) was very good. And John Cusack was awesome as well.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 05, 2024, 12:21:20 AMJust finished watching The Contract, with Morgan Freeman and John Cusack. As per his usual, Morgan Freeman (who's been making movies since 1964) was very good. And John Cusack was awesome as well.
Cusack is normally pretty good but I didn't make it through "The Raven".
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a rating of 22% based on 141 reviews, with an average rating of 4.6/10. The site's critics consensus states: "Thinly scripted, unevenly acted, and overall preposterous, The Raven disgraces the legacy of Edgar Allen [sic] Poe with a rote murder mystery that's more silly than scary.
I've never seen The Raven. I guess I didn't miss anything.
Confession: I actually really enjoy movies that don't have this "clean" aesthetic, like The Lighthouse or Joker. Even scifi, where this sort of aesthetic would work best to highlight a futuristic society, I don't particularly like it.
(https://lozierinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Moon-Sam-Gerty.jpg)
Imagine if this dusty, blocky machine looked like a flawless white iPod. Would that improve the film? Hell no. In fact, the wear and tear is a big ol' hint to the movie's big reveal.
Last night I watched Spaced Invaders. It was funny, but it wasn't exactly award-worthy. 😎
Confession: I actually really enjoy movies that don't have this "clean" aesthetic
Agreed. Those fake armies in the Hobbit movies had cool moves and all, but it was kinda cheap-looking, IMHO.
Much better disciplined than Thanos's troops in "End Game".
Quote from: Cassia on February 09, 2024, 11:45:53 AMConfession: I actually really enjoy movies that don't have this "clean" aesthetic
Agreed. Those fake armies in the Hobbit movies had cool moves and all, but it was kinda cheap-looking, IMHO.
Clean/dirty is somewhat a separate thing from CGI. CGI is much maligned but it can be actually really amazing. LOTR used CGI quite a lot - Treebeard and crew were especially conspicuous - but the show did it well. I don't know exactly why, but something just feels off about The Hobbit cgi armies that didn't feel off with Treebeard.
Everything looks fine in isolation, probably even more polygons and megapixels or whatever than the LOTR movies. If only there were something I could point to in order to show how "off" it was...
(https://external-preview.redd.it/0auGwddJJqkM9svKMGaQY4-u7paYKRHuv_vi8jY43Vs.jpg?auto=webp&s=f4380b5596c348d82736b0d3da028db2bbdfb51b)
Well, there it is. Behold, the Battle of the Clone Tool
And throughout much of the film, there's so little visual distinction between characters - not just the big melee with scores of nearly identical troops, but so little visual distinction within the main cast.
(https://i.imgur.com/WqKgkni.png)
I dare you to tell me any of their names (except Bilbo and Gandalf) or literally any fact about any of them other than the obvious (I already know they're dwarves). I watched the movies and I could maybe only get one or two of them right, even under duress. They might as well be turkeys.
Bombar Biffer Bofur, Dwalin, Balin, Killi, Filli, just off the top of my head. Spelling may be off. I took the Lord of the Rings to Vietnam with me.
And thorin.
Ps 'bombur' and 'biffur'
Also oin and gloin
Blanking on the final three.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 10, 2024, 07:49:30 AMAnd thorin.
Ps 'bombur' and 'biffur'
Also oin and gloin
Blanking on the final three.
Thorin was too easy, so I punted that one.
Dwalin, Balin, Kili, Fili, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, and Thorin
So, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1 (23231)
Just watched a Sean Connery movie called The Anderson Tapes. No CGI, just an old fashioned good movie.
Also had Christopher Walken in his early 20s.
It's about a burglar who gets out of prison after doing 10 years and goes right back to his profession.
Those don't even sound real. Dwalin...the dwarf? In that case, meet my coworker hu...*thinking*...matt. Humatt the human. A perfectly normal, believable name.
It's fantasy. They usually have stupid names.
At least there's no apostrophes.
Quote from: the_antithesis on February 10, 2024, 11:18:13 PMIt's fantasy. They usually have stupid names.
At least there's no apostrophes.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/047/615/Well_thats_alright_then.jpg)
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 11, 2024, 01:06:58 AM(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/047/615/Well_thats_alright_then.jpg)
I don't know what to tell you, man. It's been decades since I read the Hobbit, but I recall most of the Dwarves had no real character in the book, either. Maybe a couple of them had moments, but mostly they were just this nameless, shapeless blob called "the Dwarves."
So if anything, the movies tried too hard to try to make them into distinct characters. They should have all looked the same and then the two or three main ones could have all the lines and moments or whatever.
I mean, look at these chodes:
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjExNTE2MDc1NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzA1NTY0NQ@@._V1_.jpg)
What are any of those character's names? Don't matter.
Well, they had three whole movies to characterize the dwarves and make us care about them, but they made up a bunch of new characters instead.
I saw a limited showing of Final Fantasy VII Advent Children Complete. It's a new edition of a movie that originally came out in 2005, where they apparently responded to some criticisms by adding in some new scenes.
It's funny. I remember this movie looking so cool back then. When the movie released, it boosted sales of PS3s, because people were under the assumption that the inevitable FFVII remake would release on it. Little did they know they'd have quite a bit more waiting to do.
Now there's a video game series (the "Remakes") that looks so much better. Still looks fine. Just a bit dated now. The newly added scenes are of noticeably higher quality, although they stuck to the original style very well.
More importantly, though, the new scenes help with the pacing and storytelling. In the original movie, I remember this kid named Denzel just sort of being there. Didn't know where he came from. Didn't know anything about him, other than that Cloud and Tifa were helping care for him because he was sick. The Complete version of the movie gives us some much needed context, so we can actually give a damn about him.
The movie is also full of that classic anime cheese. Without knowing the original game's lore, I imagine it's very confusing. It's basically three grown men running around asking "where's mother?" for two hours. As someone who is pretty familiar with the lore, I still find it goofy, but enjoyable.
It's a pretty interesting concept. After being killed in the game, Sephiroth's soul poisons the Lifestream, causing this sickness called Geo Stigma to spread. In the game, Sephiroth was dead before the beginning of the story, but his will was so strong, he was able to retain his consciousness and manipulate people until he found a way back. So Sephiroth sticking around post-mortem is something that was previously established to be a thing he could do. Kinda makes you wonder if he could ever be extinguished forever, or if he'll just be this eternal threat like their universe's Ganon.
It also makes sense that Cloud would still have some issues to work out. After the events of the game. He still feels responsible for the *SPOILERS* death of his friend, so it doesn't feel out of character when he retreats in self-pity and guilt. I like when Cloud has a vision of Aerith and he says, "I think I'd like forgiveness." And she replies, "From who?" This both shows that she never blamed him in the first place, and that the only person who needs to forgive Cloud is Cloud. By the end of the movie, he's finally opened up to his friends and moved on from his grief.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 22, 2024, 02:31:22 AMWithout knowing the original game's lore, I imagine it's very confusing. It's basically three grown men running around asking "where's mother?" for two hours. As someone who is pretty familiar with the lore, I still find it goofy, but enjoyable.
That was my intro to Final Fantasy. It was incredibly confusing, to say the least. I basically pieced together that Cloud had killed Jehova or whatever in an earlier show or game and those guys were her henchmen, trying to bring her back. That and the rain is sickening people somehow, though they seem to just wallow in it instead of doing something about it.
Cloud is sad and angsty, but eventually he gets his head in the game and fights, with the most ridiculous air combo I've ever seen in my life. It'd be tough to pull off that stunt on the moon.
I could get more out of it if I had played the original game, but iirc in those games, summon spells are essentially magical nukes rather than you know, summoned beings that stick around for a while and follow basic commands or follow their own will. Summons are summons, not evocations!
That and I have literally no idea how the technology works in that setting. People get around in Akira-like bikes or some big deviant-art-looking canine or just walk, I guess. And then they fight people/beasts/dragons/gods by hitting them with some big-ass 50-pound sword and/or shoot them with guns and/or just kick them, which I guess works equally well.
And the outfits are strange to put it mildly. It's like someone combined Bayonetta with Devil May Cry and then had a blind fashion designer make it while under duress.
The only thing I think is actually cool is the Punnett
square tesseract that is chocobo breeding. 10/10, no notes.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 23, 2024, 02:12:10 AMThat was my intro to Final Fantasy. It was incredibly confusing, to say the least. I basically pieced together that Cloud had killed Jehova or whatever in an earlier show or game and those guys were her henchmen, trying to bring her back. That and the rain is sickening people somehow, though they seem to just wallow in it instead of doing something about it.
Oh, jeez. What an introduction to this universe. The tone of the movie is pretty different from the games. I'd recommend giving Remake a look, if you're interested.
I don't think it's the rain that spreads the Stigma. I think it's just a sickness in the Lifestream, caused by Sephiroth, whose mind just refused to die. You're correct about Jenova, though. She is a shapeshifting alien lifeform who used a previous planet she had conquered to crash into Gaia. The Shinra company discovered her body and mistook her for a Cetra, the ancient race of humans with natural magic powers (others have to equip materia to use magic). Shinra then had this bright idea to inject Jenova's cells into people to turn them into super soldiers, called...Soldiers. Not very creative, I know. Sephiroth was their most successful Soldier, having been implanted with Jenova's cells while he was still in the embryonic stage. While Jenova is dangerous, Sephiroth is actually the main antagonist, because he figures out his will is strong enough to control not only Jenova, but all other Soldiers as well. He uses Jenova like a tool, although he affectionately refers to her as his mother.
As you can see, the series has a lot of lore. It's explained pretty organically in the game over time, but it's a lot to take it all at once. The movie assumes you know this stuff already.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 23, 2024, 02:12:10 AMCloud is sad and angsty, but eventually he gets his head in the game and fights, with the most ridiculous air combo I've ever seen in my life. It'd be tough to pull off that stunt on the moon.
Physics don't really apply in this world. It's basically a Shonen anime in video game form. In the original game, Cloud fell off the upper plate of Midgar, through the roof of a church, and into a bed of flowers and survived somehow. The exact distance the upper plate rests above ground level seems inconsistent between games, but uh...
(https://inanage.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/ff7r_cloudmidgarv1.jpeg)
Yeah, it was pretty fucking high.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 23, 2024, 02:12:10 AMI could get more out of it if I had played the original game, but iirc in those games, summon spells are essentially magical nukes rather than you know, summoned beings that stick around for a while and follow basic commands or follow their own will. Summons are summons, not evocations!
That's true in the original game. They were basically hard hitting spells with some cool animations, and they could only be used a limited number of times per battle, depending on what level the materia is. In Remake, however, the summons do stick around for a while and fight on their own. You can also issue commands to them. However, they come with a new limitation that they can only be used against powerful enemies. Mainly bosses.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 23, 2024, 02:12:10 AMThat and I have literally no idea how the technology works in that setting. People get around in Akira-like bikes or some big deviant-art-looking canine or just walk, I guess. And then they fight people/beasts/dragons/gods by hitting them with some big-ass 50-pound sword and/or shoot them with guns and/or just kick them, which I guess works equally well.
FFVII's world is a high-fantasy setting mixed with almost steampunk-like technology. They have old fashioned looking vehicles mixed in with some sci-fi robots and stuff. I think Mako energy is used as a general energy source, like a combination of electricity and petroleum. The "canine" you're referring to is probably Red XIII, AKA Nanaki, and he's a sentient beast capable of speech. Even the party found him weird when they first met him, so he's not even normal in their world. People don't typically ride animals other than Chocobo, those giant (usually yellow) birds. The cat-shaped Cait Sith (an AI in a toy body) was just riding on Nanaki because his usual robot mount wasn't around for some unexplained reason. Both Nanaki and Cait Sith are friends of Cloud.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 23, 2024, 02:12:10 AMAnd the outfits are strange to put it mildly. It's like someone combined Bayonetta with Devil May Cry and then had a blind fashion designer make it while under duress.
FFVII is pretty mild when it comes to Final Fantasy clothing. lol
(https://staticdelivery.nexusmods.com/mods/4202/images/thumbnails/985/985-1653838609-882345211.png)
This is Lulu. She has a dress made out of belts.
I had such a crush on lulu
I'm currently watching a movie that I saw about 30 years ago, at a friend's place. It's probably the most horrid, gory movie I've ever seen!
While I was watching it with my buddy, he kept feeding me fish, sausages and such, I guess to see how long before I made a mess all over his floor and whatever else wasn't covered up. Lucky for both of us that I have a cast iron stomach! 🤣
The movie is called Dead Alive, about a guy who's mother gets bitten by a Sumatran "rat-monkey" and gets sick, dies, but doesn't stay dead. She becomes a zombie and starts killing (and eating) most of the people around, and turning them into zombies.
It's truly hilarious, even if it is very hard to watch!
Maybe the best line, delivered by the local priest, is "I kick arse for the Lord!" 🤣
Unfortunately, those were his last words. 🙏
I see now that Dead Alive (also called Braindead) was directed by Peter Jackson, who also did LOTR and The Hobit.
I notice that he did another film, called Meet the Feebles, which I plan to watch tomorrow. I watched a bit of it, but I'm getting sleepy, so it'll have to wait.
And then watch Bad Taste
Yeah, I heard about that one, too, and I do, indeed, intend to check it out.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 01, 2024, 01:10:34 AMI see now that Dead Alive (also called Braindead) was directed by Peter Jackson, who also did LOTR and The Hobit.
I notice that he did another film, called Meet the Feebles, which I plan to watch tomorrow. I watched a bit of it, but I'm getting sleepy, so it'll have to wait.
Ah yes, braindead.
My older brother had that film and swore by it.
Did he swear by it, or swear at it? 🤣
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 01, 2024, 01:27:14 PMDid he swear by it, or swear at it? 🤣
The original
night of the living dead gave me some excellent nightmares as did
the shining and also my first communion.
The original Night of the Living Dead was a homebrew low budget movie that had me chewing at the restraints. My gf loved it, so I sat through it.
I guess my favorite zombie movie was Life Force. Totally awesome!
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 01, 2024, 05:57:49 PMI guess my favorite zombie movie was Life Force. Totally awesome!
Mathilda May was HOT.
I saw Ordinary Angels with a friend as a quid pro quo to watch Dune 2 later on. I think there was some tabasco in the popcorn, which explains why I teared up a lot. Chris Pratt was really great in this one. He has some range. I could barely even tell it was him.
Don't do tear-jerkers. Have fun.
This Meet the Feebles movie is pretty weird. Anyone ever heard of "bunnylingus"? 🤔
I saw "Bad Taste", that was enough.
Something I don't understand about the Dune setting in general:
The Spacing Guild controls ALL planet-to-planet space travel. Think about the sheer level of power and leverage they have. Nothing gets from point A to point B unless they approve - trade, food, envoys, war hosts, etc - they effectively have unlimited power. They could just demand whatever they want from any noble house or royal house and whoever doesn't play ball gets a travel ban. Don't like that? What are you gonna do about it? Fight us? Well, I hope your sublight engines are amazing because it'll take several hundred years before you can make good on any threats. (Which, btw, will be easily countered by a much, much swifter fleet with plenty of time to mount a defense, probably also upgrade once or twice while they wait) Or the Spacing Guild could just bomb any hostile planet to smithereens the same week their attacking fleet sets out and the Guild fleet could leave before the attacking fleet has time to turn around. But the Spacing Guild doesn't need to wage war, because unless that planetary system is self-sufficient (doubt it), they're going to starve and probably revolt long before combat is ever a real possibility.
Bottom line: why doesn't someone from the Spacing Guild sit on the throne? Are they stupid?
Why do all that work? The Spacers are the de facto rulers, so why deal with all of the headaches of actually ruling? Let the "nobles" do the work and deal with the commoners.
I read it a year or two ago.
As I recall, the guild is incredibly powerful and influential.
But they do not hold arrakis. The empire, through the harkonnen, hold it.
Without the steady supply of Spice, their power would also falter instantly.
As such, the guild and the emperor are both increadibly powerful, but also completely codependent.
Might be misremembering
If the Spacing Guild tried to control the whole of Human Space they'd have to enforce that, and control the planets so no hostile forces would be formed to break their rule, even if it meant not going spacing ever again. That would mean they'd need to have occupying troops, and you couldn't have the occupiers of a planet be from that planet, too easy to switch sides and become "liberators". And the Spacing Guild is not a military entity, they would have to protect their ships from the defense forces on the planet they were taking over.
Too much work for the comfort of being "boss" IMNSHO.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 03, 2024, 11:00:17 AMWithout the steady supply of Spice, their power would also falter instantly. As such, the guild and the emperor are both increadibly powerful, but also completely codependent.
Both the spice and the Navigators are absolutely essential for the galactic civilization. So both Arrakis and the Guild could credibly issue threats to get their way, yet only Arrakis (through Paul) threatens to withhold spice, the Spacing Guild never threatens to withhold space travel.
The fact that Arrakis becomes the new capital of the new order is very strange imho because in real life, it's rare for the producers of critical raw materials to wield much political power over its consumers. In fact, it's much more common for the producers of raw materials to be either impoverished or somewhat wealthy yet nowhere near the power of the countries which produce essential products with those raw materials. For example, the countries that make semiconductors have more power/leverage than those who produce rare earth metals. And of course, the obvious comparison is countries that produce oil compared to countries that produce cars and aircraft.
Think of a petroleum-based global economy on steroids. The population of EVERY planet is bound to that solar system until an alternative to spice is found, IF it ever is. Horizons shrink to the heliosphere. Friends, family, experts you might need, all cut off on another world that you can't possibly reach.
Seeing Dune II tomorrow (Monday) at 11:30. Will be annoyingly smug by 4 PM. Brace yourselves.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 03, 2024, 02:04:21 PMThink of a petroleum-based global economy on steroids.
Yes, I've been to Texas.
Quote from: the_antithesis on March 01, 2024, 10:24:20 AMAnd then watch Bad Taste
I just finished watching Bad Taste, and I was glad to get to the end of it! 🤣
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 03, 2024, 02:08:59 AMSomething I doubt understand about the Dune setting in general:
The Spacing Guild controls ALL planet-to-planet space travel. Think about the sheer level of power and leverage they have. Nothing gets from point A to point B unless they approve - trade, food, envoys, war hosts, etc - they effectively have unlimited power. They could just demand whatever they want from any noble house or royal house and whoever doesn't play ball gets a travel ban. Don't like that? What are you gonna do about it? Fight us? Well, I hope your sublight engines are amazing because it'll take several hundred years before you can make good on any threats. (Which, btw, will be easily countered by a much, much swifter fleet with plenty of time to mount a defense, probably also upgrade once or twice while they wait) Or the Spacing Guild could just bomb any hostile planet to smithereens the same week their attacking fleet sets out and the Guild fleet could leave before the attacking fleet has time to turn around. But the Spacing Guild doesn't need to wage war, because unless that planetary system is self-sufficient (doubt it), they're going to starve and probably revolt long before combat is ever a real possibility.
Bottom line: why doesn't someone from the Spacing Guild sit on the throne? Are they stupid?
There is a video game from two decades ago called Emperor: Battle For Dune, back when live action cinematics were all the rage. The Spacing Guild's plot to take over isn't fully revealed until late in the campaign, but it is the central driving force of the story. Even in the very beginning, they dictate who is allowed to fight for control of Arrakis, and what weapons are allowed. They're ultimately foiled because the player is able to enlist some illegal space travel once the Guild shows its true colors, allowing you to take back control of Arrakis and bring them to heel.
Here's the intro cinematic. You can probably find a let's play or a long play if you're interested. If you're not familiar with Dune 1984, this game's visual style is based on that film's rendition of the setting.
Edit: Yes, that's Michael Dorn playing Duke Achillus.
Dune II. ∞ out of 10.
Eight out of ten?
Planet Oh Oh in planetary system one-zero? (only Ixians will understand)
Quote from: the_antithesis on March 04, 2024, 11:32:07 PMEight out of ten?
Infinity symbol. It could have been sooooo much worse. Computerized effects are good when they're done properly. I've watched B-52 strikes and felt the breeze despite being "technically" outside the danger zone. Watching the fights in this movie is like that, too damn close to reality at times. The scenery doesn't look like Ray Harryhausen did it. They may finally be getting it right. The spice trance is left "mystical" and the effects are covered instead of filling in some time with pretty pictures.
Just finished watching Star Trek: Beyond!
What a wild ride! My chin is still on the floor!
I really enjoy the cast in the latest installments of the franchise, they're all perfect for their roles. Especially Scotty's little buddy, whatever his name is. He never says a word, but I worry about him more than any of the regular crew, since the writers might see fit to kill him off.
All told, I think this is the best of a bunch of great StarTrek movies!
🖖
Idris was cool. Just not very happy.
Just got back from watching Dune Part 2.
How do I put this bluntly? This movie is like a pizzeria salad sprinkled with pepperoni and a pound of saffron.
I wish I was joking. It's visually stunning, the cast and acting is great, but man oh man was it in dire need of an editor. Serious pacing issues is putting it mildly. Suicide Squad (2016) was edited better. CSPAN is edited better. It could've been amazing, but it was just long burn with very little payoff that doesn't feel earned. Like imagine the Lion King where over half the movie is Hakuna Matata.
edit - the Mentats and Spacing Guild don't even exist in this movie. Again, I wish I was joking.
Saw it for the third time today. Having fun. Me and Boss Lady will see it together again Friday.
All three of the adaptations have their strong points and their weak points, and I wish I could cobble them all together to make some sort of ultimate version.
David Lynch's version was really weird and had some great talent behind it and Feyd's death was metal AF, but was really, really weird. Did I mention that it was really weird?
The Miniseries didn't have a huge budget (I think they reused the footage of the Harkonnen aircraft hanger exploding about a billion times), the costumes could've certainly used more work, and it was kinda goofy at some points. But it was the best damn high school production of Dune ever! And this longer adaptation had a lot of scenes we don't see in the other two, like the tragic death of Paul's first son. Also, William Hurt as Duke Leto and Ian McNeice as Baron Harkonnen have yet to be topped imho. And to be honest, I actually really like the color-coding - Harkonnen red, Atreides yellow, Sardaukar purple, etc. Very nice visual shorthand.
The latest movie series has phenomenal special effects and visuals but it's very very light on exposition and even cuts out some very important elements, like the Spacing Guild to focus more on the religion angle. The war for Arrakis got some screen time, but the battle to retake Arrakeen is noticeably parred-down compared to the other two, barely getting any screentime to make room for Feyd's gladiatorial bout. Personally, I much preferred the street-to-street fighting on the miniseries version, especially the final scene with Rabban.
So how to fix this? I would keep a lot of weirdness of the David Lynch version, the more fleshed-out scenes of the miniseries as well as its color coding, and the breathtaking visuals of the Denis Villeneuve version. And for Shai-Hulud's sake, the words "the spice must flow" better be said out loud because the average moviegoer absolutely needs to understand that the spice comes from worms, enhances human abilities, and is essential for space travel. The whole galactic empire unravels without it. I don't care if you have to have an exposition dump at the start of every film, it needs to be there somewhere!
Still the best scene to ever grace my computer screen:
The pale imitation of authority cracks me up every time. Even the hand gestures, likely a mimicry of an actual authority figure, comes off as silly, undercutting the attempt to seem truly powerful.
Rented "Dumb Money" probably because I bought and sold what would have been $4 Million of Gamestop stock for about $300 profit, just a few months before the big squeeze started. It was a really well-done flick, certainly worth a view if you like that sort of thing.
I don't trade much anymore because boring old CDs and treasuries make enough nowadays but I do miss the intense action sometimes.
Just watched Ghostbusters Frozen Empire. Solid 6/10. Not terrific, not terrible. Just kinda mediocre.
There's a lot of teen angst in this one, but it's kinda understandable since we also have bad parenting. As far as I'm concerned, if you take your kids in the Ecto-1 and give them proton packs, you don't also get to complain about them shooting at ghosts.
Much of the plot was telegraphed a mile away so what could've been one scene became three separate scenes as well. It could've been more sudden, but I suppose they had to ratchet up the tension. Though I would've used something else and just have the main boss be a culmination of things into a perfect storm rather than just something almost broken...and almost broken...and now it's broke. Wow, never saw that coming.
Also, there are some stupid contrivances that really irritated me. The villain is actually pretty decent, but lacks the umph to make him truly memorable.
All in all, it's a perfectly serviceable movie, it's just not something you're gonna want to rewatch.
A man Called Otto. Not a weekend movie. More like a midweek...give me something to watch to help me go to sleep. Tom Hanks at his best. Just a normal guy not pulling you along, you just kinda stick around to see what happens. It delivers as Hank does. It will not enthrall you, but it most certainly reminds you that all the tortured souls out there do so for a reason. Yes, keep a tissue handy at the end.
Godzilla Plus Kong.
See this on the largest screen available. Much fun.
I never read the dark tower series.
I think the idea seemed daunting. Heard a few people say it was a long and confusing read.
The gf and i saw the 2017 movie. Which i guess flopped, but we quite liked.
I wonder if it betrays the spirit of the books in some ways? Because without that foreknowledge, i don't immeadiately see why people disliked the film so much.
Spoiler-free opinions welcome.
Might even concider getting into the books now.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 04, 2024, 05:14:51 PMI never read the dark tower series.
I think the idea seemed daunting. Heard a few people say it was a long and confusing read.
The gf and i saw the 2017 movie. Which i guess flopped, but we quite liked.
I wonder if it betrays the spirit of the books in some ways? Because without that foreknowledge, i don't immeadiately see why people disliked the film so much.
Spoiler-free opinions welcome.
Might even concider getting into the books now.
I read up to the third book. It's kind of a crawl, really. I guess things were going to get going in the fourth book, but I never got there.
If you do get into the books, just know that the ending is super disappointing. I mean, imagine the worst possible way King could have ended this series he'd almost died before completing and know that whatever you imagined is probably better. I learned this and decided the effort of reading all that was not worth it.
I just finished watching a movie called Clara, about an astronomy professor and an artist who team up to find something really amazing! It was a very good movie, but it was a real tear-jerker. No violence, no car chases, nothing but a great story.
I don't know the actors, but they were all right for their roles.
Yesterday I watched a movie called Elysium, with Matt Damon. It was much better than I expected, a lot of action, very watchable.
Oh, i found that movie to be such a drag, personally.
Which one? 🤔
Elysium
Finally caught the Harvey Weinstein flick, "She Said".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She_Said_(film)
If you ever saw Redford and Hoffman in "All the President's Men (1976)"....this brought me back to that with an updated cause.
Watching DUNE II at home. Fifty plus years since I read the books the first time. Still fun. Dune Messiah should be a bit more wonky. Duncan Idaho, we miss you.
Abigail. Got roped into it. Basically a very watered-down Saw plus a very watered-down vampire movie. Pretty bad. 'Nuff said.
Civil War. It's hard to make a connection to current events, but it made me think about current events. While it had good ratings, the few criticisms were mostly about not being able to relate it to our current polarized government. The reasons for the conflict are not explained. But the best part of the film was that it did hold my attention, something that recent films haven't been doing well.
Quote from: SGOS on April 19, 2024, 04:45:35 AMThe reasons for the conflict are not explained.
Really?? Cause damn, there goes half the appeal. Hard to get invested in a literally meaningless conflict.
I was holding off just because it hits a little too close to home right now. Maybe in a year, it'll be more up my alley.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 19, 2024, 09:08:50 AMReally?? Cause damn, there goes half the appeal. Hard to get invested in a literally meaningless conflict.
I was holding off just because it hits a little too close to home right now. Maybe in a year, it'll be more up my alley.
The writers and director made it a point to stay away from politics. However, as far as an action film goes, I got caught up in the drama more than most. I did expect the cause of the conflict to be revealed toward the end of the film, but it never was. It just ended, but the war was still taking place. I didn't know who was winning or who the good guys were. But it wasn't the first time I've left the theater wondering what just happened. I'd still recommend it, because it's better than most recent post pandemic films by a long shot.
Quote from: SGOS on April 19, 2024, 12:25:03 PMThe writers and director made it a point to stay away from politics.
A political war is literally the premise. That would be like me writing about the holocaust and trying to stay away from politics.
My hillbilly cousins are already pointing at that movie. "SEE!!!" At least it will be legal to shoot them if they try it.
Must buy more hollow points.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 19, 2024, 12:59:23 PMA political war is literally the premise. That would be like me writing about the holocaust and trying to stay away from politics.
The premise, such as it was, offered a lot of opportunity to expand the story into a much more powerful (and controversial) story. But it seemed like great effort was used to avoid doing that. Personally, I think it was a missed opportunity, but then I have no say in the matter.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 19, 2024, 01:13:35 PMMy hillbilly cousins are already pointing at that movie. "SEE!!!" At least it will be legal to shoot them if they try it.
Must buy more hollow points.
You might need to use silver bullets...
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 19, 2024, 04:21:53 PMYou might need to use silver bullets...
Not going to waste precious metals on total idiots.
Finally went and saw Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.
It was... okay. Kong's story arc from finding the mysterious chasm to escaping from Scar King was great, but the human and Godzilla sides of the story felt incredibly rushed; like they were just speeding through those portions as fast as possible so they could justify Godzilla and Mothra being in the final fight (which also felt rushed).
Honestly, and I know this sounds like sacrilege coming from me... this should probably have been a solo Kong flick. Just get rid of Godzilla and Mothra entirely. Tweak the plot so that Kong defeats Scar King with his intellect instead of just bringing in backup, like he did against the Skull Devil in his first movie.
Still an alright movie, just really could have used a few more passes on the screenplay.