[Movies] Talk about the last movie you saw 2: Electric Threadaloo
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Saw Interstellar last night. I managed to avoid most of the spoilers for it. You guys are right though. First two hours was great. Last hour was malarkey.
120 years and umpteen bajillion light years to get in a fistfight on a mountaintop.
Circuitous timeloop "we found it because we made it because later we did it" paradoxical folderol.
Not even getting into how the different levels of gravity as you approach a black hole would rend and tear anything, be it robot, human, or ship, molecule from molecule.
"You have to leave something behind" That doesn't matter once the thrusting is OVER. Reducing mass only makes a difference if you've still got thrusting to do! Maybe there was an argument for decoupling Lander 1 when it ran out of fuel first, but once the thrust was complete there was no reason to decouple ranger 2. For that matter, with the two external craft arranging themselves symmetrically, when lander 1 stopped thrusting, ranger 1's thrust would have made the Endurance spin on its yaw axis - aka, in a bad way.
It would have been better if it had remained unexplained and unexplainable alien benefactors trying to help save mankind rather than "it's 5th-dimension humans we evolve into in the far future doing a Quantum Leap episode to make sure things unfold as they should."
Circuitous timeloop "we found it because we made it because later we did it" paradoxical folderol.
Not even getting into how the different levels of gravity as you approach a black hole would rend and tear anything, be it robot, human, or ship, molecule from molecule.
"You have to leave something behind" That doesn't matter once the thrusting is OVER. Reducing mass only makes a difference if you've still got thrusting to do! Maybe there was an argument for decoupling Lander 1 when it ran out of fuel first, but once the thrust was complete there was no reason to decouple ranger 2. For that matter, with the two external craft arranging themselves symmetrically, when lander 1 stopped thrusting, ranger 1's thrust would have made the Endurance spin on its yaw axis - aka, in a bad way.
It would have been better if it had remained unexplained and unexplainable alien benefactors trying to help save mankind rather than "it's 5th-dimension humans we evolve into in the far future doing a Quantum Leap episode to make sure things unfold as they should."
mmmm. spaghettification
Yes.
fade
Staff member
City of God
Excellent film. It's like Rodriguez with a dash of Tarantino and a huge truckload of better technical film work than either of them. From the lighting to the color grading to neat continuity nods (e.g. the clay brick wall being built in the 60s to a bodega in the 70s to a tenement wall in the 80s), very nicely worked. A bit on the depressing side but thats the subject matter.
Excellent film. It's like Rodriguez with a dash of Tarantino and a huge truckload of better technical film work than either of them. From the lighting to the color grading to neat continuity nods (e.g. the clay brick wall being built in the 60s to a bodega in the 70s to a tenement wall in the 80s), very nicely worked. A bit on the depressing side but thats the subject matter.
Birdman
So god damn good.
So god damn good.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
No comments on the story huh?
I think there was a story in there. Not sure. I was too busy admiring the beautiful women in high-definition.
I mean, seriously, there are so many pretty girls in this movie... Tifa, Aerith, Yuffie, Elena, Cloud, Kadaj, Yazoo, Sephiroth, Vincent, Reno, Rufus...
Big Eyes
It was alright. There were some good performances in here, particularly Christoph Waltz as Walter Keane, and visually it looks good, but it was just so...non compelling. Most of the film is just a cycle of Margaret Keane painting and Walter Keane stealing credit for her work and profiting from it, with no real change until the reckoning near the end. Most of the scenes in this reiterate the same points so much that it gets dull to watch.
That said, I at least appreciate Tim Burton attempting to make something different. None of his usual cast members are here and he has traded out his Gothic black-and-white for kitschy pastels in his vision of 1960s San Francisco. The end result may only be okay, but it's at least something different from the guy.
It was alright. There were some good performances in here, particularly Christoph Waltz as Walter Keane, and visually it looks good, but it was just so...non compelling. Most of the film is just a cycle of Margaret Keane painting and Walter Keane stealing credit for her work and profiting from it, with no real change until the reckoning near the end. Most of the scenes in this reiterate the same points so much that it gets dull to watch.
That said, I at least appreciate Tim Burton attempting to make something different. None of his usual cast members are here and he has traded out his Gothic black-and-white for kitschy pastels in his vision of 1960s San Francisco. The end result may only be okay, but it's at least something different from the guy.
Should... should someone tell him?
Which part? That there really was no story or that that all those girls are just cartoons and they're not real?
Dave
Staff member
I want to see this one so bad! But of course I live in Omaha so it's not showing anywhere.
Horns
Like Dave, I actually really liked this! And am surprised that critics didn't. Despite it's 'predictability' I still think it's a lot of fun and the idea is much more interesting than a lot of movies out now. I thought Daniel Radcliffe's performance was great! I wish there had been more scenes with him influencing people but that's just because I found it funny - it would serve no purpose really. But yeah, solid film in my book!
Into the Woods
I knew next to nothing about the broadway play, so I went into this movie with a clean slate. And overall, I liked it! You can definitely tell it's the same guy who did Sweeney Todd, so if you didn't like that style, you might want to give this movie a pass. The casting was amazing, I'm pretty impressed with everyone's singing (except for Little Red, who may have been the most awesome character if I could stand her singing voice.) and Meryl Streep is pretty much perfection to me. The take on the fairy tales is pretty interesting as well - stories don't necessarily wrap up where you expect. I did think there were a lot of fake-out type endings. Maybe not even fake-outs, but there were definitely a lot of points where it could have ended and didn't. Anyway, a pretty solid adaptation for a musical, I would say.
Like Dave, I actually really liked this! And am surprised that critics didn't. Despite it's 'predictability' I still think it's a lot of fun and the idea is much more interesting than a lot of movies out now. I thought Daniel Radcliffe's performance was great! I wish there had been more scenes with him influencing people but that's just because I found it funny - it would serve no purpose really. But yeah, solid film in my book!
Into the Woods
I knew next to nothing about the broadway play, so I went into this movie with a clean slate. And overall, I liked it! You can definitely tell it's the same guy who did Sweeney Todd, so if you didn't like that style, you might want to give this movie a pass. The casting was amazing, I'm pretty impressed with everyone's singing (except for Little Red, who may have been the most awesome character if I could stand her singing voice.) and Meryl Streep is pretty much perfection to me. The take on the fairy tales is pretty interesting as well - stories don't necessarily wrap up where you expect. I did think there were a lot of fake-out type endings. Maybe not even fake-outs, but there were definitely a lot of points where it could have ended and didn't. Anyway, a pretty solid adaptation for a musical, I would say.
If you're interested there's a video of the stage production with the original Broadway cast, which featured Bernadette Peters as the witch.Into the Woods
I knew next to nothing about the broadway play, so I went into this movie with a clean slate. And overall, I liked it! You can definitely tell it's the same guy who did Sweeney Todd, so if you didn't like that style, you might want to give this movie a pass. The casting was amazing, I'm pretty impressed with everyone's singing (except for Little Red, who may have been the most awesome character if I could stand her singing voice.) and Meryl Streep is pretty much perfection to me. The take on the fairy tales is pretty interesting as well - stories don't necessarily wrap up where you expect. I did think there were a lot of fake-out type endings. Maybe not even fake-outs, but there were definitely a lot of points where it could have ended and didn't. Anyway, a pretty solid adaptation for a musical, I would say.
I saw that! Well, parts of it, I looked it up on YouTube. And really, they're both great to me. I can understand why people would be attached to certain people in certain roles, as Bernadette Peters is AMAZING as the witch. But, I liked both. 
@Dei understandable. If it helps, it's still relatively dark - characters still die, blood is still spilt. But carry on.
I can understand why people would be attached to certain people in certain roles, as Bernadette Peters is AMAZING as the witch. But, I liked both. @Dei understandable. If it helps, it's still relatively dark - characters still die, blood is still spilt. But carry on.
figmentPez
Staff member
Snowpiercer
Post apocalyptic Captain America versus evil Ed Harris? Sign me up! This movie's premise, (world gets frozen, post-apocalypse the only surviving humans live in a train continually circling the globe), is ridiculously implausible, but it makes for some amazing visuals, and a lot of great metaphorical imagery. If you sit back and let the characters and the story happen, without trying to think too hard about physics, and practicality, then it has some interesting ideas to show off.
--
Also, now I want The Truman Show done in the Marvel universe, where Truman has super powers. I'm not sure if I want it to be "mutant" powers, or if the producers should know from the start that "Truman" will develop powers, but I want almost everything else to be the same. A TV show about a kid growing up, and everyone else on the show knows, except "Truman". The world watching as he develops powers, and people around him play dumb.
Post apocalyptic Captain America versus evil Ed Harris? Sign me up! This movie's premise, (world gets frozen, post-apocalypse the only surviving humans live in a train continually circling the globe), is ridiculously implausible, but it makes for some amazing visuals, and a lot of great metaphorical imagery. If you sit back and let the characters and the story happen, without trying to think too hard about physics, and practicality, then it has some interesting ideas to show off.
--
Also, now I want The Truman Show done in the Marvel universe, where Truman has super powers. I'm not sure if I want it to be "mutant" powers, or if the producers should know from the start that "Truman" will develop powers, but I want almost everything else to be the same. A TV show about a kid growing up, and everyone else on the show knows, except "Truman". The world watching as he develops powers, and people around him play dumb.
I've seen Into the Woods on both Broadway and as a local stage production, and I have to say... I always forget I've actually seen it. The play has done nothing for me. In fact, I think I was bored during Act II both times. However, I keep reading rave reviews for the movie's performances, so I think I'll give it another try once it's one Netflix or Prime.
V for Vendetta
The irony of the Guy Fawkes mask having become a symbol for anarchy aside (Guy Fawkes was part of a conspiracy to install a hardcore Catholic Theocracy, not anarchy!), this movie is actually pretty good. The warnings against the culture of fear, propoganda, and government control ring very true to this day. But even just as a movie, it's enjoyable - the action scenes are well choreographed, the effects are extremely well done, it doesn't look like a movie that's almost 10 years old, and Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rea, and Natalie Portman give strong performances.
The irony of the Guy Fawkes mask having become a symbol for anarchy aside (Guy Fawkes was part of a conspiracy to install a hardcore Catholic Theocracy, not anarchy!), this movie is actually pretty good. The warnings against the culture of fear, propoganda, and government control ring very true to this day. But even just as a movie, it's enjoyable - the action scenes are well choreographed, the effects are extremely well done, it doesn't look like a movie that's almost 10 years old, and Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rea, and Natalie Portman give strong performances.
...which I have seen.
I do think it gets a little more heavy-handed in spots than it needs to (when it comes to the cinematic "devices," especially in the finale), but the actors' portrayals are fantastic, and Hugo Weaving's performance is absolutely brilliant.
--Patrick
Same here, except for everything by Sondheim. For some reason, none of his musicals are memorable to me.
Oh, apart from Sweeney Todd, because that had a guy slicing people up. Oh, and West Side Story, because we did that one in high school, and I had such a crush on one of the girls in it. (Ah, Christianne, you made school bearable in ninth grade)
But I've seen a bunch of other Sondheim stuff, and I honestly can't remember which ones they are right now.
Dave
Staff member
I watched The Equalizer last night. Not a bad movie. Like all of these types it's very implausible, but Denzel pulls it off like only Denzel can. I liked it, but only because I shut my mind off and just watched it. It is very, very violent, of course, and some of the violence is graphic. Chloe Moretz is basically wasted in this movie as the hooker with a heart of gold.
Wolf of Wall Street.
I guess they were trying to make it funny, but I don't think douchebags being douchebags is funny. What a bunch of human excrement. I have a hard time to being entertained by the material. I can't imagine how I'd act if I was making 49 million a year though. I'd like to think that I'd still be a relative straight-arrow, but who knows.
It was a nicely made movie, but I just didn't like the subject or the execution of a lot of the moments (like the guy's life is a big frat party).
I guess they were trying to make it funny, but I don't think douchebags being douchebags is funny. What a bunch of human excrement. I have a hard time to being entertained by the material. I can't imagine how I'd act if I was making 49 million a year though. I'd like to think that I'd still be a relative straight-arrow, but who knows.
It was a nicely made movie, but I just didn't like the subject or the execution of a lot of the moments (like the guy's life is a big frat party).
You wouldn't be making 49 million a year if you were a straight-arrow.
I just watched this movie, and I have to say, Leonardo Decaprio was great in it, but yes, I found pretty much every character to be despicable, but it's a Scorsese film. I never really expected to like the characters based on that alone.
This is making me want to watch Wolf of Wall Street again rull bad
Dave
Staff member
What We Do In The Shadows - Seriously, when you get a chance to see this, please do so. It's a mockumentary about four vampire buddies living together in a flat in New Zealand and trying to adjust to modern day living. It's wonderful! Best horror comedy spoof since Shaun of the Dead.