Brontoforumus Archive

Discussion Boards => Media => Topic started by: Classic on April 21, 2008, 02:44:44 PM

Title: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on April 21, 2008, 02:44:44 PM
I had originally intended this to be a simple post but before I was halfway through I realized I was writing it like a review, including omitting first-person pronouns. Threw some in there to destroy any professionalism or pretense to it, am I missing anything?
This is a review only in the sense that it has the trappings and styling of the most tepid writing of the type. It is not better for it, and I have no idea why it "came out" this way.

Forbidden Kingdom:
Journey to the West Fanfic

When Sun Wu'kung, the Monkey King, gets trapped in stone by a corrupt immortal general of the Jade Army who abuses his power in the absence of the Jade Emperor it's up to self-insertion action flick fanatic white-boy to save the day! His realistic martial ineptitude and cowardice serves in part to make you hate Siaff and appreciate his miraculous montage. Not only because it makes him less annoying, but because you get to enjoy watching the real stars of the movie, Jackie Chan, who is again a Drunk-Fu master, and Jet Li, who plays both the Monkey King and a badass Buddhist monk, use abusing him as a means to piss each other off.
The movie's opening credits play over a series of famous kung-fu movie posters, of which I only recognized a handful, and very much spells out the influences that made Forbidden Kingdom. The movie also places its audience at 11-12 and male, evidenced most strongly by the female lead, "Sparrow" (Yifei Liu). Just old enough to be interested in girls, but not-at-all interested in seeing kissing on-screen. Sorry Siaff, save that for a sequel. The movie ends leaving the sequel option open, and only the briefest mention of Siaff's unnamed and missing father. Siaff is actually named "Jason Tripitikas," whose last name is conceivably a reference to the Buddhist monk who actually goes on The Journey to the West, albeit tenuous link. Two bits says we can look forward to Siaff or Siaff's father making some kind of a journey to India in the sequel, if there is one.

I found the self-insertion portion made the movie a little uncomfortable for me, as the kind of fanboysihness that Siaff represents is something I've worked hard (with the power of Peer Pressure) to bury deep down. So not only do I feel guilty for Siaff being indulged in at all, I also feel guilty for his essentially persistent abuse. I couldn't even bring myself to enjoy his [spoiler]somewhat anti-climactic battle with his bullies once he returns to the Bronx with his power-level over 9000[/spoiler].

These are minor and personal concerns, and even with them I did receive a great guilty pleasure watching basically every fight. Though this could easily reflect on how seldom I go to the theater and the sort of company I was with. Wholly enjoyable action movie if you're willing to accept that it's an unusually well-funded self-insertion fan-fiction, and even if you're unwilling still pretty fun.


Classic loves hyphens.

EDIT:
Made to make clear the original lack of intent that I explain later to Guild.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Guild on April 21, 2008, 03:44:35 PM
Classic: This review is bad.

It is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

You seem to have no concept of thought delineation. Your sentence structure is horrible. You fail to draw the reader in, provide insight, or wrap up your main points.

Overall, you've only really got the drive to write going for you.
 

Keep in mind that this is just one person's opinion.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Classic on April 21, 2008, 04:02:22 PM
I have one small edit to make:
Classic: This review is bad.

I suspected as much. I knew it would be bad because I wound up writing it like a bad review. The words "wound up writing it" probably explain the absolute absence of coherent sentence structure.

And what the fuck is up with my random alliteration? Seriously, Classic? What're you doing?

P.S. Thanks for reading and words. It was mostly put it up to vomit it somewhere. Maybe there are ideas and words in there that could be repurposed for something that wasn't a train wreck.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Brentai on April 21, 2008, 04:34:42 PM
Classic I am going to send five thousand volts through your penis the next time you self-deprecate yourself.

That is all.

Carry on.

EDIT: Ten thousand if you try to call me on my redundancy there.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on May 01, 2008, 09:22:42 PM
Iron Man?



STAY

AFTER

THE

CREDITS.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Niku on May 01, 2008, 10:39:49 PM
stay before the credits too
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on May 02, 2008, 05:36:11 AM
But do not stay during the credits.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Doom on May 03, 2008, 03:31:13 PM
I'd hit Pepper Potts with a full salvo of Jericho Missiles, if you know what I mean.

The rest of the movie was fucking incredible, too.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Fredward on May 03, 2008, 04:18:32 PM
Just got back from Iron Man.

representin pyro nation yo
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Bongo Bill on May 03, 2008, 04:27:03 PM
I liked the soundtrack.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Mongrel on May 05, 2008, 07:00:47 PM
Not bad at all. A good fun romp.

The second comic book movie I've ever seen that was worth the price of admission.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on May 08, 2008, 12:13:32 AM
Iron Man's as good as any other superhero movie I've ever seen.  Up there with Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins, to name a couple favorites.

The acting is top-notch, which is probably what you'd expect from a principal cast made up entirely of Oscar winners and noms (I'm not usually a Paltrow fan but she's a great Pepper).  Downey is the perfect Tony (would have been the perfect Dr. Strange, too), the script never hits a false note, and it all comes together brilliantly.

The symbolism is not subtle, but it doesn't have to be -- this is a Marvel comic from the 1960's we're talking about, and the premise is far closer to Greek tragedy than French existentialism.  Man suffers for hubris, learns the error of his ways, becomes a hero.  It's all right that we see the Stark Industries logo on the bomb that nearly kills him, and the repeated references to his heart fit the tone just fine.

All in all, not just a good superhero movie but a good movie.  Must-see.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on May 09, 2008, 09:46:50 PM
Speed Racer excels in level design and character. The controls are wonky, and a bit too twitchy for my tastes, but once a straightaway opens up it becomes manageable. Bewilderingly, the Spritle & Chim-Chim bonus stages are true highlights, and could rightfully spin-off into their own title. The Ghosting effects are helpful, and the rubberband AI actually tends to benefit the player more often than the computer opponent. 8.8!

... And after some time settling into the conscious, Iron Man exceeds in performances, and then plays everything else by the book. Hum hum.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on May 09, 2008, 10:00:03 PM
... And after some time settling into the conscious, Iron Man exceeds in performances, and then plays everything else by the book. Hum hum.

Well, yes, but I fail to see any problem with that.  By-the-numbers origin stories aren't an inherently bad thing -- see also Spider-Man, Batman Begins.  And the best example I can think of of an outside-the-box origin movie is Hulk, which I liked precisely BECAUSE it was so unconventional, but know I'm in a minority on.

Not to say that shaking things up is inherently bad or status quo is inherently good by any means.  Burton's Batman flicks were something different, and Daredevil was strictly by-the-numbers.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on May 09, 2008, 10:19:53 PM
There is sticking with the source material, and then there is mediocrity. Begins added intelligence, played with time, and looked damned great while doing so. Spider-Man illustrates a lack of understanding to the strengths of film as a medium, and fell back on adaptation at twenty-four frames per second.

Iron Man needn't have been unconventional when handling the origin. It just simply wouldn't have hurt to have pumped some life into the proceedings.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Koah on May 09, 2008, 11:07:11 PM
Now I'm almost certain that you're just cribbing from the reviews section of The New Yorker.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on May 10, 2008, 05:33:08 AM
... An assertion that you haven't bothered to explain yet. (http://boards.pyoko.org/index.php/topic,4856.msg186061.html#msg186061)

Anthony Lane labeled Speed Racer as "Pop fascism" (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/05/12/080512crci_cinema_lane), and David Denby barely even bothered (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/reviews/film/iron_man_favreau), except to tell us all of his crush on Downey x Bridges.

As usual, the pictures (http://boards.pyoko.org/index.php/topic,3677.0.html) are what make flipping through that rag even considerable.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Koah on May 10, 2008, 09:57:06 AM
I mean it in the "obfuscating analogies and purple prose" sense, wherein the reviewer would no doubt have a valid point if he only came out and told us what his point was in plain English instead of trying to constantly outdo the cryptic crosswords writers in some sort of self-obsessed postmodern intellectual dick-waving competition.

:humpf: HINT HINT :humpf:
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Fredward on May 10, 2008, 10:00:36 AM
Also: he rëally överüsed the ümlaüt.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on May 10, 2008, 11:59:04 AM
A point is no less valid if it isn't in "plain English", and is rarely ever worth writing or reading about if it could simply be replaced by a Yes / No checklist.

If writing above a seventh grade comprehension level is "intellectual dick-waving", then you'll want to duck down to avoid getting slapped in the fucking face before reading anything from my end.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Guild on May 10, 2008, 04:25:58 PM
Speed Racer

Visually innovative

An absolute thrill ride

I paid for the whole seat but only used the edge



I was wondering when an action cinema would use CG to showcase rapid-motion landscape pans. Bravo to the brothers W for mainstreaming yet another filming trope to go along with bullet time.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Air on May 10, 2008, 04:39:51 PM
I forgot to post about how I seen Iron Man like a week ago.

The story was really good except that at the start they tried too hard to make Tony Stark a dick. The graphics were very impressive, and the music was cool too. The only thing I didn't like was how umm...we don't have spoiler tags? Well...

SPOILERS


Iron Man has to fight at the end as a cripple. I mean, would it have killed to end it with a full power one on one fight? Also, at the end when he reviles himself to be Iron Man was kinda  :derp:.

END SPOILERS.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Classic on May 10, 2008, 05:03:21 PM
If writing above a seventh grade comprehension level is "intellectual dick-waving"

I posit that demeaning someone for not understanding what you've said qualifies as "dick-waving". A reader does have some obligation to bring some basic understanding to the table, but purposefully excluding someone from a discussion above and beyond the barriers their ignorance creates is immature and sadistic. Do you agree?

That said:
he reviles himself
REVEAL you ignorant smegma licker!

Some things are just unacceptable.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Air on May 10, 2008, 05:05:44 PM
If writing above a seventh grade comprehension level is "intellectual dick-waving"

I posit that demeaning someone for not understanding what you've said qualifies as "dick-waving". A reader does have some obligation to bring some basic understanding to the table, but purposefully excluding someone from a discussion above and beyond their ignorance is immature and sadistic.

That said:
he reviles himself
REVEAL you ignorant smegma licker!

Some things are just unacceptable.
And just what is a "posit" Mr.spelling correcter? (http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s7/SoraCross/Pyoko/rolleye.gif)
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Zaratustra on May 10, 2008, 05:14:01 PM
And just what is a "posit" Mr.spelling correcter corrector?

posit, transitive verb.
1. To assume the existence of; postulate.
2. To put forward, as for consideration or study.
3. To place firmly in position.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Air on May 10, 2008, 05:16:10 PM
:derp: :derp: :derp: :derp: :derp: :derp: :derp:

posit, transitive verb.
1. To assume the existence of; postulate.
2. To put forward, as for consideration or study.
3. To place firmly in position.
:sadpanda:
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Classic on May 10, 2008, 05:17:16 PM
It's another chance for you to fail (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/posit). Seriously, it's stereotypical erudite babble. Don't you watch TV? Ever? Before you realized it was mostly awful?

EDIT: Thanks Zara for being less of a shit about it.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Niku on May 10, 2008, 05:23:17 PM
If writing above a seventh grade comprehension level is "intellectual dick-waving"

I posit that demeaning someone for not understanding what you've said qualifies as "dick-waving". A reader does have some obligation to bring some basic understanding to the table, but purposefully excluding someone from a discussion above and beyond their ignorance is immature and sadistic.

That said:
he reviles himself
REVEAL you ignorant smegma licker!

Some things are just unacceptable.
And just what is a "posit" Mr.spelling correcter? (http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s7/SoraCross/Pyoko/rolleye.gif)

i am framing this post on my wall
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on May 10, 2008, 07:17:36 PM
:facepalm: I hate you all.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on May 10, 2008, 09:05:50 PM
I posit that demeaning someone for not understanding what you've said qualifies as "dick-waving". A reader does have some obligation to bring some basic understanding to the table, but purposefully excluding someone from a discussion above and beyond the barriers their ignorance creates is immature and sadistic. Do you agree?

Agreed.  There's speaking above a seventh-grade level, and then there's being so arcane that nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about.  I'm still trying to figure out what you meant when you said the movie was lifeless.

And just what is a "posit" Mr.spelling correcter? (http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s7/SoraCross/Pyoko/rolleye.gif)

Why, it's a week-long posting ban!  :victory:
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Fredward on May 10, 2008, 09:50:32 PM
hahahah oh wow

That post was... beautiful.

Speed Racer

Visually innovative

An absolute thrill ride

I paid for the whole seat but only used the edge

I was wondering when an action cinema would use CG to showcase rapid-motion landscape pans. Bravo to the brothers W for mainstreaming yet another filming trope to go along with bullet time.

I liked how it looked. I like how Christine Ricci looked. I liked John Goodman and the guy from V for Vendetta. I can't say a whole lot more for it.

Granted, I never watched the show, and likely never will.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Bongo Bill on May 10, 2008, 11:44:25 PM
:facepalm: I hate you all.
I understood you, Arc.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on May 11, 2008, 07:03:44 AM
Welcome to the Eighth grade, Bill. Here, I'll share my Sunny D with you.


I'm still trying to figure out what you meant when you said the movie was lifeless.

I meant just that.

Everything outside of the performances is by the book. I speak not of the comic book, but of cinema craftsmanship. Due to this, the movie lacks a life of its own. Labeling my comments as 'arcane' is really reaching, and leads me to question if you are being obtuse.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on May 11, 2008, 09:15:55 PM
You are being vague to the point of incomprehensibility, an unfortunate habit you have developed.

Okay, you're talking about cinema craftsmanship.  Good, okay, that's a clarification and helps make your point easier to understand.  I'd still say that simply waving your hand at "everything" instead of providing any actual examples is unnecessarily vague, but I've got a good idea what you mean now.

I'm just not sure how that's different from where I said it was conventional.  And, seeing as you said it was okay to be conventional but not lifeless, you are clearly saying they are not the same thing.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Guild on May 12, 2008, 06:00:00 AM
See Arc, once someone has given a particular opinion it becomes passe and irrelevant.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on May 12, 2008, 07:50:31 AM
Best to just copy + paste from Rotten Tomatoes then.

Thad, our posting styles honestly haven't changed in any drastic manner over the years, let alone in meaning and comprehension. I still inject quips, you still pound away the paragraphs. Going into length about how the origin story may remain intact, but loading on example after example of how the surrounding film is a dry affair (outside of the performances) simply doesn't interest me as a writing exercise at the moment.

It's a one off personal observation, made to be brief. If you wish to point out where my 'arcane', 'vague', and 'incomprehensible' text exactly is, it'd be helpful and I'd listen, as I legitimately don't see this in my messages.

At least the confusion over By The Book was a hoot.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: James Edward Smith on May 12, 2008, 09:02:38 AM
Arc just smokes cigarettes to look cool.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Mothra on May 12, 2008, 10:30:24 AM
This could be due simply to the fact that I'm a genius, but the original post doesn't seem overly cryptic or meandering, at least not to the point of incomprehensibility. I'd much rather read something somewhat funny or clever than a crushingly complete, militant affidavit*, for The Records, of Arc's exact thoughts on Iron Man.

I'm as annoyed as anyone by pointless literary masturbation, but I don't really think that's what's going on here. Think we just need more of those magical little one-word descriptive modifiers when busting out hellageneral terms like "life" in reference to what I'm sure is an hour and a half of Robert Downey Jr diving away from exploding oil tankers in bullet-time.




*
  :slow: (http://tinyurl.com/6eoalt)
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on May 12, 2008, 10:50:17 AM
See Arc, once someone has given a particular opinion it becomes passe and irrelevant.

Do you just not have time to read the posts you're responding to?  Or is SoraCross really contagious?

loading on example after example of how the surrounding film is a dry affair (outside of the performances) simply doesn't interest me as a writing exercise at the moment.

False choice.  A few examples would be fine.

It's a one off personal observation, made to be brief. If you wish to point out where my 'arcane', 'vague', and 'incomprehensible' text exactly is, it'd be helpful and I'd listen, as I legitimately don't see this in my messages.

Iron Man needn't have been unconventional when handling the origin. It just simply wouldn't have hurt to have pumped some life into the proceedings.

Once again, I don't see what you're trying to say here.  What's the difference between being unconventional and "pumping some life into the proceedings", given that you have said that, by the latter, you meant that it was too by-the-book, ie conventional?  You're drawing a distinction between these two things here, and I just don't see it.

At least the confusion over By The Book was a hoot.

I meant it less as "straight out of the comic" and more as "following the formula of most superhero movies".
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Fredward on May 12, 2008, 02:51:17 PM
oh uh, to clarify my position: I thought both Arc's post and that article were perfectly understandable. I'm just morally opposed to umlaut abuse.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Bongo Bill on May 12, 2008, 04:51:54 PM
umlaut abüse
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Detonator on May 12, 2008, 05:47:53 PM
I understand Arc's position: he didn't quite like the movie, but can't put his finger on any specific failing.  I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to badger Arc to provide evidence to back up something subjective.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on May 12, 2008, 06:07:15 PM
I enjoyed the movie enough to pay full price and all. I'm just sparse on the platitudes after some reflection upon the craftsmanship, which was (competently, I guess) By The Book. The performances had a fine pulse to them, and I wasn't looking for some reinvention of the origin story itself. However, I'm not framing any shot on my wall, rushing over to iTunes to download the semi-orchestral score, or injecting quotes from the script into my everyday conversations anytime soon.

:shrug:

Oh, and smoking gives you a husky voice!  :perfect:
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Fredward on May 12, 2008, 06:08:54 PM
TONY STARK BUILT THIS IN A CAVE, OUT OF SCRAPS!*
 :MENDOZAAAAA: :MENDOZAAAAA: :MENDOZAAAAA:


*This is not the full quote. I am not going to find the full quote.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: TA on May 12, 2008, 06:16:55 PM
Let's face it, this isn't the worst thing you've caught me doing. :oh:
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on May 12, 2008, 06:58:32 PM
TONY STARK BUILT THIS IN A CAVE, OUT OF SCRAPS

:behold: Saturday is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means that I don't work, I don't get in a car, I don't fucking ride in a car, I don't pick up the phone, I don't turn on the oven, and I sure as shit don't fucking build an ARC Reactor! Shomer shabbos!

oh hay Walter & The Dude both welcomed in Summer '08 how bout that
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Mongrel on May 12, 2008, 11:07:34 PM
So.

Finally got my copy of Cross of Iron (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074695/)

Christ, even as jaded and familiar with such material as I am, this movie blew the fucking head off. Coburn, Mason, Schell, Warner and damn near everyone else in this movie turned in performances you could fire out of cannons.

I felt that one in my intestinal tract. It gnaws your bowels, ripping them asunder... leaving you simultaneously howling for more and howling for death, all at the same time.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on May 12, 2008, 11:29:38 PM
Arc: okay, that's all perfectly fair, but it's exactly what I meant when I said it's conventional.  So I guess the misunderstanding boils down to a semantic distinction you tried to draw which, as far as I can see, does not actually exist.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Guild on May 16, 2008, 06:03:55 PM
Narnia
Prince Caspian

When I was three I found a book series tucked into the corner of my father's bedside table. He was always reading books, but this series he kept apart from all the others. I pulled the first book out of the white decorative box and read the title. The Lion, The Witch and The something: I turned it over and read the inscription, studied the art for a few seconds, then cracked its pages.

For months I'd been watching my mom's finger as she traced the syllables to Hop on Pop. I started to read, haltingly at first and occasionally interrupting my father to ask him what a particular word meant. After the sixth or seventh time he realized that I wasn't watching television, probably because of my pronunciation, and it would not be until years later that I realized it was sort of inspiring for him to watch his son learn to read on his favorite series. I finished that book in three agonizing days, learning more words than I ever had from Dr. Seuss.

I simply love this series. I love every aspect of the story, despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that it is a retelling of the oldest and most famous book in history. When I was a kid I dearly wanted Aslan to pick me to be the next great adventurer in Narnia.

Prince Caspian's characterization is spot-on, as is Reepicheep's, my favorite character in all of the books. Edmund is the most well-done; he gets his revenge for the events in LWW in a cliche but satisfying way. The dark assembly of the White Witch is creepy and very nicely executed. The movie makes great use of familiar-yet-different Cair Paravel and the Narnian mythology.

This movie is three hundred percent better than LWW. The acting is not as contrived (though the director took a few shots of Lucy near-crying that made me cringe), the story is much more action-adventure feeling, and best of all Santa Clause makes no appearance, a character who really busted the fourth wall for some. A word of criticism: This movie contains blatant Christian value morality lessons which, if one were familiar with but not a believer in, would be glaring and feel perhaps a bit preachy. Then again, the series has long been known to be a Bible allegory and was recently confirmed as such in the author's writings. Also, if you happen to attend this movie during a Christian school field trip you may find yourself praying for the rapture. Christian kids are even more annoying when they're in large, obnoxiously loud groups cheering after pseudo-Jesus' every word.

Voyage of the Dawn Treader needs to be directed and written by the same staff. I want to see Reepicheep sail over the edge of the world and the invisible magician's evil tome. C. S. Lewis introduced me to the world of reading and all the many pleasures I've gotten from it, and I'm grateful that these movies are doing well enough to warrant continuation.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on May 16, 2008, 06:12:51 PM
Haven't caught it yet; want to see it with Mom since she read me the books when I was a kid.  Sounds good, though.

(Also: it's been noted elsewhere, but Narnia as directed by a guy named Adamson is just perfect.)
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Mongrel on May 21, 2008, 08:38:33 PM
Got the copy of Save the Tiger I ordered a little while ago. Amazing characterization. Goddamn beautiful.

Jack Lemmon fucking earns that Oscar.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Cannon on May 21, 2008, 09:37:00 PM
Actually sat down and finished watching The Dead Zone. A rather nice work of speculative fiction. Christopher Walken's performance isn't arresting, but it's certainly human. After digesting it for a while, there's a lot of meaning to the movie. The ending got me all misty, but fiction doesn't have to try hard to emotionally manipulate me, I think.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on May 21, 2008, 11:26:17 PM
Finally got around to watching Citizen Kane.  I really don't think there's much I can add to the decades of high praise it's received.  A brilliant film in every way and ballsy as hell on Welles's part to make it in the first place.

One of these days I'm going to get around to Godfather.

EDIT: Technically I think this thread's for current movies and the Netflix one is for old ones.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Kazz on May 21, 2008, 11:39:30 PM
Citizen Kane is slightly overrated.  Everybody but Orson really hams it up, but his performance, his writing, and his direction are all phenomenal.  I think Casablanca is a more complete choice for "best film of all time," but Citizen Kane is certainly a favorite.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Büge on May 22, 2008, 03:31:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH1PJTY9AVA

I think I read that, for its time, the revelation at the end of Citizen Kane was a twist that people talked about like The Sixth Sense in 2000 or The Crying Game in 1993.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Kazz on May 22, 2008, 06:00:05 PM
The new Indiana Jones was great.  I put up a spoilery thread about it.

I'd rate the series as follows:

Last Crusade
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Temple of Doom
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Brentai on May 25, 2008, 04:39:45 PM
Finally watched Iron Man.

Needed more Iron Man.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on June 02, 2008, 04:57:45 PM
Caught Narnia today with Mom and stepdad.  Responding to Guild's comments:

I simply love this series. I love every aspect of the story, despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that it is a retelling of the oldest and most famous book in history.

Er, there are actually quite a lot of books that predate the New Testament.

Prince Caspian's characterization is spot-on, as is Reepicheep's, my favorite character in all of the books.

I love me some Reepicheep, and Izzard is a good pick for the voice.  I'm greatly looking forward to his bigger role in Dawn Treader.

Nitpick: Aslan doesn't acknowledge his debt to the mice when he regrows Reepicheep's tail at the end.

Edmund is the most well-done; he gets his revenge for the events in LWW in a cliche but satisfying way. The dark assembly of the White Witch is creepy and very nicely executed.

Yes, seeing [spoiler]the White Witch actually appear[/spoiler] was an interesting but overall satisfying addition.  I expect [spoiler]we'll see Swinton again in The Silver Chair and The Magician's Nephew, since they're all supposed to be the same woman[/spoiler].

(EDIT: Actually, it makes for good foreshadowing of The Silver Chair.  [spoiler]Now she has a motive for going after Caspian's son.[/spoiler])

This movie is three hundred percent better than LWW.

Disagree, but that could be because I think LWW has a richer story than Caspian.

The acting is not as contrived (though the director took a few shots of Lucy near-crying that made me cringe), the story is much more action-adventure feeling, and best of all Santa Clause makes no appearance, a character who really busted the fourth wall for some.

Sure, but he was in the book.  In fact the first movie took very few liberties; more on that in a bit.

A word of criticism: This movie contains blatant Christian value morality lessons which, if one were familiar with but not a believer in, would be glaring and feel perhaps a bit preachy.

The theme of faith, and IMO blind faith, is much stronger in this one, but the actual allegory is lighter -- we don't actually see Aslan die for Edmund's sins and then come back to life this time around.

Also, if you happen to attend this movie during a Christian school field trip you may find yourself praying for the rapture.

Which unfortunately doesn't happen until the seventh one.

Christian kids are even more annoying when they're in large, obnoxiously loud groups cheering after pseudo-Jesus' every word.

Fortunately, he doesn't say very many in this one.

More thoughts:

As I said earlier, LWW was pretty much a straight-up adaptation, with only a few minor tweaks to the story.  By contrast, this one varied quite a bit from its source material, and thank Aslan for that, because spending half the movie with the Pevensies sitting around a campfire while Trumpkin fills in exposition would have made for a very unsatisfying moviegoing experience.

The history of Narnia's war with the Telmarines, and Caspian's relationship with Cornelius, are summed up within a few sentences, and while I grant it's been eight years since I read the books, I didn't notice anything missing.  Adamson has a good sense of the medium of film, and delivers the backstory quickly and effectively rather than slavishly adapt the book where it wouldn't work.

The raid on Miraz's castle, original to the movie, doesn't add much to the story, but it fleshes out both Peter and Caspian as flawed characters.

Other than that, the biggest changes in the movie are to Susan, and they're welcome.

I'm not part of the club that objectively hates Lewis for his racism and misogyny, but I have to acknowledge that they exist.  He was a product of his time, and the film was wise to clean up Susan's character -- she really gets short shrift compared to the rest of the cast, and her utter dismissal in The Last Battle shocked and upset me even as a five-year-old.  (In my older years I choose to interpret her absence in True Narnia to mean that she wasn't on the train and she survived, given the rest of her life to get back on track and find Christ again, rather than the much more literally-damning interpretation of Philip Pullman and others that she went to hell for wearing nylons and lipstick -- and a quick look at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Pevensie#The_Last_Battle) says I read it the way Lewis meant it.  But at best it's still a rather sad and backward condemnation of female sexuality from a DWM.)

All this to say, Susan's been fleshed out in the movies in a way she wasn't in the books, and I say it's welcome.  I was initially bothered by the romantic subplot between her and Caspian, but it was played in a very low-key and mature fashion and I think it worked well.  Part of the ending of Prince Caspian is recognizing that Peter and Susan are growing up and putting aside childish things; where the books cast Susan's maturing into a woman in a very negative light, this movie makes it a positive.

Also, it's a small thing, but Queen Prunaprismia and her baby actually have a role in this movie other than as a McGuffin.  She is a sympathetic character, justifiably upset by the revelation that her husband is a fratricide, and in the end we see her moving forward into a new life instead of just disappearing.  Plus she knows how to handle a crossbow.

All in all, we see twenty-first-century attitudes toward women creeping into a story that wore its 1950's sensibilities on its sleeve, and it's better for it.

Now, if they get as far as The Horse and His Boy, THAT'S where they'll REALLY have their work cut out for them.  I don't think it's coincidence that the 1980's BBC adaptation of the books ended at The Silver Chair (though I suspect the jumping around in the timeline also contributed to the problems with adapting H&HB).  H&HB and Last Battle are both openly racist and xenophobic, but the former is the worse of the two, and I think it would have to be amended to the point of being barely recognizable to make an acceptable movie.

Guess we'll see where it goes from here.  That ugliness is still quite a ways off; for now, I say bring on the Dawn Treader.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on June 02, 2008, 09:44:16 PM
A Horse and His Boy (the only book in the series I recommend) will be freakin' Aladdin by the time Disney finishes with the material. Aravis (and later Emeth) will be faultless in every way, from perfectly curled hair and bright, white teeth. That is, if the studio sticks with the series beyond Dawn Treader, as the lacking Box Office of Prince Caspian has been a gigantic egg in their face.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Kazz on June 02, 2008, 09:48:51 PM
Whoops! (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=narnia2.htm)
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on June 02, 2008, 09:52:19 PM
Clicking on the Foreign Box Office tab illustrates that it still has plenty of territories to open in, but...

:shrug: Wake me up for AH&HB plz
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Classic on June 03, 2008, 11:53:21 AM
Wake me up for AH&HB plz

Fantasy where scrappy white hero finds God and a hot sassy girl amongst the A-RABs? HOW CAN THAT NOT BE A-MAZING!?

... That is basically how the book goes, right?
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on June 03, 2008, 11:57:18 AM
And a condescending talking horse.

That's gold, Jerry! Gold!
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on June 04, 2008, 12:30:52 AM
...I just had an epiphany:

Mostly Harmless is The Last Battle as written by an atheist.

...Seeing as we're pretty much off the rails of the Prince Caspian movie, now may be a good time to split.

...Maybe tomorrow.

EDIT: I just used the phrase "off the rails" in reference to The Last Battle, didn't I.
:endit:
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: McDohl on June 06, 2008, 11:11:15 AM
Kung Fu Panda.

All in all, a very fun movie.  Got me psyched for whenever Brutal Legend comes out.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Guild on June 06, 2008, 11:44:40 AM
A debate with some friends over the highest-grossing movie of all time (so far I'm winning) lead to me finding this website: Take a look at the last entry in the chart, Zyzzyx Road. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._box_office_bombs)
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on June 06, 2008, 11:45:18 AM
Adjusted for ticket price, it's Gone With the Wind.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Misha on June 13, 2008, 09:36:45 PM
Incredible Hulk was actually surprisingly good. a much better villain, no hulkdogs, decent plot, and a pretty sweet cameo from tony stark.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Ocksi on June 13, 2008, 11:57:56 PM
Hulk was grrrrreat.

Shamalama's new movie is unbelievably bad, however.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Kazz on June 14, 2008, 08:51:28 AM
Shyamaleman's newest is getting a 20% on RT.  Fucking sad.  Does he know how to make a movie that isn't 99% setup, 1% payoff?
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on June 14, 2008, 09:36:00 AM
The Happening (or "Whats Happening" as listed on my theater's marquee) has [spoiler]no payoff[/spoiler]. That's the tweest! The Suicide Club angle is matinee worthy, but there simply isn't enough plotline to warrant a full movie production, even a ninety minute affair such as this one. It plays out like the best student film you'll ever see. Airbender is going to be downright ethereal by Hollywood standards.

While walking out after the film, stop suddenly, and then slowly start walking backwards with a few friends. EDIT: Would've harked on how the film is anti-society and anti-scientific theory, but Night is a well known fundamentalist assbag, so no point speaking further on the subject.


Hulk smashed.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Classic on June 15, 2008, 08:55:49 AM
Hulk smashed.

This was, in fact, on the itinerary of my friend's Friday the 13th birthday party. Sadly, I was the designated driver.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on June 18, 2008, 10:55:16 PM
Hulk was pretty good.  Not as good as Iron Man, but had a much better climax.

Very curious to see all the cut footage that Norton's so pissed about losing, including the Cap scene.  DVD should be interesting.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on June 20, 2008, 09:30:36 PM
To note that Get Smart's funniest bits are all callbacks to the TV series doesn't really qualify as a complaint; Get Smart wouldn't be Get Smart without the shoe phone, the Cone of Silence, "Sorry about that, Chief," "Missed it by THAT much," and "Would you believe...?"  ("I asked you not to tell me that," surprisingly, is not uttered.)

Carell and Arkin are impeccably cast, though the Chief spends too much time kicking ass and not enough being exasperated with Max.  Also, Bill Murray and Patrick Warburton put in fantastic cameos; Warburton's such a perfect pick that I knew which character he was playing before his name was uttered.

All in all, it's not nearly as brilliant or as funny as the source material (well...maybe the last couple seasons), but it's not a bad homage.

The TV show's been out as a Time-Life DVD collection which is available practically nowhere for several years; the first season is finally getting wide release in August.  (To tide you over, the horrible 1990's revival starring Andy Dick is available now!)
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Mothra on June 25, 2008, 10:01:23 PM
Holy balls did The Happening suck.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: James Edward Smith on June 26, 2008, 07:05:06 AM
Why do people go to see such obviously shitty movies? Damn it Kabbage, It was a Shamalama Ding Dong movie, what the hell did you expect?!

I mean, alright, that scene in the trailer with the construction worker hitting the pavement and then the other guys walking over to see what the hell happened and then looking up to see three more bodies falling almost lifelessly towards them was a well composed scene that really deserves to be put in an actual good movie at some point down the road. But fuck man, don't fall for good art direction in one scene, Shammy always has that and it is always a sham!

I'm gonna spoil this movie right now because it's so shitty, and Dimastines, an other poor fool who went to see this told me about it, there is no standard twist, it actually is the plants that they think is doing it the whole time that is causing the problem. I don't know what these plants are, or where they came from because I haven't seen the movie, but they are the culprits. I caught them red-leaved!
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Mothra on June 26, 2008, 07:36:20 AM
I think it's just that it's been so, so long since a horror movie has even remotely entertained me, that I really would love to be genuinely surprised or outright disturbed by whatever completely alien situation Shyamalan might throw on screen. I mean, what's been scary to me, and most people I figure, is the unexplainable - forces which could potentially exist (i.e. none of this unbeatable demon magic bullshit), yet play by a completely different set of rules that aren't immediately apparent, that the cast has to grapple with and figure out.

I loved stuff like Cloverfield, Dawn of the Dead, most of War of the Worlds, and even fucking Signs because although in most cases you could piece the overall story together, a lot of it was the cast being shaken out of complacency, having to adapt and survive in the face of something which, as far as they knew, they weren't very likely to fully understand. Shyamalan's a bad director, The Happening kinda forced me to face that, but at least he seemed to of been, well, trying to actually scare me.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Alex on June 26, 2008, 08:23:14 AM
I just watched I Am Legend the other day and...wow.  I enjoyed it significantly (especially the ending because it wasn't the freaking book's ending) and was pretty surprised to see Will Smith do a mostly serious role as well as he did.  I wish I could say the same thing about Adam Sandler.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Mothra on June 26, 2008, 08:29:00 AM
They have an alternate ending (http://tinyurl.com/6htofy) that somehow got cut out in favor of world-is-fixed-now, which I am forever baffled didn't make the cut. God forbid you give the movie some depth.

YOU DECIDE :imagination:
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Kazz on June 26, 2008, 09:16:15 AM
I Am Legend had more potential than a barrel of potential monkeys, but it had garbage payoff.

The alternate ending is about ten times better, but ten times crap is still crap.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Brentai on June 26, 2008, 09:26:18 AM
I just read the whole plot to The Happening on Wiki.  Gerdamn I'm glad I didn't spend two hours to see that silliness.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on June 26, 2008, 10:29:02 AM
Obligatory reminder that Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were good.

Re: I Am Legend: I quite liked the first half.  Ending sucks; requires that God be an active participant in the story to work.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Disposable Ninja on June 26, 2008, 11:02:12 AM
Unbreakable were good.

Really?
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Alex on June 26, 2008, 12:37:18 PM
They have an alternate ending (http://tinyurl.com/6htofy) that somehow got cut out in favor of world-is-fixed-now, which I am forever baffled didn't make the cut. God forbid you give the movie some depth.

YOU DECIDE :imagination:
I Am Legend had more potential than a barrel of potential monkeys, but it had garbage payoff.

The alternate ending is about ten times better, but ten times crap is still crap.

Indeed!  Though I preferred the original ending of the movie since I think the whole 'ROBERT NEVILLE IS THE REAL MONSTER FOR TRYING TO CURE THE DISEASE!!!!' stuff from the book is a bunch of silliness.

But then again, I enjoy having hair, not dying in sunlight and generally not being a crazed disease riddled beast, so take that how you will.  :humpf:
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on June 26, 2008, 01:29:20 PM
Unbreakable were good.

Really?

Yes.  Pacing was a little slow and the child actor was not so good, but a decent enough plot, great atmosphere, and definitely one of Shamalamalan's better twist endings.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Brentai on June 26, 2008, 01:31:24 PM
Obligatory reminder that Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were good.

So were the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies.  Where are we going with this?
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on June 26, 2008, 01:41:38 PM
I'm just saying that it's okay to go to a movie hoping for something more like the director's original work than his last several efforts.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Brentai on June 26, 2008, 01:57:12 PM
You're the reason Lucas is still allowed to make movies!
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on June 26, 2008, 04:56:55 PM
Bullshit.  I pirated LaserDisc rips.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Brentai on June 26, 2008, 06:50:56 PM
Oh, well then.

:approve:
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Rosencrantz on June 27, 2008, 09:05:26 PM
Meanwhile, I have to wait until Sunday to see WALL-E, so Guild and I just saw Wanted instead. Pretty fun, especially the first 20 minutes or so. There's some pretty goofy story elements, but BAM HEADSHOT!  :scanners:
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Niku on July 02, 2008, 07:21:57 AM
Not honestly knowing all that much about the man, Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson was a pretty good documentary to rectify that with.  It's a little soundtrack heavy (or as my manager noted, "it IS possible to have too much Bob Dylan after all") and it has a sort of meandering pace, but I liked it quite a bit.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on July 02, 2008, 10:23:54 AM
Haven't seen it yet (primarily because it is not playing here), but it bears noting that the guy wrote BOOKS with soundtracks.

That scene in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas where it plays "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again"?  It's actually IN THE BOOK.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Niku on July 02, 2008, 10:36:58 AM
Haven't seen it yet (primarily because it is not playing here), but it bears noting that the guy wrote BOOKS with soundtracks.

It opens Friday, but it's also limited release.  Either or both of these could be the problem!
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on July 02, 2008, 10:28:49 PM
Hancock is utterly schizophrenic.  The first two acts are what you saw in the trailers: a comedy about a boozed-up super-antihero, followed by the slightly more feel-good story of him meeting a guy who helps him turn his life around.

The third act is -- and this really caught me off-guard -- basically an adaptation of the Neil Gaiman version of Eternals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternals_(comics)), with a fairly clever twist on Kryptonite, several gaping plot holes, and a stubborn refusal to exercise the "show, don't tell" rule in the origin story.

It's still better than the Fourth World movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093507/).
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Doom on July 03, 2008, 04:15:13 PM
Quote from:  a thread full of spoilers
Wall-E was so good that it reaffirmed my faith in Humanity.

It is divinely entertaining.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on July 04, 2008, 12:56:25 PM
It opens Friday, but it's also limited release.  Either or both of these could be the problem!

Looks like the latter.  Hopefully one of the local arthouses will pick it up soon.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Büge on July 04, 2008, 12:58:02 PM
A friend of mine showed me this European cel-animated film called Nocturna. He described it as MirrormaskLabyrinth meets Monsters Inc. and by golly, that's an apt comparison. It's a beautiful film in all respects: visuals, sound, plot... I used to be scared of the dark, but I was never scared of The Dark.

If Disney puts this kind of effort* into The Princess and the Frog we could see a resurgence in 2D feature animation in this hemisphere.



* :lol:
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Niku on July 07, 2008, 02:36:32 PM
I liked both Hancock and Hulk.  They've got warts and flaws aplenty, but they were both still perfectly entertaining. 
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Royal☭ on July 07, 2008, 02:51:41 PM
I would say the opposite is true of Hancock.  While the first part of the movie hints at an entertaining movie, it takes a lot of ideas and then does nothing with them.  Then the entire film begins to break down in the second half, when things just go balls out inane.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Rosencrantz on July 07, 2008, 03:05:38 PM
I would say the opposite is true of Hancock.  While the first part of the movie hints at an entertaining movie, it takes a lot of ideas and then does nothing with them.  Then the entire film begins to break down in the second half, when things just go balls out inane.

Yeah, this sums up my feelings. I really, really liked the first half - it was legitimately funny, and it's always pleasing to see superheroes do crazy shit.

On another note, I am really excited for Hellboy 2 this Friday.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Niku on July 07, 2008, 03:57:59 PM
Basically up until WHAT A TWIST I was enjoying Hancock, but there were a few scattered bits and pieces I liked after that point too.  What I didn't like was how cliched and angsty and blah blah blah it got, but the potential backstory stuff they mostly skimmed over kept me interested in hopes they might go along with it.

Both movies were at their best in the first half really, but the second half of each aren't (in my opinion) enough to ruin the entire film.  Worth renting them both, at least.

i am totally stoked for hellboy 2 like you can not even fucking believe

also also i apparantly have to see mummy 3 because it has a dragon a jet li AND a yeti in it.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Mothra on July 07, 2008, 05:03:03 PM
Meanwhile, I have to wait until Sunday to see WALL-E, so Guild and I just saw Wanted instead. Pretty fun, especially the first 20 minutes or so. There's some pretty goofy story elements, but BAM HEADSHOT!  :scanners:

Agreed, though this guy really needs to learn how to shoot moving sequences without literally taping the camera onto the vibrating ceiling and speeding everything up in post-production. Reminded me of watching that swirling ball of glass and color-streaks where Bruce Willis blew up an asteroid.

Was pretty sure this one was going to be completely forgettable until the movie's last quarter, with one of the better B-movie endings (and lines) in recent memory. It was almost like the guy deliberately made a completely by-the-numbers action flick for the payoff.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Mothra on July 09, 2008, 09:09:56 AM
In Bruges had some of the most satisfying dialogue I've seen in a long damn time. Really, the worst bits of this movie came whenever they felt the need to move the plot along, or shove in some gritty crime drama - I'd dislike the last half a lot more if The Boss, Harry, wasn't such an awesome, awesome character.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on July 12, 2008, 11:36:44 PM
Hellboy 2's paper-thin plot is basically an excuse to showcase some truly gorgeous makeup and creature effects and banter between Ron Perlman and Seth MacFarlane.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Guild on July 12, 2008, 11:54:43 PM
I dunno, the scene between [spoiler]drunk Abe and Hellboy was touching, and I really liked the robots... my only gripe, as a matter of fact, was that the prince's blood was red when he got punched during the scene where they establish the link between the twins, and thereafter was amber... I guess when I want to like a movie a small mistake like that bugs me more.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on July 12, 2008, 11:58:04 PM
None of that actually contradicts anything I said.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Guild on July 13, 2008, 12:18:00 AM
I (apparently mistakenly) inferred that you didn't enjoy the film. I am high context by nature. Sorry to mislead you.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on July 13, 2008, 12:25:57 AM
I thought it was okay.  It did what it set out to do, which was show off some of the best makeup and creature effects I've ever seen, and have its principal cast banter back and forth in satisfying ways.

The plot, as I said, is almost nonexistent -- even thinner than the first movie's, which can be summed up as "Blade, except with a demon instead of a half-vampire" --, and there's just not a whole lot of depth.

It's pretty and it's fun, but in the end, if there's a third movie, the second won't add anything to the two-sentence summary of the first that appeared in the beginning.

And hey, kudos on using "infer" correctly, but I'm still baffled by your use of "context".
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Arc on July 13, 2008, 08:23:36 AM
also also i apparantly have to see mummy 3 because it has a dragon...

Rob Cohen, world's biggest dragon fan, strikes again.


Hellboy 2's paper-thin plot is basically an excuse to showcase some truly gorgeous makeup and creature effects...

Guillermo del Toro, world's most glorified Art Director, strikes again. A very sincere man, who needs to give the audience more to chew on if he wants to uphold the moniker of "The Spike Lee of Monster Movies".
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Royal☭ on July 13, 2008, 08:29:59 AM
I place Del Toro in that realm of directors such as Tim Burton and Terry Gilliam who are capable of fantastic sets, dazzling imagery and creative creature design but who lack severely in storytelling and characters.  Their movies are always entertaining to watch, but at the end I always feel a little bit empty as the story beneath the art design just doesn't support all those dazzling special effects.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Niku on July 14, 2008, 01:46:10 PM
I don't necessarily think Hellboy needs a deep plot.  It does however need to hinge everything on the characters, and there were some bits that rang false and some bits that rang true.  Examples immediately springing to mind being [spoiler]Abe immediately falling for the princess ringing false (lol psychic hands means no courtship!) but Abe telling Hellboy that "he'd do it for Liz" ringing true.[/spoiler].  Overall, yeah, gorgeous and fun and you won't waste your money.

Wanted started as a relatively fun fusion of Fight Club-lite and Matrix-lite, lost me sometime at Hogwart's School of Sweatermaking and Gunshootery, and never really got me back.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Brentai on July 14, 2008, 01:57:21 PM
I place Del Toro in that realm of directors such as Tim Burton and Terry Gilliam who are capable of fantastic sets, dazzling imagery and creative creature design but who lack severely in storytelling and characters.  Their movies are always entertaining to watch, but at the end I always feel a little bit empty as the story beneath the art design just doesn't support all those dazzling special effects.

I'd say Burton's about 50/50 with this.

Gilliam's just doing it on purpose.
Title: Re: I watched a movie!
Post by: Thad on August 16, 2008, 11:33:58 PM
Pulled up the local movie listings today and was surprised to see Midnight Cowboy at the top of the page.

It turns out my local arthouse theater (which, I am disappointed to say, never got around to running Gonzo) is participating in the United Artists 90th Anniversary Film Festival.  Midnight Cowboy was one night only; over the next few days they're doing From Russia With Love, Manhattan, Marty, The Thomas Crown Affair, and Night of the Hunter.  Apparently there are a whole lot more to come.

So you guys may want to check out your local indy theaters and see if they're doing anything similar.  Because man, catching Midnight Cowboy in the theater sure was cool.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on August 23, 2008, 04:09:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CYSGCoflAA

:whoops: Will they be ordering tickets in bulk like they order their books in bulk?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on August 23, 2008, 04:32:58 PM
Wow... there's a lot of big names that seem to have no regard for their careers there.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on August 24, 2008, 10:57:11 AM
So did anybody see Clone Wars?

I didn't.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on August 24, 2008, 12:24:46 PM
As far as I've heard it's essentially the Clone Wars cartoon show spiffed up a bit and re-filmed in GLORIOUS 3D-O-RAMA VISION.

Which would make it kind of redundant and dumb.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on August 24, 2008, 01:36:41 PM
So did anybody see Clone Wars?

Last night, free entry. Will work infinitely better on the small screen, which it was obviously produced for. They overstepped their boundaries here by going theatrical, as the beginning and ending are rushed to a fault. Picking out which point an episode is meant to end and another is to begin isn't difficult with this in mind.

You know how hack movie reviewers spout off about "videogame action sequences" in films lately? This time around it rings true, as each set appears to be modeled as a level beforehand. Repetitive action sequences, teammates quipping at one another, and the Playstation 2 worthy character models drive it all home.

Narratively? WHARRGARBL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWWK5tGjAkE
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kazz on August 24, 2008, 01:40:29 PM
Tropic Thunder = A-

Tom Cruise (he's in it!) comes very close to stealing the show.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on September 15, 2008, 10:24:12 PM
Burn After Reading: I can understand why the critics are panning it, since the Coens have set the bar so high at this point -- it's not going to win Best Picture like No Country, and it's not going to have the staying power of Fargo or Big Lebowski.  But I can also safely say that I haven't laughed so hard since...well, since about 3 weeks ago at the PUMA sketch on The Daily Show, but I'm not sure of the last time I laughed so hard at a movie.

Basically it's what the Coens do best -- over-the-top characters played by an incredibly talented cast.  McDormand, Clooney, Swinton, Simmons -- I'd say Malkovich just edges Pitt out as the craziest of the lot.

I think if it were another director the critics would be saying kinder things; definitely recommended.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 03, 2008, 12:20:10 AM
Zack and Miri Make a Porno isn't Kevin Smith's best movie but it isn't his worst either.  Some good laughs, the obvious romantic comedy plot is sufficiently balanced by dick and fart jokes that it never becomes cloying, and he's gotten a lot better at giving his characters distinct voices instead of making them all sound like the same person.  Good cast, good grossout humor, nothing especially deep or insightful to say.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kazz on November 03, 2008, 04:54:26 AM
The love plot was tedious (aren't they all) and their comments about how they're just friends and would never, ever feel that way about each other were blatantly insincere from the start (intentionally so, I imagine).

That's really my only complaint.  It was my favorite Kevin Smith movie.  The Star Wars geekdom was kept to a minimum, Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks did brilliant freaking jobs, and there weren't any extraneous and distracting running jokes or scenes.  Everything that was intended to be funny was actually funny, and everything that was supposed to be touching... well, Elizabeth Banks is apparently a master of giving off precisely the right impression with her facial expressions.  She shined like the fucking sun in this movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: clutch on November 03, 2008, 10:24:18 AM
Went to see Appaloosa on Thursday with very high hopes. A western (!) with Ed Harris (!!), Viggo Mortensen (!!!) and Jeremy Irons ( 8=====D ----3 ) spells awesome to me. While it was very good, one should know going in that the movie is a very traditional western, with nearly all the action tucked into the last half-hour and a shockingly low body count. Don't go looking for Tombstone (http://www.moviebodycounts.com/Tombstone.htm).
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on November 03, 2008, 10:34:37 AM
I cried a little at the end of Zach and Miri, but that's only 'cause I'm such a chick ;-;
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 12, 2008, 11:17:46 AM
Role Models is one of those movies that's a lot funnier than it looks in the commercial, because a lot of the jokes revolve around people (and especially children) saying the word "fuck".  Also, the climactic SCA battle is pretty entertaining.

Jane Lynch is the best character.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on November 14, 2008, 12:13:07 AM
The Return of Ian Fleming's James Bond 007: Quantum of Solace: Casino Royale Part II is the most artistically shot and paced of the adventures, yet also the driest, quietest, and possibly most contemplative outside of choice portions of On Her Majesties Secret Service. The villain's masterplan is a ham-fisted snore, but that isn't the thesis to the work, which instead centers around the twisting of vengeance.

Bond drives too much. Cars. Boats. Planes. He isn't given much to do but react to minutes and minutes of gunfire in these scenes, and the stunt coordinator from the Jason Bourne films doesn't linger long enough (being the stunt coordinator from Jason Bourne and all). Not to abandon the approach altogether, the hand to hand choreography and delivery work.

All the returning characters from Casino Royale come off as darker, wounded. If audiences are expecting lush fantasies, they'll come up short. If a cold, not necessarily inventive but otherwise solid follow-up is in their bag of expectations, then they'll find a ride worth taking.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 16, 2008, 11:36:13 PM
Very continuity-heavy for a Bond flick, and the way they've set up Quantum/SPECTRE indicates there's plenty more where that came from.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: clutch on November 17, 2008, 10:12:43 AM
Saw Quantum yesterday and was impressed by the studio's apparent willingness to cut down the sexxx appeal in order to emphasize the character's thirst for revenge. In the end, my only disappointment with the movie was the decision to embrace the Bourne style for the fight scenes. I did find the "green" motif a little nauseating, though [spoiler](where are they topping off their hydrogen-powered car in the middle of South America, anyway?)[/spoiler].
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 17, 2008, 11:13:58 AM
I think framing the conflict as a battle for natural resources was a good way to modernize a Cold War premise.  I didn't think it was preachy, and of course it gave the conflict only the cursory acknowledgement that you'd expect from a Bond film.

But I was quite surprised that the "private industry owned Bolivia's water" story was a major plot element in a Bond film, of all things.  (Actually, I'd just days before been talking about this and couldn't remember which country it was.  Thanks, Bond movie!)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: clutch on November 17, 2008, 11:29:27 AM
I think framing the conflict as a battle for natural resources was a good way to modernize a Cold War premise.  I didn't think it was preachy, and of course it gave the conflict only the cursory acknowledgement that you'd expect from a Bond film.

I meant more because the whole movie was essentially a propaganda piece for the "greenwashing" movement. He may have driven a few hydrogen-powered cars, but only to get to the airport where he jetted off in a chartered plane. Way to save the earth, Cap'n Planet.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on November 17, 2008, 11:40:19 AM
I didn't think it was preachy

Essentially. A strength of previous James Bond films has been that they've respected the audience enough to assume that they can grasp the consequences of master plans, without delivering a two minute silent piece of sad children and old women going thirsty.

Consequently, props to Quantum for not having Bond [spoiler]personally blow up the dam[/spoiler], instead entrusting [spoiler]Camille to finish her duty to her people, simultaneously giving her a new mission in life.[/spoiler] Audiences were thankfully spared an ending of a smiling James Bond making out with Camille, all while happy ethnic children dance and rejoice around them. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087469/)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 17, 2008, 11:48:58 AM
I meant more because the whole movie was essentially a propaganda piece for the "greenwashing" movement. He may have driven a few hydrogen-powered cars, but only to get to the airport where he jetted off in a chartered plane. Way to save the earth, Cap'n Planet.

Ah.  Then yeah, hard to argue with that.

I didn't think it was preachy

Essentially. A strength of previous James Bond films has been that they've respected the audience enough to assume that they can grasp the consequences of master plans, without delivering a two minute silent piece of sad children and old women going thirsty.

I see that as less pushing a political agenda and more manipulating the audience's emotions.  Like the attempted rape scene near the end, it's just a really lazy way to establish that the villain is a very bad man.

And it's not like Bond villains have ever been particularly complex characters.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on November 17, 2008, 06:35:54 PM
Quote
And it's not like Bond villains have ever been particularly complex characters.

I think the closest they come to more than just BAD GUY was Janus/006. But maybe that's just my like of Sean Bean.

Best kill line ever, too.

"For England, James?"

"No. For me."
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Romosome on November 17, 2008, 07:17:13 PM
Bourne style for the fight scenes

man, I liked the Bourne movies and this does not bode well for me

nauseating

yeah, that
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on November 25, 2008, 09:40:48 PM
Bolt isn't anything amazing or unique, but it's enjoyable and is considerably better than pretty much any other non-Pixar CG movie. (However, John Lassetter was the executive producer, for what that's worth.)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Misha on November 25, 2008, 09:57:46 PM
the bourne style fighting is something I have no problem with, but the jerky with infinite cuts from different angles often to things that aren't relevant camera work seriously pisses me off.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on November 26, 2008, 08:25:42 AM
the bourne style fighting is something I have no problem with, but the jerky with infinite cuts from different angles often to things that aren't relevant camera work seriously pisses me off.

Shades of The Musketeer.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 04, 2008, 11:40:42 PM
I think most people in this crowd would share my view that Repo: The Genetic Opera is awesome.  If it's playing in your town, go see it.

Full blog to follow.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Misha on December 05, 2008, 04:04:31 AM
transporter 3 is terrible movie, and not in a good way. the plot joins quantum of solace's in the "why the hell isn't captain planet handling this?" territory, there's nowhere near enough action and not enough of it is any good and none of the characters are at all interesting or entertaining.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cannon on December 05, 2008, 11:50:18 AM
Yeah, guess which movie me and my uncle MSTied on Thanksgiving.

Amusingly enough, I thought Valentina (i.e. unsympathetic Eurotrashy rich wench) was putting on an accent, but apparently the "actress" is Russian. Luc Besson needs to stop casting women he meets in techno clubs.

The American villain (I don't care about his name; his title shall always be "Crazy Gun Guy" to me) was a source of much hilarity, because very little of what he said wasn't undermined by what he did. It puzzles me that he rose to such a level of power by being so consistently contrary.

If you want to see what Bond flicks mostly once were, go see Transporter 3, and then go see Quantum of Solace for a bit of contrast. Personally, I'd wait for the former to hit the DVD bargain bin, then assault it with friends and booze.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on December 05, 2008, 01:57:51 PM
Luc Besson needs to stop casting women he meets in techno clubs.

Regarding casting venues, that would be an improvement for him. (http://getdagoss.com/blog/2008/11/transporter-3-beauty-natalya-rudakova-discovered-street-walking/)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cannon on December 05, 2008, 02:08:17 PM
Quote
Transporter 3 Beauty Natalya Rudakova Discovered Street Walking

:lol:

Quote
[...]was discovered on the street going to work at a hair salon in New York[...]

:humpf:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on December 05, 2008, 02:36:08 PM
They keep using that term.  I do not think it means what they think it does.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kayma on December 05, 2008, 09:06:45 PM
I think most people in this crowd would share my view that Repo: The Genetic Opera is awesome.  If it's playing in your town, go see it.

Full blog to follow.

I NEED to see this. It looks bawls awesome. I think bawls is a good adjective.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 05, 2008, 09:30:53 PM
(http://www.corporate-sellout.com/img/ballsnasty.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 05, 2008, 10:45:47 PM
I think most people in this crowd would share my view that Repo: The Genetic Opera is awesome.  If it's playing in your town, go see it.

Full blog to follow.

Posted. (http://www.corporate-sellout.com/index.php/2008/12/05/repo-the-genetic-opera/)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kashan on December 06, 2008, 07:29:49 AM
(http://www.corporate-sellout.com/img/ballsnasty.jpg)

Glad to see somebody else using that thing.  ::D:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 07, 2008, 06:46:24 AM
I found out it was playing at the Bloor Cinema...

And now it's not.  :sadpanda: Rupert Giles, Christine Daaé and Henry Kissinger in a post-apocalyptic rock opera? Why couldn't they have gone for a wider release?





Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 07, 2008, 10:32:49 AM
Put simply, test audiences and critics hated it.

Of course, test audiences probably hated it because they were told to expect "a fresh horror from the director of Saw 2-4".  Which it really, really isn't.

As for critics -- most of the reviews posted on the Repo website are fair (including several that say "It's not for me but I see its appeal"), but the Rolling Stone one I linked says fuck-all about the movie except that it has Paris Hilton in it.  The comments thread is full of people accusing Travers of not even seeing the movie, and frankly his review doesn't give much indication that he did.

The director mentioned one review that said he's worse than Uwe Boll.  I haven't been able to find that one, but I can categorically state that Repo! The Genetic Opera is a better movie than House of the Dead.

Anyway.  All that is why there's a limited release.  Lionsgate refused to distribute it and now the creators are touring it around the country themselves, one theater at a time.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on December 09, 2008, 04:53:08 PM
Finally got around to seeing Bond like a day before it leaves or something.

[spoiler]Was mildly annoyed that they ended the previous movie with Mr. White's capture, was pleased to see him almost immediately turn the tables on them.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Poor Ms. Fields. I was really hoping they wouldn't kill her off, though I knew they would the moment I fucking saw her. Does every bond movie have to have two girls? One to die, and one to fuck?[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Was happy to see the one to fuck did not actually get fucked. It would have felt artificial, like most goddamn ham fisted romance subplots.[/spoiler]

By the way, M is basically the best character by like a factor of 10.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 13, 2008, 10:06:02 PM
In my local paper, on the ad for The Day The Earth Stood Still, was a little seal which said "The only place to see the world premier of the trailer: X-Men Origins Wolverine"

 :lol: They're actually advertising trailers now.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on December 13, 2008, 10:07:59 PM
Typically only when the movie sucks.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on December 13, 2008, 10:13:27 PM
...the one showing the trailer, or the one the trailer is previewing?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on December 13, 2008, 10:15:01 PM
The one showing the trailer.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 13, 2008, 10:22:04 PM
Let's be fair, guys -- Gort is the perfect role for Keanu Reeves.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on December 13, 2008, 10:28:11 PM
I agree, but they have him playing Klaatu instead.   :suave:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 13, 2008, 10:38:53 PM
...dammit.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 14, 2008, 07:21:10 PM
Speaking of which...

I don't normally link (or even look at) 'celebrity pages', but I think you'll all agree this is too good. (http://celebedge.sympatico.msn.ca/Bang/ContentPostingBang3column?newsitemid=BSBS47491&feedname=BANG&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=False)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Detonator on December 14, 2008, 07:28:15 PM
Speaking of which...

I don't normally link (or even look at) 'celebrity pages', but I think you'll all agree this is too good. (http://celebedge.sympatico.msn.ca/Bang/ContentPostingBang3column?newsitemid=BSBS47491&feedname=BANG&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=False)

Sounds like he was making a joke.  Is there any point to making a story of this?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 14, 2008, 07:52:59 PM
Well, certain papers will print anything a certain type of person says, regardless of the content.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 14, 2008, 07:59:20 PM
I think the British tabloids spent a week on Davies referring to Prince Charles as "a swine" for not agreeing to appear on Doctor Who, when in context he clearly meant it as a joke.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on December 14, 2008, 08:00:28 PM
This just in: Keanu Reeves claims to be bigger than Jesus.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kazz on December 14, 2008, 08:45:21 PM
I believe it.  Jesus was a wiry, malnourished Jew.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Detonator on December 15, 2008, 06:12:44 AM
Well, certain papers will print anything a certain type of person says, regardless of the content.

So are we supposed to be laughing at the paper or Keanu?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kashan on December 15, 2008, 07:21:41 AM
I believe it.  Jesus was a wiry, malnourished Jew.

All he ever did before he died was invite himself into peoples houses for dinner parties, I'm betting he was at least a little fat.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on December 15, 2008, 07:23:34 AM
Two thousand years later, we haven't finished eating him.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on December 29, 2008, 09:48:05 AM
Valkyrie (Walküre!) is Mission Impossible in Nazi Germany, Benjamin Button is Forrest Gump in New Orleans, and The Spirit is Sin City in Central City.

While Benjamin & Spirit have flashes of inventiveness, they rip from their predecessors wholesale. Valkyrie bloated itself with established character actors (all of whom deliver), and wisely cut out the scene with Stauffenberg sneaking up on Himmler on a motorcycle.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 29, 2008, 04:54:17 PM
I buy a lot of foreign Magic cards, because they're really cool I'm a whore.

There is one extant Valkyrie in the whole game. It's white - and in a set with a racial purist legend whose card name is almost 'Heidigger'. And you can be damn sure I got two copies in German.

How is this relevant? Uh... it isn't.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Transportation on January 02, 2009, 11:29:01 PM
I enjoyed The Spirit quite a bit, but I didn't get around to see Sin City so the whole comic motif is rather novel.

I found Benjamin Button very predictable and the notions that it's basically Forrest Gump with :imagination: are correct. Not to mention the latter 60% feels like a rehash. What with most of it taking in New Orleans after the relatively rad sailor segment.

Also:
I only counted 6 lightning bolts, movie. This was not the promised 7.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on January 03, 2009, 08:32:23 AM
I enjoyed The Spirit quite a bit, but I didn't get around to see Sin City

And presumably have never read a Spirit comic.

And love tough guys and whores.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on January 03, 2009, 10:11:30 AM
I realize I never mentioned Let The Right One in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICp4g9p_rgo

If it's playing at a theater near you, definitely check it out.  It's a pretty fantastic little movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Transportation on January 03, 2009, 01:14:40 PM
I enjoyed The Spirit quite a bit, but I didn't get around to see Sin City

And presumably have never read a Spirit comic.

And love tough guys and whores.

The first point is correct and I liked it because it was ridiculous. I entered the movie expecting it to be bad and it was hilariously bad.

I'm aware of how it rapes the source material via other forums. I'm not sure why I should be crying over it anymore than any other hilariously bad 'reimagination' of a franchise. It reminds of, oh, Batman Forever I guess? It's horrible enough to justify watching maybe once or twice.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on January 03, 2009, 01:41:00 PM
...I don't think comparing it to Schumacher Batman really makes the point that it is something that should have been made or viewed.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Transportation on January 03, 2009, 02:36:14 PM
...I don't think comparing it to Schumacher Batman really makes the point that it is something that should have been made or viewed.
Well, yeah. I was just emphasizing I didn't think it was a good movie. It was just bad enough to be entertaining.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on January 03, 2009, 02:59:26 PM
...the good news is it's bombed badly enough that people might not let Frank Miller fuck up any more properties.

We'll see about Buck Rogers.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: SCD on January 20, 2009, 11:45:25 PM
Well, turns out that Grand Torino was as good as I expected it to be, and the twist at the end was not expected for a Clint Eastwood flick. 

Very powerful.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 06, 2009, 08:37:28 PM
Fuck.  I just saw Coraline and it was everything I wanted i to be and then some.  I was enthralled throughout the movie because the stop-motion animation was amazing (as expected) and all the characters were well designed and the voice acting was great. 

I have nothing negative whatsoever to say, but I cannot imagine seeing this as a child.  I know that if I were a child seeing this movie, I would have nightmares like crazy, and maybe even not be able to sit through the movie comfortably.  But that's because [spoiler]I'm terribly afraid of dolls and ...dolls again[/spoiler] (I dunno if that's really a spoiler 'cause I don't think it's terribly obvious in commercials or if you haven't read the book).
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on February 06, 2009, 09:31:01 PM
Hmm. I was planning on seeing it tomorrow with Cat and her two little girl cousins, but they would probably get scared. We might have to settle for (sigh) Hotel for Dogs or (gag) The Pink Panther 2 (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pink_panther_2/)... since the girls loved the first one.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on February 06, 2009, 09:36:55 PM
Well, according to the New York Times review, helpfully quoted on Neil Gaiman's blog (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/02/what-henry-did.html), it's only just scary enough.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 06, 2009, 09:37:18 PM
Well it could be that I'm a wuss.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on February 07, 2009, 06:15:07 AM
I was planning on seeing it tomorrow with Cat and her two little girl cousins, but they would probably get scared. We might have to settle for (sigh) Hotel for Dogs or (gag) The Pink Panther 2 (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pink_panther_2/)... since the girls loved the first one.

Always wondered how innate mediocrity rose to the top. Now, the phenomenon is clear.

:negative: Paying for entertainment is vorbitten. Time consuming suckfests only!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on February 08, 2009, 02:10:44 PM
So I saw Coraline. While in a bad mood. Got to the theater late, too, so I missed a few minutes. No 3-D.

Other than that: pretty great. Towards the end it kind of felt like a video game.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 08, 2009, 02:58:37 PM
When I went, we went to the late show.  There were 2 other people in the theatre, and no kids.  It was like the theatre waited just for me :3
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kazz on February 08, 2009, 05:28:19 PM
damn, now I am jealous.

I hate theater people so much
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 08, 2009, 07:10:02 PM
Yes, well you weren't in town.  So I went with Jordan.  And I bet people thought we were a couple lawwwwwwwwwwwwl.  You super missed out :D
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on February 08, 2009, 11:16:36 PM
I just saw Coraline, and it was in 3D! Because I luckily saw it outside of my hick town.

I loved it, and if I had seen it as a kid I would have been obsessed with it, much like I was with The Nightmare Before Christmas.

It really did feel like a video game near the end, and I was reminded of Eversion in some ways.

The best part: the theater was PACKED with kids and teens, but apart from reaction noises, everyone was kept quiet. It was weird that there were so many kids that late on a Sunday night, but apparently some schools have tomorrow off instead of next Monday, like I do.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on February 08, 2009, 11:23:40 PM
Alright, a more in-depth talk about Coraline.

John Hodgman as Coraline's father was easily the best character, in my opinion. Both versions of the character, he was fun to look at, he was fun to watch move, and obviously pretty fun to listen to. And [spoiler]of the three wonders, I liked his the most.[/spoiler]

By contrast, the Cat looked pretty terrible compared to the rest of the characters. All the central characters each of them looked very much organic, alive and vibrant -- except the Cat.

Beldam was awesome. Every time she showed up she got just a little bit creepier. Her [spoiler]blind battle with Coraline in the massive spider's web was pretty cool, too[/spoiler]. ADDENDUM: Also interesting was the way in which [spoiler]she created entities like the Other Wybie and the Other Father specifically to love Coraline, and then punished them for liking Coraline over her.[/spoiler]

And, finally, Aphrodite. I laughed. You just don't expect people to make that kind of joke anymore, least of all in a fairly innocent, all-ages sort of movie.

Verdict: The best Silent Hill movie to date.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 08, 2009, 11:52:24 PM
I agree about the cat.  I was actually thinking about that today.  He looks really derpy and mostly I'd think he'd look fine if they'd done his eyes differently.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: JDigital on February 09, 2009, 10:48:23 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HD5yh8ar2I
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 09, 2009, 12:12:18 PM
1:21 is what gets me.  That is the freakiest fucking opening to a movie.  I was like, shifting uncomfortably in my seat.  I just do not like dolls.  But the whole movie is so beautifully done I'd watch it again and again because I loved the movie so.  I'm a super big fan of stop-motion animation and I think the only things that make me like Coraline less than Nightmare before Christmas are A) I saw the latter first and B) I love the music in the latter.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on February 09, 2009, 05:32:25 PM
I'm not sure I would have been half as entranced if I hadn't made the concious decision to never watch a single trailer for the movie.  Watching the trailer just now made it seem like they shoved a lot of the surprises into it, as is par for the course these days.   But I went in as blind as I could and basically fell in love with everything about it.  This was also the first full length thing I've watched in 3D.  I've had slight discomfort issues with 3D bits in other films where I'm only given ten minutes or so at a time, but by the time the trailers were over I had already adjusted and could just enjoy the movie, so that was good to learn.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on February 09, 2009, 08:18:34 PM
p.s. someone give me thousands of dollars (http://cgi.ebay.com/Coraline-Handcrafted-Animation-Puppet-Prop-Used-in-Film_W0QQitemZ400028875181QQihZ027QQcategoryZ60360QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem).
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 09, 2009, 08:21:03 PM
Do want.

I'd like this (http://cgi.ebay.com/Coraline-Handcrafted-Other-Mr-Bobinsky-s-Circus-Mouse_W0QQitemZ400029122359QQihZ027QQcategoryZ60360QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) more though.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on February 10, 2009, 06:30:48 AM
Quote from: Neil Gaiman
People who are scared of buttons must live terrible lives.

(http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo22/driftycity/TetsuyaNomura.jpg)

Actually, it has been the key to my success!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kazz on February 10, 2009, 03:11:00 PM
obscure joke is obscure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetsuya_Nomura)

i bothered to look him up and i still don't really get it
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: François on February 10, 2009, 03:14:55 PM
(because his designs tend to have like tons of zippers and buckles therefore minimizing the application of buttons)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on February 10, 2009, 04:00:25 PM
Seriously.  I mean, look at this.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/FFWTF/balthier_md.jpg)

Here's Balthier.  I never took a very long look at his design before, so he always struck me as relatively sensibly dressed... nice haircut, button up shirt, cuffs, dress pants, etc.  Except on inspection, he's actually wearing a sweater that's patterned to look like a button up shirt, and has stuffed himself into leather pants 3 sizes too small in an attempt to avoid ever having to unzip it.  How the fuck does he ever piss?  At least we can be reasonably sure he's not stuffing.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/FFWTF/FFTA2Penelo_md.jpg)

And here we have... um.  Miss?  Miss, you might want to, er, check yourself.  I think you've broken something.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/FFWTF/ashe_md.jpg)

This is... what?  I... what?  Er... I really don't even really know to begin with this.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/faggymenwithbeltsxii-1.jpg)

Augh!  Stop it!  I can't take any more!

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/FFWTF/FFXII_1_md.jpg)

That's it!  I'm taking you all to see a tailor!  Don't struggle.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on February 10, 2009, 04:24:20 PM
... Nomura didn't design those characters. Akihiko Yoshida did.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on February 10, 2009, 04:41:05 PM
What?  Isn't that the cast of Faggy Men with Belts X?

...oh, fuck.  Must have been squinting.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on February 10, 2009, 05:07:11 PM
obscure joke is obscure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetsuya_Nomura)

i bothered to look him up and i still don't really get it

...part of me is going "I just dissed Kazz for being slow in another thread, maybe I should cut him some slack."

But then I think, "What would HE do if *I* claimed a joke was obscure when in fact everyone but me actually considered it downright cliche?"
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on February 10, 2009, 07:40:39 PM
Quote from: Arc on September 26, 2005, 10:31:18 PM
Corpse Bride has a charm about it. However, with all of its colorless and simplistic settings and near miss songs, it feels like that it should have been the one released in 1993, and Nightmare Before Christmas was to be the more ambitious and grand return.

Not so with Coraline, a technological marvel that has at last exceeded the visual throne. The plot is equal parts Spirited Away & Pan's Labyrinth, with a dash of Majora's Mask. The window to view this film in Real3D is growing shorter by the day, and I may just find myself returning to the theater this weekend for yet another inviting viewing.


(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/FFWTF/FFXII_1_md.jpg)

I will not save this to my desktop.
I will not save this to my desktop.
I will not save this to my desktop.
I will not save this to my desktop.
I will not save this to my desktop.
I will not save thdammit.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 10, 2009, 07:45:44 PM
Wait a minute.  Corpse Bride isn't even related to Henry Selick.  Also, it's terrible.  It's really terrible.  All the effort in that movie is clearly poured into the character designs and visual stuff.  The plot moves too quickly, the songs are crap, and it's just not very good at all.  If it weren't so pretty, I'd never watch it because it's just such tripe it's unbelievable.  And what gets me more is the god damn spider and worm.  They're useless. 

Coraline is awesome and great.  Nightmare before Christmas is awesome and great.  Henry Selick must also be awesome and great.  Also, I'd go see Coraline again if it would just play locally so I could go for free.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on February 10, 2009, 08:01:46 PM
By contrast, the Cat looked pretty terrible compared to the rest of the characters.

Dug'em. Carried a Kuroneko-sama vibe about himself.

(http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo22/driftycity/_kuroneko.jpg)


Corpse Bride isn't even related to Henry Selick.

Never wrote that it was.


Also, I'd go see Coraline again if it would just play locally so I could go for free.

Did you view the film in 3D? Stay after the credits?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on February 10, 2009, 08:03:12 PM
I will not save this to my desktop.
I will not save this to my desktop.
I will not save this to my desktop.
I will not save this to my desktop.
I will not save this to my desktop.
I will not save thdammit.

I'll just leave this original size version over here and walk away nonchalantly. (http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/FFWTF/FFXII_1.jpg)

Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 10, 2009, 08:09:25 PM
I know you didn't mention it, I was just saying.  Also, I didn't stay after the credits....were there things after the credits?  Also, the only 3-D theatre is like...an hour and a half away, so no fucking way am I driving all that way for 3-D.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on February 10, 2009, 08:12:32 PM
Also, I didn't stay after the credits....were there things after the credits?

Yes.

Jerk wad.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 10, 2009, 08:13:19 PM
Well fuck you too :3

Maybe youtube can help me.
 ::D:

...or not.  I failed.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on February 10, 2009, 08:19:48 PM
Also, the only 3-D theatre is like...an hour and a half away, so no fucking way am I driving all that way for 3-D.

It's totally worth it though. Probably. I don't know, I've never seen it.

But hey, if Yan can do it, so can you. Joi gin!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 10, 2009, 08:21:14 PM
I can basically guarantee that Kazz would be vehemently opposed to driving to said theatre and he's generally my ride.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on February 10, 2009, 08:22:38 PM
...................

Woman, are you testing me?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 10, 2009, 08:24:58 PM
Well I'd only go see it again with Kazz.  Since I already saw it with another friend, so there's no reason I should spend more money on the same movie again.  Not with my tiny wallet.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on February 10, 2009, 08:30:28 PM
The ride to the Cinemagic 15 is one hour south, but I understand your apprehension.

Jerk wad.


Woman, are you testing me?

:oic:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 10, 2009, 08:36:26 PM
You're the jerk wad >:I

...

Maybe Kazz and me can go see it friday.  If he wants.  It's closer to him than me, shaving off 45 minutes of driving.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on February 15, 2009, 09:06:38 PM
I went and saw Coraline 3-D this afternoon with Kazz at the Cinemagic theatre 20 minutes away.  It was not worth $10.50 for a ticket, and I really felt that although some of the 3-D was cute, on the whole, it really just detracted from seeing all the lovely cinematography.  Kazz seemed fairly upset by seeing it in 3-D and wished we'd seen it regularly instead.  I think he'll be downloading it so he can see it better.

I guess I just gotta say I'm glad I didn't see it in 3-D first, and the movie was still obviously fun to watch.  And I did stay til after the end credits this time around.  For the first couple minutes I wondered if Arc had played a very silly joke on me by telling me to stay for the credits when nothing was going to happen and then I saw what he was talking about.  You're something else, Arc.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kazz on February 15, 2009, 09:43:44 PM
The stop-motion film depends on colors, contrasts, and picture clarity.  When you present the film in DARK-N-BLUR-O-VISION and make everybody wear GIGGLE-SHIT-GAY-BO-GLASSES then you get a terrible visual experience.  I could tell there was a movie in front of me, somewhere, but I couldn't quite make it out.

Bonus points because LD had to wear the GSGBGs over her normal glasses.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on February 15, 2009, 09:52:31 PM
You're something else, Arc.

(http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo22/driftycity/009_kaiba_keikaku_doori.jpg)

Just as arranged beforehand into the layout which was devised to be realized for achievement.

Concerning the 3D experience, around here they charge the same admission price as any other showing. The immersion was boosted, but the color contrast was weakened. Thankfully, I've found a theater that doesn't cheap out on their projection lamps, so the difference was negligible. The amount of megaplexes that dim down the lighting brightness to save on a few bucks in the long run is criminal.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kazz on February 15, 2009, 09:58:41 PM
Regarding the film itself, I appreciate that the moral is "Shut up.  Your boring, mundane little life is fine, compared to this insane garbage."

Interestingly, Gaiman's novel "Neverwhere" has the opposite message.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ocksi on February 16, 2009, 03:44:12 PM
i thought neverwhere's message was that if you're the kind of person who feels like they won't be satisfied until they've accomplished one thing, then you will never be satisfied, even if you accomplish it.  that is, be happy you haven't had one adventure, else you'll just want more.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rico on February 16, 2009, 04:14:10 PM
No, Neverwhere is a subtle treatise on the [spoiler]Christian religion in the vein of Japanese console RPGs: IT'S EVIL SEE THE ANGEL IS BAD!![/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on February 16, 2009, 04:21:05 PM
I will punch your bones in half.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on February 16, 2009, 05:58:31 PM
...is the original TV version of Neverwhere any good?  I have it in my queue.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on February 16, 2009, 07:03:47 PM
it is not. Besides the fellow playing Carabas, that is.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on February 16, 2009, 08:34:51 PM
Coincidentally, he is exactly the reason I put it in my queue.  He was awesome in Jekyll.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on February 16, 2009, 08:39:22 PM
Gaiman himself said he's the only really good thing about the Neverwhere show, and having seen some episodes on youtube i am inclined to think he's right.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on March 02, 2009, 08:28:23 PM
Ouch (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3173040). For a little while there I thought the Chun-Li movie might actually not be that bad but... ouch.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on March 02, 2009, 09:08:47 PM
Zero percent?

That's possible?

(Apparently it isn't because I see six percent.)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on March 02, 2009, 09:35:59 PM
That's possible?

:goodnews: Oh my yes. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2007/wotw/?r=1&mid=1116131) The last film to earn 0% was in 2819 for Dino Hitlers are from Venus, Robot Xxcolpopes are from Mars. Too arty for the times.

Legend of Chun-Li was 0% at noontime, well after the crucial opening weekend.

:shrug: I suppose The New York Times & Variety needed the hits.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on March 02, 2009, 09:44:37 PM
I remember Ecks vs. Sever having a 1.somesuch last time I saw that list.  Maybe they dropped bullshit critics or rounded it off?  :mystery:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on March 02, 2009, 09:47:18 PM
This all reminds me: you know who's still making movies? Jean-Claude Van Damme. Really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Van_Damme#Filmography).
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on March 02, 2009, 09:59:35 PM
Have heard on credulous authority that JCVD > The Wrestler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z_6UfkQ-c0

Too bad he'll be missing out on the HGH Festival (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1320253/) due to his pesky insistence of never signing onto a project until he's read the script. Bullshit talks, money walks.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Fredward on March 03, 2009, 06:46:22 PM
So everything that was said about Coraline? Yeah... yeah. :wuv:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on March 05, 2009, 01:18:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUIfiLplNqQ

:THATWAY: Death to sticky dots!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on March 16, 2009, 11:59:17 AM
Miss March: Contender for Worst Film of The Decade (http://www.avclub.com/articles/miss-march-currently-the-most-critically-reviled-f,25082/)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: on March 16, 2009, 12:07:00 PM
Quote
+ Might be fun when you're hammered and surrounded by friends. Or suicidal, and need something to push you over the edge.
− Basically everything.

Dragonball (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/dragonball-evolution)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on March 16, 2009, 01:40:51 PM
So basically the other Dragonball movie.

...and anime.

...and that porno.

...basically everything ever named Dragonball, ever.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on March 16, 2009, 02:19:40 PM
so... highschool.

Okay then.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Fredward on April 15, 2009, 08:04:39 PM
Adventureland made me feel many things, all of them good. Not a laugh-riot, exactly, but had an excellent blend of humour and not-humour. It might be my favourite movie so far this year, but Coraline is a contender.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 18, 2009, 11:59:08 PM
Monsters vs. Aliens is decent enough.  I'd say the 3D is worth the price of admission; otherwise wait for the DVD.

The highlight, aside from the 3D, is :wat: as the President.  (NOTE: I am using the picture of Stephen Colbert to represent Stephen Colbert.)

Other than that...it's got a faint League of Extraordinary Gentlemen vibe in that it's about a superhero team composed of characters from various familiar stories, except instead of Victorian lit it's monster movies -- you've got analogues for the Fly, the 50-Foot Woman, the Blob, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and Godzilla repelling a clone army.

Some great visuals, some good gags, and plenty of Easter eggs for fans of the source material -- my dad had a good laugh about the shot where they try to inject Ginormica with a giant syringe; I recognized it as a reference to The Amazing Colossal Man.

Again, final verdict is it's worth a rental if you can't see it in 3D, but worth seeing in 3D if you can.  (Which you won't be able to once Up comes out.  And I am looking forward to Up!)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on April 20, 2009, 08:34:45 PM
Saw Tokyo! and 2/3 of it is really good! Leos Carax's short completely fucking sucks and is a failure in any way a movie can ever fail, short, i guess, of not being a movie at all, so it's a good time to play gameboy, or go out to the lobby and catch up on RSS feeds for a half-hour or something, or just do whatever you like that isn't watching Merde.

I'll say that again, so you don't watch it and think 'ha ha, nor hates it but surely it's more of his typical hyperbole;' you're my friends. Don't watch Merde.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on April 21, 2009, 07:07:58 AM
I was going to post that Monsters vs. Aliens was an anti-feminist screed with undertones of Big Brother but in light of recent events, people might think I wasn't being satirical.

Also, the 3D elements seemed superfluous.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Arc on April 21, 2009, 08:17:15 AM
For the initial ten minutes, the human designs were not so much uncanny as they were Lovecraftian.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 24, 2009, 07:40:16 PM
Anti-feminist is a bit of a stretch given the overbearing girl-power message.  Feminist-lite, maybe.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on April 25, 2009, 09:55:54 AM
If there was a girl-power message, maybe they should have fleshed out Ginormica's character. She didn't even have a job.

EDIT: Oh of course!

(http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2008/03/12/spice_girls_retro.jpg)

That girl power.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on May 01, 2009, 06:03:45 PM
I also thought it was nice that Hanover Fiste is getting work again.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3Qf5K2ZaRpw/SJbirqlzydI/AAAAAAAAABs/w3N6eNBnzMY/s320/monsters-vs-aliens-monger.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on May 04, 2009, 04:29:28 PM
After watching them back to back, Wolverine felt like attending a party with special guest star Buzz Killington in comparison to Crank 2.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on May 30, 2009, 04:43:31 AM
I went to see UP last night.

All I can say for now is that someone went to sleep one night and had a very beautiful dream. And against all odds they were allowed the rarest of gifts, the ability to share that dream, unvarnished, with other people.

If I hear anybody come back here and yammer about plot holes or the like, I swear to God I will hit you.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on May 30, 2009, 05:05:59 PM
Drag Me to Hell is a good old-fashioned Raimi horror flick, with all the trappings: spooky shadows and camera work, terrifying old women, cameos by Ted Raimi and Car Raimi, and more over-the-top black gross-out humor than you can shake a stick at.  It also takes the risky move of making the protagonist a totally unlikable character among a cast of totally unlikable characters, and pulls off the neat trick of making Justin Long into the only person you're actually rooting for.

At PG-13, it's not Evil Dead -- you won't see anything bloodier than a very bad nosebleed -- but it's very much a spiritual successor.  Recommended!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 31, 2009, 12:37:55 PM
I saw Up last night. The movie was sad. Yes it had a "happy" ending, but it was still a sad ending as [spoiler]the boys dad didn't even show up.[/spoiler]

The movie begins sad, then as it goes on, it just becomes sadder and more depressing. Even the villian is depressing. [spoiler]His childhood hero has gone crazy and evil because he was left alone for years with no one but talking dogs for company? The man was ruined and then went crazy.[/spoiler] And the fact that [spoiler]Craig keeps talking to his dead wife and trying to please her the whole time[/spoiler] brought even the happy moments down.

The 3-D element was good. Never was there a "oh my god! It's coming of the screen and grabbing us!" moment. The 3-D was mostly there just to add a bit more to the scenery and to make the whole thing just a bit better, visually. There was a problem with the far backgrounds not working and looking horrible but that could have been a problem with my seat or the theatre or something.

I like how the old guy looked. All angular and straight. I kept staring at his ears and his fingers because of this, they were the best example I think.

I think my girlfriend just enjoyed it because her mom's name is Kevin.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on May 31, 2009, 03:54:01 PM
I saw Up last night. The movie was sad. Yes it had a "happy" ending, but it was still a sad ending as [spoiler]the boys dad didn't even show up.[/spoiler]

The movie begins sad, then as it goes on, it just becomes sadder and more depressing. Even the villian is depressing. [spoiler]His childhood hero has gone crazy and evil because he was left alone for years with no one but talking dogs for company? The man was ruined and then went crazy.[/spoiler] And the fact that [spoiler]Craig keeps talking to his dead wife and trying to please her the whole time[/spoiler] brought even the happy moments down.

The 3-D element was good. Never was there a "oh my god! It's coming of the screen and grabbing us!" moment. The 3-D was mostly there just to add a bit more to the scenery and to make the whole thing just a bit better, visually. There was a problem with the far backgrounds not working and looking horrible but that could have been a problem with my seat or the theatre or something.

I like how the old guy looked. All angular and straight. I kept staring at his ears and his fingers because of this, they were the best example I think.

I think my girlfriend just enjoyed it because her mom's name is Kevin.

 (http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/Bon_Bon_2009/scruffy-1.jpg) pretty much on all points. But I didn't mind that it was 'depressing' because it worked very very well. That movie had me cryin' a whole bunch of times. Only the very best movies can do that to my corroded soul.

The 3D wasn't impressive. Like, the 3D trailer for Ice Age 3 had MUCH more impressive use of 3D, but again, that was a very very minor thing. And on the plus side it means that the DVD won't really suffer for not being in 3D.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Guild on June 01, 2009, 12:42:15 PM
My only complaint about Star Trek was the fact that [spoiler]Spock selfishly jeopardizes Earth's existence (and indeed the entire Federation's) by telling Kirk that he can't talk to the young version of himself. His reason: I want to be friends with Kirk. That's the most bullshit, emotional, illogical reasoning I've ever heard and it makes no sense at all.[/spoiler]

Otherwise I had a huge grin on my face the entire time. It made me feel like a kid again.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on June 01, 2009, 07:57:08 PM
[spoiler]That's the most bullshit, emotional, illogical reasoning I've ever heard and it makes no sense at all.[/spoiler]

That's the point.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Guild on June 01, 2009, 08:15:00 PM
[spoiler]The point is that Spock wants Earth and the Federation destroyed?[/spoiler] I guess I thought more of him.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Dooly on June 01, 2009, 10:38:32 PM
Your avatar says you think an awful lot of him.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on June 02, 2009, 09:41:31 PM
drag me to hell
+
up
=
best double feature ever
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on June 03, 2009, 07:55:58 AM
That sounds like a terrible double feature.  Is Up out now? :O

Edit: Oh crapnuts.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on June 03, 2009, 08:51:45 AM
You're absolutely wrong and also watching them back to back reveals several thematic similarities ("I don't want your walker")
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Spram on June 06, 2009, 07:46:05 PM
Watched Up.

The 3D didn't work much for me, I guess it's because I have bad eyesight on one eye and good on the other*. All the 3D glasses did was make the movie look darker, which kinda sucked because there were some dark parts and I could barely see.

Anyway, it's still a great Pixar movie, but doesn't beat The Incredibles or Ratatouille.

MAIN BEEF: [spoiler]The old guy doesn't have a realistic reason for saving the bird from the old explorer and risking everyone's life in the process. Yeah, I know we, the audience, are supposed to like Kevin, but I still don't buy it.  Same thing happened in Wall-E, why did the people in the spaceship help Wall-E? Did they even know what he was doing? Did they know about the plant? Why would they want to go back to Earth? Whatever. Talking Rats.[/spoiler]

*Should have brought my glasses.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cannon on June 06, 2009, 09:26:31 PM
[spoiler]Carl wanted to Have An Adventure! Plus he realized that wallowing in nostalgia and what he had lost was immoral in that case.[/spoiler]

I didn't much care for Up.

I can respond to your comments about Wall-E without giving away the rest of the spoiler tag.

Erm. As for spoiling the latter, you really should've seen it by now. If you haven't, then you stink.

As I recall, the only human actively helping Wall-E was the captain. John and Mary just kind of raised a little ruckus, and all the passengers passively went along with Operation: Re-Colonize once it was set into motion. They were mostly neutral. So no, the passengers (including John and Mary) didn't know about the plant, save for the captain, and that was all it took after he disabled Auto. Maybe I'm missing something, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Misha on June 06, 2009, 09:29:19 PM
Watched Drag Me to Hell, though it was pretty dang good.

RE: UP[spoiler]Didn't carl only go to rescue the bird after the kid went after it? At that point going to save the bird is basically just a side effect of saving this kid who will go to great lengths to rescue it.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cannon on June 06, 2009, 09:38:28 PM
Hence why it was immoral. [spoiler]Here is the Ellie Badge, Russell. It means you should calm down and live a normal life if you want to be a retarded teenager some day.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on June 07, 2009, 05:53:01 AM
This is right up there with the "The Incredibles is Objectivist screed" discussion.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: MadMAxJr on June 07, 2009, 04:57:02 PM
I went to see Land of the Lost.  Someone drag Will Ferrel away.  Far away.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on June 07, 2009, 07:00:08 PM
 :;_;:

What if you happened to think that Anchorman was comic genius? I've been really, really hoping LoL is as funny as I think it could be.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on June 07, 2009, 07:46:29 PM
I'm a fan of Ferrel, and Land of the Lost looked funny from the trailers, but apparently it's turned out on the tier of Pluto Nash or Howard the Duck.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Crouton on June 10, 2009, 04:08:30 PM
Sooooo.... slightly better than the original series?...
Title: Cybertronica! Slag yeah!
Post by: Cannon on June 25, 2009, 08:26:09 PM
I will not double post in the Transformers thread, because you are not the boss of Cannon.

Revenge of the Fallen created a new, lower standard for big, loud, and stupid summer action movies. You know how most every Michael Bay flick has a frenzied goofball who is quite the character? At some point before he made Revenge, he fired the guy that said he could only have one such dolt per movie, because they are all over the place here.

So the eponymous villain's motive makes no sense (beyond the plot necessity of someone having to be evil and set events into motion), I would not want to share close quarters with any man who thinks dogs humping and "wrecking balls as testicles" are choice gags, and the idiotic mess felt at least forty-five minutes too long. I could cherrypick somewhat mythical themes and Transformer-y bits that I latched on to, but I could not divorce them from the work itself. That's often how it is with movies that are objectively mediocre, bad, or just plain horrible, but that I am otherwise entertained and engaged by.

I still smiled and almost cheered at certain parts of this mass of cinematic junk food, and I am planning to see it again. Probably on my birthday, since box office makes the case that it'll still be in theaters then. Something is broken within me.

...As for the previous "lower standard" remark, yeah, that's exaggeration. I have no idea if there's any redeeming typical summer action schlockbusters; I just wanted to sound like a fancypants.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on June 25, 2009, 11:14:15 PM
I saw The Hangover a few days ago; it was pretty good! Much better than the trailers made it out to be.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on June 26, 2009, 08:19:19 AM
Yeah, definitely an entertaining film. Ed Helms was way better than I'd expected the guy to be, considering he's never had a likable role, and Zach Galifianakis was obviously completely awesome. Whenever they tried setting up a bad guy, like with the mafia folks, the movie started getting pretty stupid, but they moved on fairly quickly and definitely get their shit together by the end.

Great cast, fun movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on July 28, 2009, 10:30:56 PM
Moon was good. I'm glad I watched it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: SCD on July 29, 2009, 03:37:39 PM
Just watched The Half Blood Prince

[spoiler]Turns out Snape kills Dumbledore[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on July 29, 2009, 03:45:05 PM
Turns out Snape kills Dumbledore
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: yyler on July 29, 2009, 04:07:49 PM
holy fuck thanks a lot DN
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on July 29, 2009, 07:21:59 PM
... seriously?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on July 29, 2009, 07:53:25 PM
ya srsly.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2009, 11:45:01 AM
Went and saw UP again, when the wife suggested we take her dad out to go see it. Still gut-wrenching and terribly enjoyable.

Just posting because I remembered the 'Does Muntz die?' nonsense from earlier. Well, yeah, the Pixar folks took very careful pans to show that he had a few balloons attached to him - but on the other hand he was falling pretty damn fast.

So uh... still inconclusive!  :imagination:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on August 02, 2009, 12:00:36 PM
His ship and dogs and supplies and everything are gone, though.  If he's lucky, the fall killed him.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on August 05, 2009, 12:10:41 PM
Funny People was about an hour too long.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: jsnlxndrlv on August 05, 2009, 12:13:31 PM
Ouch.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Fredward on August 05, 2009, 01:10:08 PM
 :wrong:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on August 05, 2009, 04:33:30 PM
Ouch.

Considering that it was almost two and a half hours long...
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Misha on August 15, 2009, 04:16:29 PM
ponyo is ok but I'd recommend it behind like every other thing miyazaki has made. a lot of time is spent in which nothing really happens.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kayma on August 15, 2009, 05:08:46 PM
a lot of time is spent in which nothing really happens.

You have described most Ghibli flicks. Note, I do not think is a slight in the slightest.

Going to see Ponyo tomorrow. Shame on you all for not supporting its American opening weekend release.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on August 15, 2009, 06:59:59 PM
What the hell is ponyo.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on August 15, 2009, 07:06:47 PM
A Studio Ghibli film, obviously.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on August 15, 2009, 08:17:01 PM
I saw Ponyo today. It was tremendously implausible - are they really asking me to believe that a six year old kid knows the names of Devonian period bony fish?

It was good. Not the best. Ending theme music was insultingly bad. Liam Neeson did good voicework.

Alternate title: "The Little Water Genasi".
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on August 15, 2009, 09:56:04 PM
a lot of time is spent in which nothing really happens.

You have described most Ghibli flicks.

Hahaha, that's exactly what I thought as soon as I read that too :D
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on August 16, 2009, 10:53:13 AM
I saw Ponyo today. It was tremendously implausible - are they really asking me to believe that a six year old kid knows the names of Devonian period bony fish?
A six-year-old kid with a lavishly illustrated science book that happens to strike his interest will probably memorize everything in it. (For me, it was astronomy.)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kayma on August 16, 2009, 06:01:49 PM
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand saw Ponyo. Beautiful, charming, nonsensical, pointless; I loved it.

Easily the highest turn out of any Miyazaki film I've seen in theaters. The crowd at my showing seemed to love it, as well.

I was dreading the song at the end, but it wasn't so bad. The song that plays at first is basically just an English version of the original. Then came the... remix. At least it was tacked on the end.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on August 18, 2009, 07:03:49 AM
:sadpanda:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on August 18, 2009, 06:48:43 PM
Ponyo
 :wuv:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on August 18, 2009, 06:56:27 PM
Ponyo
 :wuv:

I cannot read the name of that movie without hearing "PA PA PA PANYO PANYO PA".

I'd post that in the Nerd thread but, you know.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on August 20, 2009, 02:28:55 PM
So a pair of chinese people invited me to a movie. At first they said it would be The Time Traveler's Wife but at the end it wound up being G-Force. My eyes didn't  bleed, and next to the decidedly unfunny goings-on of Muhammad's life and trying to put together an LP of Sid Meier's Colonization I actually found myself enjoying it. I need to do something actually fun.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on September 02, 2009, 09:17:13 PM
to everyone who is down on ponyo (not necessarily you guys) i hate you forever because sometimes a movie is allowed to simply be the most adorable thing in existence.

thirst could probably be tucked in enough to lose a half hour or so and come out better for it in the end, but it's still a damn fun flick.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Catloaf on September 04, 2009, 08:33:24 PM
I just saw Inglourious Basterds.  It's hilarious and horrifyingly violent.

And THE BEAR JEW reminds me of the Scout in his mannerisms.  He is the best character other than Brad Pitt's.  The big villain isn't Hitler, although he is a target, but rather a whimsically evil SS officer called Landa aka 'the jew hunter'.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on September 05, 2009, 06:49:20 AM
And THE BEAR JEW reminds me of the Scout in his mannerisms.

I believe Scott Ramasoomalair took that idea and ran with it in his most recent comic. And by "ran with it," I mean, "put a token effort into."
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on September 09, 2009, 04:35:33 PM
I liked Inglourious Basterds.

It was very Tarantinoey. Which means that I was unspeakably entertained for most of it and tried my very best not to be bugged by the few parts where Tarantino was practically nudging me in the side and whispering "Hey you - yes, you, there, in the theater, watching this movie - you are more like a Nazi, and also Hitler, than you realize!"

It meets with my approval and I think I would like to watch it again sometime. I am looking forward to the supposed prequel.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Fortinbras on September 09, 2009, 04:38:15 PM
I was thinking it should be an hour longer.

Typically, Tarantino brought out a bunch of really interesting characters and then murdered the lot of them.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on September 09, 2009, 05:16:20 PM
watching a tarantino movie requires shutting off the part of your brain that appreciates taste

i'm saying this as a fan of pretty much every movie he's made including jackie brown

Tarantino does pulp. Sometimes there is a message but mostly it is "hey wow when i cut this guy blood shoots out like five feet that is pretty awesome" or "dicks dicks dicks dicks dicks dicks."

Not all of his violence is for it's own sake, but a lot of it is. Kill Bill was essentially an entire film(s) made about meaningless violence. AND IT WAS AWESOME
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on September 09, 2009, 05:47:18 PM
He needs to choose his targets better, really.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: James Edward Smith on September 10, 2009, 09:55:11 AM
I was thinking it should be an hour longer.

Typically, Tarantino brought out a bunch of really interesting characters and then murdered the lot of them.

Perhaps, but the movie is meant to be his Dirty Dozen and well, pretty much everyone dies in that too.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Misha on September 10, 2009, 10:04:09 AM
9 was pretty crappy. It looked really nice but frankly that's basically a given for computer animated shit these days. The monster things were pretty bad ass but the clichéd generic characters and nonsensical plot made it fall apart for me.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Fortinbras on September 10, 2009, 10:24:45 AM
Oh no, not being down on it for the ending at all.  I loved the end, how could you not [spoiler]love machinegunned Hitler[/spoiler]?

I read that the thing has had like a million rewrites and was once three movies long.  I would love to have 4+ hours of Basterds.  The second chapter in particular deserved to have more to it.

Still loved it tons.  Like, literally my only criticism is that I want more of it, which is not so bad as criticisms go.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on September 10, 2009, 10:30:32 AM
Aww.  That's a shame.  I did get a bit of a "generic" vibe off "9"'s trailers.

Inglourius Basterds was pretty swank, though.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on September 11, 2009, 11:07:12 AM
From what I've read, the short film 9 (which the feature-length version is based on) is a lot better. The story is tighter in scope and not padded out by hordes of characters and subplots.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on September 11, 2009, 11:12:12 PM
9 was pretty crappy. It looked really nice but frankly that's basically a given for computer animated shit these days. The monster things were pretty bad ass but the clichéd generic characters and nonsensical plot made it fall apart for me.

This is exactly true.  9 was well-animated, and the voice acting was competent, but in every other possible way it was absolute shit.  I am amazed at their ability to be both completely nonsensical and insane, and yet at the same time ridiculously cliche and by-the-book.

Also: [spoiler]when 9 plugged in the Plot Device and the thing ate 2 and 7 was like "What were you thinking?!?"[/spoiler], that is a damn good question.  I was wondering that myself.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on September 12, 2009, 05:51:54 AM
Because SEVEN, EIGHT, NIIIINE AAA-HYUKYUKYUKYUK!!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on September 12, 2009, 11:50:43 AM
It retrospect, it was probably fitting that we went to see it on 9/11.  It was that bad.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on September 13, 2009, 11:47:35 AM
Went to a double-feature at the local drive-in last night; saw Halloween 2 and The Goods.

Halloween 2 was a Halloween movie.  I didn't see the first one of the new series so I didn't get the backstory about how it's all Linderman's fault that Mike Myers became evil and how the main girl is his sister, but the movie kind of caught me up.  Best parts:

The movie is very hard to make any sense of at a drive-in, because the poor lighting makes most of it impossible to see with city lights in the background.  I had great difficulty telling the characters apart and determining who was speaking at any given time.  However, I can't advise watching it anywhere else BUT at a drive-in, because Lord knows I wouldn't pay $8 to see this in a fucking indoor theater.  I'd say "wait for the Rifftrax" but honestly this would make a poor Rifftrax; too many long spaces where nobody says anything.

As for The Goods: it's a decent but forgettable movie in the Frat Pack tradition.  Not as good as, say, Talladega Nights or Anchorman, but fits in nicely with the tier-2 likes of Walk Hard and Blades of Glory.  I remember laughing but nothing really stands out as hilarious except Ferrell's cameo.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on September 24, 2009, 07:38:11 PM
I saw Soul Power. It was amazing.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: yyler on September 24, 2009, 08:10:30 PM
I saw it first though
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on September 25, 2009, 03:02:06 AM
 :khaaan: :enraged: :fuckyou:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on September 26, 2009, 08:00:19 PM
9: It's much easier to appreciate this one if you look at it as a surreal dreamy sort of thing instead of an actual coherent narrative.  If you even slightly scratch the surface of the plot, you'll fall in one of the many holes, but I don't think plot is the point.  It's very much a part of the Lucas-Spielberg Style-Over-Substance school of storytelling, with an emphasis on "telling" rather than "story", but it meanders a hell of a lot less than those two guys tend to do.  No, it never settles down to satisfactorily explain much of anything, but on the other hand that keeps it lean and tightly-paced.  And it's pretty friggin' gorgeous.

Extract: Not great, not terrible; a middling Mike Judge movie with a good cast.  Also an argument for my longstanding belief that Ben Affleck is great in supporting roles (I just hate him as a leading man).

Inglourious Basterds: Okay, so Tarantino's a genius.  I love the idea of a propaganda film about propaganda films, and the execution is even better than the high concept.  It's got all the Tarantino hallmarks: laughs, gore, postmodernism, and a great cast; Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz both put in fantastic performances.  Worth watching; worth owning.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Shinra on October 03, 2009, 08:46:08 PM
Zombieland is the feel good family classic of the year.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on October 12, 2009, 03:54:12 PM
Paranormal Activity is pretty much The Blair Witch Project 2: Niku Sleeps With The Lights On Again.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on October 12, 2009, 05:03:54 PM
Wasn't there an actual Blair Witch Project 2?

Wasn't it completely atrocious in every possible way?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on October 12, 2009, 06:11:38 PM
THAT'S WHY THIS IS BLAIR WITCH 2 OKAY
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on October 12, 2009, 06:40:06 PM
Zombieland:

I love zombies, and zombie movies. I love Night of the Living Dead, the original. I love 28 days later, the artsy one. I love Shaun of the Dead, the funny one. I love Resident Evil, the stupid one.

I came dangerously close to not loving Zombieland.

Wow-playing nerd survives the apocalypse and meets up with the girl of his every nerd's dreams and through zombie killing and heroic bravery idiocy wins her over so her can gently brush her hair back from her face? No thanks. I don't need to see the fantasy of every basement dweller brought to life on the silver screen.

The zombies were hardly scary, hardly gross. It's like they just threw them in as an afterthought after they were done writing a boy meets girl story. They paid zero attention to realism, (why is the fucking electricity still on everywhere?) which is fine, I guess, but just reinforces the carelessness of the writing.  Even Bill Murray's cameo was underwhelming.

Just based off the above, I probably would have filed this movie as the first zombie movie I ever saw and didn't like. (Note I have never actually seen 28 months later.)

Except for Woody Harrelson.

His character and acting literally saves this movie. Thank you, Woody. Please be in more movies.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on October 12, 2009, 07:12:45 PM
I agree that "Every WoW player's wet dream come to life" sounded like quite possibly the worst description for a movie since "Keanu Reeves romantic comedy with poorly done traumatic WWII flashbacks", but plenty of folks I've talked to thought it was gassy.

Apparently, the key is to understand that the zombies are just tacked on to something that is essentially WOODY HARRELSON'S LAFF-A-MINUTE ROADTRIP oh and zombies, a nerd and some chick.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on October 16, 2009, 08:13:43 PM
First Soul Power and now this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-wqmnJrOFM

HEY GUYS GUESS WHAT ELSE ISN'T PLAYING IN TORONTO!

FUCK

SHIT

FUCK

SHIT

FUCK

DAMMIT!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on October 16, 2009, 08:17:06 PM
Well what do you expect living in a place with no movie theaters.  Do you guys know about microwaves yet?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on October 16, 2009, 08:18:33 PM
Limited releases suck. ATTN MOVIEMAKERS: There are people on this earth who don't live in New York or LA, and some of them even like movies
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on October 16, 2009, 08:21:21 PM
Well what do you expect living in a place with no movie theaters.  Do you guys know about microwaves yet?
:wuv:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on October 17, 2009, 12:21:48 AM
oh my god if this is playing anywhere within 10 million miles of me i am going to see it so hard my eyes will explode (? there's no good way to finish that hyperbolic boast)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on October 17, 2009, 06:26:23 AM
It's even dumber because Toronto has become a big enough movie town that the Toronto International Film Festival is now in the top five for important annual film festivals.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on October 21, 2009, 09:18:27 PM
drethelin is dumb and stupid and i loved where the wild things are
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on October 25, 2009, 05:58:49 PM
Where the Wild Things Are is amazing.  It's also not a kid's flick.  I suspect the people who disliked it were expecting something a little less symbolic and a little more cutesy kid stuff.  The fact that it dealt with the turmoil of growing up and left that a little unresolved might upset people.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on October 25, 2009, 07:26:30 PM
Don't see Couples Retreat.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on October 25, 2009, 07:32:20 PM
Don't see Couples Retreat romantic comedies.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on October 25, 2009, 07:46:31 PM
I went to see A Serious Man.


SON I AM DISAPPOINT.  ::(:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on October 25, 2009, 07:51:42 PM
Where the Wild Things Are is amazing.  It's also not a kid's flick.  I suspect the people who disliked it were expecting something a little less symbolic and a little more cutesy kid stuff.  The fact that it dealt with the turmoil of growing up and left that a little unresolved might upset people.

Right.  What I got from it was that the people who made the movie remembered what it was like to be a kid, except for the attention span part.  2-year-olds might like it, and anyone who's, say, 13 or over and doesn't think they're too cool for a "kiddie" movie will appreciate it, but for people Max's own age it's too long and not enough happens.

That said, it's whimsical and surreal and cuts to the heart of what childhood is -- the dizzying highs and lows, laughing and then crying and then raging all in the span of a few minutes, and the feeling of isolation, like nobody understands you.  The bragging and the tall tales and the powerlessness and the wonder and the beauty of everything.

Tonally, it's very different from the book, but thematically it's much the same.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on November 01, 2009, 10:05:56 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-wqmnJrOFM

so it turns out this won't be playing in houston at all.

UNTIL WE SHOW IT AS A TWO-NIGHT ONLY MIDNIGHT MOVIE PREMIER.  YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on November 03, 2009, 05:10:54 PM
Pajiba is a very good website. (http://www.pajiba.com/guides/a-guide-to-getting-the-most-out-of-the-moviegoing-experience.php)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on November 04, 2009, 07:57:32 PM
I'm gonna get to see Black Dynamite after all!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 10, 2009, 09:46:59 PM
Astro Boy is adequate.  Nicolas Cage drags it down pretty badly, but the rest of the cast is pretty good.  (I'm OLDSCHOOL.)  The script is apparently by Dini but it's hard to tell; there's some good Oliver Twist shit in there with Nathan Lane playing the Fagin role, but that sequence ends in a very by-the-numbers arena scene where Astro goes from refusing to harm other robots to harming a hell of a lot of other robots to refusing to harm other robots faster than you can say "rewrite".

Not a bad way to kill an hour and a half, but not highly recommended either.  Wait for video.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kazz on November 16, 2009, 10:54:31 PM
http://kazz.rooms.cwal.net/honpodscast.mp3
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on November 21, 2009, 04:36:34 PM
2012:

THE OPERATIVE VS OLIVER PLATT

JOHN CUSACK VS A SERIES OF SKIN OF YOUR BALLS ESCAPES

WOODY HARRELSON VS THE SUPER VOLCANO

DOCTOR PHLOX FROM ENTERPRISE VS HIS BOW TIE

Highlights: You get to watch LA and Vegas explode!

Everthing Else: Meh.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on November 29, 2009, 03:19:15 PM
Fantastic Mr. Fox is excellent.  But I strongly suspect that the adults laughed more at the film while the children enjoyed the previews of movies where people get hit in the crotch more.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on December 04, 2009, 07:40:27 AM
Black Dynamite is better than you could possibly imagine.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 04, 2009, 08:43:39 AM
AFTYDGJHFGEJYFGEJHHJKHGRHRGRGHJKRGHGRGRHJGYEGJRFJEJYER

EDIT: It MIGHT be coming out in Toronto. MIGHT. HAVE TO SEE.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on December 04, 2009, 09:14:29 AM
Black Dynamite is better than you could possibly imagine.

I was really expecting it to be a lot more one-note and it really astounded me. It's like Hot Fuzz but for a less distinct genre.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on December 04, 2009, 10:50:41 AM
Black Dynamite is better than you could possibly imagine.

I'm guessing you saw it at the Landmark Riveroaks 3 because that is the closest theater that moviefone is recommending to me.  :sadpanda
It's like Hot Fuzz but for a less distinct genre.

Blaxpoitation?  Also this is the best recommendation I have seen for any film ever and I am sad I cannot see this film currently.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on December 04, 2009, 01:44:57 PM
Not just blaxploitation. pretty much anything of that era, including shawscope, etc.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on December 04, 2009, 01:45:48 PM
Also, do what yyler did, and torrent that motherfucker.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on December 04, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Black Dynamite is better than you could possibly imagine.

I'm guessing you saw it at the Landmark Riveroaks 3 because that is the closest theater that moviefone is recommending to me.  :sadpanda

FUCK SOUP IS GOING TO FIND OUT WHERE I WORK
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on December 04, 2009, 05:48:59 PM
FUCK SOUP IS GOING TO FIND OUT WHERE I WORK

With Step 1 accomplished, I can commence with Step 2: Acquiring 20 feet of rubber tubing.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on December 06, 2009, 07:50:20 AM
I thought I told you not to interrupt me during my kung-fu?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kazz on December 12, 2009, 01:03:57 PM
Princess and the Frog

[spoiler]YOU WILL BELIEVE A BUG CAN DIE[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Catloaf on December 12, 2009, 08:39:19 PM
A Serious Man

Jewish: The movie!

It's really funny, but goddamn is it irritatingly open-ended--it's on purpose and it makes it better artistically, but it's still irritating a surface level.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 12, 2009, 09:20:09 PM
Yeah, that whole movie felt like it was building up to something. Then...
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lady Duke on December 12, 2009, 09:53:17 PM
Kazz should also mention the movie was pretty great.  It was about as great as many old films by Disney, so I loved it <3

Also I got to eat delicious food while we watched.  And we had the theatre to ourselves.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 12, 2009, 10:19:10 PM
(http://www.methodshop.com/video/reviews/ladytramp/kiss.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 12, 2009, 10:21:25 PM
The Fantastic Mr. Fox is fucking gorgeous.  I was probably under 10 the last time I read the book, so I don't remember much of it, but bits like the tail and The Terrible Tractors hit me with fun little "Oh yeah, I remember that!" moments.  But even where it wasn't throwing out references to the source material, it stood pretty well on its own, especially in terms of animation.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kazz on December 12, 2009, 11:03:42 PM
(http://kazz.rooms.cwal.net/mrfox.png)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: SCD on December 13, 2009, 07:01:20 PM
Alright, most accurately-named movie of the year:  Ninja Assassin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4pEKQ_zUBo

Just came out of it, and it was worth my seven dollars.

I recommend this movie to the following categories of those who:

-Watch Niku's LP's/walkthroughs..
-Like gunfights
-Like Swordfights
-Like blood
-Like Ninjas
-Like assassins
-Like the last two in intersection
-Like the last with 2-4 in complete intersection
-dislike excessive meaningful dialog (replacement killers lovers, that's you!)


Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: SCD on December 13, 2009, 08:19:42 PM
It gets better...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x62_LL0Nfw
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 13, 2009, 08:43:41 PM
Yeah, that was an interesting comic when it started.

But then instead of actually being a story about what it really would be like if someone did that in real life... it's just turned into another superhero comic, one of those ones that just has lots of abuse of the main character, but isn't really any different.

 ::(:

Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on December 14, 2009, 01:11:08 PM
(http://kazz.rooms.cwal.net/mrfox.png)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Frocto on December 21, 2009, 06:13:00 AM
Avatar Is A Pile Of Horseshit

Or

Why You Should Be Rooting For The Badguys


At what point did director shorthand for majesty, magic and fantasy boil down to, "Riding Dragons"? When did any other method of capturing the method get divorced from film-making, for fuck's sake

Avatar is a movie basically entirely about riding dragons and that's pretty much it. The entire purpose of the hideous blue people tribe is to fight dragons, ride dragons and jump from tree to tree then sleep in their tree cocoon things and do it all again tomorrow whoopee.

Obviously the entire premise of the movie hinges on seeing these beautiful forest people's way of life and wanting to preserve that, but not every person going into that cinema can be guaranteed to give a shit about riding some fucking stupid stripey dragons ok! The other "aspects" of forest people life involve drinking water, jumping from tree to tree, holding bow-strings steady (the bows which are never actually used to hunt wildlife once in the entire movie) and [spoiler]enabling women to cheat on their fiances. [/spoiler]

THAT'S ANOTHER THING: I could go on for days about how every dumbfuck Hollywood movie had a scene where the handsome, roguish shithead steals the woman away from the guy with the funny-shaped head, but in this case not only were they [spoiler]actually engaged to be married but the Rival was actually intelligent, competent and arrived at a plan of action before the World Tree got destroyed[/spoiler] instead of after. I didn't like the Night Elf campaign when I played it and I sure as hell didn't want to have to relive it.

Anyway, dragons. I do not give a flying shit about dragons. These people's way of life was shitty as hell. It was arduous, lethal (they repeatedly commented on how common it was for their people to just die all the time, even if it was never shown), had no discernible point to any of it beyond getting high all the time and for fuck's sake I do not care about jumping from tree to tree, either. Make me give a shit about your dumb fucking tribal people.

As if to hammer home the point of how fucking shallow and easily amused these idiots are, at the point in the film where the main character has actually betrayed everyone he cares about and has [spoiler]gotten their second-most priceless relic destroyed[/spoiler], how does he make it up to them? [spoiler]He goes and gets a REALLY BIG DRAGON and rides it into their camp. They instantly forgive him because hey it's a huge dragon, and they enable this stupid shit to just go ahead and regurgitate the plan that the other guy already came up with and they follow him brainlessly. [/spoiler]

The real killer here is that you never actually SEE HIM [spoiler]TAME THE DRAGON[/spoiler] IT HAPPENS OFF-SCREEN AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

He then [spoiler]leads something like 15 tribes in a stupid as fuck frontal assault that gets them all killed. All of them. Literally.[/spoiler] The "villain" meanwhile, promises his men that the first round of drinks is on him after they get back to base. The only assurance we have that this guy is evil is that his soldiers chuckle evilly and he shoots at the heroes for, imagine that, stealing his property. The Colonel was the one good thing about this movie and I could watch him stab that stupid fucking Displacer Beast a hundred times over and never get sick of it.

Seriously, that bit where he [spoiler]comes down out of the air and his ship explodes behind him and the rest of that fight scene[/spoiler] were the only good thing in the film. Avatar is the worst worst worst worst worst film I have seen in as long as I can remember and the closest I have ever come to walking out of the cinema mid-film.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on December 21, 2009, 06:33:51 AM
I could feel it was candy-coated dross.  Thanks for saving me the time and money to prove it to myself.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: MadMAxJr on December 21, 2009, 07:54:59 AM
Turns out the 3D glasses give me dizziness and migraines.

The film itself had highs and lows. Vivid colors, detailed scenery, and interesting mechanical designs were all slick.  Plot wasn't the most gripping thing ever, feels a bit like Cameron saw some anime and thought "I can do that!" and [spoiler]"Lets kill off most of the protagonists!"[/spoiler]

*** Short Version of Plot***


The whole beginning feels rushed.  Shut up Shinji, get in the Na'vi.  Current state of humanity is kept very brief.

Humans want resources.  Blue guys are in the way.

Hero: Okay, I'm gonna be a blue guy, I'll go talk to them.  For three months.

Corp Guy & Military Guy: Diplomacy takes too long, lets just use the hired guns!

War.  Ever want to see a bunch of Apache Gunships fight indians?

More movies need giant robot knife fights.

End.

It takes two and a half hours (plus 30 minutes of previews) to do that.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on December 21, 2009, 08:23:39 AM
Ever want to see a bunch of Apache Gunships fight indians?
No.
Quote
More movies need giant robot knife fights.
(http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/Bon_Bon_2009/scruffy-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 21, 2009, 11:00:16 AM
Wow, Spoony's review (http://blip.tv/play/hIVVgbiFVgI) hit a lot of the same points as you, Frocto.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 12:18:49 PM
I'm drawing a blank right now on science-fiction movies from the past decade with writing that matched the quality of lavish special effects we're now capable of.

I know it's just my cynical brain blocking things out and that there must've been a FEW movies that used effects to beautify an already-good story rather than hide the lack of one, so uh... name some? Ones that aren't remakes or adaptations? Please? For the love of god?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on December 21, 2009, 12:31:54 PM
Avatar sucked, and why were the humanoids the only creatures on that planet to evolve without their blowholes/gills on their necks?  Wouldn't that be some kind of indication as to the type of air they are breathing on that planet as well as the necessary body parts needed to process it into something useful?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on December 21, 2009, 12:39:17 PM
(the bows which are never actually used to hunt wildlife once in the entire movie)

Just saw the movie. This was probably the least of your complaints, but there was a scene where the girl taught the main guy to hunt an animal with a bow and respect nature and blah blah blah. Anyway, back to the complaints.

I want to see a movie where the cool technology and robots from this movie are the good guys, because those were really awesome robots and I wanna see them again. I guess that'd be too much like Independence Day meets Matrix 3.

I can't believe they actually called it Unobtanium, like in The Core.  :facepalm:

Summary: Pretty but heavy-handed.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 12:42:57 PM
Wait, this movie has a substance called "Unobtainium?" Did they have Stan-fucking-Lee on staff as a writer?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on December 21, 2009, 12:43:47 PM
It was really bad.  I don't even remember that they said WHAT they wanted the unobtainium for.  It was just shitty.

I didn't even think it was that pretty tbh.  I mean I like things that are really pretty, but say I'm watching anime.  I'd rather watch a pretty-people anime than say, Serial Experiments Lain, because even if it's good it's just not pretty to look at.  And I thought the blue people and all the animals were not pretty.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on December 21, 2009, 12:46:47 PM
Quote
I'm drawing a blank right now on science-fiction movies from the past decade with writing that matched the quality of lavish special effects we're now capable of.

Does the (original) Matrix count? If it does, it's the only one I can think of.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 21, 2009, 12:48:05 PM
Yeeeeeeeah, I couldn't go into that film (or any film for that matter with plot elements like 'Unobtainium') without my suspension of disbelief snapping like Gwen Stacy's neck.

EDIT: Con sarn it, Miss Cat Ears!

EDIT EDIT: AND FRIDAY!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on December 21, 2009, 12:48:51 PM
It was really bad.  I don't even remember that they said WHAT they wanted the unobtainium for.  It was just shitty.

That's the thing. They NEVER said what it was for. Humans want it, and apparently humans also killed all "the green" on Earth. Humans suck, blah blah blah, except for scientists, but while they're nice, they just don't get it according to the natives.

EDIT: [spoiler]I thought it was pretty creepy how both the Na'vi and the planet could just up and control animals if they wanted to. I know they're not sentient, but at least humans have to actually get animals to accept them or raise them from birth or domesticate them for generations for these kind of results.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on December 21, 2009, 12:54:25 PM
EDIT: [spoiler]I thought it was pretty creepy how both the Na'vi and the planet could just up and control animals if they wanted to. I know they're not sentient, but at least humans have to actually get animals to accept them or raise them from birth or domesticate them for generations for these kind of results.[/spoiler]

Agreed. [spoiler]And that's without mentioning that they went on and on and on about how an animal has to CHOOSE you, otherwise it will never work, they won't let you do anything... but in reality, all you had to do was look at them or jump on their back (big dragon) and plug right in and they became mindless vehicles.[/spoiler]

Plus Sigourney Weaver's avatar was just weird looking.  It was so weird looking that it made me uncomfortable just to see it on screen.  I will probably have nightmares about it at some point.

EDIT: Con sarn it, Miss Cat Ears!
>:3
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on December 21, 2009, 01:24:52 PM
I read an article somewhere with a good point: Pandora is the most xenophobic planet (well, moon) ever. [spoiler]Every living thing is connected to the same neural network, so the humans are just a virus and all the species instantly, inherently hate them - there was never a chance for a peaceful co-existence, even if the humans stayed far away from any inhabited area and never bothered the natives.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 01:53:46 PM
Quote
I'm drawing a blank right now on science-fiction movies from the past decade with writing that matched the quality of lavish special effects we're now capable of.

Does the (original) Matrix count? If it does, it's the only one I can think of.

I actually hated the Matrix (and not just because of Keanu), but I must grudgingly admit to that being technically correct.

So long as you don't include the sequels, when it became some kind of WHITE WOLF GAMES, THE MOVIE!

I just feel robbed, I mean, the previous generation got stuff like Star Wars, and we get stuff like.... the Star Wars sequels.  I keep thinking it's just an old man's gripes, but I really can't think of any blow-me-away awesome movies from the last ten years where they used the technology to tell an awesome story, as opposed staring at this giant pile of CGI jizz and kind of musing.... "Hmmm.... this is really pretty.... maybe we could tell some kind of story with this stuff?"

::(:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on December 21, 2009, 02:38:47 PM
Well, if we go outside of Sci-Fi, you can count the LotR movies. Or at least the first one.

But yeah, most CGI movies are about how much goddamn garbage you can fit onto the screen.

Fuck that noise.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 02:43:14 PM
Well, if we go outside of Sci-Fi, you can count the LotR movies. Or at least the first one.

But yeah, most CGI movies are about how much goddamn garbage you can fit onto the screen.

Fuck that noise.

Well, leaving aside my horribly book-only fanboyism of Tolkien (i.e. I don't like the movies), the LotR movies aren't a new story (see my crack about remakes above).

Amusingly, if we're going to talk about just straight CGI, rather than live-action movies with special effects, then just about anything Pixar made in the past decade blew the doors off of everything else.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on December 21, 2009, 02:43:36 PM
if we're just talking about effects and not specifically sci-fi

pixar.

good night.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on December 21, 2009, 02:43:43 PM
fuck you mongrel
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 02:44:47 PM
:glee:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 21, 2009, 02:55:18 PM
horribly book-only fanboyism of Tolkien (i.e. I don't like the movies)

Hey-dol-merry-dol-ring-ding-a-dillo!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 02:55:56 PM
horribly book-only fanboyism of Tolkien (i.e. I don't like the movies)

Hey-dol-merry-dol-ring-ding-a-dillo!

:hi5:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: François on December 21, 2009, 03:06:39 PM
i liked the bits in the movie where they spend like ten pages talking about weed

oh wait
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on December 21, 2009, 03:06:48 PM
I love the books and always have since I was a little girl. That being said, I don't think the movies (again, especially the first) are devoid of merit.

Also, yeah, Pixar is fucking amazing.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on December 21, 2009, 03:44:56 PM
I hate Tolkien
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 21, 2009, 04:00:23 PM
Stop tolkien
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: SCD on December 21, 2009, 04:16:56 PM
I know it's just my cynical brain blocking things out and that there must've been a FEW movies that used effects to beautify an already-good story rather than hide the lack of one, so uh... name some? Ones that aren't remakes or adaptations? Please? For the love of god?

District Nine is a good movie and respectfully you are criminal, sir, for not watching it.  Gattaca is two years out of the range you're hoping for, but it was also a good movie which points out that good Science Fiction concepts in the "what if" don't require special effects, just a lot of ideas.  I have a DVD of the later which I'm always willing to loan you next time we cross paths.

That being said, if you want good Science Fiction, subscribe to Analog (http://www.analogsf.com/1001_02/issue_0102.shtml).  Decent ideas seldom make it past the Hollywood big wigs as Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Season 8 can attest to. 
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Catloaf on December 21, 2009, 04:38:00 PM
Thanks for saving me the $10 guys.

On the LotR front, I respect Tolkien, but I find little entertainment in reading his work.  I just can't bring myself to give a damn about all the little bits of side information that have absolutely nothing to do with the story at hand.  If they were humorous, I'd like them.  But nope, just boring.  I think it's because I grew up with Tolkien-derived vivid fantasy worlds being commonplace so I wasn't amazed when I saw the original.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kashan on December 21, 2009, 05:40:02 PM
I'd just like to point out that Unobtanium is a real term used by scientists and engineers since at least the 1950s. Also, Sunshine was awesome, even if the hard science in it was horrible.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Frocto on December 21, 2009, 06:09:37 PM
District 9 was crazy good. Like seriously an amazingly awesome movie.

And, uh, don't hang me for this, but Metal Gear Solid 4?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on December 21, 2009, 06:14:43 PM
Also, Sunshine was awesome, even if the hard science in it was horrible.
I agree completely
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 21, 2009, 06:23:30 PM
Now I can't stop thinking about how boring Solaris was. Successor to 2001 A space Odyssey? The devil, you say!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kashan on December 21, 2009, 08:34:51 PM
Now I can't stop thinking about how boring Solaris was. Successor to 2001 A space Odyssey? The devil, you say!
Uh, you realize 2001 is an incredible boring movie right? I mean it's got great scenes and characters, but it's so fucking slow that I couldn't appreciate until I was in my 20's and properly medicated.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on December 21, 2009, 08:38:41 PM
kashan gets jokes
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 09:14:45 PM
I know it's just my cynical brain blocking things out and that there must've been a FEW movies that used effects to beautify an already-good story rather than hide the lack of one, so uh... name some? Ones that aren't remakes or adaptations? Please? For the love of god?

District Nine is a good movie and respectfully you are criminal, sir, for not watching it.  Gattaca is two years out of the range you're hoping for, but it was also a good movie which points out that good Science Fiction concepts in the "what if" don't require special effects, just a lot of ideas.  I have a DVD of the later which I'm always willing to loan you next time we cross paths.

That being said, if you want good Science Fiction, subscribe to Analog (http://www.analogsf.com/1001_02/issue_0102.shtml).  Decent ideas seldom make it past the Hollywood big wigs as Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Season 8 can attest to. 

Well, I don't know, I'm on the fence there. I've heard some folks raving about it and others thought it was a painfully contrived peice of schlock.

I'll have to watch it sometime, no doubt.


With regards to Tolkien, he was the first one I read. If I pick up something like Dragonlance, Tad Williams, Guy Kay, Shannara, whatever-the-fuck-other big-time fantasy franchise, it's like a kid with crayons filling in a JRR Tolkien colouring book. Only with more emo and bullshit.

One of the most commonly overlooked keys to enjoying Tolkien is to understand that he is NOT like these authors of the 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90s'. He is much older and his work reflects this. Tolkien's work is best compared to things like The Wind in The Willows, Ghormenghast, The Once and Future King, Conan, or even Lovecraft*.

*The two people I have ever read who I felt truly knew what it's like to write a story that really feels like an actual dream are Lovecraft and Tolkien, and even then they do not always hit the mark, Tolkien almost never. But 'almost never' is a damn sight better than not at all.

That's not to say that I think folks like Lewis Carrol are bad authors, just that there's something subtle they miss in trying to replicate the true feel of a dream in the waking world.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kashan on December 21, 2009, 09:51:33 PM
kashan gets jokes
:nyoro~n:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: PhilosopherDirtbike on December 21, 2009, 10:06:20 PM
I never really got into Tolkien either though my introduction to the world of fantasy literature was the world of Xanth by Piers Anthony so  :shrug:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on December 21, 2009, 10:24:25 PM
i think you mean MAGIC FLORIDA
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on December 22, 2009, 06:28:42 AM
Oh my gosh, I read all those Piers Anthony books when I was little, but for the life of me could not remember what they were.  MY HERO
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 22, 2009, 06:51:39 AM
I know it's just my cynical brain blocking things out and that there must've been a FEW movies that used effects to beautify an already-good story rather than hide the lack of one, so uh... name some? Ones that aren't remakes or adaptations? Please? For the love of god?

District Nine is a good movie and respectfully you are criminal, sir, for not watching it.  Gattaca is two years out of the range you're hoping for, but it was also a good movie which points out that good Science Fiction concepts in the "what if" don't require special effects, just a lot of ideas.  I have a DVD of the later which I'm always willing to loan you next time we cross paths.

That being said, if you want good Science Fiction, subscribe to Analog (http://www.analogsf.com/1001_02/issue_0102.shtml).  Decent ideas seldom make it past the Hollywood big wigs as Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Season 8 can attest to. 

Well, I don't know, I'm on the fence there. I've heard some folks raving about it and others thought it was a painfully contrived peice of schlock.

I'll have to watch it sometime, no doubt.


With regards to Tolkien, he was the first one I read. If I pick up something like Dragonlance, Tad Williams, Guy Kay, Shannara, whatever-the-fuck-other big-time fantasy franchise, it's like a kid with crayons filling in a JRR Tolkien colouring book. Only with more emo and bullshit.

One of the most commonly overlooked keys to enjoying Tolkien is to understand that he is NOT like these authors of the 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90s'. He is much older and his work reflects this. Tolkien's work is best compared to things like The Wind in The Willows, Ghormenghast, The Once and Future King, Conan, or even Lovecraft*.

But not C.S. Lewis, Fritz Lieber or Jack Vance, oh-ho-ho-ho-ho no
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 22, 2009, 07:07:51 AM
I know it's just my cynical brain blocking things out and that there must've been a FEW movies that used effects to beautify an already-good story rather than hide the lack of one, so uh... name some? Ones that aren't remakes or adaptations? Please? For the love of god?

District Nine is a good movie and respectfully you are criminal, sir, for not watching it.  Gattaca is two years out of the range you're hoping for, but it was also a good movie which points out that good Science Fiction concepts in the "what if" don't require special effects, just a lot of ideas.  I have a DVD of the later which I'm always willing to loan you next time we cross paths.

That being said, if you want good Science Fiction, subscribe to Analog (http://www.analogsf.com/1001_02/issue_0102.shtml).  Decent ideas seldom make it past the Hollywood big wigs as Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Season 8 can attest to. 

Well, I don't know, I'm on the fence there. I've heard some folks raving about it and others thought it was a painfully contrived peice of schlock.

I'll have to watch it sometime, no doubt.


With regards to Tolkien, he was the first one I read. If I pick up something like Dragonlance, Tad Williams, Guy Kay, Shannara, whatever-the-fuck-other big-time fantasy franchise, it's like a kid with crayons filling in a JRR Tolkien colouring book. Only with more emo and bullshit.

One of the most commonly overlooked keys to enjoying Tolkien is to understand that he is NOT like these authors of the 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90s'. He is much older and his work reflects this. Tolkien's work is best compared to things like The Wind in The Willows, Ghormenghast, The Once and Future King, Conan, or even Lovecraft*.

But not C.S. Lewis, Fritz Lieber or Jack Vance, oh-ho-ho-ho-ho no

 ::(: Now, just because I didn't name EVERYBODY...

Or was that a serious post? Because I can see someone putting C.S in his own category, but to me Fritz Lieber always seemed like a man standing on a tripod with Robert E Howard, Tolkien, and Lovecraft as the legs (not literally... they weren't direct influences, I think?), obviously leaning closer to Howard's work. His worlds are less boisterous than Howard's and more cold and empty. Sort of like a Conan who grew up, found the world to be a dark and empty place, and drank himself to death. Not that that makes a bad story.

Jack Vance, I've never read.  :nyoro~n:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 22, 2009, 10:12:45 AM
Sort of like a Conan who grew up, found the world to be a dark and empty place, and drank himself to death. Not that that makes a bad story.

As opposed to a Conan who never left home, found the world to be a dark and empty place, and shot himself in the head.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 22, 2009, 11:14:20 AM
Sort of like a Conan who grew up, found the world to be a dark and empty place, and drank himself to death. Not that that makes a bad story.

As opposed to a Conan who never left home, found the world to be a dark and empty place, and shot himself in the head.

That's another way of getting the gist of it across, yes.

EDIT: YES, I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE. :oic:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 22, 2009, 02:31:24 PM
:3
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: SCD on December 23, 2009, 06:37:32 AM
So I watched the avatar 3D last night. 

Not bad.  The sort of Sci fi that would fail to be in a book, but enjoyable nonetheless.  I have to say though that the movie has so many components of the Alien movies that it's not funny. 

Corporate douchebag
Ripley
Alien force overpowering space marines

The list can go on.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 23, 2009, 09:58:06 PM
Black Dynamite available for streaming here (http://www.movies21.net/watch-black-dynamite-online.html)

Two things: 1) Only 'Version 13' works on the above page, every other version is a dead link. 2) Do not ever pause the movie, it FUCKS the feed and makes it an unwatchable stuttering mess. Connection speed seems to be immaterial here.

No time to watch it right now, but hopefully I can see it in the next day or two before it gets yoinked.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 26, 2009, 02:57:44 PM
Sherlock Holmes sets the record for most uses of the phrase "ginger midget" in a movie.

Also, pretty much the reviews are right: it's a pretty dumb story saved by the chemistry between Downey and Law.  The guy who plays Lestrade is pretty great too.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 26, 2009, 09:19:32 PM
Koipond keeps telling me he wants to go see it just to see the abovementioned chemistry.

I find the same thing tempting, but I'm pretty sure I won't be able to stand this movie, untless it's actually a sly tongue-in-cheek self-parody.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 27, 2009, 08:17:36 AM
I'm sure there's a way you can determine that by how often Robert Downey Jr. takes his shirt off.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 27, 2009, 09:23:33 PM
Avatar is a three-dimensional film with a cast of two-dimensional characters.

Really nothing to add to what everyone else is saying.  It's a phenomenal step forward in technology, at least as important as Terminator 2/Jurassic Park/The Mask and maybe as important as Star Wars.  It also has a fucking awful script; seriously, in two hours and forty minutes there was not a single good line of dialogue.  I am not exaggerating.  Just bad bad bad bad bad writing as window-dressing to an incredibly gorgeous movie.

See it in IMAX if you can, and at the very least see it in 3D.  If you can't see it in 3D, don't see it.  Because that would be like seeing The Wizard of Oz in black-and-white.  If The Wizard of Oz had a shitty script.

On the 3D: it took about an hour for my eyes to adjust; prior to that anything I wasn't focused directly on would have a double-vision thing going.  But it's an improvement over previous 3D live-action I've seen, like Superman Returns, which felt like layered paper cutouts; the figures here had actual depth.  (Again, I am speaking only in terms of visuals!)

On the world: WETA has fucking-well not rested on its laurels.  Remember how big a deal Gollum was compared to the CG critters we'd seen before?  Here's a whole world of realistically-rendered alien flora and fauna.  Cameron's vision in finding a new way of making films is fully borne out here.

On the story: ...Jesus Christ.  I really can't overstress just how bad it is.  If you can't see the movie in 3D and feel like you're missing out, just rent Dances With Wolves or Fern Gully.  Do not watch it in 2D.

(ALSO: This year saw the release of movies titled 9, Nine, and District 9.  There are going to be some confused people at Blockbuster in the next few months.)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on December 29, 2009, 10:53:23 PM
Saw the Princess and the Frog today after well over a week of trying to get someone to go with me. It struck me as the kind of movie a guy can't go to alone, you know?

The movie was great, The story was great. The songs were fantastic. I enjoyed the Voodoo guy. Of course, some parts of the film were too scary for the kiddies. There were a few screams during a couple of parts. It was a nice, touching, funny movie. It was a lot better than what I expected. I'd say it's easily better than Lion King, Little Mermaid, and the other films they are comparing it too. I rank it under  Aladdin, I think. A lot of the animation reminded me of Jungle Book. And the Jazz songs were great.


Well worth the afternoon matinee. Especially since it was free popcorn/soda day.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Transportation on December 30, 2009, 02:37:47 PM
Yeah, the part where [spoiler]Facilier is dragged to voodoo hell[/spoiler] was pretty terrifying for a kid's movie. Not that I'm complaining.

The swamp part felt like it dragged a little despite being needed plot-wise. This may or may not have something to do with me being a little drained from having a musical number every five seconds.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on December 30, 2009, 03:01:45 PM
Well, I don't mind lots of songs but did everyone need an introductory song?

I mean, [spoiler]Ray didn't need a song, nor did his family, and ESPECIALLY not Evangeline. Hers was ok, I think. But not needed with the other songs.[/spoiler] Of course, though [spoiler]Mama Odie and everything that Facilier touched[/spoiler] was gold.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on December 31, 2009, 02:59:06 PM
Avatar proves once again that there's no problem that can't be solved by having the biggest dragon.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on January 05, 2010, 09:56:44 PM
princess and the frog had terrible, unmemorable music.  but man, dr. facilier, yes.

sherlock holmes continues robert downey jr.'s campaign to glue my lips to his dick
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on January 05, 2010, 10:42:56 PM
I liked Princess and the Frog a lot, but I don't care much for the whole middle part of the movie. The opening is well-done, and the ending is great, but the bayou stuff is just "here's several boring songs and a few gags". Okay, the stuff with the frog hunters was some decent Looney Tunes-like humor.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kazz on January 06, 2010, 01:32:55 AM
It's really a continuation of the Disney tradition of "90% of this fairy tale movie is mice getting into trouble"
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on January 06, 2010, 07:39:17 AM
The opening scenes were great, Facilier was an excellent villain who was really underused (his evil scheme never got past the planning phase, whereas most Disney villains at least execute some kind of tyrannical takeover that must be undone), and the animation throughout was lively colorful.  But on the whole I can only view the film as rather average, not a return to glory.

For one, they spent a lot of time on background paintings and beautiful animation, but the majority of the film happens in a swamp, which no matter how they light it or paint it, is still a swamp.  It's sad to be treated to the opening vistas of a lively, detailed New Orleans only to spend most of the film staring at weeds and moss.

And the music was incredibly forgettable.  I recall there was a zydeco piece but nothing else.  Nothing that really stood out, like "Be Our Guest", "Friend Like Me", or "Hakuna Matata".  They were just songs, and I was glad when they were over.

Also, in the final scenes, when [spoiler]Ray's body was lifted in to the heavens and became a star[/spoiler] I nearly vomited all over myself.

The film wasn't horrible, it just wasn't a return to their greatness of their first stuff or even the early 90s stuff like Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin.  See it as a matinee if you see it at all.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on January 07, 2010, 04:36:47 PM
fuck it, avatar was pretty, i don't care if it was just dances with wolves.  shiny.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on January 07, 2010, 06:53:18 PM
fuck it, avatar was pretty, i don't care if it was just dances with wolves.  shiny.

SIGOURNEY WEAVER'S AVATAR WAS THE MOST FRIGHTENING THING I'VE EVER SEEN

AND JUST THIS MORNING I HAD A DREAM ABOUT JESUS EATING A CYLON
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on January 07, 2010, 06:54:31 PM
don't be silly

jesus ate nine I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on January 12, 2010, 10:48:02 PM
Just saw Daybreakers, which was pretty good. If you haven't heard about it, it's a movie where years ago Vampires took over the earth and people are farmed for a food source.  The movie is about when the supply of humans run low and the effects it has on Vampire society.

The movie starts with a BANG! (Explosive suicide) and has a lot more explosions throughout. Seriously. Explosions everywhere. Which is a good thing this time. I'm kinda of squeamish and I was expecting a lot of blood. But I could not prepare for the AMOUNT OF BLOOD OH GOD LOOK AT THE BLOOD. And the gore was everywhere. EXPLODING GORE! Body parts! BLOOOOOOD.

Acting was good, story was good, visuals were good. Had a touch of humor, a tiny bit of a moral, and a decent ending.

Main Guy's name is Edward though.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on January 12, 2010, 11:01:29 PM
I want to see it primarily because it's directed by the Spierig Brothers who made Undead, an interesting and fun but flawed film.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on January 12, 2010, 11:13:07 PM
Quote
I want to see it primarily because Willem Dafoe
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: yyler on January 13, 2010, 01:15:03 AM
My mother, who is in charge of premiering movies in our city's greater area and generally loves 99% of movies, said Daybreakers was awful
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on January 13, 2010, 06:15:42 AM
Well, since 99% of movies are awful, it proves your mother has bad taste?
Is that how this works?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on January 13, 2010, 06:47:29 AM
I was intrigued by the premise of Daybreakers, but it didn't look like a movie I would enjoy too much, so I'll probably catch it online while cross stitching.  Maybe I'm just ignorant of vampire stuff but I hadn't heard anybody address what the previews talk about before.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on January 13, 2010, 12:13:25 PM
I finally watched Aliens, and then saw Avatar in 3D the next day; it was an interesting juxtaposition. James Cameron certainly likes his Chekhov's Guns. Also, the humans technical and aesthetic design was almost identical in the two films, save for advances in what technology could render; I kept waiting for the Weyland-Yutani logo to pop up somewhere in their base. (They did refer to The Company, though.)

All the parts of the movie with humans in it were fun if you like that kind of stuff; I was :want: in ever scene with the gunships. All the parts with the Na'avi were pretty much shit, on so many levels I can't even begin.

Honestly, it's a new iteration of Phantom Menace. It's awesome now because it's technically unprecedented; in five years this technology will be common and the movie will be shit.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: yyler on January 13, 2010, 01:28:10 PM
Well, since 99% of movies are awful, it proves your mother has bad taste?
Is that how this works?
More like "easily pleased" and also I forgot to mention that she is totally on board with the Vampire Craze Sweeping The Nation
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on January 13, 2010, 02:07:49 PM
(http://www.geekologie.com/2009/11/28/twilight-moms.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Doom on January 13, 2010, 05:10:22 PM
Sherlock Holmes is a good movie, go see it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on January 13, 2010, 05:20:05 PM
I DONT BELIEVE YOU
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on January 13, 2010, 05:25:22 PM
Sherlock Holmes is a good movie, go see it.

It IS a good movie. It far exceeded my meager expectations. Which were EXPLOSIONS: IN ENGLAND.

I do have to say though, out of the two, Daybreakers deserves your money more. An original movie like that doesn't come around too often.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on January 15, 2010, 07:15:01 PM
Really enjoyed Avatar! Bad guy could've been a bit less cartoonishly evil, and I wish they'd gone into the escapism angle a bit more, but on the whole, the thing was ridiculously entertaining.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on January 24, 2010, 09:52:54 PM
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a Terry Gilliam movie.  It's beautiful and it's weird and it has big, broad ideas that don't really work out to a very sensible or well-plotted story.  All the actors do great work, though their characters, toward the end, start doing a bunch of shit that doesn't make any sense.  Tom Waits as the devil is a highlight, but Verne Troyer, surprisingly enough, turns out to be a good actor, and newcomer Lily Cole is more than just an incredibly gorgeous face.

My favorite bit is like a CG version of Gilliam's old animated Monty Python segments.  Seriously.

Everything to be said about how Ledger's death hangs over the film has been covered in every single review of the film already.  There are a couple of scenes that are eerie or disturbing in this context, and I think they work well for it without crossing over into being maudlin or exploitative.  Ledger does decent work; not his best but quite good.  His three doppelgangers do an admirable job of playing his character; I think I like Depp's portrayal best but I think Farrell does the best job of mirroring Ledger.

...mirroring.  No pun intended.  Really.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Frocto on January 24, 2010, 10:41:46 PM
Yeah, Imaginarium was very good.

Also, Kabbage, they wasted a fucking hour on "escapism", what more do you want
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on January 25, 2010, 02:25:28 PM
Tom Waits as the devil is a highlight,

Did he do it in his Rowlf the Dog voice?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on January 25, 2010, 02:42:46 PM
Also, Kabbage, they wasted a fucking hour on "escapism", what more do you want

I dunno, it was just that the escapism bit never really went anywhere. Jake shows up on Pandora with busted legs and a dissatisfaction with his society, meets a sassy scientist who doesn't give a shit about her real body but loves her Navi form, then gets plugged into a fake body that lets him do everything he's ever wanted and live in a completely different world. Every now and then someone would remind him to eat or shave or do his work, but he cared less and less about that the longer he spent out in the jungle.

Finally, he saves the day and the magic of nature makes his avatar into his real body. He never really has to face reality, he just successfully escapes it.

Seemed like they were going somewhere with he and Dr. Augustine not really wanting to go back to their bodies, yet always having to. Cameron definitely focused on what he should have, but I was hoping he'd have something to say about that particular element of the story.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on January 25, 2010, 03:08:11 PM
Sigourney Weaver does NOT look like someone who's sixty.  I think that's the real special effects miracle here.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on January 25, 2010, 08:53:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D8IRIYBSnk

i cannot remember where i have and haven't linked this
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: yyler on January 25, 2010, 09:55:48 PM
NOW YOU ARE PREGNANT, JAKE SULLEY
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Dooly on January 26, 2010, 08:13:03 PM
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a Terry Gilliam movie.  It's beautiful and it's weird and it has big, broad ideas that don't really work out to a very sensible or well-plotted story.

I came out of the Parnassus movie rather disappointed because I didn't think the spiffy imagery made up for the poorly put-together storyline.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on February 08, 2010, 05:41:18 AM
I'm curious if other people here went to see The Book of Eli. I've seen it, and three days later I still can't decide if I'd recommend it.

I guess go and see it if you like Gary Oldman? And who doesn't like Gary Oldman? Criminals, that's who.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on February 08, 2010, 05:57:32 AM
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a Terry Gilliam movie.  It's beautiful and it's weird and it has big, broad ideas that don't really work out to a very sensible or well-plotted story.

I came out of the Parnassus movie rather disappointed because I didn't think the spiffy imagery made up for the poorly put-together storyline.

it's alternately been called "the sanitarium of dr. whatever" and "mr. magoo's magic mansion" on the official trailer reports at the local indie theater where my brother works. It is liked by no-one.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on February 08, 2010, 06:24:16 AM
That's disappointing to hear, because I really want to see it.  Haven't heard much good about it, though, so I don't know that it's worth the cost of a ticket.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on February 08, 2010, 07:35:54 AM
"mr. magoo's magic mansion"

Actually, I would probably be really interested in a movie with this title.

WALDO, MY BOY! FETCH THE CAR!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on February 08, 2010, 08:28:37 AM
(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa34/disponi/magoomagicalmansion.jpg)

If that were a game, I would play it so hard.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on February 08, 2010, 08:39:41 AM
(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa34/disponi/magoomagicalmansion.jpg)

If that were a game, I would play it so hard.

 (http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/Bon_Bon_2009/scruffy-1.jpg) (http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/Bon_Bon_2009/scruffy-1.jpg) (http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/Bon_Bon_2009/scruffy-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Dooly on February 09, 2010, 02:14:08 AM
You wouldn't be able to see much.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on February 21, 2010, 09:07:48 PM
http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on February 22, 2010, 12:11:19 AM
Go see Shutter Island. If it were released last year it would've been best picture, hands down.

For what it was it felt... perfect.

I don't praise many movies in that vein, but its how I feel about this one. Every single thing about it built to a climax, that, while done before, was perfected here gloriously.

All I will say is this, 'watch' every second of it. Watch ever detail. Take it all in. Everything. When it culminates you will be rewarded.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on February 22, 2010, 04:13:52 AM
http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247

 :facepalm:

:lol:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on February 22, 2010, 05:55:27 AM
Go see Shutter Island. If it were released last year it would've been best picture, hands down.

For what it was it felt... perfect.

I don't praise many movies in that vein, but its how I feel about this one. Every single thing about it built to a climax, that, while done before, was perfected here gloriously.

All I will say is this, 'watch' every second of it. Watch ever detail. Take it all in. Everything. When it culminates you will be rewarded.

Agreed.  It was fantastic.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on February 22, 2010, 06:23:31 AM
Awesome.  I was already kinda looking forward to it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on February 22, 2010, 06:23:50 AM
...
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on February 22, 2010, 08:48:51 AM
Only thing I heard was "Shutter Island, man! Fucking amazing!" 7 people now have said this and nothing else.
WHAT IS THE MOVIE ABOUT?!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Shinra on February 22, 2010, 08:49:55 AM
GOOGLE SHUTTER ISLAND
 :advice:
SAVE EVERYONE THE BULLSHIT OF HOLDING YOUR COCK WHILE YOU PISS
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on February 22, 2010, 08:53:54 AM
LOL Almost the first thing you see in the Wikipedia Article is a giant spoiler.  HAW HAW :glee:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on February 22, 2010, 09:43:20 AM
(http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu328/zerosignal/roflbot-whatatwist.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Catloaf on February 22, 2010, 10:06:01 AM
Hmm.... It appears to be getting mixed reviews on Metacritic.  I take it it's a love it or hate it type thing then?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on February 22, 2010, 10:13:57 AM
I would say that the story is one that has been done over and over*. But as a piece of art, its fucking wonderful. That's why I said watch it like you mean it the whole way through.

Also, that bitch that says the movie is devoid of emotion has a fucking rock heart or is the Grinch or something. I nearly cried in the movie.

* not saying its a bad story, and like I said before, it was perfected in this movie, imo.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on February 22, 2010, 11:08:19 AM
Just from reading the Wikipedia article, it sounds a lot like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on February 22, 2010, 01:23:39 PM
GOOGLE SHUTTER ISLAND
 :advice:
SAVE EVERYONE THE BULLSHIT OF HOLDING YOUR COCK WHILE YOU PISS
It's just a piece of meat.  It's got no major diseases.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on February 22, 2010, 01:25:33 PM
I saw Shutter Island with Matt and he thinks [spoiler]that he still wasn't (and had never been) crazy, he just went along with it because of the conspiracy stuff[/spoiler] but I think [spoiler]Matt's a big dummy[/spoiler].
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on February 22, 2010, 01:30:59 PM
I posit that you are an equally big dummy, but in less volume. Making you the denser of the two.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on February 22, 2010, 01:31:21 PM
But see, if I ask what it's about here, I can be sure that I don't get the dreaded SPOILERS.
Whereas if I were to google it, I'd get everything shoved down my throat.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on February 22, 2010, 01:33:01 PM

It's 1954, and up-and-coming U.S. marshal Teddy Daniels is assigned to investigate the disappearance of a patient from Boston's Shutter Island Ashecliffe Hospital. He's been pushing for an assignment on the island for personal reasons, but before long he wonders whether he hasn't been brought there as part of a twisted plot by hospital doctors whose radical treatments range from unethical to illegal to downright sinister.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on February 22, 2010, 01:34:23 PM
Classic u r mean :negative:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on February 22, 2010, 03:24:49 PM
Actually, MCE, I would argue [spoiler] that he was 'cured' at the end, he just punished himself because he couldn't live with the truth. I mean, hell, that was his entire driving force, and he found a way they could do it for him better than he ever could.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on February 22, 2010, 03:29:33 PM
[spoiler]100% agreed.  My take was that he was finally able to see reality for what it was, but was unable to "live as a monster" so he pretended to think he was a good man so that he could "die as a good man" like he said.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Catloaf on February 22, 2010, 09:05:53 PM
Damn, that was impressive.  In the beginning, I was thinking that the editing style looked a bit dated, but it faded out of mind and possibly just out the film entirely when things started ... crumbling.


Now the spoilerific comments (with added [spoiler]spoilering [/spoiler]just for the hell of it*!):
Was the [spoiler]Nazi commander[/spoiler] showing that [spoiler]he himself[/spoiler] was [spoiler]suicidal[/spoiler]?  If not, I'm not [spoiler]exactly [/spoiler]sure why that bit was [spoiler]played up as much[/spoiler] as it was.

I [spoiler]guessed[/spoiler] the [spoiler]twist[/spoiler] right from [spoiler]the[/spoiler] beginning, but it made me [spoiler]care[/spoiler] anyway, then [spoiler]shocked[/spoiler] me with [spoiler]the lack[/spoiler] of [spoiler]a real last-doubt twist [/spoiler]at the [spoiler]end[/spoiler] that this kind of [spoiler]story[/spoiler] is [spoiler]known[/spoiler] for.  Sorta a [spoiler]meta-twist[/spoiler] thing [spoiler]there[/spoiler].

*It's more interesting to the people who don't read spoilers this way, as it's not just a post of [spoiler]spoilers[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: McDohl on February 27, 2010, 11:55:45 PM
The Crazies:

What happens when zombies can do things other than shamble forward and devour brains?

Go nuts and kill people with guns and fire, that's what!

and lol military

Here's a rambling video of me!
http://blip.tv/file/3279318
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kashan on February 28, 2010, 07:56:51 AM
Finally saws Avatar. It was good, though I clearly wasn't as emotionally effected as others. I attribute this in part to me having played video games before and therefore not falling into a state of abject awe at waterfalls coming off of a floating island.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Dooly on February 28, 2010, 06:47:25 PM
Now if only they could put that kind of special effects budget into a Ringworld miniseries.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on March 06, 2010, 03:21:06 PM
Saw American McGee's Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.  It's easy to tell that every single amount of effort and work went into making the absolutely fantastic images, which are in the service of a fairly mundane plot.  The symbolism, wordplay and surreality of Carol's writing becomes bogged down by a plot about warring kingdoms and straight-forward fantasy plot.


It also hits every single part of the Tim Burton Secret Formula.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1929453
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on March 08, 2010, 11:44:30 PM
Saw Alice in Wonderland.
It was...
Well, it was a good movie. And it had Alice in Wonderland characters.
But I wouldn't call it an Alice in Wonderland movie.
See, for me, Alice in Wonderland isn't the Mad Hatter or the caterpillar or even the chesire cat. It's about logic  problems and words and social commentary and such. I love the books and the cartoon movie not for the characters, but for the ideas behind everything. The books were great in this regard and the cartoon was fun and had some of the same themes.
This movie? It was good. Don't get me wrong. But there were no clever rhymes and silly things. (Hardly anything was silly at all, for that matter.)They didn't ridicule Alice for following social norms of a world far different from the one she is in. They didn't sing silly songs with strange characters and prattle about a moral different than the one given.  The didn't disseminate language usage.
Mad Hatter stole the show. No surprise there. The story was almost as much about him as it was about Alice. Depp didn't do a bad job. He was a very creepy but lovable character. He was truly crazy though. Not like the Kooky Mad Hatters of old. He had a lot of... fledgling personalities inside of him.  One quoted the books (I think. It was rather hard to hear.) Another was an angry scottish hero-type. He did make hats though, which was nice to see the Hatter do, even though it gave a very Edward Scissorhands vibe.
The completely fucked up my favorite character though. The Dormouse! It wasn't sleepy! Or a guy for that matter. It was a cute little chickmouse that wanted to be a brave knight. It was a nice character but... I like my sleepy dormouse.

tl;dr: Alice in Wonderland: None of that cute and silly vibe with a bit more creepy. Come for the Depp, stay for the... Depp?


EDIT: After a quick reread of what I wrote, I think it could come across as me not liking the movie. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I liked it. It wasn't what I expected. It didn't have a lot of parts I liked. But they talked about the books. And they did a good job on a lot of things.
I just wanted the Dormouse to have narcolepsy or something.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on March 09, 2010, 06:26:16 AM
I have to reluctantly agree on Alice in Wonderland.  I went with a couple of friends and snuck in two six packs (hooray for purses the size of a horse).  Didn't realize my friends were lightweights so we quickly became those people.  Cue one girl making a joke about the bandersnatch's tongue and oral sex and me being scarred for life.

I hadn't been keeping up with the previews so I didn't know that this is more of a sequel to Alice in Wonderland.  And like Constantine said, no thought was put into the plot at all.  And as it turns out, if you are like my friends and have never read the books or seen the first Disney movie, you will not understand what is going on.  I only half followed it anyway.  

It was fantastic to watch in 3D, without being totally gimmicky and throwing objects out of the screen at every possible opportunity.  And the scenery changed a lot more than in Avatar so I found it more enjoyable to watch and maintain interest despite the somewhat boring plot.

Two other thoughts... it was not like American McGee's Alice, so Constantine how dare you.  And can Anne Hathaway get a mouth reduction or something?  Every time I see her, it's like she is a snake and unhinges her jaw and makes me feel utterly horrified.  She is #2 on my worst nightmares list, right after Tilda Swinton.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on March 09, 2010, 08:20:09 AM
Are you telling me the story is not about Alice growing up and returning to find Wonderland in shambles?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: EvaKisu on March 09, 2010, 08:25:38 AM
I enjoyed Alice in Wonderland, but I got lost looking at the costumes. Guilty pleasure : )
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on March 09, 2010, 08:27:20 AM
So is the scifi version and other cartoons I've seen.  It's not a new idea.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on March 09, 2010, 08:29:27 AM
So is the scifi version and other cartoons I've seen.  It's not what sets the McGee version apart for me.

Is the McGee actually worth watching?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on March 09, 2010, 08:31:04 AM
It's a game not a show.  Also Through the Looking Glass is a return of Alice to Wonderland, not as many years later, but still the same idea.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on March 09, 2010, 08:57:56 AM
Plus (at least to me) there is more difference than similarity in the following two stories:

Alice has an elaborate fantasy world that is all in her mind but after experiencing the traumatic death of her family, her fantasy world is dangerous and everything has basically rotted and become poisonous, and in order to restore the happy place she once knew she has to kill everything

and

Alice forgot that she visited a magical land, returns to it and saves it from political turmoil only to remember that she had been there as a child.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on March 09, 2010, 09:09:19 AM
END OF DISCUSSION, MCE


/discussion
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on March 09, 2010, 09:13:55 AM
what the
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on March 09, 2010, 09:33:50 AM
WOAH THERE
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Envy on April 02, 2010, 09:45:06 PM
I saw Last Song today. (Not that I had a choice.) It wasnt as bad as I thought it would be and was pretty ok in the fact it wasnt a story I was expecting from Last Song though it's still a chick flick.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on April 05, 2010, 09:34:32 AM
Saw How to Train Your Dragon on Saturday. It was pretty damn awesome. It competes with Up in my mind. Sure it's not as touching (it's pretty touching though) but it makes up for that with EXPLOSIONS! Girlfriend is loving all of the dragons (she's got a thing for silly looking lizards) and I was amazed with how the clothing and the backgrounds looked.
My prevailing thought of the whole film? [spoiler]Best movie where a kid get's crippled and no one cares EVER[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Envy on April 05, 2010, 12:16:17 PM
[spoiler]I heard that Hiccup doesnt lose his left foot like in the book. Does he just get crippled instead?[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on April 05, 2010, 01:15:14 PM
There's a book?
[spoiler]And yeah. He loses his foot.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 05, 2010, 05:56:06 PM
Crazy Heart is like The Wrestler with a happy ending.  Satisfyingly, the ending isn't too pat and it's not cloying.

It also features one of my favorite actors, the American Southwest, in a substantial supporting role.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on April 08, 2010, 05:59:59 AM
[spoiler]Best movie where a kid get's crippled and no one cares EVER[/spoiler]
[spoiler](http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo297/BBLegs/luke.jpg)[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on April 08, 2010, 06:05:28 AM
I stand by my point.
 :serious:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on April 16, 2010, 10:08:54 PM
Saw Kick-Ass tonight.
It was a lot better than I was expecting. I heard it was  Spider-man 2 meets the Dark Knight with shittons of gore. I was relieved this was not the case.
There WAS a lot of violence but I thought it was... not tasteful but... nicely done? Some of the [spoiler]headshots Hitgirl does towards the end were just downright artistic.[/spoiler]
My favorite part of the whole movie was Big Daddy's speaking pattern. He tried to talk like Adam West Batman while in costume. It was great.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 24, 2010, 01:35:17 PM
Kick-Ass the movie is better than Kick-Ass the comic.  Where the comic struggled with trying to decide whether it was realistic and down-to-Earth or crazy and over-the-top, the movie has no such confusion; it's the latter all the way.

A couple of the major plot twists from the comics are removed, and it's actually better without them, too; here you know from the beginning that Red Mist is Tony D'Amico's son luring Kick-Ass into a trap, and the story is therefore spared a twist that feels forced.  Also, in the movie, as far as we know Big Daddy is exactly who he says he is, and there's only one allusion to the suitcase full of money.

Nic Cage plays Big Daddy far differently from the burly bruiser of the comic, and the character is better for it.  He's a pencil-necked geek out of costume, and in costume he adopts a ridiculous Adam West cadence -- apparently this was Cage's idea, under the very reasonable point that anyone his age would have been first exposed to superheroes through the Batman TV show.

Hit Girl is the highlight, the thing that makes this movie different from anything you've seen before.  She nails the contradiction between childlike innocence and sociopathic violence.

All in all, the movie is perfectly cast.  Cage, Moretz, and Mintz-Plasse really shine.  Johnson's narrative voiceovers are weak and forced, but he's just fine at delivering his dialogue.

The whole thing is great fun, improves on the source material, throws in some hilarious surprises for people who read the comic and think they know what's going to happen in the last fight, and is a good movie whether you liked, hated, or never read the comic.

Oh, and there's a line in there about "those old Ditko Spider-Mans you loaned me".  Fuck yes; suck it, Stan Lee.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on April 24, 2010, 09:15:38 PM
I heard the Adam West voice originated because Nick Cage was mocking Bale and the director loved it. Yours seems a lot more likely.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 24, 2010, 11:23:20 PM
Diary of a Wimpy Kid is like Napoleon Dynamite, only longer, painfully unfunny, and starring a main character who nobody could possibly like.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on April 24, 2010, 11:30:38 PM
So... Napoleon Dynamite?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kashan on April 25, 2010, 09:56:00 AM
So... Napoleon Dynamite?
No, it's longer. Can't you read?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on April 25, 2010, 10:42:14 AM
So it's Napoleon Dynamite followed by Napoleon Dynamite.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on April 25, 2010, 02:38:57 PM
:bam:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ziiro on April 25, 2010, 02:59:49 PM
Napoleon Dynamite^2
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 25, 2010, 07:08:11 PM
So... Napoleon Dynamite?

Boy, didn't see THAT one coming.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on May 01, 2010, 07:01:53 PM
Saw How to Train Your Dragon on Saturday. It was pretty damn awesome. It competes with Up in my mind. Sure it's not as touching (it's pretty touching though) but it makes up for that with EXPLOSIONS! Girlfriend is loving all of the dragons (she's got a thing for silly looking lizards) and I was amazed with how the clothing and the backgrounds looked.
My prevailing thought of the whole film? [spoiler]Best movie where a kid get's crippled and no one cares EVER[/spoiler]

I thought this was one of the better movies I've seen in the theater in quite some time.  And I was really touched because I'm stupid in love with all pets ever.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on May 03, 2010, 05:36:29 AM
Guys! Guys. Who wants to see Human Centipede in Austin with me Friday?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on May 03, 2010, 08:38:07 AM
um no one because they are seeing human centipede with me in houston this friday
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on May 03, 2010, 10:14:03 AM
nobody is going to houston stupid
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: James Edward Smith on May 03, 2010, 10:19:08 AM
I'll watch it in not Texas. Like how about, Ontario? That's a cool place and all my stuff is there like my me.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Shinra on May 03, 2010, 11:09:17 AM
I don't feel like driving out to texas for a movie I have heard nothing but bad things about, sry guys. :(

Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on May 03, 2010, 11:11:35 AM
I've only heard awesome things about it
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on May 03, 2010, 03:56:06 PM
I would but I have a math test on Saturday.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: SCD on May 03, 2010, 04:18:43 PM
What sort of school puts a math test on a Saturday?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on May 03, 2010, 04:32:22 PM
I know Constantine's lying because they don't have schools in Texas. Not ones that teach math anyway.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on May 03, 2010, 05:25:29 PM
Actually I got my tickets for Saturday night so constantmean can still come join.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on May 03, 2010, 08:35:18 PM
I know Constantine's lying because they don't have schools in Texas. Not ones that teach math anyway.

They still teach math, they just had geometry taken out of the textbook because of Pythogras's religious beliefs.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Trancechaotic on May 03, 2010, 09:36:07 PM
Geometry leads to Cthulhu worship.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on May 03, 2010, 10:02:56 PM
I know Constantine's lying because they don't have schools in Texas. Not ones that teach math anyway.

They still teach math, they just had geometry taken out of the textbook because of Pythogras's religious beliefs.

And they don't teach state history in Arizona because there were too many Mexicans in it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on May 04, 2010, 04:02:14 AM
What's a math?

....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drE5cHe6c3s


...


Ooooohhh...
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 06, 2010, 11:33:53 PM
Just got back from Iron Man 2.
Good sequel. Showed the consequences from the first one.
I have a few small problems (like the new suit and some things like that) but it was a good, fun movie.
Not as funny as the first one, though.

Love the "SNEAK PEAK INTO WHAT'S COMING UP" at the end (even though I knew about it long ago)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on May 08, 2010, 08:06:31 PM
Yeah, on the whole not as good as the first half of the first movie but maybe better than the second half.  (Really Iron Man's origin is his strongest story.  Oddly, in the original comic it's told pretty poorly -- that's what you get when you give a Stan Lee/Jack Kirby plot to Larry Lieber and Don Heck.)

I've seen critics whine that there are too many subplots, but I think they may just have ADD.  It all fits together pretty neatly IMO.  And of course everyone always bitches when a superhero movie has more than one villain (because that totally ruined The Dark Knight, and, um, Iron Man 1), but Hammer and Whiplash are pretty complementary and both very well-played.

Plenty of Easter Eggs out there (the [spoiler]"I'll take Secretary of Defense"[/spoiler] line, and is the element he synthesizes supposed to be Vibranium?  Because if so, that adds another layer to the gag in that scene) but not terribly distracting.  The world-building works too; Fury's got a bigger role in this one but it doesn't distract from the main plot.

Cheadle's a better actor than Howard but on the whole I think Howard was a better Rhodey.  Cheadle's no slouch, of course.

EDIT: Also, this movie has the worst technobabble I've heard since Die Hard 4 (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/7/16/).  Who the hell says "cycles per second" instead of "frequency"?

But fortunately, if your system is compromised (because someone hacked the mainframe, of course), all you have to do is reboot and that'll fix everything.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Shinra on May 08, 2010, 09:32:58 PM
Well, duh. How can they hack the mainframe if the mainframe is offline?

Jeeze. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 09, 2010, 01:48:36 AM
Hammer was great. He was a perfect villain for this.
He wasn't threatening by being dangerous. He was threatening because HE WANTED TO BE YOU and couldn't do it. And it ate him away inside.
And it was great. He was one of my favorite things of the movie
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on May 09, 2010, 11:33:09 AM
Went, saw Iron Man 2, yay. Worst thing you could say about it was that it was merely thoroughly good from start to finish. Well, okay, I thought the whole Birthday party scene was kind of weak [spoiler]the awesome Iron-on-Iron Man battle, while awesome, felt too forced[/spoiler]. Also, dialog! Everybody talked, and had fun conversations, throughout the whole movie, which is definitely where I felt Iron Man 1's second half fell apart.

Black Widow felt oddly ancillary, despite being in almost every other scene. But hey, [spoiler]she kicked the asses of a hallway-full of mooks and we got to see her in a black bra[/spoiler]. Good stuff.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: MadMAxJr on May 09, 2010, 01:32:30 PM
Why does a robot on robot fistfight have to sound like you are hitting metal pots and pans with a stick?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on May 10, 2010, 07:53:16 PM
Also: does EVERY Marvel movie now have to feature the main character embarrassing himself on the dance floor?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on May 11, 2010, 04:01:28 AM
Until we get a Black Panther film, yes.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 11, 2010, 07:36:33 AM
Don't look at me, I'm just waiting for a Power Fist/Luke Cage buddy movie.
Think about it: fighting street level crime, going on their first "super mission,"  a semi-serious beat-'em-up flick where the characters readily acknowledge the fact that they are a race joke waiting to happen.

It'd be Marvel's greatest work. And it will never happen.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on May 11, 2010, 09:44:34 AM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/buge/reaction/214697049_8rue7-L-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on May 13, 2010, 08:19:18 PM
So I guess I'm the only one that caught [spoiler]Genosha on Fury's holomap?[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 13, 2010, 09:39:24 PM
Caught IM2 again tonight. (Not that it's that good, but hanging out is hanging out and I can't be hungover for tomorrow)
Caught something [spoiler] when Ivan is meeting Hammer, look at Hammer's hands. There's self-tanner blotches on them [/spoiler]
 :glee:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on May 16, 2010, 04:34:19 PM
Gotta admit I didn't know what was going on half the time, but I don't know if it was just conveyed poorly or I wasn't paying attention.  If I wasn't paying attention... well, that's its own problem.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on May 16, 2010, 07:46:33 PM
Went, saw Iron Man 2, yay. Worst thing you could say about it was that it was merely thoroughly good from start to finish. Well, okay, I thought the whole Birthday party scene was kind of weak [spoiler]the awesome Iron-on-Iron Man battle, while awesome, felt too forced[/spoiler].

[spoiler]It felt a little forced, I agree. But I rationalized it because Rhodey didn't want the army to take away all of Tony's suits, so he stole one rather then let that happen. Also, I think the fight scene was actually good. It started off as amusingly pathetic, then it slowly became darker and darker until Tony snapped.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 16, 2010, 07:55:53 PM
Well, I thought Tony planned the whole thing [spoiler]It was forced because he was forcing it. I mean, it seemed like he was trying to engineer it so he could say it was stolen while he was drunk that way the government could have a inferior copy and not force him to build shit for them.  Kind of a Goodbye gift for Rhodey too.[/spoiler] Alright. So I am not convinced on the motivation, but after seeing it twice, I am convinced Tony planned it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on May 16, 2010, 07:58:42 PM
Am I the only one who wanted Rhodey to say "Remember me?" at least once when he was popping the facemask?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 16, 2010, 07:59:46 PM
If so, it'd be hilarious. Because no. He's not the Rhodey I remember.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Roger on May 17, 2010, 07:08:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcEKcKbMsWs&fmt=6

I saw the movie on Wednesday.  It was fun, a good balance of serious face and tongue in cheek silliness with great witty dialog.  It didn't feel too long, and all the characters had enjoyable personalities.  I really think Rourke's Whiplash stole the show.

The bullshit plot science was Hollywood's usual level ([spoiler]Of COURSE the magic element's atomic structure was hidden in the model Tony's dad hadn't touched in over forty years[/spoiler]), and the usual in computer wizardry was seen, but it didn't take me out of the movie.  Not the way Dark Knight's magic bullet rebuilding machine did, anyway.  I think it's because one expects bullshit super-science from Tony Stark.  So it gets a slide.

Hammer almost skirted the line of being too annoying to me, but considering his character is SUPPOSED to be the unlikable douche, I guess mission accomplished?  The only scenes that felt "too long" to me were a few of the Tony/Pepper fighting.  Because every action movie needs that subplot.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on May 17, 2010, 12:01:23 PM
You know what movie actually DOES suffer from too many villains and subplots?  Robin Hood.

It's not BAD, exactly.  Scott and Crowe are both masters of their respective crafts; the visuals and the pacing are great.  The attempt to set it against a more realistic historic backdrop is interesting, but the end result is that the Sheriff is only in about 5 minutes of the movie, Robin and the Merry Men don't move into the forest until the end of the movie, and there's only one scene where they actually rob from the rich and give to the poor.  And there is an incredibly, blisteringly stupid reveal involving the Magna Carta.

The highlight is Bad King John, who Oscar Isaac plays to the hilt as a kind of if-Ryan-from-The-Office-was-given-absolute-power-over-a-nation character.  But the real villain of the piece, inexplicably, is some guy named Godfrey who's loosely based on Guy of Gisbourne.

Anyway.  Perfectly decent movie but it doesn't feel too much like Robin Hood, the plot kind of unravels halfway through, and it pretty much screams "PART 1".
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on May 17, 2010, 12:18:04 PM
Errol Flynn was 30 when he played Robin Hood.

Kevin Costner was 36.

Russel Crowe's almost 50.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but my suspension of disbelief only stretches so far.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ziiro on May 17, 2010, 12:22:56 PM
I really enjoyed Iron man 2. What really stuck out for me was the dialog and general mannerisms of Tony Stark - the talking over people, side comments, and general attitude was so perfect.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on May 17, 2010, 06:24:40 PM
I finally figured out who it was that Rockwell's Justin Hammer reminded me of. Dana Carvey!

Hmmm. Rockwell's Justin Hammer...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESwtizE0l5U

 :mystery:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Detonator on May 31, 2010, 08:15:24 PM
According to Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_video_game_adaptations/1/), the best video game adaptation to a movie is still Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.  I find that kinda sad, especially considering FF:tSW wasn't really an adaptation of a video game in anything other than the title.

Also amazed that the worst movie in that list is not directed by Uwe Boll.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on May 31, 2010, 08:28:35 PM
According to Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_video_game_adaptations/1/), the best video game adaptation to a movie is still Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.  I find that kinda sad, especially considering FF:tSW wasn't really an adaptation of a video game in anything other than the title.

I will say that Spirits was probably the most original VG movie I can think of. I didn't really like it overall but there was definitely a number of things that were really memorable and fairly interesting, which is far more than I can say for any other movie based on a game.

That the dead carried their memories back to the planet's core in a sort of accumulated shared experience was something I'd never heard of before.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on May 31, 2010, 08:30:14 PM
Pretty sure that meme pops up in a number of world religions.  It makes sense if you assume an afterlife in which one becomes a sort of amorphous experiential being.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Detonator on May 31, 2010, 08:34:22 PM
I will say that Spirits was probably the most original VG movie I can think of. I didn't really like it overall but there was definitely a number of things that were really memorable and fairly interesting, which is far more than I can say for any other movie based on a game.

My point is I don't see why it should be compared against other video game based movies when it's not based on a video game.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on May 31, 2010, 08:46:38 PM
To be fair many video game adaptations have about as much to do with their source material as Spirits Within does.  Double Dragon has what, twins and a couple of names?  At least FF has a Cid, so that makes them just about square.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on May 31, 2010, 08:46:57 PM
enix.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on May 31, 2010, 09:02:59 PM
The Mario Brothers Movie thus the alpha and omega here in being (paradoxically) slavishly beholden to its source material while presenting something in no way familiar to the game itself.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Detonator on May 31, 2010, 09:07:07 PM
At least FF has a Cid, so that makes them just about square.

And they even fucked THAT up, spelling it "Sid".
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kayma on May 31, 2010, 09:33:32 PM
The best thing I can say about Prince of Persia is that it didn't want to make me kill myself. So that's good.

Also, very, very pretty.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ziiro on May 31, 2010, 09:36:58 PM
Seeing as how Prince of Persia is an Ubisoft game, I'm sure there's a DRM pun here that we're missing.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on May 31, 2010, 10:54:24 PM
DON'T RENT MOVIE
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 03, 2010, 09:29:20 PM
Also amazed that the worst movie in that list is not directed by Uwe Boll.

Yeah, but he got the 3 after that.  And then 2 of the 4 after that.  In other words, literally half of the movies in the bottom 10.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on June 03, 2010, 09:36:38 PM
Isn't he responsible for more than half the list of video game movies from top to bottom?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on June 08, 2010, 07:16:15 PM
The best thing I can say about Prince of Persia is that it didn't want to make me kill myself. So that's good.

Also, very, very pretty.

My friends and I went to go see it. We each found something different wrong with it.

The romance felt forced. The dialogue violated the "show-don't-tell" maxim. The plotting was episodic. My one friend felt the game had a far better plot to it, without all the politics and convoluted motivations of the film. I can't even remember a lot of the characters' names, they were so forgettable. You could have gone with "Skinny Brother", "Albino Assassin", "Knife-throwing Guy" and lost nothing. The accents were laughable. There was only one moment that felt genuinely real: [spoiler]When the girl's hanging from the Prince's hand and she makes him let go. She reacted perfectly terrified of her choice.[/spoiler] Overuse of jitter-cam in fight sequences. The ending felt rushed.

We all agreed that the stunt-work was competent, though. All in all, it'll be worth a Rifftrax.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on June 21, 2010, 07:20:03 AM
so toy story 3.

[spoiler]holy shit.  everything from escape to claw is pretty much movie perfection.[/spoiler]

Easter egg to keep an eye out for: [spoiler]The garbageman's shirt[/spoiler].
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on June 21, 2010, 07:26:40 AM
[spoiler]And the batteries, and the Lightning McQueen toys[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Fredward on June 22, 2010, 07:58:40 PM
A-Team was fun. Fresh writing, though not brilliant. Kind of reminded me of Iron Man 2, even prior to the appearance of [spoiler]a wayward Mad Man[/spoiler].
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on June 23, 2010, 06:22:59 AM
Apparently Jonah Hex has some mad it's-so-bad-it's-good goin' on. (http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/06/jonah-hex-is-the-funniest-movie-of-the-summer)

Can anybody corroborate this? Because I've only heard it called plain old run-of-the-mill awful elsewhere.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 23, 2010, 04:51:28 PM
Yeah, what I've heard is it doesn't even succeed as camp.  I'm waiting for the Rifftrax.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 27, 2010, 10:43:49 AM
Did another double-feature at the drive-in last night.  I wasn't looking forward to it because I expected it to be over 90 degrees out, but once we got onto the rez it was actually very pleasant.  Memo to white people: when you don't lay down asphalt, SHIT DOESN'T STAY AT 95 DEGREES AFTER THE SUN GOES DOWN.

Anyway.  Prince of Persia: perfectly serviceable; one of the better video game movies even though that bar couldn't really be any lower.  A predictable and forgettable story buoyed by some neat fight choreography, and a great cast, including Sir Ben Kingsley as Claudius and Alfred Molina as Han Solo.

Toy Story 3: Jesus Christ what a wonderful, layered, complex, bittersweet film.  I know when it was announced most of us were wondering why we needed a third Toy Story movie, and now I know: because those of us who were 12 when the first one came out are 27 now.

Just supremely well done.  Pixar, as always, has a lock on Best Animated Feature -- which is a shame, really, because it means this'll only get a Best Picture nom as a courtesy.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on June 27, 2010, 09:22:39 PM
Oh god Toy Story 3 was so great. If a live action movie production company could make that percentage of hit movies...
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ocksi on June 28, 2010, 05:12:27 PM
Toy Story 3 in an internet-ages old image:

(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/669/thefuture1.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 28, 2010, 05:18:40 PM
Pooh, promise you won't forget about me, ever. Not even when I'm a hundred.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on June 28, 2010, 05:41:51 PM
(http://hundredcoins.org/brentai/images/mr_hanky.jpg) Iiiii promise!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Dooly on June 28, 2010, 09:21:10 PM
Because Lord knows the stuff made for the next generation of kids will be a thousand times worse.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on July 08, 2010, 01:37:21 PM
Finally saw Toy Story 3!

This movie is brilliant. Definitely one of Pixar's best.

But...

There's something that's been bothering me since the second movie, and it definitely affected my enjoyment at least a little. A big part of the film is Woody dealing with the fact that he's finally, definitely losing his owner. While incredibly poignant in the context of the film, It loses impact to me because, logically, I can assume that it's not the first time it's happened to Woody.
I mean, think about it. In the second movie, it's shown that Woody is an antique. Given that his show was in black and white, if we assume the movies take place in the year they were made that would make Woody at least fifty years old by now. And it's very unlikely that Andy's parents gave him an unopened and extremely rare antique doll. Woody must have been somebody else's toy before he was Andy's, and I've been dying to know that story since I saw the second movie. Maybe there'll be a Toy Story Zero some day.

Also, major props for making a kind of a legacy joke (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Mr_Potato_Head_1952.jpg) with [spoiler]Mr. Tortilla Head[/spoiler] (who was hilarious); plus additional props for finding yet another way to bring [spoiler]delusional Space Ranger Buzz[/spoiler] into the mix without it feeling forced.

Oh, and I'm glad [spoiler]Bo Peep wasn't in it. For one thing, she does literally nothing across the span of two movies. Her only role in either film was to be the token female and love interest to Woody. Mrs. Potato Head and Jesse are much better additions to the female cast. Plus she never really fit in with the rest of the cast. For one thing, she doesn't belong to Andy. She belongs to Molly. For another, she's not a toy. She's part of a lamp. Not to sound like a huge bitch, but I felt like her leaving was the only thing she ever really contributed[/spoiler].
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Detonator on July 08, 2010, 02:33:41 PM
she's not a toy. She's part of a lamp.

Hamm isn't a toy either by any stretch.  The fact that he's kept as one with the other toys is kind of a stretch, but I like the character so I won't complain.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on July 08, 2010, 02:46:46 PM
Hamm isn't kept with the toys, the dirty rotten Evil Dr. Porkchop is kept with the toys.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on July 08, 2010, 03:42:21 PM
Hamm is kind of toy-like at least.

I would hazard a guess that the real reason why Bo Peep never contributed anything was that, being made of porcelain, she was too breakable to go through the crap everyone else does. I'm glad they just wrote her out rather than try to try to figure out another way for her to stay home while everyone else goes off on an adventure.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on July 08, 2010, 06:22:19 PM
My best guess is that she was a one-off that became a two-off.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on July 10, 2010, 01:02:37 PM
Despicable Me was surprisingly good!

It's clearly an animator's movie; the plot is secondary to the highly stylized designs and the movements.  And there's a lot to love about them: Gru himself resembles Robert McKimson's Holey Terror (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x86eu4_the-hole-idea_shortfilms) crossed with Uncle Fester, and there's plenty of Warner/Mad/Addams wackiness to go around.  By and large it makes for a satisfying love letter to the cartoonists of yesteryear, and the gags are funny and revolve around the protagonist being an asshole -- there are a couple that would have been at home in the old Warner shorts but wouldn't make it past S&P today, like a bit where [spoiler]he threatens to kill his neighbor's dog[/spoiler] and a shot where one of the orphans appears to have met a bloody death.

And about those orphans: the movie DOES founder a bit in its last act when Gru realizes he MUST...SAVE...THE CHILDREN!, but it's still a decent enough execution of the cliche.



Also, on the trailers: how the fuck is it that there have been five theatrical Superman movies, and the first one to feature Brainiac as the villain is a goddamn parody starring Will Ferrell (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1001526/)?

I guess the same reason that the best Fantastic Four movie is The Incredibles.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on July 10, 2010, 02:17:49 PM
I guess the same reason that the best Watchmen movie is The Incredibles.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on July 10, 2010, 04:05:36 PM
goddamn parody starring Will Ferrell (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1001526/)?

Is there a rule in CG animation that all characters must have one eyebrow raised at all times?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on July 10, 2010, 04:23:25 PM
Yes. (http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=4175)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on July 10, 2010, 07:41:58 PM
I like how that comic glosses over Cars.


And by "glosses over" I mean "ignores because it would ruin the joke".
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on July 10, 2010, 07:54:35 PM
Also Finding Nemo, because GRAAAAAAAAAGH
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on July 13, 2010, 01:36:13 AM
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs045.snc4/34609_132653023441805_101925766514531_167684_647616_n.jpg)
Posted on Norton's official facebook page.It's too bad. I kind of liked him as Bruce.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Fredward on July 17, 2010, 03:34:46 PM
so, inception

huh.

a-
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: MadMAxJr on July 18, 2010, 08:20:05 AM
Inception requires a bit more thought than your regular summer movie.  I loved some of the special effects they pulled off.  I did not fully understand the first 30 minutes of the movie until about an hour in.  Also did not know this movie is nearly two and a half hours long.  It was certainly a creative story and it kept my interest all the way through.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Fredward on July 18, 2010, 10:29:34 PM
maybe it is just because I am the particular kind of douche that enjoys movies like synecdoche, new york, but I was hoping for something more complex. like primer, except with dreams.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: clutch on July 20, 2010, 02:47:24 PM
I left Inception feeling very angry. I can suspend disbelief like a motherfucker, but when a film establishes a system with rigid rules--the dreams in this case--on which the whole plot is anchored and then fails to follow those rules, I just can't get past it. Dileep Rao spewed apologetics (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/inceptions_dileep_rao_answers.html) in the pages of the New York Magazine, trying to explain the nonsensical laws of dreaming that exist in the movie. (spoilers follow)

Quote
Also, you can be in limbo for years and years, subjective limbo time, but in reality only moments have passed.
Yes, a lifetime can go by, because each layer is ten times dilated by going into a dream within a dream within a dream. Um, within a dream.

So if a character descends into a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream (and SPOILERS they do) a person’s brain can magically work at 100000% normal capacity while still maintaining a presence in all the other dream layers? Fuck you.

Quote
But first, as the chemist who invented the sedative, why is it important to synchronize the kicks, the triggers to wake you up?
Well here’s the key: You want to wake all the way up, because if you don’t, you can’t go back up to rekick and wake yourself up. The sedative leaves inner-ear function unimpaired, so you have to feel a jolt in the level you’re asleep in to wake from the level below.

DREAM AVATARS DONT HAVE INNER EARS LET ALONE INNER-EAR FUNCTIONS. And it doesn’t make any sense to me how the brain of the dreamers is supposed to differentiate between real world stimuli and what they’re experiencing in each dream level. Beyond that, there was no explanation for why a person in a second-level dream would not feel what his real body is feeling if he can feel it on the first level.

Also unexplained is how the characters can keep descending in the dream state, since the chemist character formulated the sedative to allow for only 3 dream levels. Even more confusing is why if the architect character can change the dream world in fundamental ways, why doesn’t he just surround the other characters with impenetrable barriers before venturing into deeper dream levels? The writers went to great lengths to show that too many changes in the dream world cause the “projections” to attack, but in each level they were already being attacked as soon as they entered! IT JUST DOESNT MAKE SENSE.

And then the whole idea of “totems” is bullshit too! The top that spins and spins and spins in a dream… why? If the dream architect is expected to make changes as subtle as the fabric of Saito’s carpet, why would he overlook making a toy work according to known physics? The rest of the dream artifacts work just like their real-world counterparts (quick examples: the dream machine, the guns, the cars, the elevators, the safes, the keypads) but for some reason a simple top baffles the “most skilled extractor of dreams”. Even stupider is the ending: Leo leaves the magic top spinning, and the film cuts to black before it stops, leaving the audience to wonder if it was all a dream. Earlier in the movie though, Leo himself explains that an extractor alone knows the weight and feel of his totem, so if Leo were in a dream he would have known it the whole time even without spinning the thing. It might have been an interesting development if Leo had known he was in a dream all along and still went through with the heist (and resulting dead wife shenanigans), but the movie's just not structured that way.

I HATE INCEPTION
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Transportation on July 20, 2010, 05:44:46 PM
spoilers etc.

Quote
Quote
Also, you can be in limbo for years and years, subjective limbo time, but in reality only moments have passed.
Yes, a lifetime can go by, because each layer is ten times dilated by going into a dream within a dream within a dream. Um, within a dream.

So if a character descends into a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream (and SPOILERS they do) a person’s brain can magically work at 100000% normal capacity while still maintaining a presence in all the other dream layers? Fuck you.

Correct, that is physically impossible. Neither is anything seen in the movie for that matter (the brain cannot make that accurate of a simulation). This is a rather odd place to stop suspending your disbelief.


Quote
Quote
But first, as the chemist who invented the sedative, why is it important to synchronize the kicks, the triggers to wake you up?
Well here’s the key: You want to wake all the way up, because if you don’t, you can’t go back up to rekick and wake yourself up. The sedative leaves inner-ear function unimpaired, so you have to feel a jolt in the level you’re asleep in to wake from the level below.

DREAM AVATARS DONT HAVE INNER EARS LET ALONE INNER-EAR FUNCTIONS. And it doesn’t make any sense to me how the brain of the dreamers is supposed to differentiate between real world stimuli and what they’re experiencing in each dream level. Beyond that, there was no explanation for why a person in a second-level dream would not feel what his real body is feeling if he can feel it on the first level.

You can't wake up from a dream level if you're still asleep in that level? That's what I'm getting out of that statement. It makes some sense given how absurdly detailed the dreams are.

Quote
Also unexplained is how the characters can keep descending in the dream state, since the chemist character formulated the sedative to allow for only 3 dream levels. Even more confusing is why if the architect character can change the dream world in fundamental ways, why doesn’t he just surround the other characters with impenetrable barriers before venturing into deeper dream levels? The writers went to great lengths to show that too many changes in the dream world cause the “projections” to attack, but in each level they were already being attacked as soon as they entered! IT JUST DOESNT MAKE SENSE.

1. The chemist was hypothesizing and it had not been empirically tested. And limbo technically isn't another level. That point wasn't very clear in the movie.

2. The dream illusion needs to be as realistic as possible or the person will just wake themselves up. In the first heist, Saito does this (twice).

3. The projections are also another reason, actually. During that one training sequence Juno Ariadne changes it too much and gets surrounded by a mob and stabbed. Since Fischer's projections were already trained, such changes would have made it worse somehow. Hence all the paranoia about it.

Quote
And then the whole idea of “totems” is bullshit too! The top that spins and spins and spins in a dream… why? If the dream architect is expected to make changes as subtle as the fabric of Saito’s carpet, why would he overlook making a toy work according to known physics? The rest of the dream artifacts work just like their real-world counterparts (quick examples: the dream machine, the guns, the cars, the elevators, the safes, the keypads) but for some reason a simple top baffles the “most skilled extractor of dreams”. Even stupider is the ending: Leo leaves the magic top spinning, and the film cuts to black before it stops, leaving the audience to wonder if it was all a dream.

The entire point of the totem is that you are the only one who knows how it works. They're for defensive purposes. An architect trying to trick you would not know the exact weight distribution of the top or a die (as you note later).

The top works because if you were in a dream you could will it to spin forever. That's physically impossible, so there's a test for you.

Quote
Earlier in the movie though, Leo himself explains that an extractor alone knows the weight and feel of his totem, so if Leo were in a dream he would have known it the whole time even without spinning the thing. It might have been an interesting development if Leo had known he was in a dream all along and still went through with the heist (and resulting dead wife shenanigans), but the movie's just not structured that way.

That's not quite right; it might have been difficult to determine just by having it in your hand.

Anyway the top is more for the audience than Cobb's character. I doubt totems work very well if you don't want them to.

Quote
I HATE INCEPTION

These are pretty dumb reasons in all honestly. The first part of the movie is full of infodump and throwing more exposition everywhere would just drag it down more.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kashan on July 20, 2010, 06:49:59 PM
Guess what Clutch, the movie isn't really about science, it's about the magical dreamscape as a method for character exploration. This should have been obvious as soon as they used that stupid "people only use a tiny portion of their brains" line that every movie regurgitates.

I thought the movie was internally consistent within its own rules set. Also I thought it was really really good.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: clutch on July 21, 2010, 08:42:37 AM
These are pretty dumb reasons in all honestly. The first part of the movie is full of infodump and throwing more exposition everywhere would just drag it down more.

More reasons: wooden acting, retreaded themes, poor dialogue. I hardly think what would have resolved my complaints was more  exposition; if they had actually left the movie's mechanics more vague it wouldn't have been so shocking when they flouted them.

Guess what Clutch, the movie isn't really about science,

No shit.

I thought the movie was internally consistent within its own rules set. Also I thought it was really really good.

Agree to disagree on these points. If I had to say something nice about the movie to get my RAM chip, I will grant that the gravity effects were pretty spectacular, but that's all I've got.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Transportation on July 21, 2010, 04:36:34 PM
These are pretty dumb reasons in all honestly. The first part of the movie is full of infodump and throwing more exposition everywhere would just drag it down more.

More reasons: wooden acting, retreaded themes, poor dialogue. I hardly think what would have resolved my complaints was more  exposition; if they had actually left the movie's mechanics more vague it wouldn't have been so shocking when they flouted them.

Oh, well those would be better reasons.

Although for the wooden acting bit, I just figured they were meant to be written as toned down/boring. Which adds up to the same thing, anyway.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on July 22, 2010, 10:59:54 PM
[Rec] 2 is not as good as the first film, mostly because it feels like they needed to pad out the already slim running time.  But it's still worth watching since it isn't just a straight up rehash of the original and takes things into new territories while still letting that creepy ass apartment complex do half the gruntwork in giving you the heebiejeebies.  Pretty sure you can watch the film on demand, and it's doing screenings in different parts of the country.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on July 22, 2010, 11:08:53 PM
I didn't really like how [Rec] 2 went ahead and [spoiler]firmly established the origins of the zombie plague to just be straight up demonic possession[/spoiler] but overall it was a pretty great film.  I really liked how it built on the first one - I feel like this should be taught in film classes as an example of exactly how you do a sequel.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on July 27, 2010, 11:28:12 AM
Went and saw Salt yesterday. It was okay. It's greatest weakness was the titular heroine, Salt: beyond her MacGyver-like resourcefulness, I couldn't really tell you a thing about her. There's not enough for you to identify with or root for, and a lot of the suspense is lost because you end up never really fearing for her life. You could argue that that was maybe the point given that her true loyalty was in constant question, but that's just an excuse. The great movie would have had a really strong, sympathetic characterization AND would have been able to pull off making you question her goals at every turn.

Still, the movie ended without a single plot hole or lingering question, and yet still managed to leave a sequel hook, so hey that's something. Also: Macgyver-like fun.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: McDohl on August 12, 2010, 11:54:17 PM
Just got back from a midnight showing of Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World.

I somehow managed to exist under a rock for most of the media blitz for this film, never read the books.  I was only vaguely aware of its existence through the advertisements for the video game.  This worked to my benefit, I think.

The visual effects were spectacular, from the comic book THUDs and WHAMs and the like to the wacky trail effects and dynamic camera angles with goofy speed lines that, for some reason, didn't seem out of place. 

All in all, I'd say WORTH IT.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Envy on August 13, 2010, 06:58:59 PM
Scott Pilgrim was indeed amazing, and this is coming from someone who loves the oboks. They changed some stuff based probably on the time they had to do it I can tell in detail what they left out over IRC or something the ending was pretty great though and the music was fantastic.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: McDohl on August 13, 2010, 07:49:49 PM
Went to FNM tonight, and they had the genius idea to put the soundtrack CD in on the player to loop for the entire 3 hours it took to do FNM.

I got kinda sick of "I Hate You, Please Die"
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on August 14, 2010, 05:46:10 AM
They should have included this:

Transformers - Dare (Stan Bush) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZua7JSgZz0#)

Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on August 14, 2010, 09:37:19 PM
Scott Pilgrim. Yes.


That's... that's it.

Yes.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: jsnlxndrlv on August 19, 2010, 08:46:43 PM
Yeah, I enjoyed it, too. Enough so that I'm probably going to try to convince my friends to see it with me again on Sunday, assuming I can keep them from deciding to see the Expendables instead. I have a bargaining chip, though, in that the last time we all went out together, they decided to see The Sorcerer's Apprentice instead of Inception.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on August 23, 2010, 06:59:57 PM
Saw the Expendables.

Isn't it 2010? Aren't special effects now better than real life? I guess they spent the budget on the cast and spent the other $1.95 on the visuals.

And Jet Li had the best ten lines in the film. Too bad he only had ten lines.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on August 25, 2010, 12:26:55 PM
I am going to go see one Scottholomew J. Pilgrimsford The Motion Picture Show tonight.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on August 25, 2010, 06:04:59 PM
I have seen it!

The first twenty minutes or so... sucked. I found it even harder to understand why Scott and Ramona like each other (I'm glad that they actually did and the pacing was absolutely awful. But eventually the movie really starts doing its own thing and playing with the source material and the audience gets into it and in the end it turns out to be really, really good.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: SCD on September 03, 2010, 06:09:55 PM
So I just came back from Machete. 

If you want exactly what the trailer for it promises, you will get that and camp in spades!

And it's nice to see Danny Trejo play the protagonist...
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Catloaf on September 06, 2010, 09:00:26 PM
So I just came back from Machete. 

If you want exactly what the trailer for it promises, you will get that and camp in spades!

And it's nice to see Danny Trejo play the protagonist...

Yeah, it's probably one of the most honestly/accurately advertised films out there.  It's violence, sex, and more violence.  It's like Planet Terror, but will slightly less of those boring scenes that had no sex and/or violence.  It's no work of art, but it knows what it is and does it damn well.  I think if this sort of thing progresses much further we'll end up with a movie consisting of one 75-minute long fight scene, that's only interrupted for a few scenes of what is as close as they can get away with saying is not technically flat-out hard core porn.  No plot necessary, just witty one liners vaguely alluding to one.


And finally, Cheech Marin [spoiler]died for your sins[/spoiler].
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on September 06, 2010, 09:18:35 PM
Finally saw Avatar is REAL3D

I have no strong opinion one way or the other.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on September 07, 2010, 01:59:26 PM
Well, no, that's not entirely true. My favorite character was Col. Quaritch, a favor that was, like his badassitude, solidified when he escaped the exploding airship by leaping out of it in a mech suit.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Dooly on September 07, 2010, 05:48:31 PM
Finally saw Avatar is REAL3D

I have no strong opinion one way or the other.

It sure did look pretty.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Shinra on September 07, 2010, 06:35:37 PM
So I just came back from Machete. 

If you want exactly what the trailer for it promises, you will get that and camp in spades!

And it's nice to see Danny Trejo play the protagonist...

Everything about Machete was perfect. Seriously. Just non-stop hilarious action from the very start of the movie to the very end. Robert Rodriguez, if nothing else, knows how to make an action movie.


Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on September 15, 2010, 01:44:08 AM
Just got back from RE4: Afterlife.

This was a bad, bad movie. The dialog was bad, the acting was bad, the plot was bad and full of holes, the 3D bullshit was bad, the special effects were nothing new.

That being said, I liked it. Maybe just because I like the games, who knows. I think if you can set aside your inner critic for a good hour and a half, you might enjoy this movie.

[spoiler]ALSO HOLY SHIT JILL IS BACK I DID NOT EXPECT THEM TO DO THAT[/spoiler]

[spoiler]ALSO PARACHUTE WESKER LIVES FOREVER[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kashan on September 15, 2010, 04:52:03 PM
Really I loved RE4. I loved just about everything about it. I'd give it like 1.5 stars as a general purpose movie, but I'd give it 5 as a genera film, the genera in question being pulp-horror-adventure-b-movie.

I wouldn't describe the 3D effects as bad, I'd describe them as great and extremely gimmicky.

Really I hope they keep churning these things out every couple of years forever, because I'll keep watching them.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: clutch on September 28, 2010, 06:02:45 PM
Catfish, GO.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on October 09, 2010, 09:13:33 PM
Legend of the Guardians: Well, there's nothing new under the sun; even the target audience of this movie has probably already seen all the straight-outta-Joseph Campbell elements of the story.  But they're put together well, with a good cast (and no stunt casting to speak of -- I only recognize a couple of names in the cast, and they're serious fucking Shakespearean thespians), and some pretty gorgeous feather animation.  And it's all played straight and doesn't talk down to the audience, with the exception of a few you've-heard-all-these-jokes-before comic relief moments and a godawful, totally-out-of-place teeny pop track in the middle of the movie for no goddamn reason.  (My thought during that scene: "This shit is exactly the reason we didn't get a Bone movie 10 years ago.")

And it has a bit of metafictional fun with some of the tropes, too; the main character actually SPELLS OUT the loose ends left over for a sequel in a monologue at the end, and there's a bit of a nod to the fact that the prophesied horrible long trial-filled journey they have to take to Ga'Hoole actually only takes one scene.

All in all, I'd say it's forgettable simply because it's a textbook example of the genre, but it also happens to be a very well-assembled example.  If you've got some kids to take to a movie for a few hours, you could do a damn sight worse.

Also there's a Wile E Coyote short at the beginning.  It's not Chuck Jones quality, but that's an awfully high standard; it's perfectly satisfactory.  I'd have preferred to see it done with cels, but it works just fine in CG.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Misha on October 09, 2010, 11:34:50 PM
the social network is amazing. Watch it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on October 10, 2010, 05:56:02 AM
Legend of the Guardians:

I've heard that Zack Snyder's still in love with fast-slow action shots.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on October 10, 2010, 10:53:49 AM
He sure is.  But at least it's not bullet time.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: McDohl on October 12, 2010, 10:58:23 AM
From one of the guys who brought you "An Inconvenient Truth" comes "Waiting for Superman", a documentary about the plight of the current US educational system.  It's definitely worth a look. 
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on October 12, 2010, 11:06:30 AM
"The guys who brought you An Inconvenient Truth" is a little imprecise.  One of those guys has a little more cachet than the others.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on October 25, 2010, 12:23:19 PM
Leaked Paramount memo shows that all movies coming out soon will be bad (http://defamer.gawker.com/5615897/leaked-paramount-memo-shows-that-all-the-movies-coming-out-will-be-bad)

I thought about making some witty statement instead of just parroting the article title, but really, it's accurate.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on October 25, 2010, 07:15:40 PM
Star Trek was pretty good.  I can deal with a sequel to that.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on October 25, 2010, 08:35:08 PM
Leaked Paramount memo shows that all movies coming out soon will be bad (http://defamer.gawker.com/5615897/leaked-paramount-memo-shows-that-all-the-movies-coming-out-will-be-bad)
Quote
Hasbro Factory
(http://brontoforum.us/Smileys/classic/ever.gif) (http://brontoforum.us/Smileys/classic/ever.gif) (http://brontoforum.us/Smileys/classic/ever.gif) out of five.

Quote
What Men Want
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: out of five.

Quote
Baywatch
The important question is, can today's stars measure up in terms of bounceability?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on October 25, 2010, 08:46:35 PM
Silicate replacement compounds are advancing rapidly.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 06, 2010, 09:02:57 PM
Due Date compensates for its total lack of originality with two great leads, a solid stream of cameos, good writing and top-notch pacing.  I'm not going to run out and buy the DVD, but it kept me entertained for a solid 100 minutes.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on November 14, 2010, 06:46:10 AM
Megamind has that dubious distinction of being better than I thought it'd be.  It won't surprise anyone over 10, but the Will Ferrell and Tina Fey are delightful, the animation is good for being on par with where Pixar was in 2004, and I'll be fond of just about anything with David Cross in it.  Basically uses the Superman stories as a starting point, but tells the story of Lex Luthor having an existential crisis.  Best parts of the film are when it's not blaring a pop song every 5 minutes.  Ends with a dance number.

Also, there's a character named Hal Stewart who looks just like the chubby kid who works at the New Frontiersman in Watchmen.  He even has a little frowny face button on his vest.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Misha on November 19, 2010, 02:24:42 AM
Megamind was pretty enjoyable, with reasonable voice acting and good action/jokes.

Red was really weak. For an action movie there was a very small proportion of action scenes, pretty much all of them from the trailer.

Harry potter was bad. WAAAAAY too stretched out. tons of exposition and scenes where nothing actually happens.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on November 19, 2010, 09:02:02 AM
Harry potter was bad. WAAAAAY too stretched out. tons of exposition and scenes where nothing actually happens.

best adaptation yet, then.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on November 19, 2010, 09:35:48 AM
I heard there is Hermione side boob.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on November 19, 2010, 10:22:54 AM
The last film had her chest digitally enhanced for the poster. Side boob is just a natural progression.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on November 19, 2010, 04:12:19 PM
So I got a job in a movie theater, which means I've seen 5-20 minutes of pretty much everything we're showing.

"Unstoppable" appears to be exactly as terrible as the trailers made it look.

I hear that "Skyline" has some good bits here and there, but the bulk of it seems to be like a less interesting ripoff of "Cloverfield".

I saw ten minutes of "Morning Glory" and was delighted that it was, in fact, quite funny. Can't say if those ten minutes are representative or not, though.

"Megamind" has great ending credits music.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on November 19, 2010, 06:22:12 PM
"Megamind" has great ending credits music.

And they all make this face

(http://i565.photobucket.com/albums/ss92/sebeforaday/WWE/THEROCKBROW.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on November 19, 2010, 08:54:07 PM
I'm not uninterested in the movie, but yeah, the characters were clearly designed specifically to make that face.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on November 22, 2010, 09:41:21 AM
I get the feeling Skyline is exactly the sort of movie you download illegally and skip to the two or three major CG fights, leaving satisfied. I mean everything I've heard about it has focused around the fact that it was created and directed by the same two people who run a cinematic CG company, coincidentally already working on another alien invasion flick for another director with roughly the same look and feel. Everything that's not dynamically rendering reflective surfaces is the ultimate afterthought.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Eponymous Bosch on November 22, 2010, 10:13:07 AM
I saw Skyline with my brother a few days ago.  I don't know why.  I knew it wouldn't be good, but I thought it would still be entertaining or so bad it's good, but it was just bad all around.  Every character is stupid and the aliens are all tentacle vagina penis butts made out of vomit with Christmas lights for eyes.  They're not fun to look at.

Then it has this ending that would be really infuriating and obnoxious if you cared about any of the characters or what happened to them, but you won't.

You know that feeling you get when you have the flu and you're half-concious and in a lot of pain, but since you're not really awake, you're only vaguely aware of it and you aren't sure why you're hurting?  That's how that whole movie feels.

And I think someone said it's supposed to be part of a series.  Maybe they can make five of them and subtitle them after the stages of grief.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on November 22, 2010, 10:47:04 AM
What happens at the end I must know this
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on November 22, 2010, 11:15:43 AM
http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/skyline.html (http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/skyline.html)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Eponymous Bosch on November 22, 2010, 11:16:24 AM
What happens at the end I must know this

It's not as entertaining or funny as text makes it sound, but [spoiler]everybody gets taken to the mothership and it's made of the same melted chocolate that the aliens are made of, so they take everyones' brains out of their heads and put them in alien bodies because I guess that's how they reproduce? But the main character has a red brain instead of the standard blue, because he's The One, so he takes over the alien body and suddenly the credits flash on the screen, there's dumb triumphant music and we have three freeze frames of what looks like turd-colored play-doh toys fighting with each other, then the main character, who is now an alien, carries off his pregnant wife who still has a brain.

But the aliens never died at any point in the movie.  Nukes didn't even bother them.  So are we to assume that the only thing that hurts the aliens are other aliens?  Because even then, the main character is outnumbered and we just sat through an hour and a half's worth of evidence that he's a giant fucking moron.  The odds aren't in his favor.

Plus, he's got a gross alien body now, so what's next?  I hope it's like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, where he meets her parents and she's like "Ok, mom, dad, he's a great guy, but I have to warn you... he's.. he's a poop "[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on November 22, 2010, 01:03:39 PM
Goddd this movie sounds awful. I feel pretty bad for having read all of Niku's entire plot summary.

[spoiler]Plus, he's got a gross alien body now, so what's next?  I hope it's like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, where he meets her parents and she's like "Ok, mom, dad, he's a great guy, but I have to warn you... he's.. he's a poop "[/spoiler]

Ideally this is the scenario around which the inevitable Skyline 2 will revolve.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on November 22, 2010, 02:16:45 PM
He and the guy from District 9 form an Accidental Alien Shrimp/Poop Support Group.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Eponymous Bosch on November 22, 2010, 02:23:52 PM
What sets the main character of Skyline apart is that it doesn't seem like it was an accident.  He seems like a man who has gone through his entire life waiting for the opportunity to become a turd.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on November 22, 2010, 05:19:08 PM
What?

Why...

Why would you make a movie about Guild?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 22, 2010, 09:08:43 PM
Harry potter was bad. WAAAAAY too stretched out. tons of exposition and scenes where nothing actually happens.

best adaptation yet, then.

Pretty much.

Excellent opening act, solid closing act, and the middle...well, it just fucking slogs.  Like the book, the camping sequence just sucks all the momentum out of the story; unlike the book, it also once again highlights the fact that yes the two people who spend the most time onscreen just coincidentally happen to be the two least talented actors out of a fantastic cast.

Now, as a metaphor for the horcrux sucking all the joy out of life, or of Ron as the much-needed heart of the group without whom all is bleak and miserable, it works wonderfully.

Also the bit with Bathilda just sort of falls flat compared to being, for my money, the most disturbing sequence in the book.  I think the CG has something to do with it.  Also, lack of Voldemort blasting off a killing curse right next to Harry's face, but I assume they decided twice in one movie would be a bit much.

Other'n that, though, the grim foreboding builds solidly from the opening scene to the wedding, and the death at the end is appropriately somber.  By and large a great adaptation that doesn't pull many punches and will scare the fuck out of small children.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bal on November 23, 2010, 09:31:26 AM
Wait, so it ends on the "Harry is dead" cliffhanger and then part 2 is going to be 100% battle of hogwarts? Because I can get behind that.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 23, 2010, 09:41:03 AM
No, it ends with Voldemort getting the Elder Wand.  The death I was referring to was -- I feel a little silly spoilertagging but what the hell -- [spoiler]Dobby's[/spoiler].
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on November 23, 2010, 09:42:19 AM
If they'd actually ended it there, they they could have had an opportunity to do what Rowling didn't have the sense to do, and make the second movie 90% Neville Longbottom and the Year of Darkness.

But no.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bal on November 23, 2010, 09:47:06 AM
Ah, I guess that makes sense. Leaving only 10% of the book for the second half would kind of defeat the point of doing a two part sequel.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Beat Bandit on November 23, 2010, 10:29:19 AM
But it would be the best second half ever.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on December 16, 2010, 02:12:56 PM
I saw Tron: Legacy (in 2d) last night. It was a lot of fun and perfectly met my expectations! My expectations were an auditory and visual powerhouse which would logistically fall apart if I tried to think about it too hard.

It would be a Mistake to wait for this on DVD.

Also, the soundtrack (both in the movie and as available on CD) are Really Great.

A co-worker saw it in 3d the night before and said it didn't really add much.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on December 17, 2010, 07:53:53 PM
A lot of the scenes are actually still in 2D. There's even a disclaimer at the beginning.

On that note:

TRON LEGACY 3D: HOLY SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Misha on December 17, 2010, 08:13:38 PM
soundtrack of tron is awesome, visuals are pretty sweet, everything else is weak. I recommend watching on as big a screen as possible
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on December 17, 2010, 10:24:26 PM
A lot of the scenes are actually still in 2D. There's even a disclaimer at the beginning.

Before or after you buy the ticket?

(this question is rhetorical)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Saturn on December 18, 2010, 01:03:27 AM
I'm a little curious if Quorra looks Like Motoko Kusanagi on purpose

unless i'm the only one that sees the similarity
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 18, 2010, 07:22:18 AM
Only the character's concept artist knows for sure!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ziiro on December 19, 2010, 12:40:09 AM
Saw Tron in 3D.

Great movie. Was distracted by the ever growing headache I was getting.

I am, apparently, not compatible with 3D.
:sadpanda:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Malikial on December 19, 2010, 02:14:43 AM
I only see out of one eye so... 3d not so fun for me.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on December 19, 2010, 07:19:46 AM
You'd figure it'd be just a 2D movie, only slightly dimmer if you watch it through the glasses, though.

As for Tron, there were a few plotholes you could drive a bus through, and what exactly [spoiler]happened to Tron at the end[/spoiler] left me going WTF, but overall I found it enjoyable.  The visuals were great, the soundtrack was used well, and Jeff Bridges was playing his Kevin Flynn as the Dude.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 19, 2010, 09:11:48 AM
I only see out of one eye so... 3d not so fun for me.

(http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Ralphie-Christmas-Story-Red-Ryder-BB-1.jpg)

B-b-but it's not even Christmas yet! :gasp:

That's what you get for opening your presents early!  :disapprove:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 19, 2010, 06:32:54 PM
Voyage of the Dawn Treader: I saw three writers credited at the end, and it explained a lot.  It's got its moments where it's really on, but it's also got moments of tremendously, unbelievably cliche dialogue (shit like a character fainting and somebody saying "Was it something I said?", or "Stop it, both of you!  Don't you see what's happening?").  It also tries to graft a plot backbone onto what's essentially an episodic story, complete with pointlessly throwing a collection quest on top of a story that's already a damn collection quest.  For the most part this doesn't help, though there's some rejiggering of the order where it works better: Eustace spends more of the story as a dragon than in the book, and the Island of Dreams is turned into the climax of the story, which mostly works except that it fucking cribs the summoning of the monster straight from Ghostbusters and then Eustace sword-fights glowy green gas.

Oh, and the glowy green gas just represents pure evil.  Or temptation, or sin, or some generally abstract badness.  It may be the least subtle Narnia movie yet (though, in fairness, the least subtle bit, Aslan's "I am known by another name in your world" speech, IS straight out of the book).

On the plus side, the kid who plays Eustace is perfect.  Hammy as hell, but that's exactly what the character calls for.  He scowls and he shouts and he tantrums and he really steals every scene he's in.  Oh, and Simon Pegg replaces Eddie Izzard as the voice of Reepicheep.

All in all, pretty meh and kind of a mess, but there are bits that work pretty well.  Don't know if we'll see any more after this (though [spoiler]Jill Pole gets a namedrop[/spoiler] at the end), but Silver Chair is a much more straightforward story.  Hell, the two after that are, too.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on December 19, 2010, 07:35:32 PM
I saw Tron: Legacy twice (which ought to communicate my opinion on it), once in 3D and once in 2D. I preferred it in 2D, because the movie is already dim enough without taking the glasses into account.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 21, 2010, 07:17:16 PM
Re: Tron

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/buge/reaction/dudeface.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on December 21, 2010, 08:13:41 PM
More anecdotal movie reports.

Haven't seen Black Swan yet, but I hear it's Good and Intense. About what I'd expect from Aronofsky. Seems to be doing well so far, thankfully; I remember some people speculating it would do very poorly. (Apparently The Wrestler just bombed here.)

I know nothing about The Fighter, but it also seems to be doing well.

Now that it's Christmas week, Tangled and Narnia are suddenly doing much better business than last week.

I saw the last ~10 minutes of Yogi Bear 3D, and left the theater a broken, weeping shell of a man. Based on both a direct and an overheard conversation, the best that can be said for it is that it's better than "Avatar: The Last Airbender: The Movie" was. If this is true, "Avatar" must have been some kind of a god-damned war crime.

Burlesque still selling well, also still pulling in a surprising number of little old ladies. I gather it seems like great fun while you're watching it and shortly thereafter, but within 24 hours or so you'll increasingly realize it was actually terrible, which explains the reviews vs. word-of-mouth issue.

I didn't see Tron in THX the first time, but that's okay, because we can hear the soundtrack of the THX screening in the lobby rather clearly. I don't recall this happening for anything else.

It also occurred to me that the name "Tron Legacy" actually has a bit of a double meaning - since Tron is the oldest program in the Grid, he is actually a legacy program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_system).

Also, I enjoyed summarizing the plot of the movie to a coworker in the form "Jeff Bridges has a disc that Jeff Bridges wants so that Jeff Bridges can escape from the world of Jeff Bridges to the world of Jeff Bridges, but Jeff Bridges is hiding it so that Jeff Bridges...." etc.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 21, 2010, 08:20:12 PM
I gather it seems like great fun while you're watching it and shortly thereafter, but within 24 hours or so you'll increasingly realize it was actually terrible, which explains the reviews vs. word-of-mouth issue.

So, Rocky Horror.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on December 22, 2010, 01:57:13 AM
Yeah, Tron Legacy.  I had actually never watched Tron in full until Sunday, and saw the movie on Monday, so that may color my opinion.  Oddly enough I had always recognize quotes from Tron as being such without ever actually having watched the damn movie.  I guess there aren't too many movies out there where people want people in the games until they die playing.

Anyway, the Legacy.  One of the best jumpstart sequels out there, imo, though the movie itself might be a little shaky.  It actually, and this is really a feat when you think about it, it actually captures the original look and feel of Tron perfectly using modern technology.  Which is amazing because the entire look and feel of the original was based around shitty 1982 CG graphics.

At times it revels in its own kitschiness a little too much, but that's okay because honestly, there's really nothing in the world kitschier than Tron anyway.

I'm really, really glad I decided to catch the original first, though, because the sequel doesn't exactly do a good job of getting newbies up to speed.  You get a really vague summary at the beginning and then it jumps directly to AND HERE'S EVERYONE TWENTY YEARS LATER (except for Lora/Yori who I guess was put on a light bus).  The rest you're left to puzzle out yourself.  What's up with the laser?  When did Jeff Bridges get a bunch of Matrix powers?  Why is Tron so fucking important?  (Hint: He's not.)

By now you've probably all caught it already anyway, but in case for some reason you haven't made up your mind - if you liked the original, see it, if you didn't, don't.  It really is a Legacy movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on December 22, 2010, 07:22:33 AM
At some point during the movie, I realized that Tron Legacy wasn't a sequel so much as it was a remake/reconception of the first film.

At the very beginning, when the TVs are explaining what happened to Kevin Flynn, they don't mention anything about the acts of corporate sabotage and betrayal that was the plot of the first film.  In fact, it shows that the film was also a film in their universe, which seems to have inspired Kevin Flynn to try to create the grid himself.  Hell, he even names his new creation CLU, after his program that gets eliminated at the beginning of the first film.

The other things I noticed were how much the first half of the movie follows the story of the first film.  Sam attempts to sabotage Encom, has a discussion with someone who works there in his a-typical apartment, "That's a big door", gets zapped in, is captured and then forced to play disc, followed by the light cycles, which he then escapes from by driving out a hole blasted in the wall.


Officially they might bill it as a sequel, but considering the cult status of the original and how much even the studio didn't even seem to want to let people see it before Tron Legacy came out, it almost feels like they were taking a stab at just recreating the whole thing, with a few nods for fans.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 22, 2010, 09:17:37 AM
It actually, and this is really a feat when you think about it, it actually captures the original look and feel of Tron perfectly using modern technology.  Which is amazing because the entire look and feel of the original was based around shitty 1982 CG graphics.

Right; Tron is actually PERFECT for the "everything is really fucking blue and orange" aesthetic in modern movies.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on December 22, 2010, 10:14:39 PM
True Grit was great. It was described to me as The Coen brother's most broadly entertaining movies and I'd agree with that. As a matter of fact, pretty much the only person I've heard say anything bad about it was an 80 year old men who loves The Duke and wont even give this version (which is actually a more faithful adaption of the source material but thats an entire different arguement) a chance.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Shinra on December 22, 2010, 10:25:59 PM
Yeah, True Grit was absolutely amazing. Westerns aren't dead yet.

Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Malikial on December 22, 2010, 10:26:22 PM
I only see out of one eye so... 3d not so fun for me.

(http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Ralphie-Christmas-Story-Red-Ryder-BB-1.jpg)

B-b-but it's not even Christmas yet! :gasp:

That's what you get for opening your presents early!  :disapprove:

I like how you take a problem that I've had since birth, that upsets me to no end, has had to be operated on multiple times,  and causes me major grief and sometimes physical pain and just throw jokes at it, shows you've got class....

Fuck-face.

Ahem, Saw True Grit with James, I loved it. Funny comment in the theater at the end "Man, I loved that movie but it ended like a book, I hate books!" Soooo, as long as you don't mind books I guess it's OK....
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 23, 2010, 07:32:24 AM
I only see out of one eye so... 3d not so fun for me.

(http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Ralphie-Christmas-Story-Red-Ryder-BB-1.jpg)

B-b-but it's not even Christmas yet! :gasp:

That's what you get for opening your presents early!  :disapprove:

I like how you take a problem that I've had since birth, that upsets me to no end, has had to be operated on multiple times,  and causes me major grief and sometimes physical pain and just throw jokes at it, shows you've got class....

Fuck-face.

:sadpanda: There's no excuses here, only apologies. I'm sorry man.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on December 23, 2010, 01:31:26 PM
Funny thing is, he was just making fun of you D:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Malikial on December 23, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
On one hand, it does all the things I said and does make me feel bad sometimes. On the other hand, I was just fucking with you.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 23, 2010, 07:47:09 PM
Funny thing is, he was just making fun of you D:

Speaking as a third party: I didn't get that impression at all.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on December 23, 2010, 08:12:15 PM
I guess it was an extremely convincing impression of an overreacting asshole?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on December 23, 2010, 09:41:07 PM
So the joke's on all parties involved!

MAN these things are hard to enjoy
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Malikial on December 23, 2010, 11:15:47 PM
I wouldn't have minded a joke that was something along the lines of my brother's ribbing me about my unused eye wandering by calling me 'tangle eye' or something to that effect, but I was born with fucked up vision and do everything in my power to make sure I keep what little vision I have and I didn't like the implication that I had anything to do with my not being able to see out of one eye. Yeah, I was a bit grumpy about it and I reacted poorly, but I figured if his joke was in poor taste* then my response would also be. It's not like I suddenly hate Mongrel, I just responded sharply because I posted as soon as I read what he posted. I'm the kind of person that gets upset for about 2 minutes, makes an off the cuff remark to fuck with someone for fucking with me then gets over it.

(*Some of you might have thought it was a laugh riot, I did not, just like I don't enjoy being called a pirate when I have to wear an eye patch or what-not.)

BUT WE'RE OFF TOPIC, LOVE THEM TRONS, YOU KNOW?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on December 23, 2010, 11:33:05 PM
YAY TRONS
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on December 24, 2010, 12:31:12 AM
i should watch a trons i hear some people like them
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on December 24, 2010, 12:57:52 AM
I just returned from Trons!

I loved the look of the film. And everything else was pretty darn good too. I haven't seen Tron in many years so I didn't notice too much amiss.
I did notice a lot of... Star Warsy things. I sat with a buddy and when [spoiler]the father wore the robe we both kept saying he was Ben Kenobi.  Then when he intergrated at the end, it looked like he was using the force. [/spoiler]I mean it was to the point that when[spoiler] the son was shooting from the turret everyone said in the theatre at once "Don't get cocky, kid."[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 24, 2010, 09:01:34 AM
If it's any consolation, I'm almost blind myself and I was mostly sure you didn't hate me forever.

Er, TRONS, HOW ABOUT THEM TRONS. PEW PEW PEW. LEGS TANKS!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on December 24, 2010, 10:27:07 PM
ok so Niku at one point olivia wilde loses an arm
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on December 25, 2010, 09:49:14 AM
She regenerates limbs so you can keep chopping off bits of her for as long as you have her data disc.

:want:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on December 27, 2010, 04:18:18 PM
Black Swan was pretty good but it was a lot better the first time I saw it when it was called Perfect Blue.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 28, 2010, 02:22:35 PM
You could say the experience left you black and blue.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on December 28, 2010, 02:31:47 PM
You could but you really shouldn't. Ever.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on December 28, 2010, 03:58:20 PM
Sounds like that pun left Lottel red all over.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 28, 2010, 04:48:41 PM
He's just green with jealousy.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on December 28, 2010, 06:22:48 PM
Orange you glad I didn't say "banana"?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 28, 2010, 07:06:53 PM
That's the second time someone I know dragged out that joke today.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on December 28, 2010, 07:26:27 PM
Sol Badguy.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on December 28, 2010, 07:41:57 PM
Two.  There's a river.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on January 03, 2011, 09:22:30 AM
Tron was good

The nightclub fight was bitchin!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on January 03, 2011, 11:16:26 AM
The bit about the ISOs was kind of thrown in though huh
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on January 11, 2011, 12:30:08 AM
I just saw Black Swan tonight. Best movie I've seen since... "Moon", I guess. (Which also had a Clint Mansell soundtrack. Hmmmm.)

Black Swan was pretty good but it was a lot better the first time I saw it when it was called Perfect Blue.
It's been a while since I saw Perfect Blue, but I don't remember Perfect Blue having a score partially by Tchaikovsky and partially by Clint Mansell working off Tchaikovsky.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 11, 2011, 06:45:21 AM
I'm still pissed my friend destroyed my Perfect Blue DVD before I even had a chance to watch it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Pacobird on January 11, 2011, 08:18:26 AM
Winter's Bone for Best Picture.

You heard it here first.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on January 11, 2011, 05:43:03 PM
I saw TRON again.

I may see it a third time.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on January 12, 2011, 01:55:36 PM
Another perk of working in a theater: saw the Black Swan's Coda twice more last night. Just the coda. That was enough.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 14, 2011, 06:46:21 PM
'Valhalla Rising' Trailer HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQgoGccHJD4#ws)

Whoa, never heard of this before today. WTF?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on January 14, 2011, 11:30:56 PM
Saw True Grit and Green Hornet last night.

True Grit, had it been released any other time of year, would have been the best damn thing in the theater. But it can't compete with Oscar-bait season for mass appeal or unreasonable levels of cinematic excellence; Black Swan is superb, whereas True Grit is "merely" excellent.

Green Hornet is very fun. It's very self aware ("What do you mean, I'm not scary? I have a gun with two barrels! Do you know how much that cost to make?") and in no way takes itself seriously; also, the action is excellent. I was forced to see it in 3D; happily, it actually uses the 3D rather well, and I ultimately didn't mind. (Especially the end credits.)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 15, 2011, 06:46:36 AM
That makes Green Hornet sound a lot better than I'd expected. The trailer gave you a little cause for hope, but you never want to hang anything on the trailer.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on January 15, 2011, 08:04:31 AM
Still, it's Seth Rogen. His filmography has already pigeonholed him as a stoner manchild.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on January 15, 2011, 08:32:18 AM
Still, it's Seth Rogen. His filmography has already pigeonholed him as a awesome stoner manchild.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 15, 2011, 08:56:06 AM
I can't stand Seth Rogan's films for the most part, but that wouldn't necessarily keep me away from Green Hornet. It'd be genuinely refreshing to see a remake that really didn't try to take itself very seriously.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on January 15, 2011, 09:34:29 AM
But that was part of the charm of the TV Green Hornet. It took itself seriously and was made all the more fun for it. The moment you start playing up the campy elements, or admitting that Kato was the one doing pretty much all the work, is the moment you lose.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 15, 2011, 12:10:54 PM
Thundercats also took itself seriously.

Besides, the original Kato worked, because he was played by Bruce Fucking Lee.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on January 15, 2011, 01:00:37 PM
Legend has it that during the Green Hornet/Batman crossover, the producers wanted Kato to lose to Robin in a fight. Lee basically told them that if he was going to fight, Kato was going to murder Robin, end of story. The producers compromised with a "hey, why are we fighting?" moment instead.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on January 15, 2011, 02:12:40 PM
But that was part of the charm of the TV Green Hornet. It took itself seriously and was made all the more fun for it. The moment you start playing up the campy elements, or admitting that Kato was the one doing pretty much all the work, is the moment you lose.

Does it count if it's a running joke that Rogen is totally oblivious to how much more important Kato is than him?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 19, 2011, 03:41:17 PM
Meet Robert.

Robert is an old discarded tire.

Robert kills people. (http://screenrant.com/rubber-movie-trailer-pauly-97196/)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on January 19, 2011, 05:04:25 PM
Meet Robert.

Robert is an old discarded tire.

Robert kills people. (http://screenrant.com/rubber-movie-trailer-pauly-97196/)

So it's a high school A/V project that spiraled out of control?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on February 01, 2011, 01:17:06 PM
The Green Hornet is significantly less stupid than anticipated.

I liked the Britt/Kato fight that goes on for way, way, way too long.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on February 01, 2011, 03:19:04 PM
Yeah, it was fun.  The world needs more superhero comedies; this is the best one I've seen since Mystery Men.  (Though I haven't actually seen Megamind yet.)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on February 01, 2011, 08:57:55 PM
Man, I heard people say nice things about Green Hornet elsewhere. I may actually go see that in spite of LOL SETH ROGEN.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on February 22, 2011, 02:24:33 PM
True Grit is amazing. Go see it.

EDIT: I guess I should expand a bit:

True Grit knocked something out of my top five westerns so it could be in my top five westerns.

I'm not entirely sure what it knocked out yet, but yeah.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on February 22, 2011, 04:57:59 PM
As long as it didn't knock out Wild Wild West, you're good.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on February 22, 2011, 05:11:51 PM
Wait, are there really people who still haven't seen True Grit and Black Swan? What's wrong with you people?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on February 22, 2011, 08:55:59 PM
Theatres cost money.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on February 22, 2011, 10:17:47 PM
They're not playing True Grit anymore, locally. Or Black Swan.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on February 23, 2011, 06:04:52 AM
Quote
But it's not playing near me!
Quote
But I don't have time!
Quote
But I'm trapped on a desert island!
Quote
But I'm blind, deaf, and dumb!
Quote
But Natalie Portman was in Episode I and I made a solemn vow to never again see any movie associated with anybody in that movie!
Quote
But the Coen brothers killed my parents while delivering impossibly witty and implausibly well-enunciated dialogue!

Excuses, excuses.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on February 23, 2011, 06:32:38 AM
Quote
But Natalie Portman was in Episode I and I made a solemn vow to never again see any movie associated with anybody in that movie!

just this actually
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on February 23, 2011, 06:52:57 AM
"Because it doesn't actually sound very interesting at all".
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Beat Bandit on February 23, 2011, 07:10:35 AM
Because I got tired of recently looking for copies of The Black Swan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(Taleb_book)) and having people that work in bookstores telling me the movie wasn't based off a book.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on February 23, 2011, 08:27:50 AM
Okay, at first I was excited because there is a section that labelled as references Umberto Eco (and his "Anti-Library"), and I am a gigantic fanboy who is totally gay 4 Eco.

But then the description of that section failed to mention Eco or any kind of library in any way shape or form. :rage:

Book looks good though.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on February 23, 2011, 08:36:31 AM
Me, I just already saw Perfect Blue.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on February 23, 2011, 09:08:46 AM
DAMMIT.

WHY DID MY FRIEND HAVE TO DESTROY MY PERFECT BLUE DVD BEFORE I EVER GOT TO SEE IT. :rage:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on February 23, 2011, 12:24:32 PM
Black Swan looks like a movie I'll catch 4 or 5 years down the road and think "It wasn't bad. I guess that's what the hype was about. Not my cup of tea though."
While True Grit'll come on next and my eyes will glaze over and I'll just nod a lot.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on February 23, 2011, 12:56:42 PM
Quote
But Natalie Portman was in Episode I and I made a solemn vow to never again see any movie associated with anybody in that movie!

Ahmed Best will be in FDR: American Badass! and it's tearing me apart.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on February 23, 2011, 05:24:17 PM
Saw "Barney's Version" today.

It's two and a half hours of Paul Giamatti. By which I mean that, near the end of the movie, there was a scene without him, and I was surprised because it was then that I realized that I couldn't think of a single other scene he wasn't in until then.

But I like Paul Giamatti! And there were a lot of other people doing good acting also. So it worked out pretty well!

You might consider seeing it if it is playing near you, but only if you have already seen Black Swan and True Grit. Especially if you like Paul Giamatti.


The employee screening for Drive Angry was tonight, but I have school tomorrow, so that will have to wait. Oh well!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on February 23, 2011, 11:13:33 PM
What is a "Star Wars Prequel"????
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on February 24, 2011, 06:21:01 AM
You know, the prequel trilogy to the Star Wars trilogy that George Lucas was planning before his sudden, tragic death in 1990?

It's too bad, really. Those probably would have been awesome movies.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on February 24, 2011, 12:20:29 PM
We'll always have the Extended Universe, the wildly successful West End Games RPG and the superlative Decipher CCG.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on February 24, 2011, 12:35:12 PM
Only 98% of the EU is a seething mass of horrifying fanfiction.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on February 24, 2011, 12:40:03 PM
Yeah, first thing that jumped into my head after that was European Union fanfic
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on February 24, 2011, 12:48:10 PM
Hetalia is set before the formation of the EU, doesn't count.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on February 24, 2011, 01:20:00 PM
I think my all time favourite is the writer who is pretty prolific in the EU (but doesn't write any other material, obv), made up a daughter for Boba Fett based on some woman he was stalking online, admitted he was in love with his imaginary creation, and then tricked another EU writer to put in a real book so that it would be canon and so that he could write about her in later books.

Like, is this a sci-fi franchise or is it a "post your SW stories" SA forum board?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on March 09, 2011, 12:20:22 AM
Only 98% of the EU is a seething mass of horrifying fanfiction.

:joke:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on March 27, 2011, 01:13:15 PM
This does not look particularly auspicious. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sucker-punch-2010/)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on March 27, 2011, 01:43:48 PM
Quote
...this tricked up female empowerment tale undercuts itself with its fetishized slutty schoolgirls and its repetitious steampunk anime aesthetic.

Now, I haven't seen Sucker Punch.  I think I saw a trailer a while back but I know only very loose things about the movie.  But looking at those reviews?  Kevin Smith might have been talking out of his ass about Jersey Girl, but there definitely do exist movies where criticism isn't applicable.

Most of those reviews seem to be casually insulting with broad stroke stereotypes.  "Schlock treatment for comatose gamers", "should satisfy the fantasies of most heterosexual teenage boys and many men", "it's the fantasy of a 14-year-old boy steeped in kung fu, Call of Duty and online porn", "Like watching someone channel-surf through five video game boss battles at the same time".  Even the positive reviews are saying shit like "it might be the priciest bit of softcore porn for otaku and gamers ever produced".

Sometimes movies have target audiences, and it is not a sin to fail to cater to people outside those target audiences.  It is, however, lazy and shitty criticism to pretend that your personal tastes represent an objective, correct standard for the appeal of a film.  "I didn't like this movie because I came in wanting A, B, and C, and it didn't give them to me" is a nonsensical criticism if the film is written and marketed with D and E in mind, and the people who came in wanting D and E walk away happy.

Maybe it does suck.  Like I said, I haven't seen it.  But I really don't think it sucks for the reasons these people think it sucks.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on March 27, 2011, 01:49:31 PM
Actually I bitched about the whole 'this movie is for gamers' thing too, but in more of a 'most gamers I know are the worst fucking movie snobs on the planet' line of thinking. I think that the at large public is confusing gamers with Bros, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on March 27, 2011, 01:57:00 PM
To be fair, I was waiting for someone to use CGI in a film and just say "Oh fuck it" and do nothing but blow all the doors off to show what you can REALLY do, and to hell with a plot.

Kind of like wanting to see a really good car chase movie. When you're in that mode, you're quite deliberately not looking for oscar material, you just want CARS GO FAST AND SMASH STUFF and unashamedly make vrooming noises.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on March 27, 2011, 03:01:24 PM
Sometimes movies have target audiences

The term isn't catering, it's pandering.

Nothing that panders to an audience can also be good; that's more or less the definition of the term.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on March 27, 2011, 04:50:37 PM
Actually I bitched about the whole 'this movie is for gamers' thing too, but in more of a 'most gamers I know are the worst fucking movie snobs on the planet' line of thinking. I think that the at large public is confusing gamers with Bros, in my opinion.

That and "It looks like a video game" has become a ubiquitous criticism from lazy, illiterate critics who don't know what fucking video games look like.

As I mentioned when it came out, District 9 looked a fuck of a lot like a video game -- in point of fact it was the ultimate result of Peter Jackson not making a Halo movie -- but critics never said that, because they never say anything they LIKE looks like a video game.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on March 27, 2011, 07:20:10 PM
Sucker Punch seems like it was created by polling G4's target audience for what they'd like to see in a game, and then making it into a movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on March 27, 2011, 08:34:47 PM
Sucker Punch is... an odd movie.

First, it's not exactly what it looks like at a glance; the advertising has, I think, been exceptionally good at masking the presence of anything except tits and explosions.

I don't think I can really talk about it without spoilers.

[spoiler]
Sucker Punch is actually quite a bit like a video game - specifically, Sanitarium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitarium_%28video_game%29). The story - yes, there is one, more or less - is presented through strongly allegorical nested psychological fantasies - think "Inception", but with motifs instead of faux-realism. There's the "real world", in which the main character has been imprisoned in an insane asylum; her primary coping fantasy allegory, a "Casablanca"-style brothel, and then a series of sub-fantasies in a variety of abstract settings, where she and her friends are fighting to obtain or retrieve something of significance.

All of the crazy combat sequences with the slow-mo and the katanas and the dragons and the steam-powered nazi zombies and etc. are from those sub-fantasies. Everything on the movie poster is imagery from those sub-fantasies.

The movie is riddled with motifs; with two major settings and something like four minor settings to work with, there's a lot of room for recurring elements. Some of these elements (shattering lightbulbs) have some reasonably apparent significance; others (the kid in the trench in the world war scene who later reappears on the bus at the end of the movie... I think?) are inscrutable.

The movie is absurdly sexual, both in plot and style; this is really weirdly juxtaposed with how aggressively PG-13 it is. (There was a thing (http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/11/02/17/1527253/How-Watchmen-Killed-R-rated-Fantasy-Movies) about how Zach Snyder isn't allowed to make R movies anymore.)

The ending is terrible; there's a "twist" where the main character is lobotomized and ceases to be a character, because - vat a tveest! - the primary supporting character was the secret main character the whole time! There's an allegorical element here, too, but it still feels like a poorly-implemented infernokrusher (http://www.discontent.com/log/archives/000581.html)-style twist.

I don't think I can sufficiently emphasize just how motif-heavy this movie is, by the way. It feels like it's trying really hard to have a real coherent artistic merit, but at the same time it has that more-guns-more-fishnets-more-dragons thing going on, but they're turned up to, like, thirteen, so it's like a parody, but...

I just can't decide if the movie is one enormous poe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law) or not.
[/spoiler]

Great soundtrack, though. I'll have to buy it just for the "Search And Destroy" cover.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on April 11, 2011, 03:50:44 PM
Last night I saw Hanna; today I saw Source Code. They were both good. Minireviews in spoilers in case you care.

Hanna: [spoiler]As you may recall, I work in a movie theater, which means I get to see a lot of previews, especially when they're on loop in the lobby. Because I can so readily compare previews and movies, let me tell you: previews are lies. You cannot trust anything in a preview; music may be different, dialogue may be different, footage may be different, even the apparent premise of the movie may be different.

Hanna is not one of those movies. The trailer is an extremely accurate portrayal of the movie. It's exactly what it looks like: some kind of loli battle machine with a great UNCHA UNCHA UNCHA soundtrack.[/spoiler]

Source Code (with spoilers for Moon, which you should have seen anyways):[spoiler]I was very careful to avoid spoilers for this movie. The implicit premise from the trailer alone, as you may recall: military technology that lets one man relive the last eight minutes of another man's life. That makes this a time-travel movie, which means that there's no way on god's green earth that there won't be twists, and thus, spoilers would be a thing.

Did you see Moon? You should have. Even if you didn't, the biggest spoiler is that there's no real spoilers. The main character is a clone, yes, but that's obvious very early on, and explicitly the case before the movie is even half over. It's a premise that, by genre conventions, should have been rife with spoilers and last-minute twists, but it wasn't. The movie was all about working out the implications of the twist. Source Code does the same thing.

Source Code is not as good a movie as Moon. The soundtrack is less impressive, the visuals are of course less interesting, etc. But it's still good, and has the distinction of being the only "serious" time travel movie I can think of that actually has a happy ending. [/spoiler]

Actually, there's one big problem with Source Code - it's incredibly implausible. Chicago never has weather that nice.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on April 15, 2011, 09:09:21 AM
So I didn't know Atlas Shrugged had actually come out. Oh well whatever... but wait!

In an TOTALLY UNEXPECTED TWIST ( :rolleyes: ) it is so appallingly bad that it's apparently making M Shimian Nightstalker's Avatar look good (I think it has a stellar 6% rating on RT, though the audience rating is a gassy 86% - talk about a point spread).

This is where things get good. Apparently the nonsense making the rounds is that the movie is this bad on purpose, because the whole thing is a secret liberal conspiracy to bury the Greatest Book Evar and prevent parts 2 and 3 from ever being made.

:happy:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on April 15, 2011, 08:18:17 PM
Who exactly is saying it's bad?  Because it could be Casablanca levels of technical excellence here and I'd still probably leave the theater wanting to throw up on the director until he is slowly eating alive by trace amounts of stomach acid.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on April 15, 2011, 10:02:35 PM
Ebert is saying that even if you set aside the ideology, it's just badly made.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on April 16, 2011, 02:44:20 AM
Yeah, I've heard even the raving ideologues who went to see it were like "Well, it's not TOO bad..."
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 16, 2011, 10:27:34 AM
Because it could be Casablanca levels of technical excellence here and I'd still probably leave the theater wanting to throw up on the director until he is slowly eating alive by trace amounts of stomach acid.

There are great movies with messages I disagree with.  On the Waterfront is a thinly-veiled McCarthy apologist screed.  It's still a legitimate classic.

It doesn't sound like this movie is a legitimate classic.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on April 16, 2011, 11:09:27 AM
Well the promotional materials for this did not make it seem like the message was even thinly veiled.  It's pretty much just a two-hour Mammonist sermon.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 16, 2011, 04:12:58 PM
Well yes, it IS Atlas Shrugged.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 17, 2011, 06:27:07 PM
Source Code isn't as good as Moon, but it's a pretty good sophomore effort.  The plot twists are all thoroughly predictable, but the writing is serviceable (and manages to throw a couple neat ethical questions along the way without dwelling on them) and Gyllenhaal puts in a top-notch performance.  It doesn't really feel like anything fresh or new, but it's well done and worth the ticket price -- though I don't think you'd miss much by waiting for the video.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on April 29, 2011, 07:37:30 PM
Dear THOR MOVIE advertisers.

If you wished to reassure people that your movie is not in fact some kind of closeted tribute to white supremacy, I must point out that publishing your posters only in red white and black is NOT the best way to to do that.

Regards, etc.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on April 29, 2011, 10:42:30 PM
They should have just spent the money on putting a Mjolnir standee on every street corner.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 30, 2011, 12:11:52 AM
Didn't you get the memo, Mongrel?  White supremacists HATE Thor.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on April 30, 2011, 03:30:28 AM
Oh I know, I'm just making fun of their rather silly poster choice.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on April 30, 2011, 06:03:58 AM
Didn't you get the memo, Mongrel?  White supremacists HATE Thor.

If that were true, there would be fewer of them that practice Ásatrú.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: NexAdruin on April 30, 2011, 10:17:27 AM
In the commercial there's something about an oath to protect the peace.

I'm pretty sure Thor and his entire pantheon were all about warfare and being as violent as possible.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on April 30, 2011, 10:26:19 AM
Reading up on Beta Ray Bill made it pretty clear that being chosen as inheritor to Thor's power requires a certain amount of omnicidal tendency.

Although I guess the original superhero Thor was a doctor so uh Dr. McNinja isn't original at all?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 30, 2011, 03:07:47 PM
Reading up on Beta Ray Bill made it pretty clear that being chosen as inheritor to Thor's power requires a certain amount of omnicidal tendency.

It's more that being a superhero requires you to immediately mistake the first guy you meet for your enemy and fight him.

Although I guess the original superhero Thor was a doctor

Yeah.  Generally Don Blake and Thor are treated as separate entities -- when Blake strikes the hammer it's like he switches places with Thor -- but in the earliest comics the hammer just gave him Thor's powers.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on April 30, 2011, 03:22:51 PM
Incidentally, the movie is pretty fun.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on May 01, 2011, 12:17:02 PM
Although I guess the original superhero Thor was a doctor so uh Dr. McNinja isn't original at all?

Uh, no.  Thor is not a ninja, obviously.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on May 02, 2011, 12:57:26 PM
Not until the next crossover.

ADDENDUM: I would buy that.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on May 02, 2011, 05:55:07 PM
Thor looks like The Green Hornet in that I will see it because an average-looking movie really stands out in a sea of lousy ones.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 05, 2011, 11:33:17 PM
THOR: 2011'S ANG LEE HULK
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 05, 2011, 11:41:27 PM
Ok. To elaborate I walked into the theatre and there were 4 other people watching the movie. That's never a good sign. There were 3 3D effects in the whole movie and they weren't very well done. They loved a camera shot and repeated it again and again. It's where they hover the camera 3 feet from your head at a slight angle, so your head is huge compared to your feet and the landscape is at a 45 degree angle.
[spoiler]And Thor's not a god. He's an alien. With Super Sci-fi powers that we explain as magic. Sorta. This was dropped like half way through the film. I'm not sure if they were REALLY trying to make that point, but Asgard really bothered me. It's all Sci-fi turbines and glowy lights and lasers and shit. [/spoiler]  And they felt the need to explain SOME of the mythos but for the most part, if you don't know more about Norse myth than your typical person, you'll be a tad confused.


I can't even think of all the things that left a bad taste in my mouth but I can think of the TWO GOOD THINGS.
The Costume (of Thor and pretty much no one else) and the acting (of Thor. And pretty much no one else.)


EDIT:
AT THE END OF THE MOVIE [spoiler]They leave it at a cliffhanger (almost literally) and then 2 minutes later say "THOR WILL BE BACK IN THE AVENGERS MOVIE." I know he will. He's on the posters. But right after "I'm not sure I'll ever see earth again?"[/spoiler]
AND AFTER THE CREDITS?! [spoiler]The fucking Cosmic cube?! Is this what the Avengers movie will be about? Nothing with the cosmic cube has been enjoyable.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on May 06, 2011, 01:48:35 AM
Don't listen to Lottel; he is not a well man. [spoiler]Marvel Thor was always powered by ambiguawesome Kirbytech, and that holds true here. The only increase of science was that they changed Bifrost from a rainbow bridge into a rainbow bridge with teleportation laser powered by Yggdrasil at one end of it. Since this interpretation looks cooler, makes more visual sense at the destination end, creates interesting dramatic situations, and keeps Heimdall's character from being superfluous in a movie without any invaders to defend against, I am going to call it a net improvement.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on May 06, 2011, 05:36:57 AM
THOR: 2011'S ANG LEE HULK


yeah well

i liked ang lee's hulk too
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on May 06, 2011, 11:29:52 AM
I liked Thor. It was as good a visual adaptation of the crazy Kirby shit as anybody could hope for, the writing was good, and they made good compromises between mythology and story, which is prudent - there's just too much mythology for them to have actually kept it all. No prophecy, no mention of Ragnarok, and a fairly limited cast of Asgardians; a few nice bits if you know what to look for (Sleipnir makes a cameo); and good writing. The only point which I have actual objections to is the fairly explicit implication that Odin lost his eye in battle with the frost giants.

It did not work in 3d very well at all; the insane color palette of the cosmic scenes just don't agree with the glasses. I'll see it again in 2d next week, and I suspect it will look a lot better that way.

I also like how they worked Donald Blake in. Very cute.

The credit candy was disappointing, though - [spoiler]I didn't know what the Cosmic Cube was until just now, and there's no apparent link between it and anything else, although apparently it's the source of the Red Skull's world domination plans in Captain America (hence Fury's mention about history?)[/spoiler]

THAD EDIT: Tagged for spoilers.  Dude, seriously?  The movie came out TODAY.  You are literally describing the LAST SCENE IN IT.  You should not have to be told that is not okay.  Fuck you.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on May 06, 2011, 04:46:27 PM
Cool spoilers, bro.

But yeah, don't bother seeing it in 3D.  Which is generally the case for ALL movies.  I was actually 3D surprised (my pass last week mentioned nothing about it until they gave me the glasses) and would have been happier without.  It's not painful, it just rarely helps anything at all in the film.

And re said spoilers: [spoiler]Well yeah, each stinger has lead into the next movie, but this is the first time the next movie has technically taken place beforehand.  They explained what the cube was just fine for the purpose of the credits, which was that it is a powerful thing that Loki wants.  I mean if you didn't know what Mjolnir was, you'd be just as confused by the stinger at the end of Iron Man 2.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on May 07, 2011, 12:01:05 PM
Thor, I feel, captures the correct vibe that Marvel Comic Book movies need to have; a tongue in cheek rompy feel that builds up with some comedic moments and finally throws it all aside to watch the superhero do his thing.

If I have any criticism of the movie, it's that Thor was not naked from the waist up nearly enough, and Natalie Portman was never naked at all.

also I kept wanting to say to that one guy looooook into my eyes, I don't need therapy, wooOoOooOOooo
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 15, 2011, 10:45:31 PM
Just got back from seeing Priest.
I really liked it. It had everything I wanted. Post apocalyptic totalitarian sci-fi western with old school monsters [spoiler]motorcycles hitting vampires in the head, Asian chicks in leather with chain whips, a scene where the monsters comedically tumble inside a spinning train like they were in a dryer, and the good looking hero who gets left behind and catches up and the end and everyone knows he was worthless the whole time[/spoiler]

I honestly enjoyed it. Laughed for the entire [spoiler]John Stamos Van Helsing vs Bald Neo[/spoiler] fight but it was great.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on May 18, 2011, 02:14:47 PM
Saw Pirates: On Stranger Tides last night.

It's... not very good. I suspect it suffers primarily from bad editing; there's a lot of plot holes (I'm very confused about mermaid physiology), but I get the feeling that a lot of those holes were probably resolved in scenes that didn't make it into the movie.

Having said that, it's not terrible, either. There's some good jokes, and Penelope Cruz is all kinds of fun.

There is not a single naval battle. In fact, I don't think there's even a single cannon fired in the movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on May 18, 2011, 07:14:02 PM
Kate Beaton can inform you on everything you might ever need to know about mermaids.

Well, her or Mark Siegel.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on May 19, 2011, 03:24:55 PM
I do not remember [spoiler]Scorpion-style kelp lashes[/spoiler] in Beaton's comics.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Aintaer on May 19, 2011, 09:50:31 PM
The Tuxedo: Chink in Knight's Armor.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on May 28, 2011, 07:15:42 PM
Thor was a fun if mostly by-the-numbers story, but where it really impressed was in its set and costume design.  Absolutely fucking gorgeous, and the Kirbyest movie I have ever seen.

It did a pretty admirable job of combining my favorite elements -- Kirby and Simonson both present in the designs of Asgard and Jotunheim, Simonson's Casket of Ancient Winters a major MacGuffin in the story, Coipel the most obvious influence on the costumes (though of course they're his version of Kirby/Simonson designs), a dash of JMS in the scene where Sif and the Warriors Three are just strolling down the street getting sidelong glances, and a good bit of Millar/Hitch in the "everybody thinks Thor is crazy" bits.

Where it really fell down, though, was (one of many places) where Thor: The Mighty Avenger excelled: the Thor/Jane relationship.  It feels like it happens because it's supposed to, not because it flows naturally or organically from the story.  A pity.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on June 03, 2011, 01:19:57 AM
I... I liked First Class. It was actually really good.
Two things: [spoiler]When they recruit, one of the guys is Alex Summers. Seriously? I just felt they could have chosen a different guy for the role.[/spoiler] But that's just me being nitpicky with things, I suppose.
The other thing being [spoiler]The moment I saw Darwin talking to the others I turned to my buddy and said "He's the one who's going to die." And ten minutes later, I was right. Not because he was black or whatever tropes you like, but because I didn't recognize him and if I didn't know who he was, he was expendable.[/spoiler]

Oh. And then my biggest complaint: Not enough Nazi killing. Not spoiling it because I always complain about that in every movie. Every movie ever made would be improved by more Nazi killing.

JOXAM EDITED YOUR SPOILER TAGS: LOTTEL, LEARN HOW TO DO SPOILER TAGS. JUST BECAUSE I WORK IN A THEATER DOESN'T MEAN I DIDN'T WANT TO SEE THIS MOVIE D:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on June 03, 2011, 02:01:51 PM
SORRY JOXAM.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 03, 2011, 03:39:45 PM
...Jesus fuck.  I hate to toss out two ban threats in as many minutes, but we just went through this shit.

Next person who has to be warned about spoiler tags gets a two-day posting ban.

Next person who has to be warned about spoiler tags ON THE SAME FUCKING PAGE WHERE SOMEBODY ELSE JUST GOT WARNED ABOUT SPOILER TAGS gets three.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on June 03, 2011, 04:45:37 PM
lottel actually tried to do spoiler tags, he just sucks at them apperently. for future reference its 'spoiler' not 'spoilers'.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on June 03, 2011, 04:48:01 PM
I know. I know. I'm just extra letter happy. I always type "spoilers" instead of "spoiler." I just usually fix it after I post.

SORRY JOXAM.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on June 03, 2011, 06:50:53 PM
Whenever I remember that maybe I'm spoiling something someone other than me cares about I use the "preview" button for exactly that purpose.

At one point I also did that to make sure I remembered the emoticon tags as well, but I just don't care anymore.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on June 13, 2011, 02:22:00 PM
I've said in the past that I just don't trust trailers anymore. Super 8 is a good example of why.

Disregard the trailers; they are lies. Super 8's chief influence is not The X-Files, not Cloverfield, and not (as some have suggested) E.T. Mark my words, the chief influence of Super 8 was The Goonies. It's the same kind of movie - a team of spunky kids have a fantastic adventure etcetera etcetera - and I thought it was quite good. Make sure you stay after the start of the credits for what might be the best part.

Midnight in Paris is the best film I've seen this year. I absolutely love it. Don't read anything about it, it's a movie that can't be explained in concept without spoilers that will quite honestly take away something from the film. Just go see it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 13, 2011, 06:55:12 PM
...now see, Goonies is EXACTLY what I got from the trailer.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on June 13, 2011, 07:01:03 PM
It's possible that some trailers lied more than others. The one we've had playing on loop in the lobby is just the train crash with a Thing punching a door off a wrecked car - makes it look like a horror/action movie, which it really isn't.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on June 14, 2011, 05:40:31 AM
The "interactive trailer" that you get with the PC version of Portal 2 made it seem like a nearly post-apocalyptic horror film. Plus, when people hear JJ Abrams and "monster movie" they immediately think of Cloverfield. That said, I was hoping for something more live-action Iron Giant from the trailer I saw. C'est la vie. It's still an Abrams film though, so I don't know if I'm eager to rush out and see it. What I am looking forward to seeing, though, is Tree of Life, which looks gorgeous and captivating just from the trailer:

THE TREE OF LIFE Official HD Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrAz1YLh8nY#ws)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on June 14, 2011, 07:10:23 AM
(http://www.theshiznit.co.uk/media/May2011/truthposters/tree-of-life-small.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on June 14, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
XXX-Men: First Ass X-Men: First Class: starts off pretty cool and gets gradually dumber as it goes on. It's pretty hard to say anything about this movie that will get taken seriously since everything one could complain about is in all likelihood lifted directly from the pages of the source material. Pretty much every goofy stupid thing that makes the X-Men the X-Men is shoehorned in here (the entire ending dialogue between Charles and whatsherface could have been replaced by the two of them elbowing the camera and nodding knowingly) with any initial attempts to ground the story becoming more and more forgettable as the plot goes on. As the military influence gets bigger, the human figures in the military that we're supposed to care about diminish further and further into the background.

So yeah. Not bad overall' starts exceptionally strong, but gets kind of weaker throughout, crushed under the weight of trying to explain everything in the X-Men Universe, except why a guy who grew up in New York has an English accent.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ocksi on June 14, 2011, 05:26:43 PM
We were supposed to care about anyone in the military?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on June 14, 2011, 05:52:56 PM
To at least some extent, since that whole Cold War thing is kind of important.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: McDohl on June 14, 2011, 06:33:08 PM
I dig anything with psychic powers, so this was fun to see Xavier do things other than just play with Cerebro, lay in a coma, get somehow manipulated by the villain, or get fucked off in the most idiotic way possible.

Need a long coat so I can do that "one hand in pocket, one hand to temple" psychic power pose.

Or this.

(http://lparchive.org/Psychonauts/1-psychonauts_box.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ocksi on June 14, 2011, 07:12:12 PM
To at least some extent, since that whole Cold War thing is kind of important.
The American and Russian military are presented as enemies or at least just atmosphere, though.  I can't think of any part in the movie where you're supposed to care about anyone in the military.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: McDohl on June 14, 2011, 07:26:05 PM
Moira was in the CIA, wasn't she? 

If so, then, yeah, we're not supposed to care about anyone in the military.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on June 14, 2011, 07:49:04 PM
To at least some extent, since that whole Cold War thing is kind of important.
The American and Russian military are presented as enemies or at least just atmosphere, though.  I can't think of any part in the movie where you're supposed to care about anyone in the military.
Literally every character is affiliated with the military at one point or another. Like, every one. In the entire film.

Buuuuuut in terms of human characters, I get the distinct impression that we were supposed to care about Glasses Man, General McGrenade, and Code Name Mary Sue. At the very least, we were supposed to are about what the military (the only voice of human opinion in the film) thought of mutants.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ocksi on June 14, 2011, 09:02:16 PM
The main characters were associated with the CIA, and even then, all but THREE MEMBERS of the CIA were portrayed as villains.

NONE of the protagonists had any ties to the military, and the military characters who got any lines were portrayed as bad guys.

The movie was actually X-Men against the world (with a very small supporting group).  You're meant to side with the X-Men because the humans are bigots.  Because it's the X-Men.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on June 14, 2011, 10:07:41 PM
Teg, I hate to be a jerk, but you really seem like the kind of person that dislikes something just to stand out. You wouldn't by any chance, be the type of person that calls Citizen Kane* their favorite movie and bitches about how cinema USED TO BE, would you? Because man, I thought people dispensed with that shit once they realized no one gives a fuck how 'cool' or 'retro' their taste in movies is.

Citizen Kane is a great movie, don't get me wrong.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on June 14, 2011, 10:12:49 PM
At the very least, we were supposed to care about what the military (the only voice of human opinion in the film) thought of mutants.


Well, them and slutty coed chick who wanted to bang Hairy Charles. Mutant pride, remember?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: the asshole you hate on June 14, 2011, 10:16:03 PM
Jox, I don't think anyone who goes against norms is doing so to spite even their own tastes. Usually it's just a sign of an awareness of how sheeplike most people are, and a distaste for it. Personally, I'm a huge sheep. I had a teacher say, "Never be a sheep! Thinking on autopilot is bad!" and I rebutted, "But how will I drive, then?"

So... meh. If the guy wants to hate stuff, I guess don't accuse him of doing it ONLY to be contrary, because there is an alternative that's more palatable.

Then there's always the third option of: raised in a very odd environment and so has totally 'inhuman' taste in everything.

...IMHO!!!!!111
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rosencrantz on June 14, 2011, 10:59:16 PM
I, personally, really enjoyed First Class. Not as good as X2, but better than the others, and a solid movie by itself.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on June 15, 2011, 04:44:39 AM
Teg, I hate to be a jerk
Well you seem to have a lot of practice in it.

Disliking something because it's popular is dumb. I don't even know if First Class is popular. I never checked Rotten Tomatoes, other peoples' reviews, IMDB, Wikipedia, or any of my usual go-to sources for these things. I went to the thater because I was bored, picked an action movie because I was in the mood for one, and went with X-Men because I don't think I care about Pirates Of The Caribbean anymore. Having no outside opinion of a movie going in is about as far from "it's popular now it sucks" as one can get.


And besides that, I thought it was pretty good for a superhero movie. The opening was really good. Most of Magneto's story was really good. It's just that as it goes on it gets more and more bogged down by Comics Lore, and trying to work with Comics Lore is like trying to ghost write for fifty different people who all had completely different and contradictory really stupid ideas.

Basically: It started out as a great movie and ended as a mediocre movie and just kind of balanced out to "well it was okay I guess".



Don't act like you didn't cringe when you heard Charles and Code Name Mary Sue make absolutely certain you understood where the name "X-Men" comes from.





also citizen kane is pretty awesome
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 15, 2011, 07:20:08 PM
So... meh. If the guy wants to hate stuff, I guess don't accuse him of doing it ONLY to be contrary, because there is an alternative that's more palatable.

You say contrary shit just to be contrary ALL THE TIME.

It's just that as it goes on it gets more and more bogged down by Comics Lore, and trying to work with Comics Lore is like trying to ghost write for fifty different people who all had completely different and contradictory really stupid ideas.

Yes and no.  Seems to me (and I grant I haven't seen the damn thing, so take it with the same grain of salt you reserved for all the people who had that massive argument about that Seth Rogen movie without seeing it) that it's bogged down by MOVIE lore.  If it were bogged down by COMICS lore, the X-Men would be Cyclops, Angel, Beast, Iceman, and Marvel Girl and they wouldn't have to throw 4/5 of them out because it would contradict the other movies.

All amounts to the same thing; I say fuck continuity and just write a good story.  I DO intend to see the movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on June 16, 2011, 04:16:36 AM
It'd be nice if they did do that, especially since this film still contradicts the other ones just by existing anyway.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 16, 2011, 03:31:55 PM
Which in and of itself could be considered faithful to comics lore.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on June 16, 2011, 03:44:55 PM
I just want an explanation of why Beast turns into furry beast in this one even though in X2 he is clearly human! HARUMPH!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 16, 2011, 04:24:40 PM
Beast was in X2?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on June 16, 2011, 04:30:52 PM
For like two seconds.

On a TV screen.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on June 16, 2011, 04:31:53 PM
Yeah, it was a cameo thing, and he wasn't being played by Kelsey. If you blinked, you missed it. Sort of like how Gambit and Omega Red were in that file Mystique hacked into.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on June 16, 2011, 05:32:10 PM
Yeah. I think Wolverine is sitting in a bar and on the screen is a debate between some guy and Dr. Henry McCoy.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on June 16, 2011, 06:22:08 PM
Yeah. I think Wolverine is sitting in a bar and on the screen is a debate between Sebastian Shaw and Dr. Henry McCoy.

No joke.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Romosome on June 19, 2011, 05:55:17 PM
Yeah. I think Wolverine is sitting in a bar and on the screen is a debate between Sebastian Shaw and Dr. Henry McCoy.

No joke.

WHOOPS

I really liked this. It was an odd mishmash of 2000-era and 1960s era X-Men and I agree it was bogged down a little by continuity, whether you want to split hairs about that being the fault of Movies or Comics.

My overall impression was that it was goofy in parts, but the awesome made up for it. Someone who doesn't know dick about X-Men probably would find it stupid, but who cares about them, right?

I don't mind comics movies being a bit cheesy because I'm used to comics being cheesy already. The effects were believable, the acting was good except maybe the very last part on the beach, and Kevin Bacon was having a blast the entire time.

Oh, right. The worst part of the entire movie is us being asked to believe that [spoiler]any man anywhere would consider Mystique's naked blue mutant form "not beautiful". Especially a huge nerd.[/spoiler] I mean, holy shit, I almost got angry. I realize what purpose it served in the plot and it fit into things well but it just made [spoiler]McCoy[/spoiler] seem even more retarded to the point of incredulity.

But yeah that was minor and I had a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on June 19, 2011, 09:50:45 PM
[spoiler]I don't find Mystique hot and I thought the exact opposite of what you're saying, actually. The idea that anyone would find a blue chick with scales at all hot was so obnoxiously ludicrous to me that I thought it was probably the biggest stretch in the whole movie. I thought Hank was just being reasonable, especially because the girl he fell in love with was the blond bombshell, not the blue girl with scales and ugly finger/toe nails. I mean sure, taken on its face it does seem like a bit of a dick move for him to be mean to her about it, but the movie makes it pretty apparent that even she is completely uncomfortable with herself up to the point that Erik starts telling her she shouldn't be.[spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on June 20, 2011, 05:28:58 AM
Wasn't [spoiler]Mystique sold as a Femme Fatale[/spoiler] for years and and years?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on June 20, 2011, 07:42:19 AM
[spoiler]I don't find Mystique hot and I thought the exact opposite of what you're saying, actually. The idea that anyone would find a blue chick with scales at all hot was so obnoxiously ludicrous to me that I thought it was probably the biggest stretch in the whole movie. I thought Hank was just being reasonable, especially because the girl he fell in love with was the blond bombshell, not the blue girl with scales and ugly finger/toe nails. I mean sure, taken on its face it does seem like a bit of a dick move for him to be mean to her about it, but the movie makes it pretty apparent that even she is completely uncomfortable with herself up to the point that Erik starts telling her she shouldn't be.[/spoiler]

I completely agree with Joxam. Hell, even my friends think [spoiler]Mystique is hot. I on the other hand can only focus on bony scales jutting out of her body. I can easily see why Hank chose the pretty form he fell for instead of the gross looking one she hid and hated.[/spoiler]




EDIT: GOT IT [spoiler]spoilers[/spoiler] right this time, Joxam! HA!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on June 20, 2011, 08:34:45 AM
THIS IS NOW A QUESTION FOR SCIENCE (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=5883.0)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Romosome on June 20, 2011, 01:34:14 PM
I'm really excited about this movie and I think we should have a spoilerfree threadsplit to talk about it
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on June 25, 2011, 06:07:01 PM
Green Lantern's review scores are a little artificially deflated, I think.  There's nothing really wrong with it other than dangerous levels of Ryan Reynolds.  It's just that it's a superhero movie trailing at the end of a long line of superhero movies.  Hero is introduced, establishes he's sort of a schmuck, gets superpowers, gets exposition, fucks off.  Villain gets superpowers, is a dick in public, hero stops him.  Media coverage, hero gets girl, hero screws the fuck up, girl pep talks hero, hero saves day.  Credits, sequel hook, more credits.  Lather, rinse and fucking repeat.

The thing about Green Lantern is that he's a pretty strained concept for a superhero from a dramatic standpoint to start with.  Hey wouldn't it be great if Superman wasn't just invulnerable and infinitely strong but could also conjure anything he wanted out of thin air at any time?  The movie tries to inject a little weakness with some bullshit about blah blah blah fear but when Reynolds is supposed to be freaking out the best he can muster is looking slightly less douchey for a few moments.  I have to admit the writing's a little weak at other times too, like the bit where it's revealed that the ring just gave Hal instant knowledge of everything in the universe ever and then two sentences later he's asking poor Mr. Fishhead Exposition Guy to re-explain everything that was established in the opening narration.  Overall it's just a big dumb familiar waste of time that looks pretty good up on the big 3D screen.  There are much better things you can be doing with two hours but if you're going to waste them on something, you can easily get through this one without wanting to hack off one of your limbs to get away.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on June 25, 2011, 06:22:56 PM
Kung Fu Panda 2: 83% (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kung_fu_panda_the_kaboom_of_doom/)

Cars 2: 34% (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cars_2/)


We're through the looking glass here, people.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on June 25, 2011, 06:25:42 PM
Apparently Green Lantern had like half the movie chopped out and replaced with a bunch of shit and a director's cut of it could turn out to be really excellent?  This is what I heard, anyway.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on June 25, 2011, 06:27:46 PM
I heard that Parallax looks like poop.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on June 25, 2011, 06:27:58 PM
Like, from a butt.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Romosome on June 25, 2011, 08:09:03 PM
The summary I read was that they give him the ring because he is without fear and then he spends the entire fucking movie being afraid of things, being a douchebag without any prior sympathetic setup, and basically nothing in the plot leads logically into anything else.

I hope Reynolds still gets to do Deadpool. It doesn't sound like this was his fault.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 25, 2011, 08:11:57 PM
The thing about Green Lantern is that he's a pretty strained concept for a superhero from a dramatic standpoint to start with.  Hey wouldn't it be great if Superman wasn't just invulnerable and infinitely strong but could also conjure anything he wanted out of thin air at any time?

I used to buy the "Superman is hard to write" angle but I don't anymore.  There are a million great goddamn stories you can tell about Superman; everyone who writes a "Lex is about to beat Superman with Kryptonite but then Superman powers through it" story is a lazy dumbass.

So with Green Lantern.  Space cops who can conjure literally anything out of thin air through sheer force of will?  The possibilities are endless.

I think (and again, this is Thad Talking Out of His Ass Because He Hasn't Seen the Movie Yet, though now that I've seen X-Men I can confirm that the last time I did that I was 100% right) the problem is the formula you describe: we've seen enough goddamn identical origin story movies.

The other problem is that Green Lantern only has one good villain, and he's not the villain in this movie.

(EDIT: Wait, two good villains -- the Manhunters are pretty neat.  And also not the villains in this movie.)

...haven't seen Emerald Knights yet either, but I'm going to bet that it makes telling good GL stories look easy.  Ditto the series coming in the fall.  Granted, they've both got Timm's name on them and GL (like most superheroes) is better suited for an episodic format than a feature film, but still and all, I don't think the problem is that it's hard to write a dramatic GL story, it's that most Hollywood writers are hacks.

I hope Reynolds still gets to do Deadpool. It doesn't sound like this was his fault.

Actually every review I've seen pretty much said Reynolds was the only good part of the movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on June 25, 2011, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/the-four-mostly-superior-versions-of-the-green-lantern-that-we-didnt-see.php
One thing I feel needs mentioning: this is not Martin Campbell’s cut of the film, but the studio’s. I live in New Orleans where it was shot, I read the shooting script, all of which was painstakingly filmed with intense research, and all of that was left on the cutting room floor — a sort of combination of what happened to Daredevil and Watchmen, respectively — character development sacrificed for CG, scenes made irrelevant by removing their setup. The movie in the theater starts with an explanation of mythos that is made redundant by the more natural, scripted questions from Hal when he gets the ring. Ten minutes of childhood Hal, Carol, and Hector that sets up Hal’s first ring construct is reduced to an awkwardly placed flashback in the middle of another scene. The training with the ring is almost completely excised except for one minor scene. [spoiler]Most appallingly, the ending completely deletes the fact that Kilowog, Sinestro, and Toma-Re arrive at the end and help Hal defeat Parallax. Not to mention Parallax was supposed to be a 3rd act reveal after we spend the film worried about Hammond going evil, not the main villain for the entire film. I sincerely hope we get a director’s cut or at least all the deleted scenes on the video release.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 25, 2011, 08:26:10 PM
...yeah, okay, if you want you can substitute "studios" for "writers" in my comment about hacks.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on June 25, 2011, 11:29:24 PM
The movie in the theater starts with an explanation of mythos that is made redundant by the more natural, scripted questions from Hal when he gets the ring.

it's revealed that the ring just gave Hal instant knowledge of everything in the universe ever and then two sentences later he's asking poor Mr. Fishhead Exposition Guy to re-explain everything that was established in the opening narration.

I'd have cut the Fishhead Exposition and gone with the intro because GOD DAMN WE JUST GOT DONE SAYING HE HAS WIKIPEDIA WIRED TO HIS BRAIN.

Quote
The training with the ring is almost completely excised except for one minor scene.

[spoiler]It's not really that minor.[/spoiler]

And finally:

The other problem is that Green Lantern only has one good villain, and he's not the villain in this movie.

I'm assuming you mean old Purple-Headed Warrior and he might as well be because Sinestro is all the fuck over the place.  You see who he is, what his motivations are, and how he becomes the guy we know he is all to a much greater depth than we do Hal (whose motivations for actually taking up the mantle never even really get explored - we can mostly assume it's because you get a fucking god ring holy christ).  When I heard about things left on the cutting room floor I assumed it was the entire second half of the movie in which Sinestro's obvious Senator Palpatine plan to forge the One Ring comes to fruition and Hal has to figure out that he was behind the whole Fear-Octopus thing and then have a big green/yellow cockfight ending with Sinestro slicing himself in half with a yellow glider or something.  It makes perfect sense that the movie was originally about the length of The Dark Knight and then someone noticed that that amounts to two feature-length summer blockbusters and ordered it sliced right before the sequel-hookable scene where he puts on the Yellow Ring and orgasms.

But no, he was meant to be a lead-in all along, making this the first movie I've seen where the entire thing was a hook for the next one.  Ah well, at least we're running out of mainstream heroes to do this to.  Right?  Right?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 26, 2011, 10:30:16 AM
the first movie I've seen where the entire thing was a hook for the next one.

Thor, Incredible Hulk, and Iron Man 2 were pretty good.

Ah well, at least we're running out of mainstream heroes to do this to.  Right?  Right?

I'm pretty sure we ran out of ones who had mainstream public recognition about five years ago.  Wonder Woman notwithstanding.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on June 26, 2011, 11:07:01 AM
The Flash and Aquaman
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 26, 2011, 11:31:27 AM
Well, yes.  And Captain America is still a few weeks off.

My point is that Iron Man, Thor, and Green Lantern are B-list -- or at least they were until they got Hollywood blockbusters.  (Daredevil got a Hollywood blockbuster and is STILL B-list.  Blade got three movies and a TV series and is still C-list.)  Hell, Catwoman is a more recognizable character than any of them, regardless of the quality of her movie.

Basically we ran out of (most of) the big names years ago and as long as there are characters like Elektra and Ghost Rider to make movies out of, you can expect this to take awhile.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on June 26, 2011, 11:35:07 AM
(Daredevil got a Hollywood blockbuster and is STILL B-list. 

I guess it depends on your definition of "blockbuster"
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 26, 2011, 11:56:33 AM
Is there a definition that excludes $102M domestic gross on a $78M budget?

Granted it's no Michael Bay shlockfest, but those seem like pretty decent numbers.  Particularly for a mid-February release.

Fantastic Four 2, by contrast, barely made up its budget domestically, and Superman Returns came up $70M short.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Saturn on June 26, 2011, 09:44:55 PM
Well, yes.  And Captain America is still a few weeks off.

My point is that Iron Man, Thor, and Green Lantern are B-list -- or at least they were until they got Hollywood blockbusters.  (Daredevil got a Hollywood blockbuster and is STILL B-list.  Blade got three movies and a TV series and is still C-list.)  Hell, Catwoman is a more recognizable character than any of them, regardless of the quality of her movie.

Basically we ran out of (most of) the big names years ago and as long as there are characters like Elektra and Ghost Rider to make movies out of, you can expect this to take awhile.

there's always that giant pile of manga for hollywood to mangle
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on June 26, 2011, 09:58:00 PM
The American Akira (Coming 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jafd97yJFOI#ws)

Because people haven't linked to this enough yet.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on June 27, 2011, 04:42:11 AM
there's always that giant pile of manga for hollywood to mangle

We're not going to see Battle Angel Alita in our lifetime, that's for darn sure.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on June 27, 2011, 06:41:08 AM
Japan has already done plenty of mangling on their own, thanks.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on June 27, 2011, 06:57:48 AM
But nobody mangles a property like Hollywood!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on June 27, 2011, 09:26:52 AM
There will be a sequel to Green Lantern. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-pursue-green-lantern-205703)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 27, 2011, 09:49:59 AM
I'd say "Of course there is, it pretty much says so right in the ending," but then I remember Masters of the Universe and Super Mario Bros.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Saturn on June 29, 2011, 11:27:20 PM
there's always that giant pile of manga for hollywood to mangle

We're not going to see Battle Angel Alita in our lifetime, that's for darn sure.

Current status of that is "AFTER AVATAR 2 AND 3"

Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: teg on July 02, 2011, 07:33:53 AM
Current status of that is "AFTER AVATAR 2 AND 3"
We're not going to see Battle Angel Alita in our lifetime, that's for darn sure.




So I went to see both the Brave trailer and Toy Story Shorts: Hawaiian Vacation last night.

The trailer for Brave was a whole new look at Pixar, more atmospheric and dark than their usual work. The trailer really doesn't seem like much at first, but really raises speculations as to what it's going to be about. I think that after some consideration this is the most excited I've ever been for a Pixar film.

Toy Story Shorts: Hawaiian Vacation was a delightful surprise. It's nice to see these characters again in a situation that doesn't diminish the farewell they were given with last year's entry into the franchise. I also admire the permanence of having the toys living at Bonnie's house now instead of doing some kind of Andy-related flashback.
It's a cute short, and maybe even a bit funnier than I'm used to from these movies. There were a few bits that had me actually laughing in the theater, which only rarely happens even when I'm watching comedies, much less multiple times across a single five-minute short. It really speaks volumes of Pixar's ability when they can produce an introduction, conflict, humourous progression, and a touching resolution all in that short timeframe. Don't miss this one.





oh also I guess Cars 2 was there too
it was okay
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on July 23, 2011, 02:52:30 PM
Just got back from HP: Deathly Hallows part 2.

So, you know how it's really rare that a movie is better than the book?

This is one of those times.

See this movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on July 27, 2011, 06:36:12 PM
I saw Captain America. It was pretty good, in a way that was completely and utterly predictable. I don't even mean that in a bad way or anything. It's just... well, you know he's going to get frozen at the end and wake up in the present. I don't even need to spoiler that. That's what happens.

That's always been what happens.

In fact, the only thing that I didn't expect to see was the Cosmic Cube. And I didn't spoiler THAT because it shows up in the first five minutes.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on July 27, 2011, 08:19:02 PM
Oh good, at least my after-the-fact spoilertagging made it a surprise to SOMEbody.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on July 29, 2011, 07:48:59 AM
Just got back from HP: Deathly Hallows part 2.

So, you know how it's really rare that a movie is better than the book?

This is one of those times.

It was probably the best of the eight, but I wouldn't go as far as all that.

It DID seem to be the one most cognizant that it was a film and the one that played most strongly to the medium's strengths (with the possible exception of the lovely time-travel story that was Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban).  It was a wonderfully lean but thorough presentation of the Battle of Hogwarts, and nearly every supporting character got a moment to shine: Snape, McGonagall, Aberforth, Neville, Luna, Molly.  Fiennes was a real standout.  And the soundtrack was understated instead of over-the-top John Williamsy; it knew when to shut the hell up, get out of the way, and let the actors carry the scene.  (Which they mostly did.  Radcliffe and Watson are still, regrettably, the weakest of the cast, but they're better here than in any of the others.)

The change I liked best was [spoiler]where Harry reveals himself -- having McGonagall step out to defend him was a wonderful reversal from her little-old-lady-in-distress moment in the book, and then we got to see her take Snape on one-on-one[/spoiler].

On the minus side, there wasn't enough for Ron or Hagrid to do (we can blame the latter on Jo but not the former), and Wormtail is left as an unfired Chekov's Gun -- I assumed, when he didn't die in the last movie the way he did in the book, that that was building to something, but now it just looks like his death scene was left on the cutting-room floor.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on August 05, 2011, 01:06:37 PM
Saw me some Cowboys and Aliens. Pretty decent movie, but considering the name and subject matter, I rather expected a more light-hearted, humorous adventure. Not, you know, Harrison Ford regaling the time when he slit a burned man's throat as an act of mercy when he was 13.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on August 05, 2011, 06:02:08 PM
Quote
It was probably the best of the eight, but I wouldn't go as far as all that.

I was wondering when you'd get around to replying. The main reason I prefered the movie to the book was I remember the book being incredibly dry with the action scenes. This may be because I am illiterate, I don't know. But the fact remains that the movie felt "alive" to me, while the book, though interesting and well plotted, felt, well, sort of boring. The Battle of Hogwarts seen on the big screen left a huge impression on me, I guess.

Quote
It DID seem to be the one most cognizant that it was a film and the one that played most strongly to the medium's strengths (with the possible exception of the lovely time-travel story that was Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban).

Quote
It was a wonderfully lean but thorough presentation of the Battle of Hogwarts, and nearly every supporting character got a moment to shine: Snape, McGonagall, Aberforth, Neville, Luna, Molly.  Fiennes was a real standout

Quote
And the soundtrack was understated instead of over-the-top John Williamsy; it knew when to shut the hell up, get out of the way, and let the actors carry the scene.  (Which they mostly did.  Radcliffe and Watson are still, regrettably, the weakest of the cast, but they're better here than in any of the others.)

Quote
The change I liked best was [spoiler]where Harry reveals himself -- having McGonagall step out to defend him was a wonderful reversal from her little-old-lady-in-distress moment in the book, and then we got to see her take Snape on one-on-one.[/spoiler]

Agree with everything above.

Quote
Wormtail is left as an unfired Chekov's Gun -- I assumed, when he didn't die in the last movie the way he did in the book, that that was building to something, but now it just looks like his death scene was left on the cutting-room floor.

I think the reason he didn't die the same way he did in the book was possibly censorship. His death is pretty horrible. Lots of stuff like that gets toned down for a visual medium. One thing to read about something horrible, another to see it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on August 05, 2011, 06:05:28 PM
Caught Captain America. I consider it the weakest of the Avengers origin movies, but still worth seeing, I guess. Be warned, almost all of the action is in the second half of the film. (And it's not particularly worth the wait.) Strong points include Tommy Lee Jones, Tommy Lee Jones, and Tommy Lee Jones.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on August 05, 2011, 06:13:35 PM
I was wondering when you'd get around to replying.

Back atcha?

I think the reason he didn't die the same way he did in the book was possibly censorship. His death is pretty horrible. Lots of stuff like that gets toned down for a visual medium. One thing to read about something horrible, another to see it.

Then his hand could have drawn his wand and green flashed him.  The strangulation isn't the important part, it's that it's the hand Voldemort gave him doing it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on August 05, 2011, 06:29:51 PM
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that leaving Wormtail on the floor alive was a minus and could/should have been done better. (using your example, for instance.) I was just putting forth a possible reason why they bothered to change it at all.

Interesting thing I read: According to wiki, when they first started filming the HP movies (before JK was done writing the books) JK told Rickman about Snape's true motivations, which may have been one of the reasons Rickman was such a scene stealer; you got the impression something more was going on there, because, well, something more WAS going on there. Rickman knew Snape's ultimate loyalties far before everyone else, and added that into his performance.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on August 06, 2011, 08:48:31 AM
Read from bottom left to top right.

(http://i.imgur.com/CBkjH.png)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on August 06, 2011, 10:32:44 AM
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is actually a movie worth watching despite some hugely cliche missteps (OH NO A BIG PHARMA BOSS MORE INTERESTED IN MONEY THAN ETC ETC) and wooden acting.  Color me surprised
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on August 07, 2011, 12:47:31 PM
Cowboys and Aliens was a good time
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on August 07, 2011, 02:56:37 PM
It could have been better. It wasn't goofy enough to excuse the stupid, and it wasn't smart enough to suspend belief.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on August 07, 2011, 05:07:02 PM
Granted, yes.

Still, I would watch it again if it was on TV and largely enjoy it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on August 14, 2011, 09:02:24 PM
Green Lantern: about what I expected; maybe slightly better.  The origin, the Oa bits, and the ring constructs were great; the cast was great except for Blake Lively.  The villains sucked and they spent too much time on Earth.  Really the major problems are:

1. Green Lantern does not have a lot of good villains;
2. this is part of the unfortunate trend of movies that are more focused on setting up sequels than laying everything out in case they don't get them (seriously, imagine if Darth Vader didn't show up until the middle of the end credits in Star Wars);
3. Hal Jordan, Green Lantern of Earth is not nearly as goddamn interesting as The Green Lantern Corps.  Or even as much as any of the OTHER Green Lanterns of Earth.

...maybe Kyle.

Fortunately, they seem at least cognizant of these problems and it sounds like they're planning on fixing them in the sequel.  Sinestro front and center, and a spacebound story.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on August 19, 2011, 06:54:01 PM
If you happen to be at the movie theatre and you missed the movie you were going to see, or maybe if you're at the mall and there's a theatre attached and you just want to sit down for a while, it wouldn't kill you to watch Conan the Barbarian.

...And that's the most positive thing I can say about the film.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on August 19, 2011, 07:53:00 PM
The most positive thing I can say about the film is that they make an explicit allusion to "The Tower of the Elephant." That made me really happy.

It's a mixed bag, overall. The acting really runs the gamut; the only consistently good (well, fun) actors are Stephen Lang and Bob Sapp. Ron Perlman was probably good, but honestly I kept being distracted by how much he looks like Will Ferrell. The costumes are pretty cool; the sets are phenomenal (with the exception of a few that take some hits in design for the sake of having more props for fighting).

The other big issue I had with the movie, which is related to but not explicitly covered by the acting, is that there's an awful lot of points where the script must have read something like "Conan: <inarticulate war-scream>" and honestly it hadn't occured to me that you could have shitty inarticulate war-screams, but it turns out you really can!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on August 20, 2011, 08:35:00 AM
Honestly I lost interest in the new Conan movie the second the trailer brought up that fucking Frank Miller 300 Spartan bullshit philosophy bullshit. You know the bullshit I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on August 20, 2011, 10:02:09 AM
Quote
Honestly I lost interest in the new Conan movie the second I realized Arnold wasn't going to play an older, aging Conan who struggles with a class full of little barbarians in training

Kindergarten Barbarian
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on August 20, 2011, 10:04:22 AM
"What's the matter?"

"Oh I have a headache."

"It might be Cthulhu."

"It's not Cthulhu! It's not Cthulhu. At all."
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on August 23, 2011, 12:05:33 PM
Reb Brown feels left out. (http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/21/captain-america-movie-first-avenger-reb-brown-chris-evans/#.TlOqec2Q3YA)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on August 23, 2011, 12:26:20 PM
The thing was the Hulk TV show was popular. And was embedded into pop culture enough that everyone new about it even if they hadn't seen it. How many people know about the Captain America stuff?
I didn't until AFTER the movie came out.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on August 23, 2011, 03:17:32 PM
I didn't until I clicked that link.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Beat Bandit on August 23, 2011, 07:53:59 PM
Though I do agree it's a damn shame Adam West hasn't shown up in the new Batman movies.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on August 23, 2011, 08:01:13 PM
I kind of want him to be Alfred.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on August 23, 2011, 08:34:44 PM
He played Thomas Wayne on TB&TB.

(Also Robot Batman.)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on August 23, 2011, 08:53:28 PM
Fright Night is a lot of fun. David Tennant is in it, of course, as a Vegas stage magician (who wears leather pants and sometimes no shirt, for those of you who like that sort of thing.)

There are specific elements of the film which, I believe, would convince many people to go see the movie if I divulged them, but honestly I think that knowing they would happen would take some of the fun out of it, so I'm not even going to mention them in spoiler tags.

But it's a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on September 28, 2011, 09:57:14 PM
There's a few obvious elements that make The Social Network and Moneyball seem similar. They're adaptations of controversial nonfiction books, each with an Aaron Sorkin writing credit and a traditionally comic actor cast in a serious lead role. The chief difference, I think, is that The Social Network wasn't just of interest to software developers - but Moneyball, I think, is almost certainly of interest only to people who care about baseball.

There's an XKCD about sports narratives (http://xkcd.com/904/) that I've always felt was somewhat dismissive and somewhat unjustified. This is fundamentally because I like baseball; I love going to baseball games, and I love baseball narratives. And if you do not love the complex narrative of a baseball season, or even the fundamental narrative of a single baseball game - this movie holds nothing for you. There are scenes which are blatant, unsubtle appeals to emotion - but they worked on me, because they were deployed through the medium of baseball, and like many Americans, baseball holds a deep-seated primal power over me.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on September 29, 2011, 05:43:04 AM
The problem with that comic is that you can use the same "joke" to trivialize war instead of sports. Or just about anything for that matter. To say nothing of the obvious D&D joke!

An overly-cerebral hypernerd (a physics one at that!) like Munroe ought to be well aware that the whole goddamned universe can be boiled down to a weighted random number generator. So really the strip is just more of a kneejerk RAH RAH HOW ABOUT THOSE JOCKS, GUYS *pushes glasses back up*

:tldr: Which is to say, don't worry about that particular comic panel. It's a crappy one.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kashan on September 29, 2011, 05:48:35 AM
I don't give shit about baseball but I love statistical analysis in sports and Aaron Sorkin. Will I like this move?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on September 29, 2011, 06:09:06 AM
Nope. It's not originally Sorkin's script - I believe he re-wrote it - and the movie doesn't much sound like his work. As for statistics, they aren't really brought up - they're a bit of a prop, they only show up in montages and passing references.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on September 29, 2011, 12:40:38 PM
:tldr: Which is to say, don't worry about that particular comic panel. It's a crappy one.

every time someone shits all over randall munroe (http://xkcdexplained.com/) and angel gets its wings
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on September 30, 2011, 12:46:59 PM
I always read that strip as making fun of sports commentators more than sports per se.

Don't really get the XKCD hate in Noro's linked post.  Yeah, it's a comic strip with an incredibly narrow target audience.  You want a comic strip with an incredibly BROAD target audience?  Go read Garfield.



Obvious false choices aside, I quite enjoy xkcd hammering the importance of understanding statistics.

And yes, I quite like reading the occasional strip that's so specifically tuned to my specialties (http://xkcd.com/534/) that only the Dennis Miller Ratio would find it funny.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on September 30, 2011, 02:41:44 PM
well, for my part, i didn't understand why i was bullied so much in school until i read XKCD, and now i feel it was justified.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ocksi on October 01, 2011, 06:58:04 AM
Yeah, I still never understand why people hate XKCD anymore than any other joke-based webcomic.  I can understand not liking it, but I can't understand running a blog for years explaining why a clever little joke shouldn't be funny to you.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on October 01, 2011, 09:27:37 AM
I always read that strip as making fun of sports commentators more than sports per se.

THANK you.

How many of you even watch enough sports to say you can get this?  A few games and it'll be painfully clear to you what the issue is here.

"Jeter has had... more RBIs in this inning... than any other inning in the last... 4 months."

Meaning he hasn't batted in two runs since June.

"This is only the THIRD TIME that Moss has ran more than 700 yards in a game... in his career."

Moss has run more than 700 yards in this game.  He has done it twice before in however much time he's been playing.  Other people have done it before.

"Jordan is playing on a bad ankle."

Everyone's playing on a bad ankle.


It's not a random number generator, per se, but it's painfully clear that there's a very complex data sifter in there somewhere feeding these guys statistics that may or may not be interesting (probably not).  I've actually wanted to research it a little because the sheer amount of data the machine has to sort, and then find correlations between them without being given an explicit query (or given a vague one, i.e. "Tell me something about Drew Brees"), means there's a staggeringly complex AI somewhere in that multimillion dollar enterprise we call a commentator's box.  If SkyNet's going to be born somewhere, it'll be in the backroom of a football stadium, not on an air force base.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Da_Beerman on October 01, 2011, 02:35:05 PM
Drive is quite a good movie that features actual driving stunts. Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman are great villains, it's a tad slow at times but never boring.

If SkyNet's going to be born somewhere, it'll be in the backroom of a football stadium, not on an air force base.


If I was a machine that does nothing but carry sports data and becomes sentient I can't say I'd not want the extinction of humanity.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on October 01, 2011, 02:48:29 PM
I liked Drive but almost everyone who came to see it at my theatre that I didn't personally know (most of my friends are into movies and knew what to expect therefor, like it) hated it. I had one guy tell me, word for word, "If i wanted to see an autistic guy drive a car for two hours I'd take a road trip with my cousin" and then demand his money back. As if it was my theatre's fault the movie was market incorrectly.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on October 01, 2011, 03:09:52 PM
hey beerman let's be pals :)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on October 01, 2011, 03:54:26 PM
If I was a machine that does nothing but carry sports data and becomes sentient I can't say I'd not want the extinction of humanity.
But without humans, you'd have no sports to quantify!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Da_Beerman on October 01, 2011, 04:03:57 PM
well I guess animal Olympics run by sentient machines won't start themselves, all the sudden I'm imagining a version of "The running man" written by PETA.

I had one guy tell me, word for word, "If i wanted to see an autistic guy drive a car for two hours I'd take a road trip with my cousin"

Wonder what that guy thought of Rain Man

hey beerman let's be pals :)

sure, here's some free music pal (http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Dragon/Dragon)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on October 01, 2011, 05:32:42 PM
I liked Drive but almost everyone who came to see it at my theatre that I didn't personally know (most of my friends are into movies and knew what to expect therefor, like it) hated it. I had one guy tell me, word for word, "If i wanted to see an autistic guy drive a car for two hours I'd take a road trip with my cousin" and then demand his money back. As if it was my theatre's fault the movie was market incorrectly.

What did they think it was marketed as? Because everything I saw was basically CAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRR CHAAAAAASEEEE MOVIE! PREPARE TO MAKE VROOMING NOISES!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on October 01, 2011, 05:37:11 PM
They expected to see Transporter 4.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on October 01, 2011, 05:43:20 PM
:ouroldrolleyessmiley:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Norondor on October 01, 2011, 07:06:59 PM
sure, here's some free music pal (http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Dragon/Dragon)

YOUR RATING:SSS
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on October 02, 2011, 07:50:08 PM
Oh, Drive was fantastic. It was very deliberate, but I really liked that.

Great lighting, too. I don't usually notice lighting, but I really liked it in Drive.

Is it just me, or does the movie have a sort of timeless quality to it? The only real clue to when it was set was the size of the cellphones; otherwise, between the soundtrack, the Dirty Dancing-style hot pink cursive title, and then generally unaging L.A. sprawlscape, it could have been set any time in the past 25 years.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Pacobird on October 03, 2011, 11:47:56 AM
Yeah, I still never understand why people hate XKCD anymore than any other joke-based webcomic.  I can understand not liking it, but I can't understand running a blog for years explaining why a clever little joke shouldn't be funny to you.

Well-founded comic strip hate usually comes from the inability of the author to keep weird personal issues from being expressed in the comic. 

Either that, or just not having any jokes.

Or both.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on October 03, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
Again, although, often, jokes are made through an clever observation that either subverts expectations or demonstrates the conflict between expectations I'm always surprised when people expect XKCD to have jokes.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on October 09, 2011, 01:01:34 PM
So, Real Steel is pretty good, I thought. Pretty Solid over all, great fight sequences that actually do a pretty decent job of getting you to root for the protagonists.

The female love interest was about as generally ancillary as you can get, though. [spoiler]There also seemed to be the implication that the main robot, Atom, and the champion, Zeus, were both built by the same guy, Tak Mashido, but that was never directly referenced and never went anywhere.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on October 09, 2011, 09:24:59 PM
50/50 really played up the comedy in the trailer. I kind of expected a light-hearted romp using cancer as a plot-device.
That is NOT the case.

Good movie but had I known better, I probably wouldn't have gone. Serious cancer movies hit a little close. Of course, I should have just made a "no cancer movies" rule.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on October 11, 2011, 05:47:33 AM
Of course, I should have just made a "no cancer movies" rule.
It's never too late.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: NexAdruin on October 23, 2011, 11:06:02 AM
So I watched Paranormal Activity 3 today because I thought the first one was decent. I didn't see the 2nd one but thought, you know, since this is a prequel, it shouldn't matter.

I was right, it didn't matter. The move wasn't enjoyable no matter what would have preceded it. Do not watch this movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on October 23, 2011, 11:20:44 AM
Yeah, judging by the commercials alone they seem to have really gone overboard with the OH NO LOOK A SPOOKY GHOST bullshit. The first movie never really did that, I don't recall, until the ending.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on October 25, 2011, 05:57:25 PM
Well, I have friends who complained about the exceptionally misleading trailers, so that may or may not be representative of the actual movie with regards to your specific issue.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: NexAdruin on October 27, 2011, 03:03:23 PM
The trailers were not very representational of the film. In fact, there are scenes in the trailers that simply were not in the film (or maybe I was in the restroom when they happened, but I'm pretty sure that is not the case). It's honestly just a watered down version of the first one. There was nothing new except for some revealing shit at the end that made no sense and just kind of pissed me off more than anything.

So I just got back from watching The Ides of March and that one was really good. If you are interested in politics (not policies, but the actual art of getting people to vote for your guy) it is worth watching. The acting is good, the story believable (hell, it's probably true), and the setting relevant (it's 2012 and 2 democrats are fighting over the Ohio primary). It is not very suspenseful, and there is no violence or anything like that, which is why it stands out to me against all the other films that are about people blowing each other up. The fact that it started out as a live production probably has something to do with this.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on October 27, 2011, 04:55:42 PM
Oh hey Ghostbusters is apparently currently enjoying a limited 25th anniversary theatrical run.  Check your local theaters and times.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on October 27, 2011, 06:44:38 PM
tell me how

please provide a descriptiove link please
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on October 27, 2011, 07:54:38 PM
I would watch the shit out of Ghostbusters on the big screen
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kashan on October 27, 2011, 08:00:09 PM
Unfortunately it seems like it was only for Thursday in theaters in my city. I missed all the showings before I found out.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on October 28, 2011, 06:52:55 AM
tell me how

please provide a descriptiove link please

I use moviefone.com (http://moviefone.com) because it had advertisements with that guy with the funny voice in the 1990's.

Unfortunately it seems like it was only for Thursday in theaters in my city. I missed all the showings before I found out.

Sorry 'bout that; I only noticed because I was looking for a movie to go see and BAM! Ghostbusters.

Double-check your listings for Monday; we've got several theaters around here running it again for Halloween.  (And one running it on Tuesday.)

Anyhow, I got to see it and it was great!

I think what stuck out the most is how clearly every single person involved in making the movie was enjoying the hell out of themselves.  The cast, the effects guys, the set/costume/prop designers...clearly it was a blast to make, and it's still a blast to watch.

And one of those movies I think honestly can't be improved on.  (Even if it had been made a decade later and the bluescreen/stop-motion stuff had been less hokey, I think it would have been a worse movie for it.)  I can see how the sequel is a disappointment simply by comparison, though I never really understood the hate for it; Ghostbusters 2 is a perfectly decent movie and one of the better sequels I've seen over the years, it's just that the original is unbeatable.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on November 01, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
In Time is just all over the map.

The plot is a big allegory, and they don't do much to hide it. Sometimes the acting is fun and the storytelling works; sometimes it's incredibly hamfisted. The biggest issue is that, for a movie where time is a very important plot point and a recurring motivator, there's a lot of weird jumps in the timeline. In one of the many scenes in which a character has JUST MINUTES/HOURS/SECONDS to live, there's a scene transition and suddenly it's not dark out anymore.

I can't think of any other movies I've seen in which an incorruptible cop is a bad guy. That's worth a point. (But they're bad cops. You can tell because they have leather coats.)

The design is great, too. There's a lot of brushed steel, and a lot of work was put into the cars; they all sound electric. And the cop cars have flashing white LEDs.

Finally, mad props for making a setting in which two-men-enter-one-man-leaves arm wrestling is a plot point.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Da_Beerman on November 01, 2011, 08:22:47 PM
Finally, mad props for making a setting in which two-men-enter-one-man-leaves arm wrestling is a plot point.

is this a remake of Over The Top (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzcVvTHZlQo#)?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on November 01, 2011, 08:49:32 PM
You know, Da_Beerman doesn't post a lot but I've never read a post and thought ill of the guy.
Post more you bastard.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on November 01, 2011, 09:39:43 PM
That's a stupid idea. Encouraging someone to post more is encouraging them to send out material they aren't proud of. Never do that.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on November 02, 2011, 04:58:43 AM
Why not? We let you do it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kashan on November 02, 2011, 05:27:53 AM
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s10/kcdowney/ohsnap.gif)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on November 02, 2011, 07:06:36 AM
Why not? We let you do it.

You are exactly proving my point. It's eventually going to evolve into a mad, constant, passive-aggressive hatred for you. And every post is going to exist for the express purpose of your slow destruction.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 22, 2011, 10:15:47 AM
I am very much looking forward to seeing some Muppets.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on November 22, 2011, 03:30:27 PM
Some, but not all.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on November 22, 2011, 07:55:56 PM
My boss saw a trade screening some weeks ago. She's been looking forward to it coming out just so she can see it again.

She believes that being a Muppets fan is, in her words, a "lifestyle".
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on November 24, 2011, 09:34:42 AM
Quote from: http://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/the-muppets-the-most-sensational-inspirational-celebrational-muppetational-movie-of-the-year.php
There is nothing to gain by trying to criticize The Muppets. It’s a fool’s errand. Trying to find fault with The Muppets is like scaling a skyscraper made of ice, like swimming up Niagara. I’m sure it’s possible, but anyone that puts in enough effort to find something wrong with The Muppets is probably a spectacularly unpleasant person to be around. It’s not a perfect movie, but the sum of its parts is more than perfect: It’s sublime, capable of bringing the kind of joy they sing about in holiday songs. It won’t kill cynicism; it will transform it into bliss. It will melt the black off of coal. It doesn’t matter how many terrible films you’ve seen in your lifetime, The Muppets is a freight train of emotion and it will make you believe in the magic of movies again.

I actually feel like they undersold it a little.  Nostalgia is a terrifying power.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 25, 2011, 02:45:29 PM
Not just nostalgia but pure, undiluted sincerity.

There's no cynicism to be found anywhere in the movie, and only the barest hint of irony.

The Muppets have always mixed childlike playfulness and wonderment with adult subversiveness.  Segel, McKenzie, and everybody else who poured their blood, sweat, and tears into this movie Gets It.

Let's make it a third trilogy.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on November 25, 2011, 05:43:53 PM
I went to see this last night. I'd normally say here "I love the Muppets" but after thinking, I'm not sure you could find someone who didn't.
And I liked the movie. I did. But.
The movie kind of was eh until The Muppets actually showed up. I mean, I get why they weren't around for the first 20 minutes or whatever but the movie didn't start until Kermit popped up. After that it was gold. Pure muppety gold.


EDIT: EXCEPT IT NEEDED MORE STATLER AND WALDORF.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on November 26, 2011, 07:47:51 PM
Breaking Dawn causes seizures. (http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/11/23/intense-twilight-scene-triggers-seizure-reports/)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on November 26, 2011, 07:58:30 PM
Also, there seems to be some sort of problem with the way the birth scene has flashes of red light in it, causing photosensitive epilepsy.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on November 26, 2011, 11:03:49 PM
Causing? Like, people go into it without epilepsy, and leave the theater with epilepsy? I didn't know that was a thing.

Although recently somebody claimed the beeping of our popcorn poppers could cause autism. Like, in adults. That was pretty great.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: François on November 27, 2011, 09:26:37 AM
It's not a cause, it's a trigger. They had it when they came in, it just never activated before.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on November 27, 2011, 09:29:44 AM
The fact that people are having seizures when Rensnensnanemansanewhatever the fuck her name is is born is nothing short of a direct message from God Mormon Jesus.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 27, 2011, 05:04:29 PM
Mormos.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on November 27, 2011, 11:16:22 PM
Hugo is a stealth hagiography of Georges Méliès (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_M%C3%A9li%C3%A8s). Which I am 100% okay with, because it's the hagiography Méliès deserves.

The whole thing is just a way of tricking theater audiences into learning about early, great film history. There's truly just a part of the movie which is SURPRISE HISTORY LESSON, but it's a montage of great early film sequences (with the interesting omission of Odessa Steps, now that I think about it), so they're images that people kind of deserve to see.

There are segments of the film that I think Scorsese included simply for the pleasure of being able to duplicate, shot-for-shot, sequences of Méliès films. (That, or so he could have a duplicate of the Man in the Moon from A Trip to the Moon hanging over his fireplace.) But it's a joy to see something like those films in modern definition and color, so it's kind of a universal boon.

Of course, all the bits that aren't about Méliès are pretty good, too! (Mr. Cohen is a particular delight.) My only real complaint is that it runs a little bit long, but honestly? It's really worth seeing.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on November 28, 2011, 01:02:48 AM
Today I learned what a "hagiography" was!

I'm never using that word.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ocksi on November 29, 2011, 03:14:26 PM
Hugo is a stealth hagiography of Georges Méliès (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_M%C3%A9li%C3%A8s). Which I am 100% okay with, because it's the hagiography Méliès deserves.

The whole thing is just a way of tricking theater audiences into learning about early, great film history. There's truly just a part of the movie which is SURPRISE HISTORY LESSON, but it's a montage of great early film sequences (with the interesting omission of Odessa Steps, now that I think about it), so they're images that people kind of deserve to see.

There are segments of the film that I think Scorsese included simply for the pleasure of being able to duplicate, shot-for-shot, sequences of Méliès films. (That, or so he could have a duplicate of the Man in the Moon from A Trip to the Moon hanging over his fireplace.) But it's a joy to see something like those films in modern definition and color, so it's kind of a universal boon.

Of course, all the bits that aren't about Méliès are pretty good, too! (Mr. Cohen is a particular delight.) My only real complaint is that it runs a little bit long, but honestly? It's really worth seeing.
The movie is based on the absolutely delightful, 2007 Caldecott-winning The Invention of Hugo Cabret, if anyone in interested.  It really is fantastic.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 10, 2011, 04:45:59 PM
The Muppets: "Man or Muppet" Music Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWWTW1P8rQ#ws)

Spoilers if you haven't seen the movie yet.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on December 11, 2011, 06:17:57 PM
As you may recall, I work at a movie theater.

Today, some kids bought tickets to New Year's Eve, with the intent of sneaking into Immortals. They weren't very subtle about it, so one of my coworkers was watching them, and lo and behold.

Normally we'd kick them out, but he instead just sent them back into New Year's Eve - he figured that was punishment enough.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 16, 2011, 10:34:53 AM
Yeah, Hugo really is great.

Scorsese doesn't always hit it out of the park, but this is one of those occasions where he did.  And what's particularly delightful is his easy knack for taking shit that is usually awful and showing that no guys, this can actually WORK if you do it right -- the 3D is used to brilliant effect, the clockpunk feels like more than a just-for-the-hell-of-it creative anachronism, the scenes that dial up the blue and orange do it for a reason, the child actors shine even in a cast that features Ben Kingsley and Christopher Lee, and Sacha Baron Cohen's over-the-top French railway inspector suggests that even the Pink Panther remakes could have worked in the right hands.  The symbolism isn't subtle but neither is it overbearing or preachy.  It all seems so effortless, because Scorsese is just that good.

A great movie, and it makes me want to learn more about Melies.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on December 18, 2011, 09:59:31 PM
Life's list of things to do before I die:

[_/] Kill that whiny fuck Arthas
[   ] Attain inner peace
[   ] Attain peace with family/forgive family
[   ] Ride a shark
[   ] Ride a shark on Mars
[   ] Marriage, babies, suburbia
[   ] Write a novel
[_/] See Robert Downey, Jr engage in entirely mental "physical" combat with Professor Moriarty while simultaneously beating him at Chess
[_/] Win as the Vampires

But seriously, great movie. Regarding the inevitable comparison to the first: Both are good. I guess you could decide to like one more than the other if that's your thing.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on December 18, 2011, 10:16:46 PM
Oh.

I guess I'll turn into a shark then.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 18, 2011, 10:49:53 PM
Ride a chrome shark on Mars.

... or model for a Boris Vallejo painting. Same thing, really.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on December 21, 2011, 04:50:55 PM
Caught a couple of movies: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

Tattoo Girl was much better than the Swedish version. Daniel Craig was good, of course, but damn, they really knocked it out of the park with the titular Girl. Rooney Mara pulled off the weird, anti-social, incredibly vindictive characterization well enough, and they did the show a service by actually allowing her to be unconventional-looking most of the time and downright ugly and terrifying at other times. [spoiler]The rape scene was pretty disturbing and hard to watch, but holy fuck, her revenge was four times more fucked up. I actually kind of felt bad for the autist-raping, power abusing, vile and greasy legal guardian.[/spoiler]

Plus, and I feel this is totally worth mentioning creepy though it may be, I couldn't help but notice during the [spoiler]consensual[/spoiler] sex scenes that she has amazing tits. The girl has the chest of a virgin goddess. I've only ever felt this way about one other woman's breasts, that's how perfect Mara's are.

As for Sherlock Holmes, well, it's a lot less stable than the first movie. Whereas the first was pretty good all throughout, Game of Shadows' ranged from high points far surpassing the first movie's general quality while its low points were pretty... well... shit. Especially egregious was [spoiler]Irene Adler's apparent death 15 minutes into the movie. I kept expecting the movie to rewind and show us how she survived drinking tuberculosis tea, but it never did. I still half expect her to return in the sequel, though.[/spoiler] On the other hand, Holmes' inevitable winning tactic at the end was sufficiently fist-pump-inducing.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Malikial on December 21, 2011, 06:19:05 PM
My favorite thing about Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows' end was [spoiler]the fact that Sherlock, for all intents and purposes just committed suicide and he was calm and serene about death (even though he didn't die he probably still wasn't 100% sure he'd survive the CAULDRON OF SWIRLING DEATH under the waterfall) whilst Prof. Moriarty was screaming and terrified of his doom.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on December 29, 2011, 10:48:13 AM
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol was one of the best Apple commercials I've ever seen.

Tintin was one hell of an adventure; the only complaint I can muster is that while the combination of mocap, high texture detail, and Hergé proportions mostly works, Tintin himself, who is the least exaggerated, sometimes looks like a weird giant baby.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on December 29, 2011, 05:22:23 PM
Should be going to see Tintin on Tuesday with my brother. A lot of the complaints from professional critics seem to be along the lines of "The last half is way too action-packed and it's exhausting." but a good pulp story should be full of Adventure, so hopefully it's fine. Most regular viewer reviews seem to be well-pleased, so that's another good sign.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Healy on December 30, 2011, 05:32:11 PM
Just got back from Tintin, it ruled. Best comic book adaption ever? Probably, unless there are some really good ones I'm forgetting about.

Some thoughts I had about the movie:

* One of my favorite things about Tintin is that it never really took itself too seriously. A gently odd humor seems to permeate the entire movie. I think this may be because of the influence of the original Tintin comics, although I haven't read them recently, so I'm not quite sure.
* Speaking of influence from the comics, I like how the movie captured the "one-thing-right-after-another" feel and pacing the comics had. I remember reading somewhere that Herge liked to end every page with a cliffhanger (because, I think, his comics used to be serialized by the page). That made me think of how Spielberg made Indiana Jones as a tribute to the serials he loved as a child, with all the cliffhanger pacing and whatnot that entails. I think a film theorist could get some good mileage out of that.
* As SpoonyBard mentioned in Bizarro Brontoforumus, the movie loses a bit of steam after [spoiler]THE GREATEST CHASE SCENE EVER[/SPOILER], but that's more because it's [spoiler]THE GREATEST CHASE SCENE EVER[/spoiler] and not due to any fault of the movie.
* Speaking of [spoiler]THE GREATEST CHASE SCENE EVER[/spoiler], it's really something that justifies the movie being mo-capped. It's really not something you could pull off in live action. Which reminds me, the [spoiler]FORMER GREATEST CHASE SCENE EVER Castle of Cagliostro - Char Chase (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxbum3is6G0#ws)[/spoiler] was also animated. Could just be a coincidence, could be not.
* While we're on the subject of animation, I think Tintin is the first wholly mo-capped film that didn't fall into a freaky uncanny valley for me, although there were a few spots where it could have, mostly in the beginning of the film, and mostly involving Tintin. It's still kind of a neither-fish-nor-fowl situation though, as they were parts that looked very much animated, and other parts where it looked like live-action. I read one person's opinion of the film on a message board who said it reminded him of marionette-mation, like the old Thunderbirds. I think that's a good way to describe the film, but it still doesn't really stick for me.

TL;DR: One of the best films, with the best chase sequence. A must-see.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on January 02, 2012, 09:44:54 PM
How much edge-of-your seat pulse-pounding nonstop action is too much edge-of-your seat pulse-pounding nonstop action?

About two hours and fifteen minutes, I'd say.

Luckily, Tintin clocks in at just under two hours in length.


It's absolutely phenomenal and I loved every minute. It's a perfect adaptation, too - there's a hundred little allusions to other stories ("Black Isle" appears on a train destination board, there's a crate that breaks full of cans of crab, there's a cameo by a familiar-looking wooden idol, etc.) and the characters feel exactly right.

Also, the animation is amazing. There are extras who appear who I was not honestly convinced were animated - and yet they still didn't feel out-of-place.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on January 24, 2012, 07:23:35 AM
The Artist is pretty great!

You know, I like silent films.  And I'm disappointed that people don't really make them anymore.  And it's one of those cases where, you know, new technology didn't REALLY make this art form obsolete -- I mean, sure, it negated the need for a piano player in the theater, but you know, you CAN still make a movie where people don't talk very much.

I've been griping for years that cartoon characters talk too damn much, and then Pixar went and made Wall-E.  (Plus Aardman's got a Shaun the Sheep movie coming.)  But hell, you can still make a good live-action silent feature too.

It makes me think about the cases where new technology HASN'T supplanted old.  Thirty years out, we've seen that rumors of the radio star's death were greatly exaggerated -- and when's the last time you saw a music video?  That WASN'T just made by some guy on YouTube?

Anyhow.  Silent films are an all-but-dead art, and The Artist makes a case not just that this was a tragedy for the actors who lost their careers, but for auteurs and audiences alike.

The film's clever in how it challenges assumptions.  Certainly silent film acting is necessarily different from acting in a talkie (or on a stage, where you have to project to the audience, which is itself different from a stage in a small venue where the audience is closer).  I tend to think of silent film acting as exaggerated, and the film plays with that -- there's a line about mugging, and certainly there's a fair amount of it in this film.  But it's not JUST exaggeration, not JUST mugging -- Jean Dujardin spends much of the movie doing some incredible, subtle facial acting.

Indeed, the movie plays with the contrast between exaggerated and subtle acting, particularly in one scene where Dujardin is having an argument with his wife -- she's crying and waving her arms and contorting her face, and he's sitting there with a restrained expression.  And you can read him as well as you can read her.

Something else I noticed: I know what John Goodman and Malcolm McDowell sound like, and I was filling in their voices.  But I didn't know what any of the REST of the cast sounded like, and was making up their voices in my head without even thinking about it.  I think that's likely a deliberate choice on casting.

And that, of course, gets to another reason that talkies killed people's careers: a lot of silent film actors didn't have marketable voices.  (To this day I don't know what Chaplin sounded like; I know he did some talkies but I  haven't seen them -- except Modern Times, which was a talkie but which HE didn't talk in.)  Look at a cast whose leads are named Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo and it's easy to see one of the advantages of silent films: you can cast anybody, regardless of where they're from or how they sound, and distribute them internationally with only a few modifications to the dialogue cards.

The Artist is funny and brilliant and sad.  It makes you think, if you want to, but if you don't it's a perfectly straightforward movie with the sort of presentation you don't see anymore.  It's been limited-release up to this point but it just got a slew of Oscar noms, so I'm guessing it'll be easier to find now.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 24, 2012, 08:28:44 AM
Actually, you might know what Chaplain sounds like because his Great Dictator speech has been posted on the boards like five times.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Pacobird on January 24, 2012, 05:38:29 PM
Ryan Gosling was snubbed last year after delivering far and away the best lead actor performance of 2010, and said, "well, okay; I'll bring in TWO really great lead performances in otherwise mediocre movies in 2011, in addition to a solid supporting performance in dog shit!  Surely the Academy won't ignore me this year!"

Also Hugo and the Artist aren't bad movies I guess but if we are going to whole hog on this obnoxious twee shit where is The Future?  that move is twee as fuck and does not care who knows it and actually says pretty powerful stuff about stuff

much better meaning of life movie than tree of life and i actually liked tree of life more than the other best picture noms

nom nom noms
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 24, 2012, 10:24:58 PM
Oh, you're preaching to the choir about the Oscars here. I stopped giving a damn after 1994's Shawshank snub.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on January 24, 2012, 10:44:32 PM
That one lady from the Bridesmaids movie is up for something?

Jesus fuck. She was the worst part of that movie. And that movie had a scene where they all pooped fire in dresses.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kayma on January 26, 2012, 10:10:31 PM
God, finally. I was beginning to think I was the only person who didn't love Bridesmaids.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on February 15, 2012, 07:24:17 AM
The best thing about The Descendants is the photography.  I've never been to Oahu or Kauai, but I've been to Maui and the movie takes me back there.  It's cloudy, it's wet, it's green, and people end there sentences with ", yeah?"

Aside from being pretty, it's a movie full of understated performance.  It's a movie about people trying to keep their shit together even as they're coming apart inside.  To that end, it's really put together well; it's easy for an actor to scream, it's a lot harder for him to look like he wants to but is choking it back.

The script fits that pretty well, mostly.  There are a couple of bits that get a little overbearing (like where Clooney as narrator makes a simile between families and archipelagos), but for the most part it's smart enough to let things go unsaid.

So I'd say the dialogue is mostly pretty good even if the plot really isn't there.  There are no surprises in this movie.  No twists.  You know everything that's going to happen within the first few minutes, and it doesn't do anything to subvert the formula or do anything unexpected with it.

I wouldn't call it a great movie.  Don't watch it over, say, Hugo or The Artist; THOSE are great movies.  But it's pretty and it's well-acted and it's worth checking out, and there's an appeal to seeing those beautiful shots in a theater rather than waiting for video.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on February 20, 2012, 11:22:37 PM
Secret World of Arietty is pretty darn good.

But when we're talking about Arietty, we're really talking about two things - the original movie (what you see) and the localisation (what you hear.) Localisation is easier, so let's start there.

Some of the voice casting is great. Arietty is fantastic, as is her father. The human boy - Sean, I think his name was? - is not particularly good, but part of the issue here is that he has to deliver everything very deadpan because of the character's conceit and animation. The soundtrack is good, but there's two or three original songs, which are war crimes. The incidental sound effects are curious; there's a lot which don't make logical sense, but which still sound 'right'. (For example, Arietty picks up a needle, which she carries around like a sword; they use a metal-sliding-on-metal sheathing sound for it, even though she "sheathes" it by poking it through her dress, no other metal involved. It makes no sense, but it feels right anyways.)

The animation is spectacular, news at 11. The art direction is typical Ghibli - impossibly lush landscapes and idyllic countryside homes. (In this regard, as well as in the regard of the theme that the main human character is in the countryside for health reasons, is a real return to Totoro, which is an interesting subject to explore.) The story is good, but weirdly structured towards the end; there's no resolution for certain supporting characters, and a really awkward exposition speech from the human.

The single best thing about this movie is the "set" design, and the "oh man, look at that" bits for what the Borrowers are using in their home.

Worth seeing, in any case. Orders of magnitude better than Ponyo.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on February 21, 2012, 12:02:59 AM
I have a hard time getting over Will Arnett being the dad. Don't get me wrong, I love Will and maybe he did a good job but when we had an ad for this movie at our theater I could not get over how much the smug attitude he exudes in all of his live action rolls is so noticeably apparent in his voice and at the time I figured it'd probably take away from my enjoyment of the movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on February 21, 2012, 03:16:29 AM
Solution: import the UK version which has an entirely different voice cast.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kayma on February 21, 2012, 08:36:20 AM
I was sort of surprised how much Will Arnett's voice didn't bother me, when I fully expected it to. Arrietty and her mother's voices were great, as was Hara's. The boy's was the weakest for sure, but it was serviceable.

The original music certainly falls under warcrime, but, well, it could have been worse (http://youtu.be/N9D_RzmTaM4).

Whatever you think of the voice cast, this movie should absolutely be seen in the theater.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Catloaf on February 21, 2012, 12:14:18 PM
The original music certainly falls under warcrime

So, the opposite of what happened with Ponyo?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Kayma on February 21, 2012, 03:48:45 PM
Oh, that Ponyo song is an affront to... well, everything. The version they sing straight up (http://youtu.be/xG78sFl5j1Y) is cute, but then

PONYO song (FULL+Lyrics) - Noah Cyrus and Frankie Jonas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bYDtPcRMlg#)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on February 23, 2012, 09:53:44 PM
Ultra-minimalist movie posters (http://slacktory.com/2012/02/super-minimalist-movie-posters/)

:lol:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on February 24, 2012, 06:30:04 AM
Ultra-minimalist movie posters (http://slacktory.com/2012/02/super-minimalist-movie-posters/)

:lol:
404'd!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: François on February 24, 2012, 06:38:06 AM
Eh, you can replicate the experience at home. Just open up Paint, get a blank poster-proportion canvas, and flood fill with a random color.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on February 24, 2012, 07:46:09 AM
Man, that's so weird. I clicked the link in Buge's quote and I get the 404.

But when I went back to the original source it worked fine.

Then I posted it here again and it worked fine.

Then I clicked on the link in Buge's quote again and of course it worked.

Then I looked and saw both URLs were identical, so I just deleted the re-post and replaced it with this post about how confused I am.

(I guess their site's going up and down or something?)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on March 11, 2012, 08:18:17 PM
The movie parts of the Lorax were decent. Pretty good at parts even. But as soon as you start really enjoying the movie they hit you with a song. And the songs take something from you deep inside, something you didn't know you had but is now lost forever.
I see a lot of kids' movies. I am used to songs they throw in just to have songs. I am used to bad songs. I was still not prepared for these particular songs.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on March 12, 2012, 10:31:25 PM
GHOST RIDER 2 IS A HELL OF A RIDE

GET IT

OK BUT SERIOUSLY THERE IS A PART WHERE NICOLAS CAGE PISSES LIKE A FLAMETHROWER

warning: movie not good
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on March 29, 2012, 10:26:10 AM
Arietty: pretty great!  Gorgeously-animated, of course; worth catching in theaters.

On the American casting: Dad is a man of few words, so Will Arnett's voice is never overwhelmingly "HEY THAT'S WILL ARNETT!"  There are places where Poehler's histrionics remind you that yes that is Leslie Knope, but she's an over-the-top character and the shrieking fits the animation.  At any rate, it's hard to call it stunt-casting; yes, they cast a real husband and wife who are on TV, but they're not exactly A-list.

Hunger Games: quite solid as well!  Very well-cast, and a pretty straight-up adaptation of the books.  io9 (http://io9.com/5896475/everything-the-hunger-games-movie-left-out) has a list of what was cut; I'd say the biggest loss is the reveal about the Muttations at the end.  Other than that -- well, the love story feels odd and it's never really spelled out for you that Katniss is just playing along, but for my money that's the right decision; the movie follows the show-don't-tell rule pretty ruthlessly, with a minimum of flashbacks and announcer-delivered exposition replacing the book's narration.

All in all, a pretty great adaptation, I thought, and it's nice seeing the thing make money, because god damn, teenage girls need a role model who is not Bella fucking Swan.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on March 29, 2012, 11:10:16 AM
The fact that the word "Muttations" was never once uttered automatically catapults the movie heads and shoulders above the source material.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on March 29, 2012, 11:27:49 AM
Aw, c'mon.  "Muttation" sounds like something straight out of New Gods.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on March 29, 2012, 11:33:04 AM
Muttations works okay for giant mutts and all, but using it as a catch all term for every genetically engineered creature in the series was a pretty bad call.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on March 29, 2012, 11:48:15 AM
Well, I haven't read past book 1 (and don't intend to on everybody's general advice), but keep in mind that "mutt" has become a general term for anything that gets its genetic material from a bunch of different and random sources.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on April 07, 2012, 09:29:03 PM
I was dragged out to see The Hunger Games. I had heard that this was the actually-good young adult book series, but figured that it wasn't really for me, so I never looked into it until now. Coming into it with no expectations, I was quite pleased. It could've used a lighter touch on some parts, because the things it did imply subtly made the things it implied blatantly stand out even more.

I'm certain nothing I'm about to say will be new discussion to anyone who's read the books, but I'm gonna say it anyway.

[spoiler]The bit with the producer's forced suicide got me thinking about the setting. The whole dystopia they had established worked on the principle of creating so much spectacle that nobody realizes that the system is unnecessary. When that turns tragic, people start to think about what caused the tragedy, and they run the risk of seeing through the lights and glamor to the cause of their own oppression (viz. their oppressors). Katniss and Peeta killing themselves would have caused unrest that dwarfed the riots in District 11, and the producer knew that. He changed the rules at the end because his job was to keep the masses pacified. However, he made the wrong decision - if the rules of the Games can change in response to the players, it means the players are the ones with the real power; if the rules of society can change in response to the people, it means the people are the ones with the real power. Tyranny depends on keeping that secret. And the producer let the cat out of the bag. (I speculate that he didn't quite realize that he was in the tyranny and oppression business.)[/spoiler]

That's not the deepest or most philosophical of messages, but it's a powerful and important one, applicable to the whole human condition. To have delivered it without shining a gaudy spotlight on it, in a story that entertains very well on other levels, is quite impressive.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 07, 2012, 11:00:25 PM
Weeeeell, the people out in the districts -- at least, the ones on the fringes, like 11 and 12, not the ones raising Careers -- certainly don't see this as fun and games.  They know what it is: it's a message.  It's "We own you.  We can make your children fight each other to the death for our amusement and there's nothing you can do about it."

That scene at the end you're talking about isn't in the first book (and neither is the [spoiler]riot[/spoiler]) -- I assume it's lifted from one of the later ones, though I've only read the first.  But yeah, what IS clear in the book is the power of stories.  Katniss manages to subvert the message, to tell a story that disrupts and undermines the story that the Capitol's been telling.

And what the movie establishes but the book REALLY hammers home is just how slow Katniss is at understanding precisely what she's doing.  Haymitch and Cinna get it, but they spend most of the story trying to hammer it into her head.  (I don't think Peeta is really setting out to make the audience fall for them, either; I think he's just being earnest.  But he DOES seem pretty savvy at the whole manipulation thing once they enter the Arena, so maybe he's doing both.)

And in the end, she even manages to pull off plausible deniability -- [spoiler]she could have looked President Snow in the eye and said "Fuck you," and she'd have been publicly executed and the people would have been cowed.  But she kept up the act that she's a lovesick girl who didn't even realize she'd found a way to beat the system, and so they had to let her live.[/spoiler]

It's not clear in the book just how much of the decision to play Peeta and Katniss up as starcrossed lovers is Crane's decision, but yeah he's clearly the one calling the shots in the movie.  And [spoiler]he bites off more than he can chew -- in his pursuit of a good story to captivate the audience, he opens the door for a better one.  Yes, his "rule change" is what sets up Katniss's ultimate act of rebellion, but it's not even completely necessary -- she could have pulled the same stunt even without it.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on April 07, 2012, 11:26:13 PM
There's still [spoiler]the huge audiences who seemed to be getting really into it in the Capital, who could be seen as victims as well despite their higher standard of living. However, the psychographics of the setting[/spoiler] is one thing the movie doesn't really dwell on, which is ultimately to its credit. Considering the books are a whole entire series, I imagine they provide more evidence either in support of or opposition to that interpretation.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on April 09, 2012, 08:58:19 AM
There's still [spoiler]the huge audiences who seemed to be getting really into it in the Capital, who could be seen as victims as well despite their higher standard of living.[/spoiler]

While I'm sure there are people in the Capitol who object to the Games, they don't have a personal stake in them.  The Capitol doesn't give any tributes of its own (indeed it would rather undermine the message of the entire thing, which is to remind the Districts that the Capitol is in charge).

One of the most unfortunate omissions in the movie was Katniss's meeting with [spoiler]a servant girl who'd had her tongue cut out as punishment for fleeing the Capitol.  Improbably, Katniss had seen her on the outskirts of District 12 and done nothing to save her from her pursuers.[/spoiler]  So there's certainly rot and oppression in the Capitol too.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on April 13, 2012, 10:58:11 AM
Do you like horror movies?

Go see Cabin in the Woods.

NO.  STOP.  Do not go to youtube and look at a trailer.  Do not ask around as to what it is about.  Just go and see it if you consider yourself a horror fan.

If you absolutely must have a first five minutes styled spoiler synopsis: [spoiler]Some teenagers go to a cabin in the woods.  Bad things try to kill them.  The bad things come from a behind-the-scenes organization controlling the cabin in the woods.[/spoiler]

I don't think I've had a smile on my face this big during a movie since The Muppets.

I have definitely not had a smile on my face this big during a horror movie since Drag Me To Hell.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Beat Bandit on April 13, 2012, 11:18:18 AM
I'm assuming the same rule applies to "Drag Me To Hell" if we haven't seen it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Shinra on April 13, 2012, 11:28:18 AM
The hungry games is a mockumentary about two obese families competing on a supermarket-sweep style game show set in a buffet line. The winner is the family which can assemble the greatest variety of calorically dense food before the buzzer.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Smiler on April 13, 2012, 11:45:36 AM
I don't think I've had a smile on my face this big during a movie since The Muppets.

I have definitely not had a smile on my face this big during a horror movie since Drag Me To Hell.

So is this actually funny, or were you also jerking off the whole time?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on April 13, 2012, 11:55:32 AM
I'm assuming the same rule applies to "Drag Me To Hell" if we haven't seen it.

actually yes.  Drag Me to Hell was basically the perfect tonal successor to the Evil Dead movies, which is why I still love Sam Raimi.

So is this actually funny, or were you also jerking off the whole time?

IT CAN BE BOTH
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 27, 2012, 08:48:29 PM
Just got out of MIB3. It was a lot better than I expected. Best part of the movie? It didn't break the canon set in the cartoon about young K.

One thing that got me though [spoiler]the heavy foreshadowing that someone important would die felt really heavy handed. I assumed it was J and when it turned out not to be, I was actually disappointed. I mean, that'd've been some note to end a trilogy on and would've been a great story. Still was pretty good, though.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on July 07, 2012, 03:47:37 PM
So, yeah. Prometheus was completely different than the old Kablam! shorts lead me to believe.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on July 15, 2012, 05:30:46 AM
The Amazing Spider-man goes to such great lengths to establish that Curt Connors transformation into the lizard (dubbed a "terrorist" by the end of the film) is fueled by his desire to end inequality that it may be the finest translation of Ditko's vision that I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on September 16, 2012, 04:16:40 PM
I went to Safety Not Guaranteed tonight without knowing anything about it other than the name.
I really enjoyed it. I'm not saying chase down a theatre to see it,  but if it's around and you have the time,  give it a view
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on September 30, 2012, 08:19:32 PM
Go see Dredd. And if you can stomach 3D,  see it in 3D.
It's a gorgeous movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bal on October 08, 2012, 05:02:59 PM
what is this i don't even

Atlas Shrugged Part II Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF9QT43uDQU#ws)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on October 08, 2012, 07:53:41 PM
I guess someone gave them enough CHARITY NICKELS to make the second part?

Because, given the first movie's box office take, that sure ain't no investment.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on October 08, 2012, 09:03:20 PM
Maybe through a Herculean feat of self-determination they managed to get the film made because they are the brightest, most intelligent, most hardworking of societies creators? If they were to have not made this film, the rest of Hollywood would have ground to a halt, unable to cope with the loss of such talent.

Also the meager take of the first film was the result of everyone in America being jealous and petty of their success and talent.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on October 08, 2012, 09:05:23 PM
If the turns out the Koch brothers funded this, somehow I will find a way to shit a brick of solid gold. Just for the laughs.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on October 15, 2012, 05:08:45 AM
Looper manages to be both familiar and original at the same time, a feat that grounds the fantastic elements in the day to day that everyone knows.

Willis and Roger from Angels in the Outfield are brilliant, and the plot keeps you guessing, which is such a fucking rarity for me that I could recommend the movie even if it was a pile of shit.

It isn't. Go see Looper. And do yourself a favor and don't read anything about it first.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on October 15, 2012, 08:02:11 AM
I also enjoyed Looper.  Fine performances and a decent plot.

[spoiler]but those temporal mechanics, ye gods...[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on October 20, 2012, 08:23:49 PM
Tai Chi Zero is ridiculous, dumb, and incredibly fun. Go see it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on November 02, 2012, 04:51:20 PM
The Man With The Iron Fists was... not very good. I can definitely see what they were going for, but it falls flat in a lot of places.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on November 02, 2012, 05:45:52 PM
Wreck-it Ralph and Flight come out today and you went to see that? Alright I guess...
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on November 02, 2012, 05:47:52 PM
I was told I was not allowed to see either of those movies without my friend who is spending the weekend in Palm Springs.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Catloaf on November 02, 2012, 05:58:57 PM
Wreck-it Ralph was decent.  Although it had its share of weak moments.  Specifically the moral of the story; they had ample opportunity to make it something like "be proud of who you are," but nope, it came off way more like "Never try to get a better lot in life because it will just end horribly."   Yes, they did win in the end, but only when everyone went back to their assigned roles.

Also, since I was running on Jew-Time--worrying about being late and showing up 15 early--when I sat down in the theatre, and for most of the time between then and the movie starting, I was probably the only non-parent over the age of 12 and I felt like at any moment I would have to assure one of the children's parents that I wasn't a pedophile and the fact that the three rows of seats directly in front of mine were full of virtually nothing but little girls was a complete coincidence and I indeed got there a good few minutes before any of them sat down.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on November 05, 2012, 10:00:49 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/qTtge.png)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ocksi on November 05, 2012, 10:09:04 PM
I question the validity of any chart claiming the highest grossing movie of any year is something that doesn't exist.

Off the top, On Golden Pond was a play and calling Hook an adaptation of... anything seems outlandish, at best. I guess I should thank you for bringing Facebook-style idiocy on over the the Brontoboards, though.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 05, 2012, 10:44:43 PM
I question the validity of any chart claiming the highest grossing movie of any year is something that doesn't exist.

I don't know what you're talking about.  I liked Harry Potter 9 almost as much as Sleeping with the Emeny.

Off the top, On Golden Pond was a play and calling Hook an adaptation of... anything seems outlandish, at best.

Also, remakes of previous movies are referred to as "sequels" (Father of the Bride, Ocean's Eleven, Planet of the Apes) when they quite clearly should be classified as "adaptations" -- they're just adaptations of other movies, not books.

And that's without getting into the conundrum of things that are sequels to adapations (Superman, Bond, Mummy, etc.).  Or the gray area of adaptations of things that had already been made into previous films (Robin Hood, Captain America).  Or the somewhat unique case of Silence of the Lambs, which, while technically not a sequel to Manhunter, is an adaptation of the sequel to the book Manhunter adapted.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on November 05, 2012, 11:02:12 PM
And Shrek is an adaptation apparently.

Amateur-hour data collection aside, nobody seems to be actually questioning the point of the thing or anything.  Personally I see "30 years of media produces a lot of successful series" as not something to rail about, but whatever, keep on shining you crazy etc.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 05, 2012, 11:11:51 PM
And Shrek is an adaptation apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek!)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on November 05, 2012, 11:18:16 PM
I guess the point is "contemporary audiences like sequels."
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on November 06, 2012, 05:24:55 AM
I guess the point is "corporate media conglomerates like sequels."
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ocksi on November 06, 2012, 06:03:00 AM
 And there's Bongo Bill to patronize. This last string of posts really has it all.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on November 06, 2012, 07:14:53 AM
Well, the thing is, he's got a point. The original point of that poorly made image seems to be "Hollywood is out of ideas and just makes sequels", but it's not like original films weren't released in 2011.

The larger point, though, is that the information is meaningless. Whether a film is a franchise or licensed character is irrelevant to the overall quality of the film. If you go with the list of highest grossing films adjusted for inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films_adjusted_for_inflation), then you get 4 films adapted from books or plays, 1 based on a folk tale, and 5 originals. And since the inflation adjustment amount seems to imply higher ticket sales, suggesting more people actually wanted to see those films.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 06, 2012, 10:25:35 AM
Well, the thing is, he's got a point. The original point of that poorly made image seems to be "Hollywood is out of ideas and just makes sequels", but it's not like original films weren't released in 2011.

Well, but it's not JUST that audiences only go with known quantities -- it's also that studios are more comfortable putting marketing dollars into them.  (And other kinds of dollars.)  It's both.

The larger point, though, is that the information is meaningless. Whether a film is a franchise or licensed character is irrelevant to the overall quality of the film.

Well, hypothetically.  But the CW that sequels make for diminishing returns is, to my mind, usually correct.

Not always -- the last Harry Potter movie is quite a bit better than the first, for my money -- but Harry Potter's a pretty damn unique experiment in modern film.  More often you get middling-to-lousy cash-ins.

If you go with the list of highest grossing films adjusted for inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films_adjusted_for_inflation), then you get 4 films adapted from books or plays, 1 based on a folk tale, and 5 originals.

Wait, which one is The Ten Commandments?  We're counting that as a book adaptation, right?

Because Gone with the Wind, Doctor Zhivago, and Jaws are books and Sound of Music is a stage musical.

And since the inflation adjustment amount seems to imply higher ticket sales

I'm skeptical of that.  I think "inflation-adjusted" means just what it says, and this isn't a list of top films by number of tickets sold.  I find it very hard to believe Avatar would be that high on the list without the 3D Tax.

suggesting more people actually wanted to see those films.

Had a conversation with a friend once about Gone with the Wind as the all-time highest-grossing film, adjusting for ticket price.  She noted that there were no multiplexes back then and therefore fewer choices at the local theater.  I responded that while that's true, 1939 is largely regarded as the greatest year in the history of film, and even if Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz weren't running simultaneously, lots and lots of people would have gone to both (and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and Goodbye Mr. Chips, and Of Mice and Men, and...hey, wait a minute...)

The top 12 movies of 1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_in_film#Top_films_in_gross_income) -- regarded as the greatest year in film history:

Quote
1.    Gone with the Wind
Book

Quote
2.    The Wizard of Oz
Book

Quote
3.    Ninotchka
Original

Quote
4.    Dodge City
Original

Quote
5.    Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Gray area -- based on an unpublished book.  Let's call it Original.

Quote
6.    Jesse James
Original

Quote
7.    The Old Maid
Play

Quote
8.    The Women
Play

Quote
9.    The Story of Vernon and Irene Castle
Books

Quote
10.    Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Book

Quote
11.    Another Thin Man
Book, Sequel

Quote
12.    The Little Princess
Book
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on November 06, 2012, 11:35:46 AM
Probably reaching here, but I think the perceived glut of sequels is largely based on the recession.  When both the budget of the studios and the disposable income of the audience are effectively limited, audiences are more likely to spend their hard-earned cash on "The sequel to that other movie I liked" than something new and unknown, and studios just follow suit.

The glut of film adaptations in the 90s is a little harder to quantify - maybe during boom years there's more money for directors to work on their pet projects, which tend to gravitate towards "movie version of this thing I liked"?

Just for fun, here's the #1 for every year that I give a fuck about doing this for:

2012 - The Avengers - Sequel and/or Adaptation
2011 - Harry Potter VII-2 - Adaptation and/or Sequel
2010 - Toy Story 3 - Sequel
2009 - Avatar - "Original"
2008 - The Dark Knight - Sequel and/or Adaptation
2007 - Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - Sequel and/or Animatronic Nightmare Made Flesh
2006 - Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - Sequel and/or Jesus Christ These Movies Made a Shitload of Cash
2005 - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - Adaptation and/or Wait no THESE movies made a shitload of cash
2004 - Shrek 2 - Sequel and/or Some Sort of Adaptation I Guess
2003 - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - Adaptation and/or MORE CASH
2002 - The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - Adaptation and/or Four-Hour CGI Wankoff based on a minor chapter
2001 - Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - Adaptation and/or ...oh.
2000 - Mission: Impossible II - Sequel and/or Adaptation
1999 - Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace - Se... er, Prequel
1998 - Armageddon - "Original"
1997 - Titanic - Original based on a historic event
1996 - Independence Day - "Original"
1995 - Die Hard with a Vengeance - Sequel
1994 - The Lion King - Blatant Plagiarism
1993 - Jurassic Park - Adapted from the back cover of a book
1992 - Aladdin - Adaptation
1991 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day - Sequel
1990 - Ghost - Original
1989 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - Sequel
1988 - Rain Man - Original
1987 - Three Men and a Baby - Original
1986 - Top Gun - Original, unless you count a magazine article
1985 - Back to the Future - Original
1984 - Ghostbusters - Original
1983 - Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi - Sequel
1982 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial - Original
1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark - Original
1980 - Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back - Sequel
1979 - Kramer vs. Kramer - Adaptation
1978 - Grease - Adaptation
1977 - Star Wars - Original
1976 - Rocky - Original
1975 - Jaws - Adaptation
1974 - Blazing Saddles - Original
1973 - The Exorcist - Adaptation
1972 - The Godfather - Adaptation
1971 - Fiddler on the Roof - Adaptation
1970 - Love Story - Adaptation
1969 - Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - Original based on a historic event
1968 - 2001: A Space Odyssey - Adapted from the back cover of a book while dropping acid
1967 - The Graduate - Adaptation
1966 - The Bible: In the Beginning - Original based on a historic event
1965 - The Sound of Music - Adaptation
1964 - My Fair Lady - Double-Adaptation
1963 - Cleopatra - Adaptation from a book from a play from a historic event based on Elizabeth Taylor's tits
1962 - Lawrence of Arabia - Original based on a historic event
1961 - One Hundred and One Dalmations - Adaptation
1960 - Spartacus - Adaptation of a book based on a historic event
1959 - Ben-Hur - Adaptation of an adaptation of a book based on a historic event
1958 - South Pacific - Adaptation
1957 - The Bridge of the River Kwai - Adaptation
1956 - The Ten Commandments - Original based on a historic event
1955 - Lady and the Tramp - Original
1954 - Uh... one's original, one's an adaptation.
1953 - Peter Pan - Adaptation
1952 - The Greatest Show on Earth - Original
1951 - Quo Vadis - Adaptation

So yeah, if I HAD to give an opinion, I'd say that the obsession with originality in film is largely a thing of Gen-Xers who grew up in the sort of "Golden Age" of the 80s.  Most of the rest of the time things seem to be more often based on books and such, and the "recent" (since at least 2001) trend of everything being an adaptation, sequel or both is probably due more to the fact that it's much more common for books to be written in a series these days.  Probably so that more movies can be made from them.  As long as it keeps working...
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Frocto on November 06, 2012, 12:02:55 PM
I'd say you guys have already put 1,000 times more effort and thought into this than the person who made the image or Mongrel, but 1,000 times 0 is still 0.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on November 06, 2012, 04:39:01 PM
1968 - 2001: A Space Odyssey - Adapted from the back cover of a book while dropping acid

I don't think 2001 qualifies as an adaptation -- the book was based on an early version of the screenplay.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on November 11, 2012, 10:03:07 PM
Saw Wreck-it Ralph for the second time.

It's a new, more polished Toy Story. So fantastic. Music, art direction, game design. All top notch.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Misha on November 11, 2012, 11:05:26 PM
More like a new more crappy toy story. Unlovable cliched characters, no examination of the ramifications of game characters being sentient in the same way Toy Story did, pathetic dialogue writing, insanely obvious plot twists, RAMPANT over-use of lame puns and wink/nod game references. Moral of the story? Stay in your goddamn place.

I have no idea why the world loves this terrible movie. Do you just go "lol sonic! Haha there's a QBert! Oh wow a pun about candy!" while giggling the whole time?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on November 11, 2012, 11:31:09 PM
1. Rampant overuse of bad puns isn't a negative.
2. I've heard everyone complain about the moral. Ralph's story just had him talk to everyone and tell them he feels bad about how he's treated. And watch the anger.
At the very least, Venelope's moral is the exact opposite of know your place.

Your writing complaints are a matter of opinion so I won't argue about those.

As for the cameos, they are in the first few minutes of the movie and with a few notable exceptions, are just flashed across the screen.

The ramifications thing doesn't bother me because kids aren't really important to the story. Characters show up and do their jobs. If they act out of line, they get unplugged.
If there were an Andy character or something for the games to bond with, then maybe.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Misha on November 12, 2012, 01:01:45 AM
Venelope's moral is EXACTLY THE SAME. Everyone would've been happy if [spoiler]Turbo hadn't left his game and ousted her. She was a princess all along, and was sad because she was temporarily not in her proper place. Going turbo, ie the worst thing you can do, is literally just not knowing your place. Or possibly not wanting to die?[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on November 12, 2012, 01:35:25 AM
But she [spoiler]didn't want to be a princess. She wanted to be a racer. And when made all poofy and princessy, she ditched all that to be the kiddy-foul-mouthed racer. If she stayed a princess because she was supposed to, sure. But she rejected it.[/spoiler]

And "know your place" is pretty harsh. [spoiler]It's more of him not being happy with his job and finding friends inside and outside of the workplace made him happier overall.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Catloaf on November 12, 2012, 09:14:22 AM
Vanelope's [spoiler]assigned role wasn't 'Princess', it was '[eccentric] Racer'.  The Princess bit was just a sub-role.  And accepting it outright would've conflicted with her primary role, but she did hold the basic trait of the role she "rejected,"[/spoiler] so she really just was "Knowing her place."  In fact, she knew her place better at the end of the story than she did before!

The moral of the story is old school dharma.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on November 12, 2012, 10:24:29 AM
I just thought it was amusing that she [spoiler]declared they would have a constitutional democracy, then immediately appointed herself President.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on November 12, 2012, 07:54:36 PM
Hi, Friday here, bringing you another exciting installment of "How to serve babyLets Movie Talk!"

In this episode, we have two exciting new releases, fresh from their mother's wombs in theatres now!

As always, minor spoilers follow!

Skyfall

James Bond fights a man on a train and gets shot. He falls into the water and loses his memory, eventually meeting a feisty german girl whom he must protect as the agency who trained him seeks to eliminate him as a threat takes a vacation.

Meanwhile, Anton Chigurh has been up to no good on them there internets. He has hacked the mainframe and penetrated the firewalls. Using his magic movie hacking powers he explodes MI6 HQ and steals the name of every agent which MI6 decided would be a good idea to keep all on one drive for some reason.

Bond sees his old HQ exploding on the telly and decides to break into M's house for like the millionth time. M has him arrested and fired because she is tired of his shit makes him take tests for return to active field duty. He fails these tests because he is old. A bunch of other characters come up to him and talk to him about being old because that is the theme of this movie I guess.

[spoiler]Later, some shit happens and Bond ends up winning. Voldemort takes over MI6 using the imperious curse.[/spoiler]

THE END

I give this movie eight Sean Connery's out of SUCK IT TREBEKs.

Wreck it Ralph

An exciting candy adventure board game featuring all your favorite flavors for ages 5 and up! But watch out for some confusing areas of the board that pretend this is a game about video games!

The Director's Cut includes an extended scene where Sarah Silverman makes poop jokes for over thirteen hours straight! You'll die laughing!

I give this movie six hundred million cybugs out of ten hundred trillion overt product placements.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on December 14, 2012, 09:28:50 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/I39IK.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/AvzhL.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/Eooe0.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/q28Hp.gif)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 25, 2012, 09:57:45 AM
I liked The Hobbit quite a lot.

I understand the complaints -- it's a lot of stuff we've seen before, and they've padded a fairly short book out by adding in a bunch of tonally-inconsistent stuff from other books -- but I don't really give a damn.  I'm a Tolkien geek and enjoyed the hell out of it.

Especially Sylvester McCoy as Radagast.

(Can't comment on the HFR version; my mom and brother-in-law voted to see it at the local IMAX, which uses an actual film projector, not a digital one.  So no HFR, no Star Trek preview, no trailers at all.  I've heard reviews of the HFR version range from "Eh, didn't make much difference" to "Gave me a headache; the CG characters looked good but all the actual humans looked terrible".  Don't know; would be willing to see it again.)

Will probably hammer out a more thorough, spoilery review on my blog at a later date, but I've got shit to do 'n' places to be today.  Happy Xmas.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on December 25, 2012, 12:00:45 PM
You mean no entire free Star Trek showing.

Haven't seen the HFR version either but will this week.  Probably will this week.  Seems like a experiment more than an actual improvement, which is fine except it's a 3-hour long experimnt.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on December 25, 2012, 02:52:02 PM
Saw Close-Up: The Musical, today. You may also know it as Les Miserables.

Seriously, the camera man needed to back the fuck up.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: François on December 25, 2012, 05:48:44 PM
I read Les Misérables, saw the Depardieu/Malkovich series (can't imagine a better Javert than Malkovich) and the Neeson/Rush movie, and all along my multiple consumptions of that story I couldn't wrap my mind around how anyone would think of putting it to song. Of course the success of the musical speaks for itself and I'm clearly an ass, but I still don't quite have the urge to witness it for myself.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on December 25, 2012, 08:01:29 PM
There are some good songs, and Russel Crowe has a pretty good voice. It's a little annoying, though, that there are so few actually spoken lines; most of the dialog is recitative. And, like I said, there are way too many close-ups. It was fine enough when Anne Hathoway sang Dreamed a Dream, but it started getting pretty jarring later on. It was like none of the characters were ever in the same place when they interacted and even their locations were ancillary. Javert liked singing precariously close to the edge of sky scrapers, yet the movie didn't really capture the steely fearlessness of his doing so because it was just too damn close to Russel Crowe's face.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 26, 2012, 10:02:38 AM
Quote from: http://www.corporate-sellout.com/index.php/2012/12/26/django-unchained/
Nobody makes a revenge flick like Quentin Tarantino.

And nobody makes a movie with racists as the villains, while simultaneously having just a little too much fun depicting racism, as Quentin Tarantino.

Frankly I think reviews are a little superfluous. Quentin Tarantino is a known quantity. If you've ever seen one of his movies, you have a pretty good idea whether or not you're going to like Django Unchained. And if you haven't seen one of his movies, go watch Pulp Fiction.

Also: Samuel L Jackson was probably the highlight, but I probably don't need to say that.

Also also: Nice touch about the "Hey, Germans, you've all been really good sports; I'm going to make a German a good guy in this one.  Hell, I'll even cast Christoph Waltz and make him an obvious Mary Sue."
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 27, 2012, 08:26:58 PM
I liked The Hobbit quite a lot.

I understand the complaints -- it's a lot of stuff we've seen before, and they've padded a fairly short book out by adding in a bunch of tonally-inconsistent stuff from other books -- but I don't really give a damn.  I'm a Tolkien geek and enjoyed the hell out of it.

Especially Sylvester McCoy as Radagast.

(Can't comment on the HFR version; my mom and brother-in-law voted to see it at the local IMAX, which uses an actual film projector, not a digital one.  So no HFR, no Star Trek preview, no trailers at all.  I've heard reviews of the HFR version range from "Eh, didn't make much difference" to "Gave me a headache; the CG characters looked good but all the actual humans looked terrible".  Don't know; would be willing to see it again.)

Will probably hammer out a more thorough, spoilery review on my blog at a later date, but I've got shit to do 'n' places to be today.  Happy Xmas.

Well, I did that. (http://www.corporate-sellout.com/index.php/2012/12/27/concerning-hobbits/)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: François on December 27, 2012, 08:51:22 PM
I went to see it with my mother. My experience seems to mirror yours I think. For her part, my mother was rather nonplussed by the musical number and the old man with bird poop on the side of his head trying to save a porcupine. She's kind of a casual fantasy fan; she digs movies and TV shows about magic, witches and wizards and attractive guys being noble and she'll watch anything with Merlin in it, but she wouldn't sit down to read novels, much less ones on the scale of Tolkien's work. When the movie was over she told me she was disappointed in the lack of female characters (which I could in some small way agree with, though I was glad to see so many awesome beards in one flick), and she thought the story would be more about Gollum and the ring. Overall she seemed to like it, or so she told me, anyway.

It's kind of interesting how the superficially silly elements of the movie are aimed squarely at the hardcore fans who know what to expect, while in another property that sort of thing would be thrown into an otherwise serious story in a probably misguided attempt to appeal to a broader demographic.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 27, 2012, 09:23:16 PM
I kept being distracted by Elijah Wood's voice. Ten years of smoking really kills your vocal cords.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 27, 2012, 10:52:29 PM
I took my mom too, but...well, my mom read me the books when I was a kid.  When the Dwarves hit the "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates!" chorus she sang along.  Suffice it to say she came away with rather a positive opinion of it.

(Also I thought that was supposed to be lichen growing on Radagast, but yeah it sure does look like bird shit.)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: François on December 27, 2012, 11:46:35 PM
Hmm, I guess it might be lichen, but IIRC he straight up puts a small bird under his hat at one point. If he does that often, well...

Heh, my mom's a serious neat freak and she dislikes animals, to her Radagast might be the scariest character in all the movies.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Catloaf on December 28, 2012, 03:43:06 PM
I saw Django on Christmas and loved it.
Samuel L Jackson was probably the highlight, but I probably don't need to say that.
Of the villains, certainly.  In the second half of the movie, definitely.  But I felt the show was stolen (especially in the first half of the movie, before Jackson's character ever appears) by Waltz' Dr.King Schultz, and on that note...
Nice touch about the "Hey, Germans, you've all been really good sports; I'm going to make a German a good guy in this one.  Hell, I'll even cast Christoph Waltz and make him an obvious Mary Sue."
First, while never stated explicitly, it's pretty clear he's Jewish--I mean, a [former] Dentist in that day and age.  So that's two Tarantino films in a row now with Ass-Kicking Jews, and small caveat to the German hat-tipping.

Secondly, while I don't think he was a full-fledged Mary Sue, he was the most obvious 'historical edit' and the clear bridging character between depicted and contemporary cultures.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on December 28, 2012, 08:14:13 PM
I wrote some things about how Christopher Tolkien hates that there are movies (http://www.corporate-sellout.com/index.php/2012/12/28/concerning-tolkiens/) and the various ethical dilemmas involved in the franchise.

How badly was JRR Tolkien taken advantage of?

This is the first film adaptation of The Hobbit.

The Hobbit.mp4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBnVL1Y2src#)

It was made because Tolkien's lawyers stipulated that the filmmakers would get the rights to LotR if they produced a Hobbit movie by the deadline -- but forgot to specify any requirements on running time or distribution.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Smiler on December 28, 2012, 10:43:34 PM
I heard Django is good. I hope it is as good as the TV show was.

Django Unchained - Season 3 Opening Theme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKmWJlhOheE#)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on December 29, 2012, 07:29:29 AM
Aw yeah, TGIF.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Doom on December 29, 2012, 01:29:11 PM
Woah was I late to the party.

Wreck-it Ralph is movie of the year TIA.

(http://doom.pyoko.org/DontBeHatinHaters.gif)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on January 01, 2013, 08:19:25 PM
I don't know that I'd go quite that far, but it's certainly up there (http://www.corporate-sellout.com/index.php/2013/01/01/wreck-it-ralph-fuck-the-haters/).
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Doom on January 02, 2013, 06:34:37 PM
Quote
And the ending — Ralph goes back to being a bad guy but now he enjoys it? I guess I can see how some people thought that betrayed the story's premise. Hell, I'd have figured they'd go the route of Ralph's clear inspiration, Donkey Kong, and make him a hero in a sequel.

But you know, there is something to be said for the message: you may have a lousy job, but you can find ways to make it better. There's a bit of Camus's Myth of Sisyphus to it; Sisyphus may not have a choice in how he lives, but he does have the freedom to feel however the hell he wants about it. (And it doesn't hurt that Ralph's coworkers finally start treating him right.)

You could also interpret Ralph's struggle and resolution as coming to terms with existential depression. Especially if you tie it to Zangief's little quote from the start "You are "bad guy", but you are not bad... guy", the Bad Guy Serenity Oath and [spoiler]falling towards the Mentos peak at the end with the oath.[/spoiler] There's no one I'd rather be than me indeed.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on January 02, 2013, 10:25:56 PM
Sure.  I thought that was implicit with the Camus reference.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Doom on January 04, 2013, 09:17:35 AM
So it is. In the very bit I quoted. :hurr: For awhile I thought I missed an in-movie reference!

(http://doom.pyoko.org/BioRalph.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Shinra on January 09, 2013, 01:14:10 PM
Saw Close-Up: The Musical, today. You may also know it as Les Miserables.

Seriously, the camera man needed to back the fuck up.

Late to the party here but after watching it in the theater today the wife and I were both unimpressed. The cinematography and camera work were the worst I have ever seen in a large budget film, the casting was mostly awful, and costumes and makeup were horrifically bad. We're supposed to buy that Jean Valjean has aged nearly 20 years since getting out of prison in the second half of the film, but he looks younger than he did in the opening scenes of the movie - I get that Hugh Jackman has a certain draw by being a hot dude, but couldn't you guys at least give the man a fully gray wig or some wrinkles? I think this was a movie with a great story and great musical numbers that was marred by horrible execution, and as far as I can see it's coasted by on reviews by virtue of being a (completely rote, btw) movie adaptation of a classic musical.



Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Romosome on January 13, 2013, 08:28:07 PM
Words cannot really adequately express how fucking much I enjoyed Django Unchained.

I should probably go back and watch Inglorious Basterds.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on January 13, 2013, 08:35:21 PM
Right, and on that note, going back a bit:

I saw Django on Christmas and loved it.
Samuel L Jackson was probably the highlight, but I probably don't need to say that.
Of the villains, certainly.  In the second half of the movie, definitely.  But I felt the show was stolen (especially in the first half of the movie, before Jackson's character ever appears) by Waltz' Dr.King Schultz

Touche.  Waltz is phenomenal; I love him in everything I see him in.  I don't really give two good goddamns about the Oscars, but he deserved the one he got for Inglourious Basterds.

and on that note...
Nice touch about the "Hey, Germans, you've all been really good sports; I'm going to make a German a good guy in this one.  Hell, I'll even cast Christoph Waltz and make him an obvious Mary Sue."
First, while never stated explicitly, it's pretty clear he's Jewish--I mean, a [former] Dentist in that day and age.  So that's two Tarantino films in a row now with Ass-Kicking Jews, and small caveat to the German hat-tipping.

Hm.  At first I thought he was Jewish; later on I thought he wasn't.  Tough call.  Viewing the movie as self-contained I think I prefer that he is; viewing it in the context of Tarantino throwing the Germans a bone after Basterds, I think I like it better if he's a gentile.  Either way, though.

Secondly, while I don't think he was a full-fledged Mary Sue, he was the most obvious 'historical edit' and the clear bridging character between depicted and contemporary cultures.

I say he's a Mary Sue because the very first thing he does is shoot a redneck who makes fun of him for using big words.

That's either Tarantino working out some childhood aggression, or me projecting some.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on January 13, 2013, 11:47:08 PM
The most fascinating thing to me is how divisive this movie is. At my theatre we had people walk out of the exact same screening that got a standing ovation from the rest of the crowd at the end. I guess people still get that pissed over language.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Romosome on January 14, 2013, 01:42:07 AM
The mixed reactions are a little fascinating, yes.

I didn't notice anyone walking out or sounding uncomfortable. Everyone was howling with laughter half the time though. Lots of nervous laughter but most of it happened during those moments of tension intentionally broken up by awkwardness.

The hood scene damn near killed everyone including me. It was an infectious atmosphere.

I read an article about "inappropriate laughter" in Django, where the black author struggled with his initial anger towards white viewers laughing at the 'wrong' moments, at bits of cruelty, while later catching himself laughing at rather sadistic bits in turn. One of the examples he used was viewers laughing at the dynamite thrown into the cage. It's funny, because I actually choked out a little hoot during that bit DESPITE actually being disturbed, a nervous reaction for sure. But there was someone else that laughed really really hard at that part...followed by his friend saying "Dude that's not funny" and silence.

Ultimately I was pleased because, as much as I love sociology and as sensitive as I am, I went into the movie worried it'd divide the audience, and I walked out of a theater with a mixed crowd of young strangers of every race, after spending the last 3 hours together with them laughing all our asses off at total over-the-top revenge fantasy slaughter.

also mad props to Dicaprio seriously
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Shinra on January 14, 2013, 04:43:29 AM
Dicaprio has come a long, long way from teen heartthrob / irritating main character of Titanic. He is a really goddamn amazing actor and he played "hatable slaver" incredibly well. It helps that Tarantino is great at crafting villains, but shit, I was alternating between hating his character and loving him every second he was on screen.

Apparently, the scene at dinner where he slams his hand on the table and breaks the glass was accidental, he actually shattered the glass and cut the shit out of his hand, but instead of ending the shot to get patched up he adlibbed with it and made the scene so much more intense.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on January 14, 2013, 09:08:46 AM
As I mentioned, Tarantino has just a little too much fun depicting racism (and just using the N-word at every possible opportunity -- and I invite anyone who says "That's just historical accuracy" to give Pulp Fiction a view).

I wouldn't say my screening was divisive, but I saw a late-night showing on Christmas -- these were people who wanted to be there at this movie.

I can certainly see people's objections, and I'm not going to tell anyone who's offended that they're wrong for being offended.  I enjoyed it but there's certainly some uncomfortable and insensitive stuff in there.

also mad props to Dicaprio seriously

Yeah, everyone in the picture was fan-fucking-tastic.  When I said Jackson was my favorite I certainly didn't mean a slight to anybody else.

Dicaprio has come a long, long way from teen heartthrob / irritating main character of Titanic.

I'll agree, but on the other hand he was doing damn fine work before Titanic.  His role in What's Eating Gilbert Grape? was pretty damn great.  Hell, he wasn't half-bad in Romeo and Juliet, as goofy as the movie got in places.  I think it's probably fair to chalk Titanic up to the script and direction.

That said, yeah, even though I think he's been a good actor all along, he's certainly gotten better -- he's certainly had a hell of a lot of practice.

Apparently, the scene at dinner where he slams his hand on the table and breaks the glass was accidental, he actually shattered the glass and cut the shit out of his hand, but instead of ending the shot to get patched up he adlibbed with it and made the scene so much more intense.

Oh yeah, I think I did read that somewhere.  Shades of the opening scene of Apocalypse Now (where Sheen breaking the mirror was also purportedly an accident).
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Romosome on January 14, 2013, 11:17:14 AM
Maybe I just haven't seen enough with him in it, but I was surprised by Jackson's ability to get in character this time. He's usually much more of a "face actor". Here he had me squinting to make sure it was actually him at first.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rico on January 14, 2013, 11:36:45 AM
Russell Crowe is the worst.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on January 14, 2013, 01:33:16 PM
I didn't think he was that bad in Les Miserables.

Or did you mean in general?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rico on January 14, 2013, 02:54:02 PM
I knew from the beginning that he wouldn't be able to sing it, and I thought I was okay with that, but his acting is terrible too. There is absolutely nothing at all in the entire movie to convince you that he has the passion and dedication to chase a guy for years through multiple cities. And without that passion, his conflict after [spoiler] he gets spared at the barricades and his suicide are just completely flat.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: François on January 14, 2013, 05:26:30 PM
Oh wow. If I liked Malkovich's Javert so much, it's because he made you feel like he fucking hated crime, and his fanatical, self-righteous disgust vis-à-vis Valjean came across as disturbing and scary. Hugo wrote this character to represent a blindfolded system of law enforcement that pursues the guilty with a mixture of stoic duty and cruel enthusiasm that can only arise in a human being as the result of hanging on to the moral high ground by the merest technicality. I can't possibly imagine anyone wanting to play this guy as not giving a crap and now I really don't want to see this flick.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 14, 2013, 06:37:07 PM
Saw Django. Eh.

Very-well acted, as has been mentioned, with Waltz the very best. But I am really pretty sure now that Tarantino and I are just not travelling on the same street. I'm tired of watching a man masturbate in public and having people around me call it a film.

Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on January 14, 2013, 06:43:49 PM
That's the difference between you and the 1%, Mongrel. You pay others to watch you jerk it while people pay to watch the wealthy whack it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on January 14, 2013, 08:27:12 PM
That's the difference between you and the 1%, Mongrel. You pay others to watch you jerk it while people pay to watch the wealthy whack it.

pay

to watch

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8bktkmptS1r6131p.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: on January 14, 2013, 08:51:02 PM
Are you saying Mongrel jerks off in your face?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 15, 2013, 10:35:55 AM
I have to admit that I do find one thing about Django to be singularly hilarious: That the the wiki article for the movie lists his wife as "Broomhilda".
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Royal☭ on January 15, 2013, 11:13:26 AM
That's funny because... that's her name?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on January 15, 2013, 11:21:18 AM
I thought it was Brunhilde?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on January 15, 2013, 01:06:28 PM
Nope.  Spelled "Broomhilda" in the credits.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: TA on January 15, 2013, 01:12:04 PM
Broomhilda von Shaft is a hell of a name, yes.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 15, 2013, 01:37:51 PM
Nope.  Spelled "Broomhilda" in the credits.

I thought it was Brunhilde too. Huh. I wonder what the rationale for that was. Like just a throwaway gag no one would get/notice?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Shinra on January 15, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
TBF Quentin Tarantino can't spell at all. Read some of his manuscripts sometime.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 15, 2013, 05:47:03 PM
I think it would be screamingly hilarious if it turned out he actually thought it was spelled that way and nobody questioned him on it (though with Waltz as a senior cast member, this seems incredibly unlikely).
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on January 15, 2013, 08:01:21 PM
I honestly think it was completely on purpose. A sort of play up on the high society of the south at the time. That they would misspell a name like that accidentally and not even know it. I mean just look at Calvin. A francophile who knows almost nothing of France, not even that Alexandre Dumas, who he'd named a prized slave after, was in fact the son of a slave himself. And seemingly, to confirm this, you will notice that Waltz pronounces the name properly the entire movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 15, 2013, 08:35:19 PM
Just a slight note on Dumas' father, Thomas-Alexandre Dumas. 

Under legal technicalities, he was born a slave and records indicate he was even sold and repurchased by his father (A white French aristocrat of high standing).

However, he lived his entire life as a free man and was educated as an aristocrat. He served in the French republican armies, cleverly escaped the clutches of the Commission of Public Security, rose to general-in-chief of the French armies of the Tyrol, West, Rhine and others (in the western world, no black man would reach equivalent rank again until Colin Powell, a full two hundred years later), beat the Austrians in their own end of the Alps, saved the republic from several uprisings, and only ended his career with a full-blown argument with Napoleon in Egypt (after Napoleon had almost killed him and several other generals with an ill-advised march through the desert).

It would be technically correct to call Thomas-Alexandre Dumas a slave. But it would be a lot more accurate to call him one badass motherfucker.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on January 15, 2013, 10:23:53 PM
Shut yo mouth
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 15, 2013, 10:55:30 PM
But I'm talkin' 'bout Thomas-Alexandre Dumas!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on January 16, 2013, 10:53:35 AM
Nous pouvons creuser!
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on January 19, 2013, 08:02:00 PM
A Lawyer examines the legality of the contract from The Hobbit (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/01/hobbit-contract-legal-analysis/)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Pacobird on January 21, 2013, 09:57:18 AM
Les Miserables was pretty good for a movie version of a Really Bad Opera (as opposed to a mediocre musical, which it has made quite a name for itself by pretending to be) but Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were embarrassing.  I mean, Valjean is one of the highest tenor parts out there, Javert one of the lower basses (considering this is, again, the genre of Really Bad Opera), and run-of-the-mill baritones like Jackman and Crowe couldn't hack it even if they had better senses of pitch and actually spent $20 on a voice lesson where in the first five minutes the instructor would tell them to sing from the stomach and not the throat/nose.

That said, Amanda Seyfried is really a surprisingly great soprano and it was hilarious to watch all these big hollywood names get upstaged by a third-place finalist from a reality show.

PS: T RICO I particularly liked how Crowe fucks up the phrasing on literally his last line in the whole movie.  THERE IS NO WAY TO *breath* GO OOOOOOOOOOOOOON
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rico on January 21, 2013, 11:42:54 AM
What do you mean Really Bad Opera having the hero and villain do nothing but jump octave Fs at each other is brilliant recitative.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on January 21, 2013, 11:43:53 AM
Overanalyzing Movies Dept: Should we be troubled by the existence of a von Shaft descendant who looks IDENTICAL to Stephen (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0162650/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on January 21, 2013, 11:50:53 AM
:glee:

no wait, that's the wrong emote

:itsmagic:

there we go
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Pacobird on January 21, 2013, 12:36:51 PM
What do you mean Really Bad Opera having the hero and villain do nothing but jump octave Fs at each other is brilliant recitative.

teehee

BEfore you SAY another WORD javert

BEfore you CHAIN me up like a SLAVE again

LISten to ME there is something i must doooooo




god les mis is so bad :D


BUT I will give it some credit and say In My Life shows a glimpse of what would have been a great show if it had required more parts than just Marius and Eponine to actually act, and Empty Chairs at Empty Tables is a cool example of how to write a great, impassioned, and dead-straight solo for a bass and I have been glad to use it in the semi-rare event I've had to prepare an audition piece for this sort of thing.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on February 14, 2013, 09:38:51 PM
Die Hard 5 is less dumb than Die Hard 4, mostly by virtue of not bothering to have much of anything resembling a plot.  It's also the most briskly-paced Die Hard movie, consisting pretty much of three giant action setpieces.

It's not very good, and certainly nowhere near as good as the original Die Hard.  The franchise has turned into Generic Action Movie Series, and John McClane has turned into Generic Action Hero.  He gets a little banged up but there's nothing remotely resembling the kind of pain and suffering he was put through in the original movie -- he's basically invulnerable.

It's a way to kill 90 minutes.  It's not bad.  It's not good.  You could definitely spend your money on a worse movie.  I don't know if there are any better ones recently out.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Healy on February 24, 2013, 07:25:43 PM
fuck nevermind
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on April 02, 2013, 07:52:28 PM
Evil Dead was fucking fantastic, y'all.

[spoiler]And yes, there is a tree rape scene.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on April 03, 2013, 07:53:24 AM
Also, stay after the credits.

Also also, there was a guy in line behind me who was very seriously trying to convince his friends that the Newtown shootings were faked. After the movie, I overheard him complaining that [spoiler]the tree rape scene was "not as well done as the original".[/spoiler]  :disapprove:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on April 03, 2013, 11:03:14 AM
If they couldn't manage to clear that bar, I'd be a little upset too.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on April 06, 2013, 07:05:06 PM
I just got back from Chekhov's Gun: A Horror Story.

And by that I mean Evil Dead. It's a fun show.

You should go see it.

[spoiler]The bit at the end where Mia chainsaws the demon in the face had me grinning ear-to-ear[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on April 06, 2013, 07:59:17 PM
Yeah, that actually had me clapping and yelling, and I wasn't the only one.

[spoiler]I realized later that if kind of makes the tree rape scene more problematic.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on April 06, 2013, 09:21:33 PM
A few things:

I kind of expected at the end that [spoiler]Mia would be ambushed by the rednecks from the beginning of the movie. Too obvious, maybe? Or perhaps it's a deleted alternate ending.[/spoiler] I was also expecting that [spoiler]the girlfriend's severed arm and the dog to come back to life and wreak havoc.[/spoiler]

On the drive home I realized that [spoiler]The bottle full of gasoline that Mia used to fill up the chainsaw was the same bottle that the girl's father used to set her on fire.[/spoiler] Seriously, it was crazy how every little thing in the movie played a part: [spoiler]the electric knife, the shotgun and nailgun, the chainsaw, the story about Mia Over Dosing and then being revived with a defibrillator, the crawlspace under the shed, the machete Mia passed up in order to get to the chainsaw, the aforementioned water bottle full of gasoline.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on April 06, 2013, 10:21:04 PM
Ha! I did not notice that.

Also, [spoiler]when the homemade defibrillator failed, someone in the theater yelled, "Put some duct tape on her!"[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Healy on April 09, 2013, 03:04:18 PM
Jurassic Park 3D was so good, y'all. I was too scared of this movie as a kid to properly watch it so this is my first time seeing it in a single sitting. I don't think the 3D really added much but it was cool all the same.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on April 09, 2013, 03:07:17 PM
Jurassic Park 3D was fucking awesome
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on April 09, 2013, 03:12:52 PM
I apparently liked Jurassic Park when I first watched it in theatres, I forgot it was my birthday .
That became my fondest, most overpowering memory. There's something poetic there.

Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rico on April 09, 2013, 04:11:14 PM
The Doubleclicks: "Velociraptor" on Live Wire Radio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU97SKDX3os#ws)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Catloaf on April 12, 2013, 10:03:24 AM
Saw evil dead yesterday, because I had too much shit to do opening weekend.

I was surprised by [spoiler]Sadako showing up as the villain. Sure she was a redhead while alive, but while dead was an only slightly westernized Sadako sans magic VHS[/spoiler]

Couldn't get through [spoiler]nailgun[/spoiler] scene without thinking :THATWAY:

[spoiler]Oh, and unless this took place before the original evil dead, as is sorta implied, trying to detox in Flint is probably one of the dumbest decisions in the entire film.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 02, 2013, 03:38:02 PM
FIFTEEN GOD DAMN FIFTY FOR ONE TICKET?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on May 03, 2013, 01:25:22 AM
Are you kidding? That's been the normal price around here for over a decade. It's a big pat of the reason I almost never go to see movies in the theatre anymore.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on May 03, 2013, 02:06:40 AM
BUT OUR DOLLARS ARE WORTH 1% MORE THAN YOURS
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on May 03, 2013, 02:43:45 AM
Except when we pay for things. That's when they tack on a 30% price hike to reimburse the magical tariffairies or whatever.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on May 03, 2013, 04:22:44 AM
Yeah I dunno. Hell, if I got to see a movie with magical 3D Ultra-HHHHD MaximumIMAX Stormscape Hyperreality technology, then it's more like $20.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Malikial on May 03, 2013, 05:28:50 AM
15.5 dollars for a ticket to a film isn't really that much... But everyone's already said that.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Smiler on May 03, 2013, 05:56:35 AM
Except that it is. I already stopped going to movies because they hit 10 bucks.

Edit: Although I don't know where 15 bucks is coming from. Apparently I can get tickets to see Iron Man at the theater I usually go to for 8 bucks.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Caithness on May 03, 2013, 05:56:57 AM
It seems like a lot to me. I could wait a while and then own the DVD for that much, and be able to watch it as many times as I want.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 03, 2013, 06:10:36 AM
Last time I went to a movie at midnight, it was Avengers in IMAX 3D and that was only $12. And last movie I saw in theatres was Jack Reacher and I only paid $9.

I had no idea tickets got so high recently.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on May 03, 2013, 06:11:05 AM
Yeah, $15 for 2 hours of average entertainment seems like a poor return, given I might get dozens or even hundreds of hours out of a vidja game at the same price.

Now, movies and vidja games are not necessarily comparable in all regards, and once in a while I do indulge in the spectacle of a new movie. But I rarely find that the "theatre experience" offers me anything that I feel like I'm missing when watching a movie at home on DVD.

EDIT: Also, I buy for the both Starr and I, so it's more like $30 per movie, actually.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on May 03, 2013, 06:40:13 AM
Iron Man is a high profile film, so Disney can get away with demanding theatres charge more.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Smiler on May 03, 2013, 08:12:44 AM
Iron Man is a high profile film, so Disney can get away with demanding theatres charge more.

Oh okay, I thought theaters were starting to charge 15 bucks for all movies.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on May 03, 2013, 08:43:17 AM
You really think companies would make money if they charged 15$ for the next warmed-over romantic comedy starring Jennifer Aniston?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Lottel on May 03, 2013, 09:18:25 AM
...yes?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on May 03, 2013, 02:41:43 PM
You really think companies would make money if they charged 15$ for the next warmed-over romantic comedy starring Jennifer Aniston?

Er, I don't know how they do it up there, but I've never known a single American movie theater that charged different prices for different films -- even tacking an extra $2 on for the 3D version is a pretty recent development.  Guys, is this a thing that's happening in America now, or is it just a Canada thing?

I mean, it would certainly make SENSE to price blockbusters higher than obscure special-interest movies.  But they don't.  The excuse I've heard is that people would just buy a cheap ticket and theater-jump, which is probably true, and given how low theaters' margins actually are on ticket sales it's not worth spending the extra money it would take to make sure people were all in the theater they were supposed to be.  Theaters make their money on junk food and sugar water, and they charge you the same for those no matter what movie you're there to see.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on May 03, 2013, 03:09:37 PM
Generally they charge a premium price for midnight or other special shows, but that has more to do with contract negotiations to get a midnight show.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on May 03, 2013, 04:03:13 PM
I'm not sure I've even seen premieres priced higher than a normal ticket 'round these parts, but OTOH I don't think I've been to a premiere since like Episode 2 or some damn thing.

Hell, I haven't even been to Rocky Horror in probably 3 years.  Feel like I'm turning into an old fart; midnight's too damn late.

It probably helps that Arizona's in the -- presumably unusual? -- position of having a big single monolithic theater chain that is local and independent.  We've got more Harkins theaters than probably all the non-Harkins theaters combined, including AMC.  I've got my issues with Harkins -- mainly that they've run most of the smaller indies out, sometimes through underhanded tactics like opening their own theater across the street -- but the advantage of their big-but-not-national reach is that they have an incentive to price themselves lower than AMC and the clout to negotiate with the studios to keep it that way.

The upshot being, I think I paid $13 to see The Hobbit at the IMAX last December.

And it was a real-ass 6-story IMAX.  One of the old ones built to show movies about dolphins and bears.  None of this namby-pamby AMC crap where they sit you really close to the screen half that size and CALL it IMAX.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on May 03, 2013, 04:51:46 PM
Well the thing about midnight shows is its great as a give back to fans of your theatre but having 4 people stay an extra 3 hours for one house does not make profit. :(
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on May 03, 2013, 11:46:37 PM
I don't think we're that different from the US. Prices are usually the same for all movies at a given theatre, though prices from theatre to theatre vary. The ony exception are surcharges for 3D/IMAX, etc.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on May 05, 2013, 06:41:32 AM
i have to say about iron man 3, [spoiler]i was not expecting the villain to actually be fin fang foom[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on June 14, 2013, 03:28:02 AM
Mark Waid on Man of Steel (http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/)

He ain't happy, if you're wondering.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on June 14, 2013, 01:32:05 PM
I'll save it 'til after I see the movie, but Robot 6 (http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2013/06/quote-of-the-day-dude-i-didnt-even-get-a-free-ticket/) quotes him talking about how he didn't even get a free ticket to see a movie that cribbed from Birthright.  He adds, too, that when DC DID recognize creators like that, it was Levitz's doing.

Levitz pissed some people off, but he really did look out for creators' rights as best he could.  It's not a coincidence that Before Watchmen was announced within six months of his ouster; he really WAS the guy who was keeping it from happening.

From what I understand, he's also the reason Len Wein gets paid for Lucius Fox's movie appearances.

Levitz didn't always do the right thing -- I'm still pretty put-off by his censorship of The Authority -- but I legitimately think his heart was in the right place and he did the best he could (and he would have given Bill Finger a co-creator credit on Batman if there was any legal way of doing so).

DC's current corporate-micromanaged, contemptuous-of-creators attitude started with kicking Paul out because he wouldn't play ball.  Waid's right about that much.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on June 14, 2013, 02:13:02 PM
So, Man of Steel was an interesting movie. Impressions follow.

The product placement was really conspicuous. Just want to get that out there. I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing, as it uses the same techniques to make the audience aware of the Lexcorp logo as it does for Sears, IHOP, Uhaul, etc.

[spoiler]This was very much an action movie. I can tell that it draws heavy inspiration from the Fleischer animated shorts of the 1940s. In those, Superman was powerful but not omnipotent, and the emphasis was very much on the feats of strength he used to overcome the villain. This is okay, I think.

I don't want to spend too many words on how the facet of Superman Snyder chose to emphasize is not the one I consider most powerful, but I will mention it a bit. It's very significant that Clark personally saves more people out of costume than in it, but I'm not sure what that signifies. Granted, blowing up the world engine as Kal-El saves billions, but as a certain other Man of Steel said, one death is a tragedy while a million is a statistic.

Superman's humanity is present but it's not in focus; the iconic image is not Superman catching someone who's falling, but Superman tackling a bad guy who's about to blow someone up. Snyder evidently decided to make a movie about Superman-As-Protector rather than Superman-As-Savior. And that's a valid interpretation. It's hard to reconcile all the collateral damage - especially all the 9/11 imagery in Metropolis - with Superman-As-Savior, but Superman-As-Protector is necessarily more fallible and vulnerable, emotionally and physically.

Here, Superman-As-Protector has to choose between saving people who are in danger now and containing an escalating threat, and he doesn't hesitate to choose the latter. Zack Snyder was clearly aware of the choice there, and he made it boldly: while skyscrapers were falling, missiles were landing, cars were crashing, and people were panicking and dying in Metropolis, Superman was on the exact opposite side of the world, as far away as possible from the scary thing, breaking a machine on an uninhabited island.

I think a lot of people aren't going to like that interpretation of the character. How to reconcile the assertion that Superman inspires people, that Superman means hope, with the decision to make him save the world where nobody could see him do it? There are two answers: it could represent choosing real hope (that earth's atmosphere wouldn't be made toxic) over false hope (that a flying man in primary-colored space jammies will make everything better); or it might just mean that he wasn't really Superman yet.

He hides how much all that death hurt him until the very end. (Maybe the movie would have been been more emotionally resonant if we had seen Superman giving a shit about all the innocent bystanders who got crushed under rubble.) But that cry of anguish, once he had won - that is what connects Clark to the world. Previously, notwithstanding all his innate goodness and empathy, he'd been quite alienated from Earth - only when he had to kill the last Kryptonian did he choose to trust Earth, and reveal his true feelings. Only then does he take an active interest in being Earth's protector, immerse himself in its problems. Clark Kent can't stand by and watch people die, but it takes the strength of Superman to go out and look for them.

And then there's that climax. Some people don't like that Superman kills. Here's what I think. Superman chose to be Clark Kent, a person of earth. He doesn't want to kill anybody, and that's an ideal to strive toward. He stumbles, he falls, but, in time....[/spoiler]

There's an interesting parallel between [spoiler]General Zod and General Swanwick[/spoiler] but I'm not sure just how deep it runs. It's clearly related to the core theme of [spoiler]choosing Earth over Krypton[/spoiler], which is a necessary component of any substantial Superman origin, but far from the most interesting thing about the character. I expect that, like the last Nolan superhero, more interesting stories can be told now that the character is already established.

I think I have a negative (or at least ambivalent) take on it as well. I'm gonna resurrect the author so I can chew him out a bit.

[spoiler]Superman is a pretty multifaceted character and it's hard to pick just a few to center an entire movie around. This one chose to focus on the "Last Son of Krypton" element, the part where he chooses between the two worlds that he's important to.

But there's another element that I, personally, think is even more important, which was specifically not developed in this movie, and that's that Superman is inspiring. Certainly Henry Cavill flying around with a cape is majestic as all get out, and the "S" stands for "hope," but Superman didn't do a whole lot of inspiration in this movie. In fact, it goes so far as to have him save the world in a place where nobody can see him do it at the exact moment that the villains are sowing death and despair (importantly: echoing 9/11) at the point on earth he's farthest from.

Similarly, it had Jor-El telling his son that he'd be an inspiration to the human race, and failed to show him inspiring anybody. Not a single person followed Superman's example in this movie; nobody became a braver, kinder, or otherwise better person as a result of his actions. (The closest it came was those soldiers deciding he's not their enemy.)

This was a well-made movie, and those scenes are not a failed case of "show, don't tell." We were told that Superman means hope, and then shown exactly why Superman couldn't bring any hope on the day of his big debut. A script was written in which the task which was a job for Superman was the one that didn't involve anybody seeing him and knowing it was going to be all right. I said before that that's a bold decision - and I also think it was the wrong one.

If you're gonna spend fuckty-million dollars making a Superman movie for the modern age, I don't think it should specifically exclude Superman's most important quality!

Well, maybe I'm being unfair. This is an origin story: he's not really Superman yet until the end, when he goes to the Daily Planet to be ready for trouble wherever it happens. Maybe if they had pushed the "inspiration" angle too hard it would have turned into the sort of stultifying hagiography that Superman Returns sometimes was.[/spoiler]

Still a good movie, but the Superman fan in me notes that it may be sending the wrong message. The inevitability of a sequel may render this complaint moot.



As for Mark Waid's take: he's not wrong, but I get a strong feeling like [spoiler]being forced to kill Zod is going to be the reason why he will never kill again[/spoiler] in the future. Maybe that's what they were going for.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on June 14, 2013, 03:37:11 PM
WATCH OUT because apparently the url tag kinda wrecks spoiler tags. So uhh don't mouse over the blue words I guess.

[spoiler]Chris Sims wrote a pretty good column (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/06/08/ask-chris-109-the-movie-industrys-kill-happy-super-heroes/) about that last year.

He also wrote one specifically about Batman (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/04/22/batman-kills/), which isn't quite as relevant, but still good.

Still, the idea of Superman, even movie Superman, killing someone just seems wrong, somehow.[/spoiler]

Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on June 14, 2013, 05:41:41 PM
Bongo, it's better to just label your entire post with a spoiler warning and then not use tags if you're going to block out 90% of it anyway, especially if it's an essay.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on June 14, 2013, 06:20:54 PM
It was originally two posts, which I merged lazily.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Rico on June 14, 2013, 07:54:28 PM
As an aside, if anyone likes Superman but hasn't read Waid's Birthright, you really should.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on June 25, 2013, 02:24:37 PM
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/wwz/wwz.png)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on June 26, 2013, 02:03:48 AM
To be fair, the book was terrible.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ocksi on June 26, 2013, 07:40:13 AM
the book had some very interesting stuff and some pretty horrifying stuff, so I wouldn't call it terrible. I would say it was a book that could never be functionally translated into a cohesive movie, though. It could have made an interesting miniseries or even three season television series, though.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on June 27, 2013, 09:10:07 AM
http://comicsalliance.com/warner-bros-legendary-split-up/ (http://comicsalliance.com/warner-bros-legendary-split-up/)

Well, I think we can kiss Man of Steel 2 goodbye.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on July 12, 2013, 05:36:11 PM
Pacific Rim was every bit as good as I was expecting it to be. Movie of the year so far, for me at least. Action was fucking mind-blowing (I'm having difficulty finding anything to say about it except "holy shit" over and over again), the robots were the stars, and yet all the people doing their people things were good enough that I never felt disappointed that I wasn't watching more jaeger-vs-kaiju fights.

The script was economical and punchy and got out of the way of the action, but to call it just a vehicle for the fight scenes would do it a disservice. It's sincere and deftly executed, not falling into the nerd-action-movie trap of deconstructing its premise, or worse, apologizing for it. The characters are larger-than-life, but the only ones who venture into cornball territory are the comic relief. It's uncomplicated but not unintelligent; digging for subtext in this film would be missing the point, but a critic attempting it would find it conscientious and substantial:

[spoiler]Raleigh has to rediscover trust and heal from the death of his brother; neither he nor humanity can afford to hide away behind a wall instead of going out and taking a chance in a jaeger with a co-pilot. Relationships with other people change us, and the humans' conflict with the aliens led to them learning from each other and imitating in order to try to win. Kaiju and jaegers are both giant engineered forces of destruction with two legs and two brains. Leatherback is an echo of Cherno Alpha and Otachi is an echo of Crimson Typhoon. Gypsy Danger has to mimic a kaiju to pass through to the other side of the rift.[/spoiler]

The only way this movie could be improved is if there were more of it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: jsnlxndrlv on July 13, 2013, 03:22:08 AM
I don't get to watch many movies in the theater anymore, thanks to a certain crabby lady with a burning rage over theater pricing, but today I am watching Pacific Rim in one of the largest Imax theaters in the country, and I am so excited. I tried to convince Julie to come since she likes the Metal Gear games so much (http://themovieblog.com/2013/metal-gear-solids-hideo-kojima-really-wants-people-to-see-pacific-rim/), but she's stubborn, so instead I'm just seeing it with my friends and parents and a huge number of people that I don't know.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Frocto on July 13, 2013, 05:12:53 AM
Came here hoping people were discussing Pacific Rim more! Here's my two cents, anyway:

Pacific Rim was a total hotbed of childish wish fulfilment. The one-two combo of the dorky white guy hooking in to not just an Asian girl, but an Asian girl with a black father left me floored. For your average spineless geek moviegoer, this had to be a dream come true, right? You grow up watchin' anime, getting rejected by white girls, you want that saucy asian gf, but then, wait, what's this, you can also have this fuckin macho as fuck BLACK DAD action goin on, imparting all sorts of badass manly black dad advice on you, in case said spineless geek moviegoer ever blamed his parents for him turning out to be a total damn sissy. I mean, shit, they bond so fast that manly black dad is willing to die just so he can live at the end of the film.

One thing that made my day, though: no inexplicable kiss at the end, I am honestly addicted to movies where this is a male and female character and they DON'T just arbitrarily get to smoochin' with no explanation at the end. Man of Steel was super fuckin bad for that, Clark and Lois were just making out despite getting on about as well as Superman's dad and a tornado.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: jsnlxndrlv on July 13, 2013, 07:28:24 AM
Yeah, holy shit, this movie is fucking awesome. Just goddamn. Pacific Rim is the action movie equivalent of Jim Henson: it does what it does with such earnesty and dignity that I'm actually proud to be alive in the world where this exists.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on July 13, 2013, 08:29:23 AM
One thing that made my day, though: no inexplicable kiss at the end, I am honestly addicted to movies where this is a male and female character and they DON'T just arbitrarily get to smoochin' with no explanation at the end. Man of Steel was super fuckin bad for that, Clark and Lois were just making out despite getting on about as well as Superman's dad and a tornado.

I was happy for that, too. Also: no majestic shot of an american flag.

Honestly, this strikes me as the most earnest and colourful movie I've seen since Speed Racer. Like Bongo said, there's nary a sly wink or annoying genre-savviness to be found. Guillermo Del Toro's love for giant monster movies shines through like that reactor thingy on Gipsy Danger's chest.

It makes me want to bust out my Monsterpocalypse minis.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on July 14, 2013, 04:58:20 PM
I absolutely adored Pacific Rim. Loved loved loved this movie.

Charlie Day, Ron Pearlman, and especially Idris Elba were so delightfully, ridiculously wonderful. There was this 13-year-old kid behind me that kept just saying "That was awesome" every other scene. When they fell from orbit, a guy in the front row just pushed his hands into the air and yelled "FUCK YES"

I think my sole complaint was that Gipsy Danger did not beat the lizard-bear kaiju to death with its own severed arm.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on July 14, 2013, 10:36:41 PM
I actually said "no way, that's cheating!" when [spoiler]the lizard kaiju grew wings.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Classic on July 15, 2013, 05:26:36 AM
I know I shouldn't be upset by this, but I'm pretty upset that a Dreamworks sequel and an adam sandler flick beat Pacific Rim at the domestic box.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on July 15, 2013, 06:03:53 AM
Considering that Pacific Rim didn't really get a lot of advertising, I'd say it's doing remarkably well.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on July 15, 2013, 07:33:25 AM
I have two complaints about Pacific Rim:

1) There wasn't enough of it. There needed to be more.

2) For a brief moment I thought [spoiler]Gipsy Danger was going to perform a Belly-to-back suplex backbreaker on a Kaiju. Instead she just threw it[/spoiler]. Very disappointing, that.

On the other hand, [spoiler]MOTHERFUCKING BOATSWORD AND HOLY SHIT GIPSY DANGER SLICED THAT MOTHERFUCKING FISH KAIJU IN TWO[/spoiler].
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on July 15, 2013, 07:33:27 AM
I just hope it helps Del Toro get the money to make At The Mountains Of Madness.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on July 16, 2013, 05:59:15 PM
So, I still haven't seen Pacific Rim or anything yet, but even so, the "Make a jaeger" website (http://apps.warnerbros.com/pacificrim/designer/us/?language=en-us) is making me lose it:

http://4thstringjaegers.tumblr.com/ (http://4thstringjaegers.tumblr.com/)

(http://i.imgur.com/PKNcEXi.gif)

(http://4thstringjaegers.tumblr.com/image/55182935556)

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18tyjysioekwkjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg)

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18tyjx7azs9u4png/ku-xlarge.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/Z2YU7Jl.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/XCVK184.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/ftBNmo9.jpg)

Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: DestyNova on July 18, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Needed more Cherno Alpha damnit! So russian that it uses vodka as cooling fluid and shoots flaming radioactive borcht. Instead of being destroyed, a smaller Cherno pops out and kicks more ass.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on July 18, 2013, 02:34:27 PM
I couldn't resist.

(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/FramFramson/JaegerPoster_zpsd42ebfa6.png~original)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Smiler on July 18, 2013, 02:57:59 PM
Saw Pacific Rim, it was pretty good.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on July 19, 2013, 04:19:32 AM
It was basically good enough that I didn't feel ripped off paying $18 for 3D IMAX.

"Does a robot flashing ROCKET ELBOW ENGAGED before using said rocket elbow to punch a monster really hard make you happy?" is my litmus test for whether or not someone will enjoy Pacific Rim.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Smiler on July 19, 2013, 04:22:38 AM
I was pretty much sold on the movie after the word "drift" was used for the 10th time in the prologue.

Overdrift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2IWxqvsSY8#)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Sharkey on July 19, 2013, 11:56:24 AM
So, is this:

A) Robot Jox, only good-good rather than bad-good.

B) Evangelion with a hell of a lot less crying while masturbating over unconscious fourteen-year-olds.

C) Both.

Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on July 19, 2013, 11:58:49 AM
Very much A.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Sharkey on July 19, 2013, 12:00:30 PM
So they weep while spending themselves over unconscious teenagers? I'm still only a third of the way though, so that's something to look forward to.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on July 19, 2013, 12:01:54 PM
Sorry to disappoint you, but it's all quite chaste.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Sharkey on July 19, 2013, 12:03:16 PM
Single tear.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on July 19, 2013, 12:35:41 PM
That was actually a conversation two of my friends had.

"Well in a lot of ways it's like a live-action Evangelion!"
"So it has twenty minutes of a crying teenager jerking off over an unconscious girl?"
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on July 19, 2013, 03:19:06 PM
Yes, except replace "crying teenager" with "grown man with a heart hardened by tragedy", "unconscious girl" with "badass fighting woman with something to prove" and "jerking off" with "quarterstaff sparring session with sexual undertones".
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on July 19, 2013, 06:30:46 PM
But is it a buck-and-a-quarter quarterstaff? :suave:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Stush on July 21, 2013, 12:01:14 PM
Whenever I see ads for "The Wolverine", all I can think of is deadly premonition.

(http://i41.tinypic.com/16abm2x.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: MarsDragon on July 27, 2013, 09:56:41 AM
Coming home after two weeks in a country where it won't be released until August, I finally saw Pacific Rim! It was great. Robots! Monsters! Stupid names! Punching! Best movie.

...but anyone that compares it to Evangelion obviously knows nothing about mecha. It's more like chaste Godanner.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on July 27, 2013, 04:42:50 PM
If you don't think Stacker Pentecost or Hercules Hansen are great names I don't want to be your friend anymore ;(
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on July 27, 2013, 05:16:14 PM
We live in a universe where a movie that good has a character named Hercules Hansen played by an actor named Max Martini.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: MarsDragon on July 27, 2013, 05:25:32 PM
If you don't think Stacker Pentecost or Hercules Hansen are great names I don't want to be your friend anymore ;(

They're great stupid names. You understand.

It's like South Burning.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on July 27, 2013, 07:18:53 PM
Also got around to seeing it.  Reminded me really of the robot fight scenes in Power Rangers with a much bigger budget and without all the bullshit involving the Power Rangers.

Whatever limited edition thing is coming out on Blu-Ray, I will day one preorder it.

(http://brentai.brontoforum.us/images/JaegerPoster_sm.jpg)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on July 28, 2013, 04:24:05 AM
PFFLOL:

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/44af9dc250dd12edcd7ffbcb96b4e53f/tumblr_mq45n9ZoE71szhls2o1_1280.png)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on July 28, 2013, 06:23:36 AM
This came out so well I had to set it as my wallpaper. (http://brentai.brontoforum.us/images/JaegerPoster_BigEarl.png)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on August 09, 2013, 12:53:44 PM
Finally saw Pacific Rim.

Not too much to add. Good fun and Idris Elba is good in anything.

Would have maybe liked one more Big Battal (or two small ones), perhaps a more "ordinary" one, where the Russians or the Chinese got to show off a bit. Maybe some fifth Jaeger to get killed.

I figure if my main complaint was "Well, I wanted even more smashy!" they're doing pretty good.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on August 14, 2013, 04:07:43 AM
http://www.deadline.com/2013/07/steve-burke-says-despicable-me-2-is-universals-most-profitable-film-ever-and-lauds-pact-with-legendary/ (http://www.deadline.com/2013/07/steve-burke-says-despicable-me-2-is-universals-most-profitable-film-ever-and-lauds-pact-with-legendary/)

:OoO:
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on August 14, 2013, 10:01:35 AM
I think he's looking at it from a perspective of merchandising, where he might actually be right about that.  Outside of E.T. the studio hasn't had many heavy hitters in the toy market the way that Disney regularly does.

Of course, it's hard to make a statement like that without drawing up a massive flowchart-slash-Venn-diagram outlining who owns what in Hollywood.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Joxam on August 14, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
I think he means actual profit. I don't know who they fucked over (probably the animators) but they made a computer animated movie for about 75 million dollars. It's hard to make a live action movie for that much. Now tack on all the stuff you're talking about and you can easily see why what he said might be true.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mongrel on August 14, 2013, 11:54:02 AM
The comments also make the relevant point that there are at least a few past Universal films that have had crazy profit margins (ET, Jurassic Park etc.).

Which was followed by some funny replies from people not understanding what "inflation-adjusted" means. 
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on August 14, 2013, 12:19:52 PM
I think he means actual profit. I don't know who they fucked over (probably the animators) but they made a computer animated movie for about 75 million dollars. It's hard to make a live action movie for that much. Now tack on all the stuff you're talking about and you can easily see why what he said might be true.

Heck, they probably kept all the models, textures and basic animation cycles on a zip disk somewhere.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Bongo Bill on August 14, 2013, 12:48:18 PM
Limited animation techniques in CG are improving.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on August 14, 2013, 12:55:57 PM
Great, it's the He-Man of CG features.

Honestly though, CG movies are bound to get cheaper as time goes on, shortcuts or no.  20 years ago there was no such thing as a computer animation "lifer", or a game console that you can just daisy chain a bunch of to get a military grade supercomputer.  A senior animator at this point probably cranks out in an afternoon what it used to take a whole team of former architects three months to achieve.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on August 14, 2013, 03:49:58 PM
Hell, I remember playing Doom 3 and realizing that it was doing Blade 3's burning-away-from-the-center effect in realtime.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on August 27, 2013, 05:56:34 AM
The World's End is probably either one of the funniest or one of the saddest movies I've seen all year.  Probably both.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on August 27, 2013, 07:02:54 AM
The World's End is probably either one of the funniest or one of the saddest movies I've seen all year.  Probably both.

... that one sentence really makes me want to see that movie, now.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on August 27, 2013, 02:49:08 PM
That would certainly fit in with the other two Blood and Ice Cream movies.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on September 04, 2013, 07:22:09 AM
World's End was absolutely wonderful.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on September 07, 2013, 11:28:35 AM
So my friend is a huge Vin Diesel/Riddick fangirl so she dragged me along to see the new one. I don't have anything against Riddick or Vin really, I just don't really care.

Anyway, Riddick was pretty much almost exactly the same storyline as Pitch Black, so at least the writer knows that Pitch Black was a better film than

THRESHOLD! TAKE US TO THE THRESHOLD!

It also has a CGI dog in it. He's the best character. Not joking.

Oh, and you get to see Starbuck's tits briefly.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on September 07, 2013, 01:20:21 PM
Oh, and you get to see Starbuck's tits briefly.

lee adama's in this?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Smiler on September 07, 2013, 02:10:48 PM
It also has a CGI dog in it.

Romo's in this?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on September 07, 2013, 05:48:55 PM
Oh, and you get to see Starbuck's tits briefly.

lee adama's in this?

Godddddddddddddddddddddd
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on September 07, 2013, 07:25:55 PM
To be clear, there is a scene in which Riddick strips naked, removing all his Necromonger armor, and says "time to get back to basics."

It's not exactly a subtle movie.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Beat Bandit on September 08, 2013, 01:38:58 AM
Okay, at first I was super disappointed because this is clearly just Pitch Black II: Most of our Fanbase Hasn't Seen This Yet.

Then I got super pumped because the trailers made it look like they literally just recast and shot the exact same movie again, with minor details changed. Except this time Riddick is 100% meta, completely aware that this all already happened once, which would be an amazing movie.

So, which did it end up feeling more like?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Friday on September 08, 2013, 09:50:58 PM
Both.

I'm not being flippant, it's really 50/50.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Ted Belmont on September 19, 2013, 02:26:24 PM
The World's End is probably either one of the funniest or one of the saddest movies I've seen all year.  Probably both.

I knew absolutely nothing going into this movie, aside from that it was another Edgar Wright/Simon Pegg/Nick Frost movie, and I'm glad I did. When the [spoiler]kid's head popped off in the bathroom[/spoiler], I sat up in my seat and shouted, "what the fuck?!" much to the amusement of everyone seated around me, I'm sure.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on September 19, 2013, 04:19:13 PM
Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are so funny that it's easy to forget just how straight-up goddamn heartbreaking they are.

(Haven't seen World's End yet.)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Büge on September 20, 2013, 12:05:31 AM
Heartbreaking?
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on September 20, 2013, 07:32:54 PM
I've only seen Shaun of the Dead, but towards the middle-end, there are some pretty rough scenes for a comedy/parody.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Thad on September 21, 2013, 06:37:12 AM
Sure, I'm thinking Shaun in particular.  (Spoilers follow; not going to bother tagging them.)

Shaun's bittersweet, too-late bonding with his stepfather and the death of his mother are legitimately sad, heartfelt moments.  And then when Nick Frost gets bitten it's one last big gut-punch.

Hot Fuzz doesn't have the same level of tragedy, but Nick Frost's relationship with his father, and their grief over the passing of his mother, are really the driving force behind the entire plot.

(Hm -- here's a thought: Under the Dome is what you get when you stick the characters from Hot Fuzz into the setting of The Simpsons Movie and make it a drama instead of a comedy.  Discuss.)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on September 21, 2013, 10:07:32 AM
Well, if you thought Shaun was at all genuinely sad, fuckin' strap-in for World's End. They come at you sideways.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on October 07, 2013, 01:50:35 PM
Gravity was completely fucking amazing.

I saw it in 3D. I think it was a good movie for it.

Go see it.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Brentai on October 15, 2013, 03:54:09 PM
Whatever limited edition thing is coming out on Blu-Ray, I will day one preorder it.

Came in the mail today.  The "Limited Edition" is a cruel joke - just comes in a fruitier looking box, really - but eh, I showed my support.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on October 15, 2013, 08:57:10 PM
Gravity is one of those movies I feel is impossible to spoil because it's not a movie about what happens so much as it is about experiencing what happens. The antagonist, after all, is Space -- not a particularly complex character, it being a massive and looming entity mostly comprised of silent and uncaring absolute chaos. Its motivation is simple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_laws_of_motion), (don't worry that link is Spoiler-Free), so knowing why it does what it does really doesn't add to the experience.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Malikial on October 15, 2013, 09:26:16 PM
I thought gravity was horrible, i can't really explain why. Just, I disliked the whole package.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on October 15, 2013, 11:00:54 PM
My litmus test is generally "Did you like Open Water?  Well, this has more charismatic leads and a bigger budget."

But no space sharks, sadly.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Disposable Ninja on October 16, 2013, 01:22:04 AM
I thought gravity was horrible, i can't really explain why. Just, I disliked the whole package.

I can understand that. It's a very... focused film. Personally, I enjoyed it on an artistic, analytical level, but not much beyond that. I didn't really care about Sandra Bullock's character, and considering that the movie is about her not dying in space and nothing else, that makes it pretty hard to care about the movie.

Also, that fetal scene was a little too pretentious. Bullock's got a nice body, though. Can't believe she's 49.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on October 16, 2013, 08:58:51 AM
Which leads to things like this headline: http://www.pajiba.com/videos/sandra-bullock-raps-just-like-your-mom-would-if-your-mom-could-crack-walnuts-with-her-thighs.php (http://www.pajiba.com/videos/sandra-bullock-raps-just-like-your-mom-would-if-your-mom-could-crack-walnuts-with-her-thighs.php)
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on October 16, 2013, 09:27:12 AM
Sandra Bullock's zesty thighs are one of infinity reasons to see Gravity.
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Mothra on October 18, 2013, 04:35:46 PM
Welp, I picked up the Pacific Rim blu-ray.

As others have said, they did theeee leeeast amount of work humanly possible on the presentation. But the movie is glorious and the special features are actually really great.

I haven't checked out the commentary yet, but it's probably fucking amazing.

Buy it support it buy it buy it
Title: Re: Movies in the Theater
Post by: Niku on November 27, 2013, 10:12:24 AM
Frozen: If it weren't for Wreck-It Ralph, I might say it was the best Disney movie in over a decade.  I think it coasts a little goodwill wise on the fact that it's been so long since there's been a full-on Disney fairy tale musical, but it doesn't squander it either.

Oldboy: Fuck you Spike Lee.  Also fuck your ad agency (http://juanluisgarcia.com/dear-spike-lee/).  But fuck you.