Movies you've just watched

[Mischief Maker]

Tarkovsky injected his russian mysticism into what was an archly rational novel. Based on what options wrote, I can't imagine him liking Tarkovsky's Solaris, but the novel is required reading for anyone with a passing interest in sci-fi.

The novel is "gothic" compared to The Invincible, but I don't consider either a particulary good Lem book. Better than The Chain of Chance, but it's not saying much. For such a skillful writer, Lem had some soft spot for pretty shit literature (Nabokov, Dick) and sometimes it seems to me as if he tried hard to write a shit novel by himself (never quite succeeding).

I don't understand what about Tarkovsky's "mysticism" was particulary "Russian". If there's any distinctive "Russian mysticism" I heard of, it's eschatological (anticipating the coming of Antichrist).

I think the concept was great. Two alien intelligences meet, both recognize each other as intelligent, but both completely fail at communication. What's more, their attempts at communication threaten to drive at least one of them insane.

And Solaris gave a better idea of the "how" behind contact with an alien intelligence driving you insane than H.P. Lovecraft's "It's just so weird and wrong, dude!"

[CMoon]

Still yet to see Solaris myself. Stalker put such a bad taste in my mouth (sorry, Cmoon) that I've yet to watch anything else at this point.

To be honest, if you disliked Stalker that intensely, you really might not want to bother with his other films. They are long, ponderous, deeply visual and often quiet with little happening. When things do happen, they are more dialog than anything else. This is hardcore euro minimalism/experimentalism...if anything, I feel parallel between what Tarkovsky was doing and Bergman (thinking of his early 60's work). They are still very different, but much more like each other than comparisons to Kubrick's 2001. I think for Tarkovsky, plot is mostly ephemeral. Mind you, it is there, but rather it is just little scraps of debris afloat on a dense cinematic wash.

[drauch]

Yeah, there's a few things of his at this point I have very little desire to see. I plan on giving Ivan's Childhood, Nostalghia, and at least Solaris a shot due to interest in the cinematography that I've seen of those, but like I said, not really in a hurry to give them a shot.

[DEL]

Just watched Generation Iron



Mr Olympia 2012 - The preparation and competition. From the producer of Pumping Iron.
Say what you like about the sport, its the hardest most disciplined sport in the World.

[Ixmucane2]

Transcendence

Plot: the wife and the closest friend of a dying AI scientist upload his mind into a computer. Complications ensue, building up to a remarkably stupid ending which I won't spoil because I don't want to be vulgar.
Mostly, a strange combination of three main elements:

• Stereotypical Hollywood-style plot structure at its worst, with patterns like the Protagonist who Loses his Sanity but Redeems Himself at the End, the Heroic Sacrifice to Save the World and the Coalition of Former Enemies Forced Together by a Higher Purpose. Bad guys, fighting and peril are apparently necessary. Also, the worst instances of the "magical" variety of computer hacking and possession I've ever seen, making the virus upload in Independence Day appear realistic in comparison. The plot holes, ça va sans dire, are large enough to run information superhighways through them.
• Slow-paced storytelling, proceeding from one symbolic or cool image or moment to another, most of which very good. Great photography. Completely worthless as an action movie.
• Well thought out science fiction, particularly how the "transcendence" is connected both to actual science and to important and traditional themes.

The result is rather frustrating: railroading the plot along the familiar confrontational path requires focusing on a handful of protagonist, setting up contrived motivations and things to do for them and at the same time neglecting the point of view of the public (what would sharing the world with an AI be like?) and the social and practical aspects.
What's even worse, a story about a powerful and benevolent artificial god should have logically ended with everyone (possibly even the neo-Luddite terrorists) very happy; steering towards tragedy requires an enormous amount of unbelievable gimmicks and blunders, destroying any hope of the science fiction side going anywhere in a coherent way.
On the other hand, some of the Hollywood poison feeds the better aspects of the film and has nice side effects. For example, the undeniable coolness of a blood-carried computer virus and the use of cheesy nanotechnological machines as invisible threats and as protagonists of many emblematic shots.

[Daigohji]

I watched two movies on Netflix yesterday. They couldn't have been more different, and yet they both left me with a hollow feeling for the same reason: the endings didn't work for me.

The Hunter, starring Willem Dafoe, is a sombre film with beautiful landscape photography. I'd give it a solid 4/5 up until the final 20 minutes, at which point it does something needlessly depressing that also falls flat, dropping the overall movie to a 3/5.

*spoiler*
Dafoe's mercenary character befriends a widow and her two children, one a chatty and likeable girl, the other a tedious mute muppet. In the end the widow and the girl die in a fire that Dafoe's adversary sets for no apparent reason, and Dafoe then adopts the muppet. Killing off relatively well developed and sympathetic characters while leaving behind a sock puppet isn't a satisfying emotional conclusion.
*spoiler*

Ghost World, featuring a teenage Scarlett Johansson among others, was a lot of fun. Unfortunately, the ending was even more of a mess than in The Hunter.

*spoiler*
In the final ten minutes it becomes apparent that the writer isn't sure how to wrap things up, and so the movie just unravels, leaving characters in unsatisfying situations, and sputters to a stop.
*spoiler*

[Vexorg]

Captain America - The Winter Soldier: ****

I'm not really all that invested in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (I think I've seen Iron Man 2, Thor, the last third of Iron Man 3, and about 2/3 of The Avengers) but I found this film to be reasonably entertaining. The plot was a little contrived (then again we're talking comic book stuff here anyway, set your expectations accordingly) and some of the plot "twists" you could see coming from a mile away, but there was no shortage of action, and things kept moving forward pretty well. All in all, a pretty decent popcorn flick.

[iconoclast]

Snowpiercer - 6/10

Entertaining, but some bad acting (mainly from Chris Evans), bad writing, and plot holes prevent it from being as good as any of Joon-ho Bong's other films. Still a decent movie, though.

[lilmanjs]

Commitment
Bought this really cheap as a used rental from a store, and ended up liking this. The plot, and I"m sure they edited some stuff out of the Korean release(thanks for showing scenes that aren't in my copy on the making of, idiots) but still the action was top notch and done quite well. The father who is a north korean spy gets himself killed and then the teenage son comes along to try and finish off his mission and everything goes to hell from there. Decent movie.

[BIL]

Master of the Flying Guillotine more like Taiwanese Terminator From 1976. Our hero The One-Armed Boxer is kept firmly on the evasive as his blind yet unstoppable nemesis closes in, butchering all who interfere. He even predates Ahnuld's blanket assassination policy, but instead of relying on a Braille phone book he of course simply murders any man missing an arm.

"I do not care who he was. I intend to kill every one-armed man I come across here!"

Starts out only mildly interesting with a generic tournament setup but improves significantly in the second half, when MOTFG and his menacing BGM begin the hunt in earnest. Fight scenes aren't particularly outstanding but the antagonist is memorably threatening, lopping off heads at range and beating down asses at proximity. Despite having to ask helpful people to point him in the direction of his target. More like Blind, Elderly Taiwanese Terminator I suppose.



Splendid review

[Ixmucane2]

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Overly focused on the love story between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy at the expense of more typical superhero themes (for example, the Daily Bugle and Peter's job or lack thereof get little attention).
Good tragic villains, although a lot of the tragedy originates in their being stubborn and dense, but unusually implausible technology and superpowers.
Several loose ends (for example, Aunt May appears so close to discovering Peter's hobby that some exposition of how he keeps the secret is expected, but it doesn't come.)
Outstanding slow-motion acrobatics on Spiderman's part, but Sam Raimi's version had even more feeling and panache.
Special effects largely unrealistic, but no more than what they depict.
The usual Stan Lee cameo is impossible to miss (a few seconds alone, with a spoken line).

[PC Engine Fan X!]

I watched two movies on Netflix yesterday. They couldn't have been more different, and yet they both left me with a hollow feeling for the same reason: the endings didn't work for me.

The Hunter, starring Willem Dafoe, is a sombre film with beautiful landscape photography. I'd give it a solid 4/5 up until the final 20 minutes, at which point it does something needlessly depressing that also falls flat, dropping the overall movie to a 3/5.

*spoiler*
Dafoe's mercenary character befriends a widow and her two children, one a chatty and likeable girl, the other a tedious mute muppet. In the end the widow and the girl die in a fire that Dafoe's adversary sets for no apparent reason, and Dafoe then adopts the muppet. Killing off relatively well developed and sympathetic characters while leaving behind a sock puppet isn't a satisfying emotional conclusion.
*spoiler*

Ghost World, featuring a teenage Scarlett Johansson among others, was a lot of fun. Unfortunately, the ending was even more of a mess than in The Hunter.

*spoiler*
In the final ten minutes it becomes apparent that the writer isn't sure how to wrap things up, and so the movie just unravels, leaving characters in unsatisfying situations, and sputters to a stop.
*spoiler*

Considering that the live-action film of Ghost World is based on the graphic novel of the same name, it certainly is different.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[Never_Scurred]

Okay, I gotta ask...Raiders of the Lost Ark or Temple of Doom?
A week ago, I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark and Temple of Doom for the first time (LTTP: IKR?).
Raiders was cool, I had no faults with it, though I was pleasantly surprised at how violent it was for such an otherwise lighthearted PG film. I liked the fights and stunts and the characters were great. Then....I watched Temple of Doom-HOT DAMN that movie was good! Its as if they took everything right with RotLA and turnt it up to 11. Man, that movie was fuckin' awesome, especially Short Round-I fuckin' loved his character and is one of the best movie sidekick's of all time. THAT is how you put kid appeal in your franchise and make it work. Short Round was kicking all kinds of ass. I was also impressed by the opening action sequence and the last 20 minutes of the movie-GODDAMN! I'm glad I watched 'em in order otherwise I would have thought Raiders sucked if I had seen it first.
Of course, my coworkers and people online thought ToD was weak which I don't understand. Temple of Doom did everything a sequel is supposed to do, but why people hatin' on it though? I even read some saying that Last Crusade is better than Temple, but I haven't seen it yet so I don't know. But what I do know is Temple of Doom entertained the hell out of me, moreso than Raiders.
Raiders of the Lost Ark: 3.9/4
Temple of Doom: Strong 4/4

[boagman]

My order, best to worst: ROTLA, IJLC, *BIG FREAKING GAP*, IJTOD, *20 BILLION LIGHT YEAR GAP*, IJCS.

[Moniker]

My order, best to worst: ROTLA, IJLC, *BIG FREAKING GAP*, IJTOD, *20 BILLION LIGHT YEAR GAP*, IJCS.

This. Although Raiders was quite a bit better than Last Crusade. We musn't forget whence the term 'face-melting' was derived.

[Never_Scurred]

I'm gonna rent Last Crusade, but what was so bad about Temple of Doom, though?

[Obiwanshinobi]

Temple of Doom was the first Indiana Jones flick I watched (theatrically at that) and I can only suspect people who didn't like it must've expected a tad too much.
Who REALLY didn't like The Party Tom Sellers movie?
I know right, here is one of the earliest examples of slo-mo to ever make it to the big screen. Predating Andrei Rublev and The Wild Bunch.

[Moniker]

I'm gonna rent Last Crusade, but what was so bad about Temple of Doom, though?

Kate Capshaw, for one (and that's plenty). Then the allegedly intentional horrible editing throughout ( mostly in acts 4 & 5). And there were at least three 'Indiana gets bombarded with grateful children (obviously extras) sequences at the end. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of greatness in ToD - the iconography, the indelible pagan tropes, Short Round - but there're many drawbacks as well.

[Never_Scurred]

I'm gonna rent Last Crusade, but what was so bad about Temple of Doom, though?

Kate Capshaw, for one (and that's plenty). Then the allegedly intentional horrible editing throughout ( mostly in acts 4 & 5). And there were at least three 'Indiana gets bombarded with grateful children (obviously extras) sequences at the end. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of greatness in ToD - the iconography, the indelible pagan tropes, Short Round - but there're many drawbacks as well.

Okay, I can see how Willie was annoying and pointless but she didn't really get on my nerves too much., but the grateful kids and villagers at the end touched me a bit and was a nice way to end the film. The editing towards the end I didn't notice, though it did kinda look like Short Round fights were done by a slightly taller stunt double

[CMoon]

Here's my take for what it's worth:

All you praising Last Crusade can are welcome to take your nostalgia glasses off (though this is hard, it is Indiana Jones after all.) And yeah, Crystal Skull isn't worth discussing, so forget it.

I don't know if this is the age talking, but to me Last Crusade (and let's throw Terminator 2 in as well) show the studio system changing between the early 80's and the late 80's (basically losing all its teeth and balls). Temple of Doom is a goddamn heartbreak to me because I think the first half is one of the best action movies ever and the second half turns into the 'save the children' crusade which just doesn't quite work for me. Mind you, it is still good, but there is a moment in the film...the second Indiana Jones steps foot on the actual Temple of Doom platform (after the heart rip scene) that the film goes on auto-pilot and there will be no more bug eating or torturing of the female character (which up until then seems to be one of the primary focus of the film.) Rewrite the second half, and Temple of Doom is one of the best films of the 80's, so it is a horrible fumble. Really too bad.

Regarding Last Crusade...all I can say here is 'kinder and gentler'. Part of what makes early 80's what it was, was how these films were really damn mean and the directors were pushing the envelope (wish we could have seen that head exploding scene in Raiders un-edited.) Who would have thought it was the same Spielberg/Lucas we have today. Story wise, Last Crusade might be better (I like how Indy and his dad are sleeping with the same chick), but don't expect to see people run over by trucks, faces melting, or beating hearts getting ripped out of chests. *sighs*

[Obiwanshinobi]

My, aren't you getting serious about your popcorn movies. What would you lot make of The Car? I read North American critics were quite critical about it. What on Earth did they expect?

[Mischief Maker]

don't expect to see people run over by trucks,

You do see people run over by a tank!

faces melting,

He chose... poorly?

or beating hearts getting ripped out of chests. *sighs*

At least you get severed heads bouncing down the hallway!

While definitely not as violent as Temple of Doom, I'd say Last Crusade is on par with Raiders of the Lost Ark for violence. The difference is Last Crusade deals with New Testament Christianity and Raiders with Judaism/Old Testament. New Testament God is a kind and loving hippie dad. Old Testament God is downright Lovecraftian. A vengeful spirit who strikes a bargain with Abraham and haunts his descendants, granting them power provided they toe to a very strict line. Every misstep leads to a swift death. So Raiders definitely has a more menacing tone than Last Crusade.

[CMoon]

While definitely not as violent as Temple of Doom, I'd say Last Crusade is on par with Raiders of the Lost Ark for violence. The difference is Last Crusade deals with New Testament Christianity and Raiders with Judaism/Old Testament. New Testament God is a kind and loving hippie dad. Old Testament God is downright Lovecraftian. A vengeful spirit who strikes a bargain with Abraham and haunts his descendants, granting them power provided they toe to a very strict line. Every misstep leads to a swift death. So Raiders definitely has a more menacing tone than Last Crusade.

I think there's a little more to it than that (IMO the first two movies are far more visceral); but your take is pretty interesting. Still, I'm more likely to think it was the result of changes in the studio and the softening of the directors (IE see Hook) than the religious source material. I'm not going to argue that there weren't similar body counts and that people didn't die in equally horrible ways, but IMO Last Crusade feels so much safer and more sanitary. This doesn't seem like anything I can argue with my friends though, as those my age agree with me and those a few years younger disagree. I think we've all got full nostalgia goggles on, and they're not the sort of things you can take off when discussing movies from your childhood.

[Skykid]

While definitely not as violent as Temple of Doom, I'd say Last Crusade is on par with Raiders of the Lost Ark for violence. The difference is Last Crusade deals with New Testament Christianity and Raiders with Judaism/Old Testament. New Testament God is a kind and loving hippie dad. Old Testament God is downright Lovecraftian. A vengeful spirit who strikes a bargain with Abraham and haunts his descendants, granting them power provided they toe to a very strict line. Every misstep leads to a swift death. So Raiders definitely has a more menacing tone than Last Crusade.

I think there's a little more to it than that (IMO the first two movies are far more visceral); but your take is pretty interesting. Still, I'm more likely to think it was the result of changes in the studio and the softening of the directors (IE see Hook) than the religious source material. I'm not going to argue that there weren't similar body counts and that people didn't die in equally horrible ways, but IMO Last Crusade feels so much safer and more sanitary. This doesn't seem like anything I can argue with my friends though, as those my age agree with me and those a few years younger disagree. I think we've all got full nostalgia goggles on, and they're not the sort of things you can take off when discussing movies from your childhood.

No your friends are just wrong.

Last Crusade is tame and all the weaker for it.

[Skykid]

I did the Indy marathon last year and raised similar questions btw (can't remember if it was in this thread.)

I used to think Doom was king, but after revisiting Raiders after two decades I admitted to being wrong.

Doom is awesome at what it does, but Raiders is the better movie. Distilled Indiana Jones and full of style and adventure.

Crusade is still the weakest of the trilogy. Lacks bite, the father and son jokes wear thin, feels like a Raiders retread, and compared to Doom's minecart and rope bridge, the ending is a damp squib, face melting aside.

[Mischief Maker]

All I can say is, you guys turning your noses up at Last Crusade better NEVER start talking about how the Star Trek reboots aren't that bad!

[GaijinPunch]

Have you ever read the Philip K. Dick story it was based on, 'Do androids dream of electric sheep'. It is arguably better than the film, but the film does such a great job of conveying the feel of that world in all it's little details. Also, you must watch the directors cut, so much better than the theatrical version.

I'm late here, I know, but I think this is one of the few cases where "the film is arguably better than the book". I've always thought so but I read it... a long ass time ago.

I did the Indy marathon last year and raised similar questions

Roppongi Hills theater, which is in the gaijin ghetto, seems to have this cool thing going where they play old ass movies and don't promote them at all other than putting them on their site. By dumb like I found them playing Raiders a few months ago, and checked it out. Was super awesome, of course. I remember being scared as fuck seeing it in the theater as a kid.

They play them weekend mornings only. I checked a while back and it was Psycho. Currently it's The Sound of Music.

[Never_Scurred]

I just could not get into Blade Runner. Every time I tried to watch it, I end up falling asleep. The production design and all that is nice, but mad ZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.......

[drauch]

I personally love all three of the original Indy films. Crystal Skull is my least favorite film of all time, or at least tied with Godzilla: Final Wars. Last Crusade does have the body flying out of the tank that is falling off the cliff that explodes and lands in the fire, though, so that gets some points for actually showing it. Not enough films show bodies falling off things and hitting things on the way down. It's a weird infatuation of mine. Call it my favorite film fetish.

[Moniker]

Have you ever read the Philip K. Dick story it was based on, 'Do androids dream of electric sheep'. It is arguably better than the film, but the film does such a great job of conveying the feel of that world in all it's little details. Also, you must watch the directors cut, so much better than the theatrical version.

I'm late here, I know, but I think this is one of the few cases where "the film is arguably better than the book". I've always thought so but I read it... a long ass time ago.

I'd say they're different enough to make an apples & oranges argument. As is usual in book-to-film conversions, the characters are more fleshed out in the novel. Character development being perhaps PKD's best quality. E.g., Deckard is less self-assured/sorta conflicted film noir hero than the holy-shit-what-am-I-doing-with-my-life kinda bloke he is in the book. But as a total package, the atmosphere/universe of Blade Runner is more compelling. tl;dr - you can make a case in either direction.