Movies you've just watched

[lilmanjs]

Star Trek Into Darkness

Hehe, this is gonna be a controversial one. For my part, I really liked it (I also liked the first; if you didn't, you won't like this either). Won't say too much to avoid spoilers, but man, dat Sherlock boy got pipes. Visually fantastic; I noticed that ILM did the special fx. A lot of the combat sequences felt like they were precursors to Abrams's eventual Star Wars sequels, and if so, it's gonna be good. Probably incredible when seen in 3D (I can't coz of migraines ).

Oh, and there's nothing after the credits. Just go and pee. You're welcome.

I saw it in 3D last night and yea, I'm not a huge fan of the first one, but I enjoyed this one. Felt like what a modern Star Trek movie should feel like. As for seeing it in 3D, only a few parts really benefited from being in 3D like the first chase scene at the start of the movie. Lucky for me I really had to use the restroom, so I didn't stay after the credits. Just left. Will we ever see Admiral Archer's dog?

[Skykid]

Chiming in on the Cameron, I'm with cmoon on T2.

When I was a kid it made for a memorable summer - it was incredible. On repeat viewings with age and hindsight the buzz has steadily diminished. The composition of the action sequences are still awesome, but Ed Furlong's whining, Hamilton's OTT performance, and Arnie's role switching take the shine off of it.

I definitely get it being too soft, especially compared to the first with all its Linda Connor indiscriminate slayings, cop massacres and eyeball removals. Arnie is just better as the bad guy.

I think Cameron peaked at Aliens tbh.

[EmperorIng]

Don't get me too excited to watch The Abyss now, folks!

[Moniker]

Don't get me too excited to watch The Abyss now, folks!

It's sort of an oddity. Not terribly memorable, so it's hard to weigh in intelligently. It's more or less a Close Encounters Under the Sea. Same sort of Aliens-type of ragtag group with good intentions and a few bad apples, stuck in a confined space with some interesting tech. It's good and worth watching, but don't expect much more than an "ah, that was pretty good!" feeling followed by gradual memory loss.

[EmperorIng]

I don't ask more from movies than to make me say "That was pretty good!"

[trap15]

Watched Miami Connection tonight.

**** on CMoon scale.

There are no proper words to describe how amazing this movie is. It's simultaneously terrible and fantastic.

This should explain it well enough: "A martial arts rock band goes up against a band of motorcycle ninjas who have tightened their grip on Florida's narcotics trade."

Yes. Really.

[EmperorIng]

Robot Jox (full link)

Fun, corny sci-fi. Gotta love a big fat, fast-talking Texan dude with a ten-gallon hat, named Tex. That's a nice touch. The stop-motion mecha were pretty good as well, with the Russian mech having a cool spider-leg design.

It doesn't always make a whole lot of sense, and I wish there were more robot fights - basically the opening fight in the first 20 minutes, then the finale taking up the last half-hour (with 40 minutes of not-robots in-between) - but it was an enjoyable way to ride out being sick from lousy sushi.

[Ed Oscuro]

This should explain it well enough: "A martial arts rock band goes up against a band of motorcycle ninjas who have tightened their grip on Florida's narcotics trade."

Sounds like the Red Boat Opera and the origin of Wing Chun

[system11]

I don't ask more from movies than to make me say "That was pretty good!"

This is the kind of wisdom that all the intellectually engaging films in the world can't teach you - good call.

[Skykid]

Robot Jox (full link)

Lol, brilliant. My brother hunted down an original VHS after we caught the trailer for this and made it a midnight movie event. Was rubbish in a 90's b-movie way, but we definitely got a kick out of it.

For more in (almost exactly) the same vien, try Arena: a human competitor battling alien brawlers for the championship. It's totally shit (and probably worse than Robot Jox) but totally safe if you're looking to pickle your brain for a couple of hours.

The Abyss qualifies as entertainment enough for you to safely say you quite enjoyed watching it. It's pretty far from Cameron's best though, I tend to find people overrate it considerably. Mary Mastrantonio is off-kilter casting and the entire premise is totally stupid, amazingly outdone in dumb levels by its conclusion. You may never see a human being reach such sea level pressures without imploding ever again, and as a part-time mariner and deep sea diver I would have expected Cameron to play it a little more sensibly.

However it does have Michael Biehn in it, which makes it a must see. He has a special moustache on this time.

[Mischief Maker]

Star Trek Into Darkness

Hehe, this is gonna be a controversial one. For my part, I really liked it (I also liked the first; if you didn't, you won't like this either). Won't say too much to avoid spoilers, but man, dat Sherlock boy got pipes. Visually fantastic; I noticed that ILM did the special fx. A lot of the combat sequences felt like they were precursors to Abrams's eventual Star Wars sequels, and if so, it's gonna be good. Probably incredible when seen in 3D (I can't coz of migraines ).

Oh, and there's nothing after the credits. Just go and pee. You're welcome.

Call me a NEEEEERD, but I've never heard anyone praise these new films for their plots.

Not surprising, considering they're written by the same chuckleheads who wrote the Transformers franchise.

Oh, and did you know that Abrams was trying to quash the original Trek series, written by the likes of Harlan Ellison and Richard Matheson, in favor of his brilliant lensflare opus?

TheWrap has learned that Bad Robot asked CBS to stop making products featuring the original cast, but talks broke down over money. The network was making roughly $20 million a year on that merchandise and had no incentive to play nice with its former corporate brother, the individual said. In response, the company scaled back its ambitions to have "Star Trek's" storylines play out with television shows, spin-off films and online components, something Abrams had been eager to accomplish.

[drauch]

Robot Jox is good fun. Tex may be one of my favorite characters ever, mainly for his jumping "GERONIMO!" scene.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

Chiming in on the Cameron, I'm with cmoon on T2.

When I was a kid it made for a memorable summer - it was incredible. On repeat viewings with age and hindsight the buzz has steadily diminished. The composition of the action sequences are still awesome, but Ed Furlong's whining, Hamilton's OTT performance, and Arnie's role switching take the shine off of it.

I definitely get it being too soft, especially compared to the first with all its Linda Connor indiscriminate slayings, cop massacres and eyeball removals. Arnie is just better as the bad guy.

I think Cameron peaked at Aliens tbh.

What was cool about seeing T2 for the first time on opening July 4th weekend in 1991, Bally Midway/Williams had released both it's T2 pinball machine and the upright shooting T2 arcade game as well to tie in with the movie release simultaneously -- they were already in American arcades when the movie debuted that week indeed. How cool was that? I have yet to see another big-budgeted sci-fi film with a concurrent arcade game & pinball machine release as a major tie-in.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[shmuppyLove]

Watched Hunger Games again on teh netflix.

I had seen the movie first, and have now read books 1 & 2 and started 3 the other day. I'm glad that I've done it in this order, as there's a lot more content in the books, even though they're written in quite a limiting first-person narrative style.

The movie did a fairly good job in that respect, with lots of tight camera work. What I thought was sorely lacking in the movie though, was any real sense of desperation that Katniss felt in the arena. I won't spoil anything for anyone who hasn't read the books yet, but she fares far worse there than she did in the movie.

[Randorama]

Star Trek Into Darkness

Hehe, this is gonna be a controversial one. For my part, I really liked it (I also liked the first; if you didn't, you won't like this either). Won't say too much to avoid spoilers, but man, dat Sherlock boy got pipes. Visually fantastic; I noticed that ILM did the special fx. A lot of the combat sequences felt like they were precursors to Abrams's eventual Star Wars sequels, and if so, it's gonna be good. Probably incredible when seen in 3D (I can't coz of migraines ).

I can't see the controversy.

The movie: has a weak-ish plot that tries to recycle old ideas for fanservice purposes (and the results are at best mixed); new ideas that could have been pushed further and better (they even had Peter Weller, for the purpose!); and simply too much action (more than zero) for a Star Trek movie without Shatner. Action and visual eye-candy can appease the general movie-goer but the weak script is depressing to anyone lacking ADD. There seems not to be controversy in this, as far as I am concerned. Unless, of course, "controversy" is a magic buzz word that you want to use to weasel up your point, Moniker (bad, FOX TV news habit, if you ask me...and even if you do not, although you should).

I want to be positive and think that the current authors could do better with a Star Trek tv show. Some characters benefitted from the "facelift" (Kirk, Scottie, perhaps Sulu and Checkov), but 2 hours and something, half of them being dumb zap zap action for the mentally feeble, would ruin any decent idea, let alone half-baked ones.

Bah.

[Moniker]

The controversy to which I referred was whether viewers enjoy/approve of the revisitation of certain old canon Trek lore. I expect opinions to be split and hotly debated (read: controversial). Fanservice was undoubtedly a concern, but there may be less cynical motives at work as well. We may never know. In any case I enjoyed the results, and although there were things I didn't like about the movie, they're hardly worth listing.

Thanks for the gratuitous insinuations against my integrity, by the way. I'll give you a ring the next time I need some piss in my cheerios.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Into Darkness:

The blatant pandering and fanservice only worked for me because it was so unexpected. The Chuckleheads did a real good job of convincing everyone beforehand that this was going to be an original story. It wasn't, but I liked it anyway - It was a lot of fun and we got to see two beautifully depicted crash sequences, something you'd think we'd have had by now after 35 years of Trek. Nice that they touched on the militarization of Starfleet too and that the crew were readying for their 5 year voyage at the end.

Shame they didnt include a shot of the Vengeance being dismantled or something or some reference to the damage caused in San Francisco. Old Trek was like a living, breathing, detailed universe but with the Chuckletriplets in charge its like nothing that happens has any consequences for the world beyond the main characters. Primarily why Star Trek should be a TV series and not movies.

Most Trekkers didnt like The Motion Picture though, so expect more zap zap action. Its what they want.

[Ed Oscuro]

@ Moniker putting Rando in his place. Well done.

Shame they didnt include a shot of the Vengeance being dismantled or something or some reference to the damage caused in San Francisco. Old Trek was like a living, breathing, detailed universe

In TOS - not in some of the later movie voyages of the crew so much - they were constantly going from one troubled planet to another, doing the "social dysfunction of the week" routine. It would've been too costly to really do anything like this and even carrying over continuity was a bit too much to ask (nobody ever seemed troubled about the fate of the redshirt in the series, and through no series I can think of are the families living onboard very often disturbed by the fact that the ship is bouncing around dangerously every other week). The closest thing we get to "lasting consequences," for Earth anyway, was in The Voyage Home where there are some effects I can't even remember to persuade us that the world is in danger from a very single-minded probe that keeps turning up the volume. V-Ger meets Cranky Kong?

[Mischief Maker]

The closest thing we get to "lasting consequences," for Earth anyway, was in The Voyage Home where there are some effects I can't even remember to persuade us that the world is in danger from a very single-minded probe that keeps turning up the volume. V-Ger meets Cranky Kong?

You haven't watched the later seasons of Deep Space 9, I take it?

My anger as a Trekkie is that somehow Rick Berman and Trek became one and the same. Rick Berman was all over Voyager and it sucked. Berman was at some distance from Deep Space 9, and it expanded Trek in some new and interesting ways that were more hit than miss. Berman was all over the Next-Gen movies and Enterprise and they sucked.

Somehow the result wasn't the consensus "Everything Rick Berman touches turns to shit," instead it was, "Star Trek is dead. Might as well turn it into a big dumb CGI action franchise."

[Randorama]

The controversy to which I referred was whether viewers enjoy/approve of the revisitation of certain old canon Trek lore.

Perhaps you mean debate? My general suggestion: hedge, rather than boost.

In any case I enjoyed the results, and although there were things I didn't like about the movie, they're hardly worth listing.

There are several aspects I liked about the movie, but the balance is incredibly poor. This could have worked as a five-episode mini-series, as a movie it is too chaotic. Spoiler warning: I am going to reveal a few plot aspects after my other answer.

Thanks for the gratuitous insinuations against my integrity, by the way. I'll give you a ring the next time I need some piss in my cheerios.

No worries!

But seriously, I am disappointed with you using buzz words such as controversy, we both know that you can say smarter things (unlike Ed, see brainless comment above), don't you?
































I was saying (SPOILERS):










I'd say that the key problem with the new Star trek is that they need to sell to a terrible audience. The rants below stem from this basic premise.

I'll start from the good things that could have been better.

The movie finally features an "enemy from within" character, the admiral Marcus. Roddenberry and Berman did their best to present the federation as "calvinists in space", who had no corrupt officers, no war-mongering nazis, et cetera et cetera. I remember that Deep Space Nine integrated similar aspects in the latter arc (memories are weak, on this aspect), but generally speaking Star Trek always suffered from the pretense that the red shirts were saints in disguise. After decades, this type of plot has finally been to use...and resolved in 10 minutes or so. Terrible choice, especially when we consider that the two actors playing the "bad guys" did an excellent job. Among others things, I was displeased to see Cumberbatch playing Khan (fanservice!), and at the same time I thought that he was head and shoulders above Montalban, as he really portrayed Khan as a ruthless, extremely dangerous psychopath. And then, of course, the authors throw in Klingons, just for fun.

Then, let me talk about the bad things that are perhaps hopeless. A more general problem with the new movies is one that might be a source of "arguments", but I am keen to discuss about it in a distinct topic. I think that the "facelift" the authors did to several characters is an improvement. For instance, the original Kirk was a bloody moron, since he was a reflection of Shatner's inflated ego. Pine's Kirk and, I believe, Quinto Spock are better than they counterparts. I also think that some of the lines are very well-written (the dialogue when Scottie resigns, for instance; any line from Cumberbatch). This is a change that can be appreciated if the authors could sit down, have a few episodes on tv to work upon, and then even increase the amount of action. In a 2+ hours movie, the change won't work much, as it is eclipsed by the constant lensflare explosions.

Also, there is not enough skin, to be a proper "classic" Star trek.

[Ed Oscuro]

After Big Trouble in Little China, I thought "man, that Victor Wong is awesome," I watched Year of the Dragon (1985). Wong is in the film only intermittently, and I didn't recognize his Big Trouble castmate from this film - Dennis Dun, who plays Jack Burton's friend, Wang Chi. Dun would shortly be filming a movie featuring Year of the Dragon costar John Lone. I had to do a double take early in the film, because Ray Barry seemed at first like Eliot Spitzer in the role, for some reason. Ray signed on another project with a script by Oliver Stone with 1989's "Born on the Fourth of July."

I was surprised at how much time the film spends on Stanley White's relationships with the two women in the film. You gotta almost feel bad for the guy, constantly being told he's causing trouble when he's trying to put a stop to the blood-soaked rise of a criminal.

I don't know what's going on that I remember the climaxes of these films but didn't recognize most of the rest of it.

The closest thing we get to "lasting consequences," for Earth anyway, was in The Voyage Home where there are some effects I can't even remember to persuade us that the world is in danger from a very single-minded probe that keeps turning up the volume. V-Ger meets Cranky Kong?

You haven't watched the later seasons of Deep Space 9, I take it?

I know what you're talking about - but no, not really. Had its interesting moments but that kind of thing isn't for me. Also, what does late DS9 have to do with classic Trek? The whole draw of DS9 to begin with was that it was something very different.

[Brasseye]

Those Cocaine Cowboys films are brilliant, the first is definitely the better of the two. I heard Joe Rogan recommending them on his podcast, so I thought I'd check 'em out. So now I'm telling you to do the same. If you like GTA Vice City, the first is for you.

[jonny5]

Those Cocaine Cowboys films are brilliant, the first is definitely the better of the two. I heard Joe Rogan recommending them on his podcast, so I thought I'd check 'em out. So now I'm telling you to do the same. If you like GTA Vice City, the first is for you.

Agreed, the first one was quite good. Especially the Jan Hammer score

[lilmanjs]

A Bittersweet Life. Amazing Korean Gangster movie. Worth many watches just to get how crazy that man is. Also happens to be a movie I remembered scenes from and couldn't remember the title. So after the first 20 minutes I realized I've seen this but stuck it out to watch it all the way through. That final showdown isn't amazing because of the action, but because of the reason it happens.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

You'd think the ending of "A Bittersweet Life" could be resolved if it went down a different path/branch but it doesn't...and thus, all hell breaks loose. (which results in the massive showdown/epic firefight between the main character and what's left of his former pals -- to go out in a blaze of glory). So be it.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[rapoon]

documentaries about architecture

Sketches of Frank Gehry
Kochuu - look at Japanese (primarily) and Scandinavian architecture. Nakagin Capsule Tower is discussed.
Rem Koolhaas
Frank Lloyd Wright (Ken Burns Doc)
My Architect - A Son's Journey - Louis Kahn's bastard son discovers the father he never knew through his architecture.
Mies Van Der Rohe (BBC)

[Ed Oscuro]

Ahh, the stupidity of Firefox. Cribbed from Wiki:

Author Howard Hughes gave the film a negative review, "Watch the trailer, read the book, play the game — just avoid the film, it's another Eiger Sanction. Less a 'Firefox', it's more of a damp squib, or at best a smoldering turkey."

Having seen both films, I would say I am thankful that it doesn't have certain gratuitous subplots and slurs from the Eiger Sanction. Instead we get a rather gratuitous, comic-book-hero's weakness towards suffering crippling flashbacks at inopportune moments in Eastwood's character. The early portions of the film look great and feel interesting enough - even if they clearly are not filming in the Soviet Union, as the badly rear-projected footage of Eastwood stepping past blurry Red Square footage shows. They do make some rather large concessions to the idea that even the "good" guys are terribly desperate and ruthless (another Eiger Sanction throwback, without a doubt). Soon enough, even the hero has a sordid and apparently meaningless murder to his credit, but oppressed dissident Jews and the "evil Soviets" stereotype quickly take over so you don't have to feel uncomfortable with your questions about whether there are any good guys in this little morality play. Eastwood's typical displeased expression, seen throughout the film, probably mirrored my own expression most of the time while I watched this. There was a nice respite from the grim scenarios playing out in my head when I noticed a Russian detective is played by Hugh Fraser.

There are plenty of strange notes throughout the film. After two helicopters taking off from a missile cruiser are randomly blown up, and Eastwood takes off from an ice floe (which has been sprayed down with steam and should be very conspicuous to the fliers of two more helicopters which materialize out of nowhere in particular - how many choppers does that damn ship carry?), a decoy research station is set up and the crew that helped the Firefox refuel have to do nothing more than shamelessly wave at the hapless fellows no doubt looking for somebody to punish in the name of their recently deceased shipmates. Of course they don't see what is right below them - the hundreds of meters of parallel tracks running through the snow.

Our pilot is eventually intercepted by the other Firefox, despite some gratuitous scenes of meddling at the Soviet base. After failing to shake the pilot in a Death Star trench run (but in ice!), he hears the Force-like echoing mutterings of Nigel Hawthorne from beyond the grave, giving the key to the final fight. The other pilot apparently does not know the capabilities of his own plane, since they have identical armaments. Eastwood/Gant's key move is to resist the flashbacks and remain coherent long enough to press the "kill things" button...with his mind. This time, it takes about fifty times longer for the missile to hit the enemy plane than it took missiles to miss him previously. Before that point, there's an interesting sequence where Eastwood's pilot appears to be mimicking a damaged plane spiraling out of control on purpose, but apparently it was just the damn flashbacks. There were plenty of other, and I think more clever, ways to resolve the final fight, including nonviolent ones, but how else would we get to cheer at another pointless killing of a Russian pilot? The Hunt For Red October figured out a way to resolve its tale memorably, with one submarine ending up killing itself - with all the talk of using other planes to present a infrared target in Firefox, the stupid scriptwriters should have done something with this, instead of abusing the radar display as a kind of expensive rear-view mirror. "Andrei, you've lost another submarine?" beats Eastwood closing out the film talking to the black box.

Thankfully the film ends before the retaliatory missile strikes commence on the ice floe, or before the Soviets take the case to the U.N. - whatever the hell is going to happen, it's not clear who really gets to profit from this mess. A Mach 6 fighter jet, when "our fuselages start to melt at Mach 3?" MIND CONTROL MISSILES? The hell?

In the sequel book, the Soviets get their plane back - and Eastwood's pilot character, too. If only for a while.

The full-scale model of the Firefox itself is pretty terrible, with a silly ill-fitted fibreglass-looking exterior. Watch in the scene where it's bouncing on the ice "runway" for the foreward vanes vibrating up and down so much you'll think they fall off - and note that you can see straight through the vents at one point. Watch also the scene where it's taking off to note that when they switch to the composition effects that the jet has reverted to Tiny UFO movement, sweeping improbably swiftly across the frame: They may have invented a new process to film the dark plane against white backgrounds for this film, but honestly it looks pretty terrible too. At many times you change from rather realistic-looking footage of fighters taking off in various circumstances, or taxiing along the ground, to seeing models zip along at UFO speeds and out of scale to the backgrounds.

On my first viewing, I thought the intro sequences - which continue to irritatingly resurface as the flashbacks - were striking and well done. How quickly this film pisses away any goodwill it might have gathered. (To be fair, I'm not really sure what merit or demerit the whole Vietnam War backstory might have here.) Speaking of which, military-industrial complex...this IMDB post mirrors my thoughts on this point and expands on them quite well.

I'm not sure...I'll give this film two stick shakes out of five. One for the various competent actors seen within, and another for the city night scenes early on. I was particularly happy that they used lenses wide-open, avoiding that polygonal shape in out-of-focus lights that's so often seen in night scenes. And, of course, I was happy for Hugh Fraser. I say!

Loltastic Trivia: One of these days I will finally have to see Ice Station Zebra, the Patrick McGoohan (adds to the score of anything being shown) / Howard Hughes vehicle (well, not really) whose footage seems to crop up fucking everywhere, including in this film. In turn, this film passes along footage to Back to the Future Part II, which probably justifies its existence in some small way.

[Moniker]

Rewatched The Best Movie Ever. First time seeing the extended edition. Some interesting pre-wipeout scenes of the colony.

They mostly come at night. Mostly...

[Skykid]

Rewatched The Best Movie Ever. First time seeing the extended edition. Some interesting pre-wipeout scenes of the colony.

They mostly come at night. Mostly...

Yo, back on this Cameron topic, I completely forgot in the grand scheme of his canon: TITANIC

Yes, that film that everyone loves to hate for no good reason whatsoever because it's a perfectly good film. It's far superior to Avatar (actually, all of his films are superior to Avatar) and one of the best Hollywood blockbusters. It's schmaltzy and all that, but boy, it's a rush. I'll never be able to figure out the hate for it. Everyone's like, "when it came out I saw it three times in theatres, now I can't stand it."

Go figure.

[boagman]

It's far superior to Avatar (actually, all of his films are superior to Avatar) and one of the best Hollywood blockbusters.

Yes and no. I'm going to break apart your statement a bit. As an entertaining experience of moviegoing, where story, plot, and such are important, I'm going to probably agree with you, even though I haven't seen "Titanic". "Avatar" is just a *massively* bad script, with horrible writing, terrible foreshadowing, and basically Cameron jacking off to himself in one giant epic embarrassment to film. "Avatar" is a horribly bad movie.

That being said, I have never before, and have not since seen any movie with special effects that were on par with "Avatar". I mean, it was a jaw-dropping spectacle to see that thing in IMAX 3-D. In-stinking-credible, to the Nth degree. Cameron wins on special effects, hands-down. From this technical aspect, I'm willing to give "Avatar" its due, since it's just so absolutely righteously on top of the world. Nothing has competed at this level yet.

When I was done watching this thing in the theater, all I could say was "Wow...how could this thing have been on the shelf for A DOZEN YEARS in order for Cameron to be able to let the technology become available that he needed, and yet, he never gave a moment's thought to *just how hideous* this monstrosity was to take in, aside from the whizbangery of it all?" My GF agreed with me. Lousy movie with the absolute best special effects we've ever seen.

And because it was such a ridiculously bad script, we've *never wanted to see them again*. That's pretty bad, that.