Movies you've just watched

A place where you can chat about anything that isn't to do with games!
User avatar
Skykid
Posts: 17655
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:16 pm
Location: Planet Dust Asia

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Skykid »

boagman wrote:even though I haven't seen "Titanic".
Apart from the fact I can't figure out why you're commenting on the statement then, I still have to say... dude. Dude.

Go get yourself the biggest TV/projector screen you can find and an awesome sound system and enjoy. Titanic is a fucking trip like few others. It's the reason bullshit Hollywood was invented, and Cameron plays to its strengths and his own perfectly. I'm quite confident its one of - if not up there with - the best he's done. It's definitely better than T2, no shit.

But you can't watch it on a small screen unfortunately. It loses something. It's a very cinematic film.
"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.
Right...
That being said, I have never before, and have not since seen any movie with special effects that were on par with "Avatar".
But who really cares. So you saw some nice cartoons in the cinema in three-dee. Once the buzz of blue people flying around on dragons is over, you're left with absolutely nothing to hold onto.

Like I said, Titanic is schmaltzy, but it's memorable. You live that film with the characters. In Avatar you don't really give a fuck what happens to anyone.
Always outnumbered, never outgunned - No zuo no die

neorichieb1971
Posts: 7875
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:28 am
Location: Bedford, UK
Contact:

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by neorichieb1971 »

Cameron sells for the moment and does it well. You only scrutinize the story later once you've taken time to absorb its downfalls.

T2 - Son can't send his father back in time because in the first event of the cycle of time he wouldn't have existed. The axel on the truck coming off the bridge completely breaks and is seen broken for almost a second, only to be fixed a second later. Not to mention the T1000 made awfully hard work of killing Connor since he didn't copy nearly enough people to get the job done. I also didn't like the copy cat storyline that went through the whole Terminator movie trilogy. Why repeat the same story 3 times?

Avatar - The marine guy is the only thing I hated about the movie. How someone can hate so much when everyone else seemed to care less is beyond me. Even in his last breath he was angry/pissed off and determined to win. The rest of the story was a means to roll out the SFX.

Titanic - Gets the job done nicely I think. Its affiliation with a said song probably makes it a bit mushy in places which is why people don't like it. Also, it has a very dramatic and sad ending. I can watch the movie 3/4 the way, but after that I don't want to watch the ending. I have a phobia of drowning, I know that sounds silly but I almost drowned once and have had many dreams about it since.

True lies - Can't say anything really it obviously doesn't take itself seriously, needs a blu ray release.

Aliens - Win win win hands down. Like Cameron said he built up these characters only for Fox to kill them off in a statement (part 3). Which is one of Hollywoods most bitter crimes of the 20th Century. So so much could have happened which didn't its a shame.

The Abyss - Should be considered one of the best of his CV. I Can't watch this movie without having my senses pummeled to death. I feel exhausted by the end.

Cameron is a director which wants to try new things. I don't think his emphasis is on if the movie has longevity. He only cares if it sells at the box office.

Also, Cameron is to blame for movies having Director cuts. Since Aliens was extended in a few places its created a trend which has gone awfully out of control. In some cases the movie you saw in the theatre is butchered for home release. Its like Cameron invented a new sales technique, but didn't think of the consequences of it getting out of control. Much like 3D is sold in a mass produced fashion, instead of putting in the hard work.

Well thats my opinion of Cameron. If I ever see the words "A James Cameron film". I immediately take notice no matter what it is, so he does something right.
This industry has become 2 dimensional as it transcended into a 3D world.
User avatar
Moniker
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Moniker »

The freaks are rising through the floor.
Recommended XBLIG shmups.
Top 20 Doujin Shmups of ALL TIME.
User avatar
Skykid
Posts: 17655
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:16 pm
Location: Planet Dust Asia

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Skykid »

Moniker wrote:I'll just put this here... :mrgreen:

http://redlettermedia.com/mr-plinkett-review-titanic/
Oh shit Plinkett did Titanic? This I have to see. :D

I love Plinkett but defend Titanic for what it is. Going to be interesting.
Always outnumbered, never outgunned - No zuo no die

User avatar
cj iwakura
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:28 am
Location: Coral Springs, FL

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by cj iwakura »

Saw Drive. Love the cinematography and music, the main character as well, but something about the story felt... off. I wasn't sure where it was going a lot of the time.

The ending was well framed, at least.
Image
heli wrote:Why is milestone director in prison ?, are his game to difficult ?
boagman
Posts: 1345
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:30 am

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by boagman »

Skykid wrote:But who really cares. So you saw some nice cartoons in the cinema in three-dee. Once the buzz of blue people flying around on dragons is over, you're left with absolutely nothing to hold onto.
No, it's not that. It's the no gravity scene at the beginning. It's the spinning unobtainium. It's the falling luminescent pieces at the end of the movie. It's a technical marvel. I honestly wasn't referring to the blue characters or the dragons or anything like that. It's the whizbangery of the whole thing that dropped my jaw.
User avatar
Skykid
Posts: 17655
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:16 pm
Location: Planet Dust Asia

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Skykid »

Skykid wrote:
Moniker wrote:I'll just put this here... :mrgreen:

http://redlettermedia.com/mr-plinkett-review-titanic/
Oh shit Plinkett did Titanic? This I have to see. :D

I love Plinkett but defend Titanic for what it is. Going to be interesting.
Just brilliant. So funny (the innuendo had me in stitches) and again, so accurate. One could argue that the films Plinkett reviews are not particularly tough subject material to dissect, but there's no denying the detail of analysis.

I agreed with almost everything about this one, yet again. Like I said, Titanic is a great ride, full of schmaltzy crap, but a ride nonetheless, and expertly crafted. And yes, it's got one-dimensional characters and dialogue, but this is a Cameron film: he's not exactly known for writing anything above comic book grade.

The only thing I have to disagree with (a rarity in a Plinkett review) is that DiCaprio is a poor actor. Again, amazed to find that even with such an amazing critical ability, being able to discern acting ability for most people is an impossible test. DiCaprio is at best, limited in range and always similar, but he's never been a poor actor - or a great one - he's just pretty good (which ain't bad, for a pretty boy.)
Always outnumbered, never outgunned - No zuo no die

boagman
Posts: 1345
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:30 am

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by boagman »

Skykid wrote:The only thing I have to disagree with (a rarity in a Plinkett review) is that DiCaprio is a poor actor. Again, amazed to find that even with such an amazing critical ability, being able to discern acting ability for most people is an impossible test. DiCaprio is at best, limited in range and always similar, but he's never been a poor actor - or a great one - he's just pretty good (which ain't bad, for a pretty boy.)
Is, or was? I'm willing to spot that he isn't a poor actor *anymore*, but he certainly used to be. My belief is that his time spent under the wings of people like Scorsese, Spielberg, DeNiro, and others (both in terms of being directed/produced by, and in terms of learning to act from) has greatly enhanced his range and ability. I'm not saying that the talent might not have been there all along...but I *am* saying that there was a lot of sculpting for the Michaelangelos to do, if you take my metaphor.

He's far better/more watchable now than he was, say, a decade ago. Far more believable, anyway. These days, he can pull his own weight in a film. That has absolutely not always been the case.
User avatar
Ed Oscuro
Posts: 18654
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: uoıʇɐɹnƃıɟuoɔ ɯǝʇsʎs

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Ed Oscuro »

The War Game (1965, pulled by the BBC from the air)

DiCaprio seemed pretty good in Gangs of New York already, if perhaps not too many demands were made of his range, he certainly acted appropriately for that role throughout. Not exactly sure what many people expect out of actors here.
boagman
Posts: 1345
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:30 am

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by boagman »

Ed Oscuro wrote:The War Game (1965, pulled by the BBC from the air)

DiCaprio seemed pretty good in Gangs of New York already, if perhaps not too many demands were made of his range, he certainly acted appropriately for that role throughout. Not exactly sure what many people expect out of actors here.
He functioned in that role, certainly, but it wasn't exactly a big nuance role, now was it? Can you honestly say that he was on par with Daniel Day-Lewis, though? That movie was a two-fer for DiCaprio...he was under both Scorsese *and* Day-Lewis, so I'd expect him to be pretty good, and to *learn* from them, which he apparently did. Look, I'm not trying to take anything away from the guy, as he's doing exactly what he should be doing to get better, and it's showing. I'm just saying that it wasn't always the case. There's no doubt in my mind that Scorsese saw/sees something in DiCaprio, but it takes a strong master's hand to bring it out of people. DiCaprio sucked in the knowledge, and now he's a major Hollywood player in his own right...not just because he's a pretty face.

I'd say that GONY was probably a great turning point for him (the best thing that could have happened to him?), and he's earned and learned a lot since then.
User avatar
Ed Oscuro
Posts: 18654
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: uoıʇɐɹnƃıɟuoɔ ɯǝʇsʎs

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Ed Oscuro »

But can you say that he was supposed to match Day-Lewis' role there? It was supposed to be somewhat understated, a young man fuming his vengeance occasionally, but tame compared to Day-Lewis as the unforgettable cult leader. Compare that film's Day-Lewis performance to Day-Lewis as Lincoln, where he is much understated and the acting is remarkable for having become another person so well. Much of our acclaim is that he becomes that character so well - but play the character long enough and accusations of inertia set in. During Gangs DiCaprio was a young man, playing a young man - as he was in Titanic. And often he gets these roles that are rather like that (did anybody complain that DiCaprio didn't look old and careworn enough for his role in Inception? Pity them that did). Without making a mark early on as the consummate character actor, as Day-Lewis is, there's no call for a casting to try to push an actor's boundaries - as it ain't broke, and there's plenty of other "types" to fill the spots. Even actors who are often ragged on for being lackluster have sometimes found critical redemption - Nicholas Cage in The Bad Lieutenant, for example.

I feel that many of the great actors, particularly in older days, were often playing themselves. (Certainly this was said by many about Frank Sinatra's performance in From Here To Eternity.) It's hard for me not to think this whenever I see Henry Fonda in a film, but there's no questioning he's a fine actor in addition to being a good fit for most roles.

I am reluctant to call all this talk of "who's the greater actor" talk legitimate because in reality so much of the promise of any actor is held in check by the needs of the studio machine. Of course they can always cut loose and do something outside the machine, but what's the chance we'll end up talking about any of those roles? Day-Lewis can certainly ramp up the volume, and is also a great mimic. But also just being photogenic enough is one of the key elements of being a good actor - if one doesn't want to credit DiCaprio with anything more than being the right man in the right place, I also don't think it's a good enough reason to dismiss him as a talent.
boagman
Posts: 1345
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:30 am

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by boagman »

Ed Oscuro wrote:But also just being photogenic enough is one of the key elements of being a good actor
I couldn't disagree with this more. It might be said that being photogenic enough is one of the key elements of being a Hollywood draw/star/gossip column topic, but being a good *actor*? Negative on that.

Dustin Hoffman is good-looking? Robert DeNiro is a looker? Al Pacino is easy on the eyes?

I was about to say Robert Redford there, but back in the day, the man was nothing if not drop-dead gorgeous, so that really doesn't help my point, now does it?

I see what you're saying, but ability to act (or show off talent of any kind, to be honest...) and being a celebrity are two very different things to me.
User avatar
Ed Oscuro
Posts: 18654
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: uoıʇɐɹnƃıɟuoɔ ɯǝʇsʎs

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Ed Oscuro »

boagman wrote:Dustin Hoffman is good-looking? Robert DeNiro is a looker? Al Pacino is easy on the eyes?
You need to look up the definition of "photogenic." Obviously we have a wider range of subjects in film than pretty girls (or guys for some markets), even though those are obviously enduringly tantalizing subjects. That's not what we're talking about here.

For right or wrong, maybe DiCaprio has replaced some quantity of less-photogenic actors - and Hoffman, DeNiro, and Pacino also. Of course it rankles to think that something other than skill might influence why some people audition, are cast, believed, and make more money than the many unknowns who toil and die in obscurity - rather like the situation in sports. Yet, of course, we can expand that "it's just chance" argument to cover an uncomfortably wide range of human endeavor - perhaps over all of it. One's success in life appears to be determined roughly 60% by the station one is born into. For playing to a specialty ready-made for them, I hardly fault actors in taking advantage of a ready-made success. Of course, it remains to be seen whether DiCaprio (or anybody in a similar situation) will be thought to stand the test of time - personally I ask for nothing more than to have somebody who fills the screen as competently as he did in Gangs so that the story can be told; I'm there for the film itself, with best wishes for everybody involved.
User avatar
Skykid
Posts: 17655
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:16 pm
Location: Planet Dust Asia

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Skykid »

boagman wrote:
Skykid wrote:The only thing I have to disagree with (a rarity in a Plinkett review) is that DiCaprio is a poor actor. Again, amazed to find that even with such an amazing critical ability, being able to discern acting ability for most people is an impossible test. DiCaprio is at best, limited in range and always similar, but he's never been a poor actor - or a great one - he's just pretty good (which ain't bad, for a pretty boy.)
Is, or was? I'm willing to spot that he isn't a poor actor *anymore*, but he certainly used to be. My belief is that his time spent under the wings of people like Scorsese, Spielberg, DeNiro, and others (both in terms of being directed/produced by, and in terms of learning to act from) has greatly enhanced his range and ability.
Sorry you're completely wrong. If anything he's become less versatile with age, I've noticed, but he always had acting ability, even in youth. I'd test you by asking you to name me some really good actors, but I'd worry you'd put Al Pacino in there and that would be like throwing a match into a leaky propane and propane accessories storehouse.
Ed Oscuro wrote:But also just being photogenic enough is one of the key elements of being a good actor.
Being photogenic has nothing to do with acting ability whatsoever - that would mean we're gracing Paul Walker with some kind of semblance of the craft, even though he has none whatsoever. Sadly being photogenic is often key to becoming an actor, along with a few blowjobs and friends in high places; but the likes of Ben Kingsley, Joss Ackland, Gene Hackman, Pete Postlethwaite and Jim Broadbent, to name a few, certainly didn't find success because of their creamy looks.
Always outnumbered, never outgunned - No zuo no die

User avatar
Ed Oscuro
Posts: 18654
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: uoıʇɐɹnƃıɟuoɔ ɯǝʇsʎs

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Ed Oscuro »

Sorry Skykid, but being photogenic certainly is one of the elements of being taken in by the system. Just the way it is. Incidentally, there's more guff about "ability." One can argue that a fast runner's "ability" is, beyond the effort put in which is the same or even less than others, just what a person was born with. Certainly watching Usain Bolt run gives this impression. Obviously, trying to dismiss an actor just because of this is bankrupt.

I also don't see where I have stated that being photogenic is the most important "ability" an actor has. It is one of many things.

I would like it very much if more types of people with excellent core acting skills (using here the definition I think you would) could be seen in films - I'm personally not especially interested in the "photogenic" thing. But studios thing we need it, and if the constant obsession with news about the Beautiful People suggests, probably the public agrees.
Skykid wrote:Ben Kingsley, Joss Ackland, Gene Hackman, Pete Postlethwaite and Jim Broadbent, to name a few, certainly didn't find success because of their creamy looks.
Again, look up the definition of photogenic, rather than bloviating about what you think I meant. Sometimes I am guilty of misusing a word, but I felt I was already explicit enough about this the first time. Pete Postlethwaite, rest his soul, had a face that looked like it had been worn for an international foot race, then turned inside-out and worn on the way back...and that memorable face is, indeed, photogenic.

A non-anthropomorphic and incredibly stolid example might prove an illuminating target. To many people of Albania, they are eyesores. To tourists, however, they prove photogenic; merely because their warty profusion is entirely foreign and exotic, even if the things themselves are quite mundane. As a souvenir the tourists might buy a reproduction, sold with the tagline "We assumed that you could not afford to buy a big one." These are the roughly 700,000 bunkers erected by the xenophobic government of Enver Hoxha up until his death in 1985. They are just concrete walls with a mushroom cap. Of course, many Albanians have cause to resent them, and their proximity and proliferation bring many conflicting feelings - but mainly people have gotten slightly contemptuous after their years of familiarity. How could a bunker be photogenic? I don't know. Ask a tourist, not an Albanian.

I am also laughing at some of the names you guys are bringing up as "ugly" people. If even a small percentage more of the male half of the population had the rugged looks of Gene Hackman, the female world would be well pleased. Same for DeNiro from boagman's suggestions (arguably also true of his other choices). This is just embarrassing.
User avatar
Skykid
Posts: 17655
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:16 pm
Location: Planet Dust Asia

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Skykid »

Ed Oscuro wrote:Sorry Skykid, but being photogenic certainly is one of the elements of being taken in by the system.
Eh? I know, dat's what I said.

"Sadly being photogenic is often key to becoming an actor, along with a few blowjobs and friends in high places"
Just the way it is. Incidentally, there's more guff about "ability." One can argue that a fast runner's "ability" is, beyond the effort put in which is the same or even less than others, just what a person was born with. Certainly watching Usain Bolt run gives this impression. Obviously, trying to dismiss an actor just because of this is bankrupt.
Not sure what you're saying, natural talent? Sure, I believe in it when it comes to actors. Most of them are fucking nuts (proper actors that is) so there's some kind of psychological string involved.
I also don't see where I have stated that being photogenic is the most important "ability" an actor has.


You didn't say that, you said it was "one of the key elements of being a good actor." I just don't think appearance has anything to do with ability. Just makes women weak at the knees and certain men start whooping and making titty gestures.
I would like it very much if more types of people with excellent core acting skills (using here the definition I think you would) could be seen in films - I'm personally not especially interested in the "photogenic" thing.
Gawd you and me both. Unfortunately there's a certain requirement to have beautiful people in movies because that's what people enjoy looking at. The amount of pretty girls in movies that have had me sat there thinking "god, she's really shit", is usually put paid to by a quick shower/lingerie scene.
Skykid wrote:Ben Kingsley, Joss Ackland, Gene Hackman, Pete Postlethwaite and Jim Broadbent, to name a few, certainly didn't find success because of their creamy looks.
Again, look up the definition of photogenic, rather than bloviating about what you think I meant. Sometimes I am guilty of misusing a word, but I felt I was already explicit enough about this the first time. Pete Postlethwaite, rest his soul, had a face that looked like it had been worn for an international foot race, then turned inside-out and worn on the way back...and that memorable face is, indeed, photogenic.
No I get you, and I get photogenic. I just think the choice of words made it sound as though looking good on camera was a component of acting talent. Postlethwaite did have a certain amount of photogenic charm I suppose, but today's cameras and make-up artists are so incredible they can make Seth Rogan appear photogenic. That's a feat.

Geoffrey Rush isn't particularly beautiful either, but damn that guy can really act.

Anyway, pointless conversation really, it's mostly hinged around bad phrasing and I think we're generally in agreement. We can get back to movies now.
Always outnumbered, never outgunned - No zuo no die

User avatar
shmuppyLove
Posts: 3708
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by shmuppyLove »

Moniker wrote: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...
110% agreed -- the extra footage is actually valuable to the film, as opposed to most deleted scenes which are completely superfluous.

And any film with Bill Paxton, Michael MOTHERFUCKING Biehn, and Paul Reiser as the bad guy? Oh yeah.

Hmm there's a $10 "Import" bluray on Amazon ...
User avatar
null1024
Posts: 3823
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:52 pm
Location: ʍoquıɐɹ ǝɥʇ ɹǝʌo 'ǝɹǝɥʍǝɯos
Contact:

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by null1024 »

Iron Man 3.

It was... okay. Not on par with the first, maybe not even better than the second. And our main bad guy is boooooring, unlike the previous films.
Still, it was well put together, and did some things right [the Mandarin reveal was delightful, and made a lot of sense].
Come check out my website, I guess. Random stuff I've worked on over the last two decades.
User avatar
Marble
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Marble »

Just watched this documentary called "Jisoe". It's about this dude from Melbourne who spends his whole life graffing trains, smoking weed and shoplifting. Really funny, highly recommended.

Whole thing's on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBN95baJNgg
User avatar
Ed Oscuro
Posts: 18654
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: uoıʇɐɹnƃıɟuoɔ ɯǝʇsʎs

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Ed Oscuro »

In time for Memorial Day:
Frank Sinatra wrote:WHY DID THE OLD LADIES TURN INTO RUSSIANS
User avatar
GaijinPunch
Posts: 15845
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:22 pm
Location: San Fransicso

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by GaijinPunch »

Hardware

Not into number ratings, although I will say the IMDB number rating is way low if you don't mind well done films on a really low budget. This is not Blade Runner by any stretch, and the casting leaves a bit to be desired. There's a very early 90's feel to it, and some of the horror-ish aspects don't quite deliver. However, if you dig a lot of dark scenes shot with really shallow depth of field which capitalize on ambience, this is right up your alley. The story isn't bad per se, just nothing too particularly spectacular. Definitely worth checking out once if you like Sci-Fi... but maybe purchasing the BluRay for $18 was a little aggressive.
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
User avatar
rapoon
Posts: 853
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by rapoon »

Great Gatsby - good performances and costumes. poor soundtrack and key scenes/lines missing, 6/10

Helvetica - documentary about typeface and it's role in design. Interesting but an hour too long.

Objectified - documentary about the how and why objects are designed. lot of interviews, notably Dieter Ram and Jonathan Ive.
interesting to hear Ive explain how form follows function at apple, then hear other designers cite apple as an example of "form begets form",
"style for the sake of style". There's no mention of the Bauhaus which is unfortunate.
PC Engine Fan X!
Posts: 9076
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:32 pm

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by PC Engine Fan X! »

Ed, the Atari Games produced arcade Laserdisc game of Firefox that made it's debut in the arcades back in 1984, all the aerial shots were done when the film was being made. Even the famous Death Star "ice" trench scene is playable for posterity when fighting the Mother One jet. Not to mention, Atari used a Philips LD player that had absolute no black screen search issues to contend with (like with Dragon's Lair & Space Ace did) and instanteous -- an impressive feat for arcade LD-based games in that early era.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~
User avatar
drauch
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:14 am

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by drauch »

GaijinPunch wrote:Hardware

Not into number ratings, although I will say the IMDB number rating is way low if you don't mind well done films on a really low budget. This is not Blade Runner by any stretch, and the casting leaves a bit to be desired. There's a very early 90's feel to it, and some of the horror-ish aspects don't quite deliver. However, if you dig a lot of dark scenes shot with really shallow depth of field which capitalize on ambience, this is right up your alley. The story isn't bad per se, just nothing too particularly spectacular. Definitely worth checking out once if you like Sci-Fi... but maybe purchasing the BluRay for $18 was a little aggressive.
I like Hardware quite a bit. It sort of reminds of Zeiram in a way. Quite an odd film, and the last thirty minutes or so are phenomenal. I never could really get into the director's other film, Dust Devil, sadly. Bought the 5-disc set a few years ago, watched it, then promptly sold. Not a bad film, but nothing special in my book.
BIL wrote: "Small sack, LOTS OF CUM" - Nikola Tesla
User avatar
GaijinPunch
Posts: 15845
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:22 pm
Location: San Fransicso

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by GaijinPunch »

drauch wrote: I like Hardware quite a bit. It sort of reminds of Zeiram in a way. Quite an odd film, and the last thirty minutes or so are phenomenal. I never could really get into the director's other film, Dust Devil, sadly. Bought the 5-disc set a few years ago, watched it, then promptly sold. Not a bad film, but nothing special in my book.
Never heard of Dust Devil. It's definitely bad, by any stretch. Makes me wonder what he could have done w/ a bigger budget and slightly better script. Considering this was a pretty goofy era (it came out in 1991, right?) I think it's quite an achievement. Some of the music is a bit too rockish for me, but hey, it works.
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
User avatar
blackoak
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 12:43 am

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by blackoak »

Hardware, haha, I haven't thought about that in a long time. I showed it at a post-apocalyptic film festival one year. I remember it was famous for having a cameo of Carl McCoy from Fields of the Nephilim.

I've watched quite a bit recently, lets see:

Sound and Fury: Great PBS documentary exploring a decision by two different families on whether to have a cochlear implant installed in their deaf children. Although the controversy ostensibly revolves around "deaf culture" and deaf identity, it really ends up being about people's attitudes toward progress, change, community... very thought-provoking.

Land of Silence and Darkness: Been revisiting some Herzog with a friend. This documentary about the deafblind was an obvious choice after Sound and Fury, but I had forgotten just how good it is. Oliver Sacks would have liked the mysteries in this. The implications as the film progresses through its subjects are alternately terrifying and uplifting... top 3 for herzog, definitely. I don't really like the few scenes Herzog staged though... it just doesn't need it.

Gesualdo, death for five voices: Another great subject for a documentary, but Herzog's staging is on overdrive here. Kind of a mixed bag for me... sometimes the staging is poignant, but more often I'd prefer to let my own mind wander at will over the landscape of "naked fact", rather than have Herzog do that for me like some surrealist tour guide.

Star Trek - Into Darkness: redlettermedia pretty much summed up most of the problems with this movie, and I don't have too much to add: http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-b ... -darkness/

I wasn't expecting anything more than a dumbed-down space action film with gratuitious explosions, so at least there was no disappointment. An insulting and condescending experience on most every level. Blegh.
shmuplations.com - translated game developer interviews and more
support shmuplations on patreon!
User avatar
EmperorIng
Posts: 5222
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:22 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by EmperorIng »

I watched The Abyss last night spending time with my folks - we watched the extended version, which I have read is the version to see.

It was rather enjoyable, and I loved all the tight, claustrophobic metal corridors, which (as per the Plinkett review of Titanic!) Cameron seems to really love. Great atmosphere.

The part of the movie where Michael Biehn is the villain is the best part, over the NTI stuff in the last act. I loved the submarine battle.

And outside of the sheer impossibility of a human surviving a dive of over 10,000 feet (when his robot didn't!?), the scene when Ed Harris gets to the bottom is touching in that cheesy Cameron way. I walked away from the movie feeling quite satisfied.

That's more than I can say for Leviathan, released the same year! That ending had me pissed off for the rest of the night, ha.
User avatar
Skykid
Posts: 17655
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:16 pm
Location: Planet Dust Asia

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by Skykid »

Star Trek: Into Darkness

I'm not a Trekkie.

Should probably start by saying that. I've enjoyed and watched plenty of Star Trek TV over the years and saw all the terrible Next Gen movies in the cinema - but I don't follow it religiously or anything like that, I just dig sci-fi.

So ID was okay for me. More of the same, although it didn't quite have the reboot freshness of the previous escapade and was marginally less successful because of it.

I don't know about all the fan service shiz, I caught a little of it, but generally it was as expected, and largely enjoyable to switch off to and watch nice effects and lots of action.

To Abrams credit, I do find it interesting how he dares to introduce new themes. The London opening with the dying kid felt as though it had come from a different film (in a good way) and all the Earth based shenanigans were interesting to look at (since it's not exactly well-documented territory in ST).

At the same time I don't disagree with anything Rando said - or Moniker for that matter. This is big silly Hollywood stuff, but Abrams has proven himself rather competent at it. More so than the likes of Michael Bay, for example. Abrams at least knows how to build enjoyable characters.

Some of the dialogue is tragic, other bits not so bad. Some of the acting is atrocious (dat blonde chick, oh deary me) but it's balanced out by a surprisingly good Cumberbatch, the ever endearing Simon Pegg, and I stand by Chris Pine having good acting ability.

Sorry if this pisses Trekkies off, I just went for a fun no-brainer and it ticked the boxes with a certain assuredness.

And Peter Weller! So good! :D
Always outnumbered, never outgunned - No zuo no die

neorichieb1971
Posts: 7875
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:28 am
Location: Bedford, UK
Contact:

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by neorichieb1971 »

Kirk is a bit lucky in the new reboot movies. Shoves his weight around, pisses people off, gets into some tight spots but ALWAYS manages to overcome the enemy no matter what.

I don't know why Nimoy needs to make an appearance . I'd give it a good 8/10 though.
This industry has become 2 dimensional as it transcended into a 3D world.
PC Engine Fan X!
Posts: 9076
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:32 pm

Re: Movies you've just watched

Post by PC Engine Fan X! »

Saw the 2nd reboot of Star Trek: Into Darkness last week on Thursday for free -- can't beat watching a free movie on the house, that sexy Brit actress by the name of Alice Eve...she's got the goods with that skin tight uniform on. It's been said on the first day on set of filming ST:ID, Alice tripped and fell on her ass which actor Zachary Quinto laughed out loud when he saw this. She said she was embarrassed and wouldn't forgive Quinto for that little stint/accident.

The highlight of such starships engaged in FTL travel (warp speeds), it boggles the mind that a slight deviation off course, and "you're not back in Kansas anymore" potentially posssible senario (but am sure the CPUs had adjusted for that slight error/occurance/possibility).

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~
Last edited by PC Engine Fan X! on Thu May 30, 2013 2:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply