07-23-2014, 06:24 AM | #851 |
Volcano Badge
|
I watched Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.
Was much better than expected. |
07-27-2014, 01:57 PM | #852 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
A chilling vision of a possible future? Or a bit wet and tricksy?
|
07-30-2014, 04:19 PM | #853 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
So Planet of the Apes is well made and fairly well acted, the apes being almost entirely CGI aside, but absolutely nothing happens.
|
08-01-2014, 06:15 PM | #854 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
Saw Guardians of the Galaxy. I had some issues with it, but overall I still think the movie was good. It had a lot of heart.
Armchair Criticism: Spoiler: show Don't look at this giant list of problems and think it's a terrible movie. It isn't. It is still a good movie with a lot of fun and action. |
08-01-2014, 10:21 PM | #855 |
Naga's Voice
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
|
Watched: Guardians of the Galaxy
SPOILERS WITHINNNN Spoiler: show On par with How To Train Your Dragon 2. No questions.
__________________
|
08-05-2014, 11:45 PM | #856 |
Volcano Badge
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,878
|
Super
This movie was amazing on so many levels. Like The Big White, this is another example of a great dark comedy. It was so fucked up and twisted, yet I couldn't stop laughing. There's some bits that don't make much sense, but I don't think the movie was meant to be taken that seriously anyway. Feel the wrench of justice! It's almost like Bioshock. |
08-06-2014, 09:45 AM | #857 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Shut up, Crime!
|
08-13-2014, 02:20 PM | #858 | |
Not sure if gone...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
|
Quote:
|
|
08-15-2014, 09:04 AM | #859 |
Volcano Badge
|
Enjoyed GOTG. It was a good movie, with nice throwbacks to the 70s and humour. The best part was Groot, the tree. He stole the show, for me.
|
08-25-2014, 09:42 PM | #860 |
Not sure if gone...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
|
Saw Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
Amazing film. |
08-28-2014, 02:47 PM | #861 |
head head bitch
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,490
|
Off to see a double feature of The Giver and Lucy. I've read the book for the former, I'm really excited for the latter, so expect a post later on tonight/tomorrow.
|
08-28-2014, 03:54 PM | #862 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Having somehow gone 23 years and never seen Die Hard, I decided to fix this today. Great film! Watching one man gun down dozens of enemies at a time without taking a scratch gets boring after a while, enjoyed the relatively small group of bad guys and that they didn't come across as individually incompetent.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
08-29-2014, 02:26 AM | #863 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
The Die Hard trilogy is pretty excellent, a great genre. Sadly they then did two additional and fairly crap generic action films that starred Bruce Willis.
|
09-20-2014, 08:18 PM | #864 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
I finally saw Edge of Tomorrow. I heard from a lot of people it was good movie and it was, as they put it "something you will enjoy." or "definitely your type." Well, when every other person said that, I did a bit of investigating and figured out why. It was originally a Japanese novel, then a manga series.
Overall it was a fairly enjoyable movie, but I will say it had a few simple problems. Firstly, Tom Cruise's character is supposed to be a coward at the start. Someone who literally ran away when he was told to simply be on the front lines. Tom Cruice is an action man. He is type cast as an action superstar. It's hard to believe he was a coward in the whole war. And... Spoiler: show It didn't do well in box offices because of the whole killer set of releases this summer. Add in the general dropping popularity of Tom Cruise in the United States since the whole Scientology thing, it isn't hard to understand why it was kind of a flop here. If you ever do get a chance to watch this movie, it's definitely pretty decent. The pacing and action were all well done. |
09-22-2014, 01:08 PM | #865 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Yeah the ending was severely mediocre
|
10-05-2014, 01:39 AM | #866 |
大事なのは自分らしいくある事
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Determined
Posts: 5,840
|
A Fault in Our Stars
I like this movie. |
10-05-2014, 07:49 AM | #867 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
House on Haunted Hill (1959)
Watched this last night on a whim. It happened to be on YouTube for free -- hooray, films actually entering the public archive instead of being copyrighted eternally! For a campy horror film of the 1950s, this was surprisingly well done. The way people spoke and acted is from a bygone era of American cinema, and that alone made the film fun to watch. The plot was decent; it wasn't great, but it did enough to keep you watching. A huge plus in its favor was its running time: at only 75 minutes, the story did exactly what it needed to do without overstaying its welcome. I wouldn't describe Frederick Loren as Vincent Price's greatest role ever, but he does a good job filling the shoes of a bizarre and twisted millionaire whose idea of a fun weekend is to submit people to threats on their lives. Richard Long, the actor who plays Lance Schroeder, deserves a special mention for his perfect encapsulation of what a leading male actor was like in 1950s cinema. The special effects are pretty bad. But the film was made in 1959. And it only had a budget of $200,000. Even if you double that for inflation, that's still only $400,000 to be split between seven actors, a writer, a director, stage fees, and so on. For these reasons, I'm able to forgive the special effects. Just be warned that if you do decide to watch the film the horror effects are going to be pretty poor by modern standards. Overall, I'd describe the movie as fine. Check it out if you like, don't if you don't.
__________________
|
10-05-2014, 11:04 AM | #868 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Surprise double post.
Twice-Told Tales (1963) YouTube recommended a number of other horror films from the 1950s and '60s as well as a number of other films starring Vincent Price. This one caught my interest more than the others so I decided to go with it. I only watched the first two-thirds (the first two of three stories) before dropping it, but I didn't rage drop it or anything. It was just kinda boring and with weak payoffs. I could've easily finished it if I felt like I had all the free time in the world, but I don't and so I quit while I was The first story is about two elderly friends in the 1850s, one of whom has been a widower for the past thirty-nine years, the other of whom never married. The widower lost his bride on the evening they were to be married; he remained devoted to her all these years, never remarrying, and still has her portrait above his mantle. A storm and a loud noise results in the two men investigating the nearby crypt where the widower entombed his bride-to-be. There they discover that her coffin has fallen, the supporting rock beneath it destroyed. As they lift the coffin, the lid comes loose and reveals that the body looks just as it did thirty-nine years ago. The story proceeds from there. Don't want to give everything away in case you decide to watch it. I guess for those who won't, I'll tell more below. Spoiler: show The second story is about a 19th-century Italian college student attending university in Padua. He gets an apartment that happens to be next to a luxurious garden. And one day he spies a beautiful young woman in the garden. Enchanted, he has to know her name and get to know her better. He soon learns her name but also learns some other mysterious things. One, that no one ever enters that property. Two, that no one has ever actually seen the daughter except for him. Three, that her father used to be a professor of chemistry at the university but that he then became a recluse after his wife left him for another man. In an early scene, the father begins to cough violently as he nears this one plant in the garden, complaining of its "acid" and "radiation." The daughter is able to handle the plant with her bare hands. This suggests some sort of mad science experiment. But what? Watch the film to find out! Or just read on. Spoiler: show Both stories were mildly entertaining. But after spending seventy minutes combined on them, I felt like enough was enough. They weren't amazing by any means (plot-wise, acting-wise, any of it), but I want to stress that they weren't terrible either. If you're a huge fan of old-timey films and old-timey Rated G horror stories, then sure, go ahead and check this one out. (Frankly, I feel like neither story I saw can even be called "horror" so much as "science fiction thriller with ghastly elements tossed in.")
__________________
|
11-07-2014, 12:22 AM | #869 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
|
So I just finished Snowpiercer, a Korean film with a weird mix of actors including Chris Pines, Octavia Spencer, Song Kang-Ho, Tilda Swinton and Allison Pill, among others. It was pretty phenomenal.
Spoilers because this plot is twisty. Spoiler: show 10/10 must see |
11-08-2014, 02:34 PM | #870 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
I got through half of Snowpiercer and felt the whole thing felt a bit too silly. I'll probably go through the rest of it later this week.
Also, the original graphic novel is very different from the movie as I'm told. |
11-29-2014, 09:18 AM | #871 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Watched several movies this Thanksgiving holiday.
The Giver: Apparently they turned one of my favorite books from childhood into a movie. Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit's ... okay. My parents (who had never read the book) quite enjoyed it. My sister and I (who has each read the book) liked it okay but agreed it was inferior to the book. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: Hadn't seen this film in some 10-15 years. But have seen it literally 50+ times, probably 100+. Had fun. Raiders is still my favorite of the bunch. Kickboxer 4: The Aggressor: Only saw part of this. Really cheap film. I was surprised by its familiar-from-eromanga plot though. O_o Casino Royale: Hadn't seen this in some 2-4 years. Quite enjoyed it. Easily my favorite Bond film of the ones I've seen. Gotta see Quantum of Solace and Skyfall still.
__________________
|
11-29-2014, 10:31 AM | #872 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
|
I forgot to gush about Interstellar here yesterday!
This movie is fantastic! One of the most engaging and scientifically accurate movies I've seen in a long time. If you liked Gravity but were cheesed off by all the artistic license, Interstellar is the movie for you! |
12-01-2014, 10:28 PM | #874 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Talon's SW thread reminded me that I need to complain about Jurassic World, although my comments seem rather petty compared to the silliness of the SW trailer.
I thought Jurassic World started out with an interesting enough premise. Perhaps Amagi Brilliant Park, which packs a similar plot of trying to rekindle interest in an amusement park on hard times, helped open me up to the idea. I'm a little disappointed that John Hammond's vision was reduced from the safari exhibit grandeur to little more than SeaWorld style entertainment shows, as well as the iconic colour sceheme, logos and apparel of Jurassic Park having been forgone for World's look, but that's minor. I think what bothers me most about the film is it's a dinosaur, metaphorically. When the movie came out, most people didn't know jack about genetics and cloning and whatnot. Computer graphics were exclusive to movies. Facts were not easily attainable as now on the internet, so it was easier to get away with exaggerating dinosaur traits or giving them fictitious adaptations (Dilophosaurus spitting/frills). But since Walking with Dinosaurs, more faithful documentaries have taken huge steps forward in closing the gap between television and the theatre. Walking with Dinosaurs was arguably pretty Jurassic Park-esque in how it exaggerated the fudge out of a lot of things to create drama, but as time has gone on that's less of an issue. The Liopleurodon scene was what bothered me the second most in the trailer. Liopleurodon is a short-necked plesiosaur and it's depicted eating a dead great white in a single chomp, like an orca show. Liopleurodon was never that big: its first CGI appearance ever was in Walking with Dinosaurs where they depicted it as the size of a blue whale. Jurassic World ran with that exaggeration, which makes the movie feel more fake because no animal that size could eat enough to move with any mobility. Since the somber revelation that theropods have feathers, I've found that any interest I've had in ancient animals has focused more on the ocean: the oceans of the prehistoric had more diversity and interesting adaptations than land animals, and speaking as a human feels a lot more hostile than the land. Humans aren't evolved to handle water, so the idea of creatures that are perfectly maneuverable, fast and adept at killing in the water is way more frightening than a T-Rex is today. There was no reason for JW to exaggerate the size of Liopleurodon: it was already plenty big, it was already hugely dangerous to a human, so why not stick a bit more to realism? It's more believable, to misappropriate an answer Spielberg gave to justifying Jaws dying to an exploding air tank. Surprisingly, the velociraptor K-9 unit didn't upset me that much. My number one beef with the film was, after the premise of trying to bring back guests (which seems odd given how novel a dinosaur park is) they genetically engineer Godzilla to rampage on the park and eat the tourists, a mere fourteen months after he saved San Francisco from the MUTOs. Legendary Pictures is producing both films, but really aside from the "Jurassic" half of "Jurassic World" I wouldn't be able to cognitively connect this one to the 1992 film. What we've got is a generic monster movie masquerading with Jurassic Park branding and hoping childhood nostalgia ropes the rabid fans back. That plot twist, along with all the corny dialogue and cheesy situations, were like a reality check to me that I wasn't watching a trailer for a "retro" movie from the '90s, but the same lowest common denominator filth that dominates commercials every summer. Yes, I realize LCD-type movies have been made forever, but the ripe fruit hangs lower than ever before, too. It's shameless and stupid. And it'll make buttloads of money. I'm adult enough to not care about making money in any way possible, but the idea that there are still legions of tasteless boors out there who would pay, sing praise or worse engage in internet defense of such a movie has me wishing that they'll go temporarily mad and ritually cut off their tongues. It's just a formality at this point anyway!
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
12-01-2014, 10:41 PM | #875 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Honestly while I'm a huge fossil nerd myself I actually liked the Jurassic World trailer. Yes the science doesn't hold up but they knew that when the first film was made and it didn't hurt. Admittedly the 'genetic hybrid dinosaur' part of the trailer made me think it was going downhill, I'm going to wait until a) longer trailer comes out and b) see what the reviews are like, and even then I'll probably go and see it anyway because dinosaurs. That and I go to see movies because I want some escapism. If everything was hard science then there'd hardly be any fun films aside fomr Interstellar (upon which note I agree with Jeri go watch that).
Also pretty sure that wasn't a Liopleurodon but a Tylosaurus, which could reach around three times the length of an average adult Great White. From the shots I saw in the trailer I thought the shark looked a little small and was probably a juvenile rather than a fully-grown adult, making the Mosasaur even larger by comparison. Though I thought the scene of it acting like an Orca was a bit dumb, again, the movie's for fun. |
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|