NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't rant often but heres a small one...

I just got back a couple of hours ago from seeing the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still. It is by far the worst sci-fi classic remake to date (well at least out of the blockbuster films). All big budget effects going to waste over shitty dialogue and horribly wooden acting. Keanu Reeves was the best actor in the movie! (I never thought I would say that in my life).I want my money and the 2 hours of my life back. In fact out of all the films I have seen recently I want my money back (Twilight, Day The Earth Stood Still, Australia [my wife dragged me to that 3 hour garbage], Prince Caspian...just to name a few).

I have also looked at a preview of some of next summers films and they look disappointing (land of the lost, The A-Team, Transformers 2, Fast and Furious 4). What the hell has happened to hollywood? Is it a shitty year of films because of the writers strike? If you guys know something I dont please tell me I am all ears.

And if any of you experienced some shitty movies lately share them with me so I don't feel alone in this.

Nothing original sells, so nothing original is created. It's the same with music and literature.

Nothing original sells, so nothing original is created. It's the same with music and literature.

It's a sad time when nothing original sells, it either has to be a comic, a remake, a TV show turned movie, or the dreaded movie musical....

It's a sad time when nothing original sells, it either has to be a comic, a remake, a TV show turned movie, or the dreaded movie musical....

Of course there"s no one original to sell too either. Humans and the pop culture they spawned became a redundant, self-replicating machine a long time ago.

Recessions can help generate originality, where there's money, people spend it on making what's proven bigger and splashier, it takes a lack of resources to fuel ingenuity and originality.

Having said that, I think there's a lot of originality out there, just don't go to a mainstream cinema, even on Youtube there's some gold among all the trash.

The world is oddly fragmenting even as it seems evermore homogenous.

Recessions can help generate originality, where there's money, people spend it on making what's proven bigger and splashier, it takes a lack of resources to fuel ingenuity and originality.

Having said that, I think there's a lot of originality out there, just don't go to a mainstream cinema, even on Youtube there's some gold among all the trash.

The world is oddly fragmenting even as it seems evermore homogenous.

I just miss the good old days when good movies were still coming out.

I can still find some hidden gems on netflix as well, but nothing beats a good theatre experience.

Keanu Reeves as a monotone loner with powers beyond human comprehension, out to save the world.

Yeah, that's a tremendously original and refreshing role.

Keanu Reeves as a monotone loner with powers beyond human comprehension, out to save the world.

Yeah, that's a tremendously original and refreshing role.

and he out acted everyone else in the movie!

Thats bad news for a film.

Keanu Reeves as a monotone loner with powers beyond human comprehension, out to save the world.

Yeah, that's a tremendously original and refreshing role.

I actually thought Keanu played Neo very well. I mean Neo wasn't supposed to be this emotional hero, he was supposed to be cool, calm, and collected.

I haven't seen this movie yet, but I'm considering it.

And if any of you experienced some shitty movies lately share them with me so I don't feel alone in this.

You're not alone - there have been some duds lately, though I never would've even considered seeing the sort of dreck you mentioned. You're a good sport to let someone drag you to see those. :tongue:

One that I considered seeing (well, downloading) lately was Frost/Nixon, until I saw the trailer on t.v. today. Terrible, terrible Nixon - painfully bad if the trailer is at all representative of the film. Anthony Hopkins didn't exactly nail it, but his attempt at least landed someplace close to the target - much better than whoever's playing Nixon in this one. Bleh.

I disagree that its all been trash. Role Models was funny as hell, Milk is amazing, and Changeling was quite good. Gran Torino looks pretty sweet too. And you all should check out Slumdog Millionaire.

We think our films are shit because a lot of them ARE shit. Go back 20 years. People twenty years ago thought the same thing, because a lot of them ARE shit. We just sort the good from the bad with time. In 20 years all the shit films will have been forgotten and the true gems of the 21st century (yes, there are many) won't be.

I've never seen the appeal of Kianu Queeves at all. I guess he's got a GWB thing going on, I don't know. Not that I needed reinforcement, but I'll be skipping this one for sure. Even the trailers annoyed me. "Oh look at me, I'm an alien Neo, I suggest you let me go, I will crush you", Ah, shaddup, Queefanu.

Hollywood is pretty dead if you ask me. With a few exceptions, it's nothing but teentard fluff. The only movie I can think of this year that was worth seeing was Dark Knight, even though I thought the ending was weak, but it was still a better movie than I expected. Not blowing it out of proportion like a drunken fanboy, but I did expect it to be weak going into it. Popularity drives the market though, so I'm glad when a few good films squeeze by, like Solaris. Then there's outside of hollywood with films like Pan's Labyrinth. Two examples where all the praise was well deserved, imo.

Nowadays I pretty much solely either play games or read books. It's not that I don't like movies, but most of the new ones are shit. I much more prefer old ones. And, now that games have taken the path of more cinematic storytelling, you can control what the main character does.

Why am I the only one who thinks Keanu Reeve acting isn't that bad, as long as the role he plays calls for it?

Ok, he is a wooden actor, but some of the roles he plays actually calls for him to act "wooden", I mean would you really want Neo going "TRINTY, I GOT MY DICK STUCK IN MY ZIPPER, HELP!"?

Why am I the only one who thinks Keanu Reeve acting isn't that bad, as long as the role he plays calls for it?

The guy's got only one expression.

Why am I the only one who thinks Keanu Reeve acting isn't that bad, as long as the role he plays calls for it?

The only one, you? Are you nuts? He keeps getting work and getting paid millions to act like himself (some kind of zoned out surfer). Trust me, you're not the only one who likes his presence.

In the past ten years I've seen Wanted, Indiana Jones: the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Memoir of a Geisha, and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy at theaters. I went to all of them at the insistence of one or the other of my kids. I don't like going to movies, aside from the fact that most movies are derivative and ill-done or else poor adaptations of good material, theaters are expensive, crowded and noisy. Why pay nearly $10/per person (plus the cost of overpriced food) to sit in a theater when, with the wonders of TV, within 6 months of the over-hyped nonsense coming out, you can sit in the comfort of your living room and watch it for the considerably less (factor in the cost of the TV, the electricity and the cable or satellite dish - it still costs less). In addition, you have better quality food available and no one is climbing over you to get to the restroom.

And really, when something good comes on (or you get something good through Netflix), invite friends over and make a party of it. More fun, less expensive and if you don't like the movie, you can change the station.

The guy's got only one expression.

lol, that is true. You could probably take every "emotions" he ever acted and they'll all be the same.

The only one, you? Are you nuts? He keeps getting work and getting paid millions to act like himself (some kind of zoned out surfer). Trust me, you're not the only one who likes his presence.

To be fair, I only saw him in the Matrix Trilogy, and I thought he played Neo very well. So that's basically the basis of my whole argument.

Why am I the only one who thinks Keanu Reeve acting isn't that bad, as long as the role he plays calls for it?


True, he really should have got the part of the wardrobe in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Maybe one day they will make a film with Keanu Reeves and Jessica Alba together so they can run the gamut of emotions from A to B

True, he really should have got the part of the wardrobe in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

ROFL! Ahh win. :) You can haz cheesecake.

In the past ten years I've seen Wanted, Indiana Jones: the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Memoir of a Geisha, and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy at theaters. I went to all of them at the insistence of one or the other of my kids. I don't like going to movies, aside from the fact that most movies are derivative and ill-done or else poor adaptations of good material, theaters are expensive, crowded and noisy. Why pay nearly $10/per person (plus the cost of overpriced food) to sit in a theater when, with the wonders of TV, within 6 months of the over-hyped nonsense coming out, you can sit in the comfort of your living room and watch it for the considerably less (factor in the cost of the TV, the electricity and the cable or satellite dish - it still costs less). In addition, you have better quality food available and no one is climbing over you to get to the restroom.

And really, when something good comes on (or you get something good through Netflix), invite friends over and make a party of it. More fun, less expensive and if you don't like the movie, you can change the station.

I agree. dvds were a great invention because of this. Also, imo, any movie that's can't be seen twice is a piece of crap and is not worth a theater ticket. You can watch dvds (or now bluray) as many times as you want. But sometimes you just get really bored and have nothing else to do and something actually gets your attention. Not that movies are targeted to occasional goers like me. They're marketed mainly to teentards that want to watch everything. And it's a mistake if you ask me. Stupid movies from vapid, shallow, stupid directors are not required to be popular in that market. This is proven with the sleeper sci-fi or fantasy movies that were well done yet popular anyways. Hollywood just doesn't have the balls to invest heavy branching out without the staple of "dumb". I root for studios outside of hollywood for this reason. To force them to cut that out. Bad thing is only hollywood has the biggest bucks.

To be fair, I only saw him in the Matrix Trilogy, and I thought he played Neo very well. So that's basically the basis of my whole argument.

It never should have been a trilogy, but greed is greed and it sold. The first one was great for years, then two pieces of crap came out together later on.

Popularity drives the market though, so I'm glad when a few good films squeeze by, like Solaris. Then there's outside of hollywood with films like Pan's Labyrinth. Two examples where all the praise was well deserved, imo.

As much as I hate to strain the last of your respect for Hollywood, I must say that the Hollywood "Solaris" is at best vastly inferior to Tarkovsky's original screen adaptation. It's just awful, bordering on insulting.

As much as I hate to strain the last of your respect for Hollywood, I must say that the Hollywood "Solaris" is at best vastly inferior to Tarkovsky's original screen adaptation. It's just awful, bordering on insulting.

That's your opinion. Also, it was a book. More importantly, the two films are like apples and oranges and never meant for competition. It's like comparing a painting to a photograph. You don't have to like it, but if you think it's a bad film in itself, you're being small minded for doing it merely as comparison to an older classic movie, looking at the glass half empty while ignoring the contrast with the average Hollywood movie. Possibly also contrarily pointless.

Anyways, it was what it was. Maybe it was just my kind of movie. I also liked 2001 Space Odyssey, very similar movie.

It never should have been a trilogy, but greed is greed and it sold. The first one was great for years, then two pieces of crap came out together later on.

At least the second one gave me one of my favorite characters in the Trilogy.

http://www.ota-jones.net/main/images/lamberter3.jpg

The Merovingian!

But still, the later 2 cheapened the first. The original was mysterious and almost like a mythic fable. The trilogy was basically another effects action fest with cool looking stuff flashing around (those mech like things were cool), another one for the crowd of such movies.

That's your opinion. Also, it was a book. More importantly, the two films are like apples and oranges and never meant for competition. It's like comparing a painting to a photograph. You don't have to like it, but if you think it's a bad film in itself, you're being small minded for doing it merely as comparison to an older classic movie, looking at the glass half empty while ignoring the contrast with the average Hollywood movie. Possibly also contrarily pointless.

Anyways, it was what it was. Maybe it was just my kind of movie. I also liked 2001 Space Odyssey, very similar movie.

Yes, that was indeed an opinion - I don't need to be reminded of my subjectivity. ;) I was blunt only because I thought you hadn't seen it. Tarkovsky's was a simplification of Lem, and the remake was a butchered simplification of a simplification. Not that I mind simplification (especially since Tarkovsky's known for his longwindednes - "Stalker" springs to mind) - it's the butchering. The original was considered the Soviet response to 2001, but the remake scraps the epic tone and significance in favor of whittling the story down to just a few themes (identity, love) which were already thoroughly explored in the original in the same manner. It's more of an "update" than a remake - a typical Hollywood 'safe bet' fundraiser.

Wanted
only saw a hour of that and i want that hour back, along with the hours i wasted seeing The Village

Yes, that was indeed an opinion - I don't need to be reminded of my subjectivity. ;) I was blunt only because I thought you hadn't seen it. Tarkovsky's was a simplification of Lem, and the remake was a butchered simplification of a simplification. Not that I mind simplification (especially since Tarkovsky's known for his longwindednes - "Stalker" springs to mind) - it's the butchering. The original was considered the Soviet response to 2001, but the remake scraps the epic tone and significance in favor of whittling the story down to just a few themes (identity, love) which were already thoroughly explored in the original in the same manner. It's more of an "update" than a remake - a typical Hollywood 'safe bet' fundraiser.

Yep, this is true to a point, but it's still better than most sci-fi movies, most of which will come from hollywood. I don't say I worship this movie, just that it stands from the crowd, considering that it's a hollywood movie. I doubt many people would even have heard of the name if the new one hadn't been made. And this remake, adaptation, or whatever we want to call it, isn't really about cohesive themes at all, the way I look at it. You can see themes in it if you like, but the way I look at it, it's more of a visual abstraction, much like 2001 was.

Also, if we can call it a rip off or an insult to the original, that's open ended. They could have just given the new one a different title, I doubt anyone but hardcore movie buffs would have cared about the similarities to a classic, foreign film, and hardly anyone would have paid attention if they said anything. one could argue they called it Solaris and referred to the original as a nod to it. Or if not, and it was an insulting rip off, and if the original Solaris is a response to 2001, we could go the extra mile and call the former a rip off too.

I usually wouldn't like re-adaptations, but this is an exception. This and The Ring, and that's it. Though both new and originals are good.

One that I considered seeing (well, downloading) lately was Frost/Nixon, until I saw the trailer on t.v. today. Terrible, terrible Nixon - painfully bad if the trailer is at all representative of the film. Anthony Hopkins didn't exactly nail it, but his attempt at least landed someplace close to the target - much better than whoever's playing Nixon in this one. Bleh.

Sorry, but after watching Charlie Rose interview Frank Langella (Nixon) and Ron Howard (director), I can't WAIT to see Frost/Nixon. The point of someone playing a role as well-known as Nixon is not to make it an imitation, but to bring out the character of the man. Hopkins is a superior actor, but he didn't have the US frame of mind to fall back on in his characterization. Langella does, and this comes across clearly when he talks about preparing the role. The clips I saw show an actor nailing the paranoia, the spoiled promise, the good, the bad and the ugly of one of US history's most controversial figures. I am certain it's possible that the film will still be bad in my opinion, but after an hour with two of the main forces behind it in Charlie Rose's cross-hairs, I'm convinced it'll be worth seeing.

I mean would you really want Neo going "TRINTY, I GOT MY DICK STUCK IN MY ZIPPER, HELP!"?

So much. So so much. Anyway, in Scotland some people call him Keanu act.

I just miss the good old days when good movies were still coming out.
These days still aren't over. Seen The Prestige?


Just that good movies, as always, only come out at most once a year. Most stuff has always been crap, it's just that the old crap is quickly forgotten, leaving only the best, and the new crap comes out to the screens unfiltered.

Why pay nearly $10/per person (plus the cost of overpriced food) to sit in a theater when, with the wonders of TV, within 6 months of the over-hyped nonsense coming out, you can sit in the comfort of your living room and watch it for the considerably less (factor in the cost of the TV, the electricity and the cable or satellite dish - it still costs less).

I have a friend who works in a cinema; it's the only reason why I would go.

only saw a hour of that and i want that hour back, along with the hours i wasted seeing The Village

Ohhhhh, The Village was really, really bad.

You're not alone - there have been some duds lately, though I never would've even considered seeing the sort of dreck you mentioned. You're a good sport to let someone drag you to see those. :tongue:


Basically we have a system. She picks the movie then the next time i pick the movie. So I sit through her garbage and she sits through my garbage.
It works out.


One that I considered seeing (well, downloading) lately was Frost/Nixon, until I saw the trailer on t.v. today. Terrible, terrible Nixon - painfully bad if the trailer is at all representative of the film. Anthony Hopkins didn't exactly nail it, but his attempt at least landed someplace close to the target - much better than whoever's playing Nixon in this one. Bleh.


Frost/Nixon still could be good even though they got some second rate actor to play nixon, but you never know.

True, he really should have got the part of the wardrobe in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Maybe one day they will make a film with Keanu Reeves and Jessica Alba together so they can run the gamut of emotions from A to B


Add Paul Walker, Leelee Sobieski, and Chris Klien to that cast and you have an emotionless movie of epic proportions.

These days still aren't over. Seen The Prestige?


Just that good movies, as always, only come out at most once a year. Most stuff has always been crap, it's just that the old crap is quickly forgotten, leaving only the best, and the new crap comes out to the screens unfiltered.


Seen the Prestige? I own the prestige! :D

There seems to be only a handful of directors with any originality anymore. Christopher Nolan and Guillermo Del Toro to name a couple. Tim Burton used to be on that list, but after his last couple of suck-fests (Planet of the Apes, Corpse Bride, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Sweeney Todd) he's off the list.

You have only yourself to blame for going to see 'Twilight.' I could tell from the trailer that it was nothing but a extra-long episode of 'The Hills' where they're all vampires.

On the other hand, I saw a movie at my local dollar theatre called 'Redneck Zombies and the Trailer Park of Terror' or some such title, and I was waaaaay more than recompensed for my entertainment dollar. In fact, I think I owe those people some money.

You have only yourself to blame for going to see 'Twilight.' I could tell from the trailer that it was nothing but a extra-long episode of 'The Hills' where they're all vampires.


again, me and the misses switch on picking the film. I have to see her garbage and she has to see my garbage. That week was her garbage.


On the other hand, I saw a movie at my local dollar theatre called 'Redneck Zombies and the Trailer Park of Terror' or some such title, and I was waaaaay more than recompensed for my entertainment dollar. In fact, I think I owe those people some money.

Redneck Zombies...isn't that the one where a bunch of hicks drink moonshine ans turn into zombies? IF so that movie rocked the house.

Honestly the only originality in film lies within the realm of B-Horror.

If you're complaining about garbage, you're going to see garbage. There's plenty of great stuff out there but it's on you to actually go and spend your money on it.

again, me and the misses switch on picking the film. I have to see her garbage and she has to see my garbage. That week was her garbage.

I remember cutting a deal with a girl I was dating where she went to go see 'Snakes On A Plane' with me and I had to see musical theatre with her.

Redneck Zombies...isn't that the one where a bunch of hicks drink moonshine ans turn into zombies? IF so that movie rocked the house. Honestly the only originality in film lies within the realm of B-Horror.

It had Trace Adkins as the Devil, and involved a bus-load of teen-agers getting stranded in the titular trailer park....after dark Dum Dum Dum....(or whatever the textual version of that famous horror riff is). And you're right about B-Horror...you ever see 'Slither', or 'Feast'?

I love going to movie theaters, but it's so expensive for me nowadays that I am extremely picky about what movies I go to. As a result, I've blessedly missed most of the past several years truly gawdawful shit-fests. I've seen enough movies to have a pretty good radar for good and bad signals in movie trailers. For instance, I saw Keanu Reeves and "remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still" in the same trailer and gave it the instant thumbs down. Two hours not lost.

Now television, on the other hand -- those scumbags owe me hundreds of precious hours of my life, and I'm calling in that debt now!! Dammit.

I remember cutting a deal with a girl I was dating where she went to go see 'Snakes On A Plane' with me and I had to see musical theatre with her.


that deal actually doesnt sound bad considering you saw snakes on a plane in the theatres...


It had Trace Adkins as the Devil, and involved a bus-load of teen-agers getting stranded in the titular trailer park....after dark Dum Dum Dum....(or whatever the textual version of that famous horror riff is). And you're right about B-Horror...you ever see 'Slither', or 'Feast'?

I don't think I saw that one. But as for slither i own it on dvd. I have not seen feast, but I was going to rent it from netflix.

My horror reccomendations are. Hatchet (best slasher movie to come out in years), and Black Sheep.

I love going to movie theaters, but it's so expensive for me nowadays that I am extremely picky about what movies I go to. As a result, I've blessedly missed most of the past several years truly gawdawful shit-fests. I've seen enough movies to have a pretty good radar for good and bad signals in movie trailers. For instance, I saw Keanu Reeves and "remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still" in the same trailer and gave it the instant thumbs down. Two hours not lost.


I knew going into the theatres that Day the Earth Stood Still would be bad, like the war of the worlds remake, but I didn't think that it would be a worse Keanu movie than Johnny Mnemonic (sp?)


Now television, on the other hand -- those scumbags owe me hundreds of precious hours of my life, and I'm calling in that debt now!! Dammit.

I gave up on television since the X-Files went shitty (how could they try to run the show without mulder and scully??) there are a few good shows on now (lost, supernatural [which is comprised of all x-files writers]), but I just wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it anymore.

"Zack and Miri Make a Porno" was awesome...Kevin Smith rules...

So was "Sex Drive", and "Tropic Thunder"...Id say it was a pretty good year for Comedies...

And, although it got bad critical reviews, i thought "Pride and Glory" was a cool movie, Edward Norton also rules...

Speaking of Which, "the Incredible Hulk" was good, I definitely recommend it to Hulk fans...beat the hell outta Ang Lee's garbage...

And, of Course the Messiahs, "Ironman" and "the Dark Knight"...So, comic Movies were really good...


I actually thought this year was pretty good for movies...although the ones id seen that the OP listed, did in fact, suck balls...

"Zack and Miri Make a Porno" was awesome...Kevin Smith rules...


That movie had me laughing so hard it hurt. Especially the whole Star Whores bit.


So was "Sex Drive", and "Tropic Thunder"...Id say it was a pretty good year for Comedies...

And, although it got bad critical reviews, i thought "Pride and Glory" was a cool movie, Edward Norton also rules...

Speaking of Which, "the Incredible Hulk" was good, I definitely recommend it to Hulk fans...beat the hell outta Ang Lee's garbage...

And, of Course the Messiahs, "Ironman" and "the Dark Knight"...So, comic Movies were really good...


I actually thought this year was pretty good for movies...although the ones id seen that the OP listed, did in fact, suck balls...

its just a shame that the only good movies any more are comic book films.

That movie had me laughing so hard it hurt. Especially the whole Star Whores bit.



its just a shame that the only good movies any more are comic book films.

"She Frosted me Like a Cake!" lmfao..


Yeah, cant argue with that though...The Mummy series is the last one i can think of...and even that one may have been derived from the, I think, 30's movie...And I actually didnt like the last one as much...I miss the original Eve...:(

I knew going into the theatres that Day the Earth Stood Still would be bad, like the war of the worlds remake, but I didn't think that it would be a worse Keanu movie than Johnny Mnemonic (sp?)
Wow! It must REALLY suck, then. :D

I gave up on television since the X-Files went shitty (how could they try to run the show without mulder and scully??) there are a few good shows on now (lost, supernatural [which is comprised of all x-files writers]), but I just wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it anymore.
I'm approaching that level, too. I was hoping we would get to the point where we could subscribe to new shows like we do to magazines, direct from the production companies, after buying a few single episodes to see if we like it. I was hoping to make that transition before giving up on cable altogether, because it's just not worth the money, but that's not going to happen before my crap-tolerance is entirely exhausted.

I don't rant often but heres a small one...

I just got back a couple of hours ago from seeing the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still. It is by far the worst sci-fi classic remake to date (well at least out of the blockbuster films). All big budget effects going to waste over shitty dialogue and horribly wooden acting. Keanu Reeves was the best actor in the movie! (I never thought I would say that in my life).I want my money and the 2 hours of my life back. In fact out of all the films I have seen recently I want my money back (Twilight, Day The Earth Stood Still, Australia [my wife dragged me to that 3 hour garbage], Prince Caspian...just to name a few).

I have also looked at a preview of some of next summers films and they look disappointing (land of the lost, The A-Team, Transformers 2, Fast and Furious 4). What the hell has happened to hollywood? Is it a shitty year of films because of the writers strike? If you guys know something I dont please tell me I am all ears.

And if any of you experienced some shitty movies lately share them with me so I don't feel alone in this.

You're disappointed that the brainless popcornmunchers are brainless popcornmunchers?

The legacy of LoTR and PoTC has you spoiled. Blockbusters are SUPPOSED to be shit.

There have been some really good films out just recently:

"Hancock" (though I hate Will Smith) was an example of a blockbuster done right - the camerawork is amazing, the script better than can be expected, no standout BAD acting - and all-in-all, a well-directed piece.

"Gabriel" should have won awards. It's in the same league as "Equilibrium" for delivering 'big movie' on 'tiny budget'. Imaginative, inventive, some gorgeous shots. A directorial flavour not unlike that in "Boondock Saints".

"Wanted" was another action movie well worth watching. Not just for Bekmambetov's direction (which, I admit, I have been champing at the bit for, since I first saw "Nightwatch" ("Nochnoi Dozor")), but for a David Fincher-like use of special effects, and some actual invention in tired genre.

If "Gabriel" was last year's "Equilibrium", then "Wanted" was last year's "Fight Club".

The second Hellboy movie was amazing, "Zodiac" was extraordinary...

Doesn't "The Spirit" look promising? "Watchmen"? "Coraline"? The third "Underworld" movie? "Inkheart"? The new "Iceage" movie? "Wolverine"?

"Monsters and Aliens" and an "Avatar" movie look like they might be fun. Pixar has a new one out ("Up").

If you want to take the girl to the theatre... what about "Ghosts of Girlfriends"? That looks maybe promising...


Most movies are shit. They're ALWAYS mostly shit. There's always some good stuff out there, too... but sometimes you have to look for it a little.

I
I gave up on television since the X-Files went shitty (how could they try to run the show without mulder and scully??) there are a few good shows on now .
X-Files was just not the same with out them

lost, supernatural [which is comprised of all x-files writers]), but I just wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it anymore

can't get into lost and sadly i keep missing supernatural and only seen some of it

I don't think I saw that one. But as for slither i own it on dvd. I have not seen feast, but I was going to rent it from netflix. My horror reccomendations are. Hatchet (best slasher movie to come out in years), and Black Sheep.

If you can find 'Trailer Park of Terror', it's definitely worth your time. So is 'Feast' especially for the part where the guy who played 'Jay' in the Kevin Smith movies gets his face ripped off and finally shuts up. I saw Hatchet...that was pretty sweet.

I was hoping to make that transition before giving up on cable altogether, because it's just not worth the money, but that's not going to happen before my crap-tolerance is entirely exhausted.

Yeah, I don't hardly bother with the vast majority of TV programming. About the only things I bother to watch with any regularity are the outdoors channel, the country music channel, and wrestling.

"Equilibrium"

i've only seen some of that at youtube and it looks good,but can't find it on dvd any where here

Prediction: ten years from now, most of the blockbuster movies of today will be in the $5 bin at your local retailer if they're available at all. Y'know, just like most 1998 movies are there now if they're available at all.

I very rarely go to see movies in a theater. This year I saw:

Prince Caspian - they raped the book's storyline. I can tolerate changes made due to the time limits of a film, e.g. The Lord of The Rings, but they really muddles this script. Almost as bad as Eragon.

Indiana Jones - more like the Infernal Machine game than the old 3 films, but fun. Shia LaBeouf (sp?) managed to extend his acting range a bit from the same damn character he had played in every previous film

Iron Man - I thought it was pretty good.

I did not go to see Hellboy 2, Batman, Bond, or any of the other big movies. I prefer watching movies at home. The 'pause' button and cheaper food & drinks are worth the lower definition.

i've only seen some of that at youtube and it looks good,but can't find it on dvd any where here

Check GameStop or a similar store wherever you live. I have seen it at those kinds of stores a few times.

Yes, that was indeed an opinion - I don't need to be reminded of my subjectivity. ;) I was blunt only because I thought you hadn't seen it. Tarkovsky's was a simplification of Lem, and the remake was a butchered simplification of a simplification. Not that I mind simplification (especially since Tarkovsky's known for his longwindednes - "Stalker" springs to mind) - it's the butchering. The original was considered the Soviet response to 2001, but the remake scraps the epic tone and significance in favor of whittling the story down to just a few themes (identity, love) which were already thoroughly explored in the original in the same manner. It's more of an "update" than a remake - a typical Hollywood 'safe bet' fundraiser.

I think the Hollywood "Solaris" is a different story to the Russian one. (I own both). They share some characters, and use a lot of the same 'scenery', but they're very different interpretations of the original text. And the US version doesn't start with 8 minutes of a camera tracking a car.

Win.

Rarely are Hollywood films truly worth the money. These gems include Juno, Wall-E, No Country for Old Men etc...

However there are a lot of good films made by smaller studios and independent film makers. Look for those kind of films.

I did not go to see Hellboy 2, Batman, Bond, or any of the other big movies. I prefer watching movies at home. The 'pause' button and cheaper food & drinks are worth the lower definition.
oh yes the overpriced food and drink

Check GameStop. I saw it there a few times.

they not here in Australia

i've only seen some of that at youtube and it looks good,but can't find it on dvd any where here

Opinion seems to be divided.

In my opinion, "Equilibrium" was at least the equal of The Matrix, and was shot on a budget smaller than that spent on motorcycle chase from the second Matrix installment.

That's not to say it looks low-budget. It's gorgeous and it's professional. And Christian Bale is godlike.

Opinion seems to be divided.

In my opinion, "Equilibrium" was at least the equal of The Matrix, and was shot on a budget smaller than that spent on motorcycle chase from the second Matrix installment.

That's not to say it looks low-budget. It's gorgeous and it's professional. And Christian Bale is godlike.
He is? Okay...

I read threads like this, and it makes me think I'm tuned into a different universe sometimes. Those movies... those actors... I just don't get it.

He is? Okay...

I read threads like this, and it makes me think I'm tuned into a different universe sometimes. Those movies... those actors... I just don't get it.

Hey, I said opinion was divided. :)

There doesn't seem to be much middleground on Equilibrium, though... very few people watched it and thought 'meh'. They either love it, or they hate it.

they not here in Australia

I noted your location AFTER I posted the message, and edited it to reflect that. Sorry.

I noted your location AFTER I posted the message, and edited it to reflect that. Sorry.

You don't have to apologise for someone living in Australia...

;)

You don't have to apologise for someone living in Australia...

;)

I do pity his lack of a GameStop/Electronics Boutique store. The only better place for cheap games and movies is a pawn shop.

Hey, I said opinion was divided. :)

There doesn't seem to be much middleground on Equilibrium, though... very few people watched it and thought 'meh'. They either love it, or they hate it.
I haven't seen "Equilibrium", but I have seen Christian Bale, and the idea of him being "godlike" in any context is...well...inconceivable to me. Even if he was cast as Good God Almighty himself. But that's just me. ;)

I do pity his lack of a GameStop/Electronics Boutique store. The only better place for cheap games and movies is a pawn shop.

got EBs but they don't do movies

I haven't seen "Equilibrium", but I have seen Christian Bale, and the idea of him being "godlike" in any context is...well...inconceivable to me. Even if he was cast as Good God Almighty himself. But that's just me. ;)

Nah, everyone knows Morgan Freeman is God, lol

Ohhhhh, The Village was really, really bad.

It just beat out the Happening for real, real badness.

Frost/Nixon still could be good even though they got some second rate actor to play nixon, but you never know.

Good grief, what's wrong with you people? Frank Langella (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001449/) is a versatile stage and screen actor, and has been for 30+ years. How do you get "second-rate" out of a career that long, with SAG and other award nominations? Just because they guy's name isn't marquee doesn't mean shit. Or have you been raving over marquee names like Tom Cruise and their performances? A guy works a lifetime acting, and never gets a A-list-type of role, and when he finally gets one, he makes the most of it, garnering a Golden Globe nomination in the process.

I don't mind strong opinions, but jeez, how about some rationale?

Here we go.


There have been some really good films out just recently:

"Hancock" (though I hate Will Smith) was an example of a blockbuster done right - the camerawork is amazing, the script better than can be expected, no standout BAD acting - and all-in-all, a well-directed piece.

It was defintiely the suprise hit of the year. That movie (and I Am Legend) proved just how far Will Smith can carry any movie, and just make it golden.
I am anxiously awaiting Seven Pounds


"Gabriel" should have won awards. It's in the same league as "Equilibrium" for delivering 'big movie' on 'tiny budget'. Imaginative, inventive, some gorgeous shots. A directorial flavour not unlike that in "Boondock Saints".


I have not seen Gabriel (although it is in my netflix queue) I will say that Equilibrium is one of the best B-Science Fiction films of all time. Its just too damn bad that Kurt Wimmers follow up "Ultraviolet" was so terrible. He was quoted in saying that he perfect the Gunkata for that movie, but it was only used in one scene.

Boondock saints on the other hand, is another B-Masterpiece all in its own. One of the most original films to come out in the last 10 years.


"Wanted" was another action movie well worth watching. Not just for Bekmambetov's direction (which, I admit, I have been champing at the bit for, since I first saw "Nightwatch" ("Nochnoi Dozor")), but for a David Fincher-like use of special effects, and some actual invention in tired genre.

If "Gabriel" was last year's "Equilibrium", then "Wanted" was last year's "Fight Club".


Night and Daywatch, two movies I know I need to see. Wanted will be on that list as well.



The second Hellboy movie was amazing, "Zodiac" was extraordinary...


Hellboy 2 was amazing, and I hope he just keeps making them. Guillermo Del Toro is apparently making the Hobbit movies. The LoTR team will return to write and produce the two movies on the book while Del Toro will direct. Looks promising.

Doesn't "The Spirit" look promising? "Watchmen"? "Coraline"? The third "Underworld" movie? "Inkheart"? The new "Iceage" movie? "Wolverine"?

One good thing about seeing the day the earth stood still was it had an amazing trailer for the new wolverine movie, which looks better than all the X-Men shit flicks that have come out (the third X-Men movie being one of the worst comic book adaptation films ever). Watchmen does look good. And the Spirit looks like another winner from the Sin City/300 team. Underworld looks like it could go either way. And I have not seen the trailers for coraline and inkheart yet, but I have read nothing but good things about it.


"Monsters and Aliens" and an "Avatar" movie look like they might be fun. Pixar has a new one out ("Up").


I need to see the trailers for Monsters and Aliens. I have read the premise and it sounds promising. I don't know much about avatar and I was unaware of a movie.


If you want to take the girl to the theatre... what about "Ghosts of Girlfriends"? That looks maybe promising...

I will look into it.



Most movies are shit. They're ALWAYS mostly shit. There's always some good stuff out there, too... but sometimes you have to look for it a little.
That is why i stick to horror films, the only genre that has originality, and decent films anymore.

Good grief, what's wrong with you people? Frank Langella (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001449/) is a versatile stage and screen actor, and has been for 30+ years. How do you get "second-rate" out of a career that long, with SAG and other award nominations? Just because they guy's name isn't marquee doesn't mean shit. Or have you been raving over marquee names like Tom Cruise and their performances? A guy works a lifetime acting, and never gets a A-list-type of role, and when he finally gets one, he makes the most of it, garnering a Golden Globe nomination in the process.

I don't mind strong opinions, but jeez, how about some rationale?

LOL! :D

I was waiting for someone to catch that statement. Frank Langella is an amazing actor and doesn't get enough credit for the work he does. And I am sure the movie will be great.

I will remember to add the [sarcasm] to it next time.

X-Files was just not the same with out them


and WTF were they thinking in casting Robert Patrick. I mean the Double Dragon guy? come on. He is no David Duchovny.


can't get into lost and sadly i keep missing supernatural and only seen some of it

Lost is a show you need to rent and watch all the way through. I can't watch it on TV myself.

And Supernatural is the best show on TV right now, maybe next to House. And I can't believe that a show that good can be on a shit ridden network like the CW.

That is why i stick to horror films, the only genre that has originality, and decent films anymore.
Huh-what? I think something in my brain just broke trying to process this statement.
Don't get me wrong, I like horror too and there are some inventive ones out there, but to imply that horror isn't among the most derivative movie genres out there is ridiculous.
What else could I expect from someone who liked Equilibrium . . .

Huh-what? I think something in my brain just broke trying to process this statement.


I get that a lot.


What else could I expect from someone who liked Equilibrium . . .

And what do you have against Equilibrium? That film is easily better than the Matrix films (at least better than Matrix 2 and 3 put together).

I get that a lot.
I think it has something to do with the wookie-on-princess gropage in your avatar. It just won't stop! Why won't he stop? Why doesn't he ever let go!?
And what do you have against Equilibrium? That film is easily better than the Matrix films (at least better than Matrix 2 and 3 put together).
The entire premise was absurd. From the communes of emotional people who lounged about like 19th century opium addicts, only with poetry books in place of opium pipes; to the idea that poetry and art can only be enjoyed on an emotional level (one can find intellectual pleasure in properly used color and language). The soldiers and other bureaucrats working for the evil empire were quite plainly afraid at several points, something that they shouldn't have been capable of. The dialogue was unrealistic, overwrought and silly.
Oh, and gunkata. Seriously? I'll admit, the final fight where the Hero and Big Bad were blocking each others guns was pretty damned cool and not unbelievable, but the rest of it made less sense than just having the bad guys be terrible shots.
The movie was quite firmly in so bad it's good territory. Something to laugh at when you've got a few drinks and some friends over, but it is not a "Best."

I think it has something to do with the wookie-on-princess gropage in your avatar. It just won't stop! Why won't he stop? Why doesn't he ever let go!?


Would you ever let go of leia's tit if you had the chance to grab it?


The entire premise was absurd. From the communes of emotional people who lounged about like 19th century opium addicts, only with poetry books in place of opium pipes; to the idea that poetry and art can only be enjoyed on an emotional level (one can find intellectual pleasure in properly used color and language). The soldiers and other bureaucrats working for the evil empire were quite plainly afraid at several points, something that they shouldn't have been capable of. The dialogue was unrealistic, overwrought and silly.
Oh, and gunkata. Seriously? I'll admit, the final fight where the Hero and Big Bad were blocking each others guns was pretty damned cool and not unbelievable, but the rest of it made less sense than just having the bad guys be terrible shots.
The movie was quite firmly in so bad it's good territory. Something to laugh at when you've got a few drinks and some friends over, but it is not a "Best."


The premise of most Sci-Fi action films are absurd. You just have to let go of reality for 2 hours and accept it. 300 is another example of a great absurd film.

The premise of most Sci-Fi action films are absurd. You just have to let go of reality for 2 hours and accept it. 300 is another example of a great absurd film.
There is only so far disbelief can go, and Equilibrium went well past that point. Worse, Equilibrium wasn't just absurd, it was inconsistent within it's own Universe.

Good God...Keanu Reeves and best actor (or any use of the term actor for that matter) are not words that should ever be paired but if this movie seriously raised the specter of such a frightening combination, we are truly lost.

Good God...Keanu Reeves and best actor (or any use of the term actor for that matter) are not words that should ever be paired but if this movie seriously raised the specter of such a frightening combination, we are truly lost.

Well Will Smith's kid (Jaden Smith? the one from Pursuit of Happyness) did a good job acting, but he had zero dialogue to go with. Out of the adult actors Keanu did the best job. Jennifer Connely(sp?) was like Natalie Portman in Star Wars, completely wooden and emotionless.

Well Will Smith's kid (Jaden Smith? the one from Pursuit of Happyness) did a good job acting, but he had zero dialogue to go with. Out of the adult actors Keanu did the best job. Jennifer Connely(sp?) was like Natalie Portman in Star Wars, completely wooden and emotionless.
You just said that Keanu Reeves did the best job of all the adult actors in that movie.

Do you have any idea how damning that is to all those other actors? If it's true, they should be forced to eat their SAG cards.

You just said that Keanu Reeves did the best job of all the adult actors in that movie.

Do you have any idea how damning that is to all those other actors? If it's true, they should be forced to eat their SAG cards.

And I stand by it. See it for yourself and decide. Jennifer Connelys worst role since the Rocketeer.

snip
I agree with most of what you say, 'cept for Hancock. That could have been good but was spoilt by them not knowing what to do with the movie. It felt like they'd gotten 3 writers to do their own scripts seperately, then mushed them together into a 90 minute movie. We were left with a movie that didn't gel at all, and lurched from one event to a completely different one.
If it'd stuck with Hancock being a useless drunk then becoming a decent superhero and left out all that, "We're angels who cancel out each other's powers" crap at the end, it had potential to be a real classic.
It felt like they made two movies, then thought they wouldn't get the chance to release the 2nd, so edited them into 1. A real shame.


Anyone see 'Choke'? I was going to see it at the weekend but it was on too late (10.30pm) so in the end couldn't be arsed.


Coen Brothers are still making good movies. 'No country for old men' was utterly brilliant. Not seen 'Burn after reading', but I can't imagine it being shite.
Hellboy was superb as well. I enjoyed it more than the first - rare for a sequel to match or better the original.
One really bad movie stands out for me this year: "Before the Devil knows you're dead". I think it pissed me off most for shite movie because I was expecting at least a decent flick, but was instead shown a bucket of vomit mixed with dog turd for 100 minutes. Indeed, in hindsight that would have been preferable.

Problem with Hollywood is always been it's lack of originality. Now of course there's even less money floating about to loan to movie studios, so we can expect to see more crappy remakes and endless sequels over the next couple of years as the studios play it safe with reliable product.

Well Will Smith's kid (Jaden Smith? the one from Pursuit of Happyness) did a good job acting, but he had zero dialogue to go with. Out of the adult actors Keanu did the best job. Jennifer Connely(sp?) was like Natalie Portman in Star Wars, completely wooden and emotionless.

My favourite movie by Jennifer Connelly was a BDSM porn flick that didn't actually star her, but rather a girl who looks just like her.

So yeah, think I'll be skipping this flick since I hate Keanu Reeves.

My favourite movie by Jennifer Connelly was a BDSM porn flick that didn't actually star her, but rather a girl who looks just like her.

She was my favorite actress in that porn movie she wasn't in!

And, may I add, you were FANTASTIC in debbie does dallas.

"Hancock" (though I hate Will Smith) was an example of a blockbuster done right - the camerawork is amazing, the script better than can be expected, no standout BAD acting - and all-in-all, a well-directed piece.

Wait, what? I'll admit that the first chunk of the movie was solid. The scene where Smith, Bateman and Theron go out for dinner was its undoing however. The film ended badly, like expensive underwear flapping in the wind. The poor attempt at trying to provide a back story was a completely unnecessary jumble of ideas that didn't get across what I think it was trying to get across.

Ah yes, No Country For Old Men was a great movie. There is the occasional good movie, the thing is they're usually loosely based on real events and/or about "realistic" events, and I'm not especially drawn at that sort of thing all the time. It seems most of them want to polarize everything into serious dramas or kid's cartoons, boring.

And I stand by it. See it for yourself and decide. Jennifer Connelys worst role since the Rocketeer.
Craptastic! :D

Ah yes, No Country For Old Men was a great movie. There is the occasional good movie, the thing is they're usually loosely based on real events and/or about "realistic" events, and I'm not especially drawn at that sort of thing all the time. It seems most of them want to polarize everything into serious dramas or kid's cartoons, boring.

I may be the only one, but I wasn't really impressed with No Country For Old Men. I really wanted to like it, for I am a huge fan of the Coen Brothers, but alas I was severely disappointed.

Craptastic! :D

That would sum up that movie.

the only good part Keanu Reeves had was in point break. because he could play an idiot surfer.

the only good part Keanu Reeves had was in point break. because he could play an idiot surfer.

come on Keanu's all time best role is Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure hands down.

come on Keanu's all time best role is Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure hands down.

yeah i saw those two movies and I thought wow he knows how to act.


then I saw the rest of his movies and I realized no he only knows how to act stoned and stupid.

Some years ago I saw Kenneth Brannagh's version of Much Ado About Nothing. Keanu Reeves played the part of Don John. The only reason I remember this is because I had to look it up - I had some vague recollection that he had something to do with the movie, but, for the life of me I couldn't remember who he played. Michael Keaton had a cameo that was more memorable.

Speaking of bad movies, in a fit of boredom induced channel surfing, I tuned in to something called In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale. It was based on the game, which I have played in the past, so I thought it might be mildly amusing. The plot was nonexistent and the emotional range of the characters ranged from nauseous to dead. I understand it was released in theaters in 2008 and no one noticed. The critical reviews were outstandingly bad and it's now rated as one of the worst movies of all time. Why do producer's think they can base a movie on a kid's game and expect it to do well?

I don't rant often but heres a small one...

I just got back a couple of hours ago from seeing the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still. It is by far the worst sci-fi classic remake to date (well at least out of the blockbuster films).

I don't know about "worst", but it wasn't very good. The kid was annoying as hell, and the ending was horribly anti-climactic.

I expected something average, and average is about what I got.

Save your money...go rent the original.

Why do producer's think they can base a movie on a kid's game and expect it to do well?

There's nothing wrong with basing it on that. A good director can adapt any halfway interesting concept into a good movie; there's just not many of those.

Your example movie is special though: you're talking about an Uwe Boll "movie". He makes the most aggressively bad crap around and does it on purpose. He's like a troll who gets paid.

It needs to be pasted on some grand billboard, it should be Movie-going 101 to ignore any movie with Uwe Boll as the director, you won't be seeing a movie if you go.

come on Keanu's all time best role is Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure hands down.

Dammit, I came here to post this.

Pulse is the worst freaking movie.

Keanu Reeves was the best actor in the movie!

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

That's something, knowing that mr.Reeves has about the same expressive capacities of a dry-cured Parma ham. With the difference that the Parma ham costs less and is actually more enjoyable.

Speaking of bad movies, in a fit of boredom induced channel surfing, I tuned in to something called In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale. It was based on the game, which I have played in the past, so I thought it might be mildly amusing. The plot was nonexistent and the emotional range of the characters ranged from nauseous to dead. I understand it was released in theaters in 2008 and no one noticed. The critical reviews were outstandingly bad and it's now rated as one of the worst movies of all time. Why do producer's think they can base a movie on a kid's game and expect it to do well?

It was an Uwe Boll production. Self-contained explanation for "Complete Piece of Shit".

There is only so far disbelief can go, and Equilibrium went well past that point. Worse, Equilibrium wasn't just absurd, it was inconsistent within it's own Universe.

Most movies aren't terribly consistent. What's your point?

Night and Daywatch, two movies I know I need to see.

I agree, you need to see them. Just be warned - the plot of the second film wanders jumps around a bit.

EDIT: Ahhh, Uwe Boll, is there anything you can make that doesn't look like fresh, steaming, pig manure?

I have just bought myself the dvds of No country for old men and In Bruges, and I am quite looking forward to an evening of movietastic entertainment. So not all modern films are crap.

I agree, you need to see them. Just be warned - the plot of the second film wanders jumps around a bit.


Yep. Noc'noj dozor is better.

I would like to know how the Jennifer Government movie will turn out. The book is in my top 10, but Hollywood has a way of effing up good things. *Prays that they won't screw this up*

Also, WHY THE HELL ARE VIDEO GAME MOVIES CRAP???!!!! I mean video games have better storylines than freaking movies do, and the storyline is only half the picture with them (gameplay's the other) Some examples of these "better than movies" games are Call of Duty 4, Mass Effect, and Command and Conquer.

Yep. Noc'noj dozor is better.
Yes, Nightwatch was better.

I would like to know how the Jennifer Government movie will turn out. The book is in my top 10, but Hollywood has a way of effing up good things. *Prays that they won't screw this up*

Also, WHY THE HELL ARE VIDEO GAME MOVIES CRAP???!!!! I mean video games have better storylines than freaking movies do, and the storyline is only half the picture with them (gameplay's the other) Some examples of these "better than movies" games are Call of Duty 4, Mass Effect, and Command and Conquer.

*Try to push Planescape: Torment into the list*

I would like to know how the Jennifer Government movie will turn out. The book is in my top 10, but Hollywood has a way of effing up good things. *Prays that they won't screw this up*

Also, WHY THE HELL ARE VIDEO GAME MOVIES CRAP???!!!! I mean video games have better storylines than freaking movies do, and the storyline is only half the picture with them (gameplay's the other) Some examples of these "better than movies" games are Call of Duty 4, Mass Effect, and Command and Conquer.Much as I love the games, this deserves a noooooooo...

Much as I love the games, this deserves a noooooooo...

Meh, I think the storyline was great, plus Kane was an awesome villain.

But, ya, the movies nowadays are getting crappier and crappier. Have they run out of ideas? Has this been an inevitablity?

I may be the only one, but I wasn't really impressed with No Country For Old Men. I really wanted to like it, for I am a huge fan of the Coen Brothers, but alas I was severely disappointed.

Nah, I agree with you, actually. So you're not the only one, just in a tiny minority. Actually, I'll say it wasn't a "bad" movie, it was just way, way, way over-hyped.

On the other hand, and I'm surprised no one's mentioned it, There Will Be Blood was fantastic.

I do want to see Twilight, though, but only because apparently the last line in the movie is, "I want to tell you a secret...I'm made of crystal." If this is true, this is such a stupid fucking line, especially a line that is important dialog, that I must see. I think I might die laughing, though. =\

Nah, I agree with you, actually. So you're not the only one, just in a tiny minority. Actually, I'll say it wasn't a "bad" movie, it was just way, way, way over-hyped.
Oh thank god. People said I was stupid or 'didn't get it' - no, it's just not a very good film. None of the characters are likeable. The main character gets iced off-screen. This is Not Good Cinematography.

Oh thank god. People said I was stupid or 'didn't get it' - no, it's just not a very good film. None of the characters are likeable. The main character gets iced off-screen. This is Not Good Cinematography.

The thing is, I think I "got it." I mean, I understand what the Coen brothers were trying to do, they were taking an approach to a terrifying villain and asserting the unpredictability and randomness of life, and even evil. At least, that's what I took from it. However, I did not like what I got. I applaud them for trying something different, but that doesn't mean I have to assume they succeeded. =\

Like I said, There Will Be Blood was much, much better.

Oh, and because I forgot to mention it in the last post, if The Watchmen movie adaptation is done well, it could be the best comic book movie ever, not to mention just an amazing film in and of itself (though I'm a bit worried.....there are a lot of things from the graphic novel that I don't know how they can translate to film very well). Seriously, The Watchmen is to "comics" what 1984 or Brave New World are to "scifi," it transcends genres and is recognized as a masterpiece for a reason.

Most movies aren't terribly consistent. What's your point?
That those movies are stupid as well?
And, no, most movies don't have something as their premise (emotions have been completely removed from the human population) and then completely ignore it (soldiers for the emotionless army demonstrating fear).

I have just bought myself the dvds of No country for old men and In Bruges, and I am quite looking forward to an evening of movietastic entertainment. So not all modern films are crap.

In Bruges was an excellent film. The sensibility of early Guy Ritchie (think Lock, Stock...) plus genuine and tasteful sentimentality.

Also, WHY THE HELL ARE VIDEO GAME MOVIES CRAP???!!!! I mean video games have better storylines than freaking movies do, and the storyline is only half the picture with them (gameplay's the other) Some examples of these "better than movies" games are Call of Duty 4, Mass Effect, and Command and Conquer.

Uh...perhaps it's because those two media are so different. Books work better because they and movies are more conventionally one-way media. Books are interactive in their way, but nothing compared to a video game. To take a completely interactive and immersive environment and translate it into a watch-only story is a difficult proposition. Hell many books don't translate, it's not surprising that virtually all video games don't work.

Writing to further a plot versus writing to further the action of a game. Very different prospects. Also, I'll wager that many good writers either don't accept the gig to write a game film or try too hard to make the game a literary experience. The Final Fantasy film "The Spirits Within" was the only game film I'd seen that came close to working, and it was damn near too esoteric and unintelligible to finish.

The thing is, I think I "got it." I mean, I understand what the Coen brothers were trying to do, they were taking an approach to a terrifying villain and asserting the unpredictability and randomness of life, and even evil. At least, that's what I took from it. However, I did not like what I got. I applaud them for trying something different, but that doesn't mean I have to assume they succeeded. =\

Like I said, There Will Be Blood was much, much better.

Oh, and because I forgot to mention it in the last post, if The Watchmen movie adaptation is done well, it could be the best comic book movie ever, not to mention just an amazing film in and of itself (though I'm a bit worried.....there are a lot of things from the graphic novel that I don't know how they can translate to film very well). Seriously, The Watchmen is to "comics" what 1984 or Brave New World are to "scifi," it transcends genres and is recognized as a masterpiece for a reason.

Agreed with everything but the bolded. The film put me to sleep. Twice.

That those movies are stupid as well?
And, no, most movies don't have something as their premise (emotions have been completely removed from the human population) and then completely ignore it (soldiers for the emotionless army demonstrating fear).

They don't? M. Night Shyamalan lives for contradictions like that. Come on, -- bad plot devices and inconsistencies are a Hollywood staple.

And you're harping on that one flaw like it's some kind of mortal sin. Seems to me that emotional control is non-instinctual. You can claim control all you want, but when faced with primal situations, primal reactions are to be expected.

And if any of you experienced some shitty movies lately share them with me so I don't feel alone in this.

hmmm... now I'm tempted to see this... er... rip-off (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1290471/) for the laugh factor...

hmmm... now I'm tempted to see this... er... rip-off (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1290471/) for the laugh factor...

Wow -- C. Thomas Howell AND Judd Nelson. All they needed was the Coreys and a Billy Ocean soundtrack, and everything wrong with the 80s would have been reborn.

Also, WHY THE HELL ARE VIDEO GAME MOVIES CRAP???!!!! I mean video games have better storylines than freaking movies do, and the storyline is only half the picture with them (gameplay's the other) Some examples of these "better than movies" games are Call of Duty 4, Mass Effect, and Command and Conquer.

because...
1) the people making the movie know crap about the game
2) most game storylines won't translate well onto the screen.
3) 9 out of 10 movie makers won't care about the game.

Resident Evil:Apocolypse was IMHO the best of the three (the third 'movie' was nothing but mindless action) because of the actress they got to play Jill Valentine. she took time to study the character's moves, how she walked, attitude, etc... and she pretty much nailed her on the screen. she knew nothing about the story or the character, so she took the time to learn about her from her 'Geeky' friends.

D&D: Wrath of the Dragon God was an order of magnatude better than that first crappy D&D movie. sure the acting was still wooden, but they (the producers) tried to make it truer to the fans. even to the point of getting the sourcebooks for the actors/actresses to read. they also tossed out alot of 'shout outs' to the fans.

when the Producers care to learn about the game, they get some pretty intersting movies. but when they fail... "Street Fighter" anyone?

because...
1) the people making the movie know crap about the game
2) most game storylines won't translate well onto the screen.
3) 9 out of 10 movie makers won't care about the game.

Resident Evil:Apocolypse was IMHO the best of the three (the third 'movie' was nothing but mindless action) because of the actress they got to play Jill Valentine. she took time to study the character's moves, how she walked, attitude, etc... and she pretty much nailed her on the screen. she knew nothing about the story or the character, so she took the time to learn about her from her 'Geeky' friends.

D&D: Wrath of the Dragon God was an order of magnatude better than that first crappy D&D movie. sure the acting was still wooden, but they (the producers) tried to make it truer to the fans. even to the point of getting the sourcebooks for the actors/actresses to read. they also tossed out alot of 'shout outs' to the fans.

when the Producers care to learn about the game, they get some pretty intersting movies. but when they fail... "Street Fighter" anyone?

Or Super Mario Bros.?

The best video game movie I've ever seen is The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters.

Wow -- C. Thomas Howell AND Judd Nelson. All they needed was the Coreys and a Billy Ocean soundtrack, and everything wrong with the 80s would have been reborn.

did you check out the movie poster?

Fox is trying to sue Asylum who is famous for their... er... knock offs like
Snakes on a Train (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0843873/)
Alien Vs Hunter (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1094162/)
Transmorphers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0960835/)
I am Omega (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1075746/)

some of their movies are helarious. tho I don't think they were meant to be...

They don't? M. Night Shyamalan lives for contradictions like that. Come on, -- bad plot devices and inconsistencies are a Hollywood staple.

And you're harping on that one flaw like it's some kind of mortal sin. Seems to me that emotional control is non-instinctual. You can claim control all you want, but when faced with primal situations, primal reactions are to be expected.
M. Night Shyamalan does not make "most movies." His flaws do not set the acceptable standards.

And I agree with Mr. F on this one -- that level of internal inconsistency is a mortal sin -- or at least a fatal flaw -- in movie making. If you are going to tell a story, then you must remain true to the foundational premise of your story, or else you may as well be Uwe Boll.

If you have based your entire story on the premise that emotion has been purged from humanity, then you either cannot have soldiers expressing fear, or you must account for why they are expressing an emotion in an emotionless world.

Another example from my "I want my hours back" vendetta against television: In "Stargate: Atlantis", in the first three or four seasons, one of the major characters was built up almost entirely on the asserted fact that he was "immune" to being fed upon by the evil predatory aliens. This affected his primary function in the team of heroes and was the foundational premise of his dramatic backstory as a character. Then, in an early episode of Season 5, they had him taken prisoner by one of the evil predatory aliens who then proceeded to feed upon him. Four years worth of premise out the window with nary a nod to its passing. Nobody in the show said, "WTF, I thought he was immune?" There was no explanation of how it was possible for this alien to do this, nothing like his whole past had been a cruel lie, or anything like that. No end scene where someone woke up and realized the whole show to date had been a dream. Nothing.

That sort of "the writers just didn't care" flub is just not acceptable.

You just said that Keanu Reeves did the best job of all the adult actors in that movie.

Do you have any idea how damning that is to all those other actors? If it's true, they should be forced to eat their SAG cards.

Klaatu is supposed to be wooden and unemotional. So, when Keanu plays Klaatu Reaves, he's conveniently in character, because his character is supposed to be that way. The other actors play actual humans, though, so there is no excuse for why THEY are wooden and unemotional.

M. Night Shyamalan does not make "most movies." His flaws do not set the acceptable standards.

Speaking of Mr. Shyamalan, doesn't anyone else think The Happening was unintentionally his most awesome movie? It was so full of Narm I actually laughed "IT'S THE PLANTS! THE TREES ARE TALKING TO THE BUSHES!" (spoiler) .

Another example from my "I want my hours back" vendetta against television: In "Stargate: Atlantis", in the first three or four seasons, one of the major characters was built up almost entirely on the asserted fact that he was "immune" to being fed upon by the evil predatory aliens. This affected his primary function in the team of heroes and was the foundational premise of his dramatic backstory as a character. Then, in an early episode of Season 5, they had him taken prisoner by one of the evil predatory aliens who then proceeded to feed upon him. Four years worth of premise out the window with nary a nod to its passing. Nobody in the show said, "WTF, I thought he was immune?" There was no explanation of how it was possible for this alien to do this, nothing like his whole past had been a cruel lie, or anything like that. No end scene where someone woke up and realized the whole show to date had been a dream. Nothing.

That sort of "the writers just didn't care" flub is just not acceptable.

I so hate the Stargate franchise right now, yet somehow I'm compelled to keep watching the show. It's so full of technobabble and inconsistencies it's like a bad Star Trek show, without any of the Aesops or philosophical insights that Star Trek used to have as themes.

Oh, and because I forgot to mention it in the last post, if The Watchmen movie adaptation is done well, it could be the best comic book movie ever, not to mention just an amazing film in and of itself (though I'm a bit worried.....there are a lot of things from the graphic novel that I don't know how they can translate to film very well). Seriously, The Watchmen is to "comics" what 1984 or Brave New World are to "scifi," it transcends genres and is recognized as a masterpiece for a reason.

I'm cautiously optimistic about Watchmen ... I heard somewhere that the director is planning to include all of the fictional documents in the DVD, which would be cool.

Also, I'm pretty excited that World War Z is going to be made into a movie. I'm really hoping that they do it right and use a documentary style instead of just making it the same as all the other zombie flicks.

In Bruges was an excellent film.

Yes, it was.

BTW, I think I'm the only one who thought that Milk sucked raw rotten eggs.

That sort of "the writers just didn't care" flub is just not acceptable.
in a way tho. it is true. if a writer does NOT check the continualty, it's not because he cares about the show.

In Bruges was an excellent film. The sensibility of early Guy Ritchie (think Lock, Stock...) plus genuine and tasteful sentimentality.



I hope it isn't as that actually puts me off, I really didn't like Lock, Stock... at all. I am hoping that his divorce settlement from Madonna means he will never make another film.

did you check out the movie poster?

Fox is trying to sue Asylum who is famous for their... er... knock offs like
Snakes on a Train (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0843873/)
Alien Vs Hunter (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1094162/)
Transmorphers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0960835/)
I am Omega (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1075746/)

some of their movies are helarious. tho I don't think they were meant to be...

Gotta love Asylum, the knock off factory. C. Thomas Howell directed The Day the Earth Stopped. I heard an interview with the guy who runs Asylum talking about how a PA on one of their features a few months later was directing one of their features. They're like old Roger Corman cheapies, a quick way to come up directing nonsense. Worked for Ron Howard.

Gotta love Asylum, the knock off factory. C. Thomas Howell directed The Day the Earth Stopped. I heard an interview with the guy who runs Asylum talking about how a PA on one of their features a few months later was directing one of their features. They're like old Roger Corman cheapies, a quick way to come up directing nonsense. Worked for Ron Howard.

and the thing is... The ones I saw had a different storyline than their supposed authentic ones... Snakes on a Train was about a voodoo curse, Transmorphers was humans vs alien piloted robots...

hhmmmm maybe I could get a job as a PA for Asylum...

and the thing is... The ones I saw had a different storyline than their supposed authentic ones... Snakes on a Train was about a voodoo curse, Transmorphers was humans vs alien piloted robots...

hhmmmm maybe I could get a job as a PA for Asylum...

Can't say I haven't considered it a few dozen times myself...

and the thing is... The ones I saw had a different storyline than their supposed authentic ones... Snakes on a Train was about a voodoo curse, Transmorphers was humans vs alien piloted robots...

hhmmmm maybe I could get a job as a PA for Asylum...

But Asylum tend to make the kind of films that fit right in the Cheap Knock Off Toys and Home Video section at dollar stores. Really tacky, and probably the only thing going for them is that they're not known to be directed by Uwe Boll.

I'm cautiously optimistic about Watchmen ... I heard somewhere that the director is planning to include all of the fictional documents in the DVD, which would be cool.
That would be absolutely awesome. Stuff like the pirate story and whatnot really had me scratching my head how it was going to fit in there. It's stuff that they could lose, but it's the difference between acceptable and fucking incredible. =p
Also, I'm pretty excited that World War Z is going to be made into a movie. I'm really hoping that they do it right and use a documentary style instead of just making it the same as all the other zombie flicks.
I'd be excited for WWZ but it brings back flashbacks of the bad taste I Am Legend left in my mouth. It's like the first half of that movie was spot on, minus a couple parts here and there that weren't too big a deal, and then they said, "Fuck it, let's really just piss all over the rest of the story because we can and our stupid bullshit ending will be a really funny joke to play on people who know the story and how it completely wrecks the title to do what we're going to do."

But Asylum tend to make the kind of films that fit right in the Cheap Knock Off Toys and Home Video section at dollar stores. Really tacky, and probably the only thing going for them is that they're not known to be directed by Uwe Boll. hence why I still watch their knock off movies. ;)

I say let's fire all movie critics and replace them with physics professors. All movies should be analysed on the basis of whether the special effects follow the laws of physics. The more careless they are, the better the movie :p

I say let's fire all movie critics and replace them with physics professors. All movies should be analysed on the basis of whether the special effects follow the laws of physics. The more careless they are, the better the movie :p

Somewhere on my home computer I have a home-made list of "points" for movies. Certain situations, plot devices, props or effects included in movies will earn different values of points, by which you can judge just how awesome the film was. For example.

Movie has a helicopter: 2 points
Movie has an explosion: 2 points
Movie has an exploding helicopter: 4 points

I'd be excited for WWZ but it brings back flashbacks of the bad taste I Am Legend left in my mouth. It's like the first half of that movie was spot on, minus a couple parts here and there that weren't too big a deal, and then they said, "Fuck it, let's really just piss all over the rest of the story because we can and our stupid bullshit ending will be a really funny joke to play on people who know the story and how it completely wrecks the title to do what we're going to do."

No kidding, if they had just ended it correctly it would have been a decent interpretation of the book, but instead they had to turn it into a cheap recycling of every other apocalyptic disaster movie. It's like they read the story and thought, 'hey, here's an original and thought-provoking novel, let's turn it into a bland and unoriginal movie!'

Eragon!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVED that book with all my hearrt, and they killed it, they murdered it slowly and painfully in cold blood, and they even destroyed it's baby maker, so now there will be no chance for a sequal movie to reedeem it.

Somewhere on my home computer I have a home-made list of "points" for movies. Certain situations, plot devices, props or effects included in movies will earn different values of points, by which you can judge just how awesome the film was. For example.

Movie has a helicopter: 2 points
Movie has an explosion: 2 points
Movie has an exploding helicopter: 4 points

Movie has motorcycle: 3 points
Movie has motorcycle jumping through or over exploding helicopter: 10 points

something like that? :D

Eragon!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVED that book with all my hearrt, and they killed it, they murdered it slowly and painfully in cold blood, and they even destroyed it's baby maker, so now there will be no chance for a sequal movie to reedeem it.

I got mad at the cheesy "dragon flies and suddenly grows to full size in 30 seconds" thing. It was all downhill from there. And Solembum is quite possibly the coolest side character on the book, but was nonexistant in the movie.

Somewhere on my home computer I have a home-made list of "points" for movies. Certain situations, plot devices, props or effects included in movies will earn different values of points, by which you can judge just how awesome the film was. For example.

Movie has a helicopter: 2 points
Movie has an explosion: 2 points
Movie has an exploding helicopter: 4 points

Looks like The Matrix, Die Hard 4 and Mission Impossible are tied for first place with that rubric. And that's just off the top of my head.

There are movies I will watch over and over again. There are some where viewing them once is one time too many.

My list of movies worth watching more than once _

Tora, Tora, Tora
Independence Day
The Women (1930s version)
Since You Went Away
The Best Years of Our Lives
Raiders of the Lost Ark
The Thin Man series (from the thirties)
Gone With the Wind
Men in Black

What do you suppose all these movies have in common?

Looks like The Matrix, Die Hard 4 and Mission Impossible are tied for first place with that rubric. And that's just off the top of my head.

There are a lot more points than those on the list, they're just the most vivid ones in my mind right now.

You have to admit, exploding helicopters are pretty cool. Like poetry with sharp spinning blades and ruptured fuel lines.

No kidding, if they had just ended it correctly it would have been a decent interpretation of the book, but instead they had to turn it into a cheap recycling of every other apocalyptic disaster movie. It's like they read the story and thought, 'hey, here's an original and thought-provoking novel, let's turn it into a bland and unoriginal movie!'

"I Am Legend" was two-thirds of the best movie of the year.

No kidding, if they had just ended it correctly it would have been a decent interpretation of the book, but instead they had to turn it into a cheap recycling of every other apocalyptic disaster movie. It's like they read the story and thought, 'hey, here's an original and thought-provoking novel, let's turn it into a bland and unoriginal movie!'

Well, I think if they had started the movie as the piece of shit it turned out to be at the end, I'd have been fine as it would have been at least consistent. But instead it's like they gave me a candy bar with a delicious candy coat but after that sweet first layer you get utter cat piss. I honestly don't think I've ever seen a movie that's made me want to delimb its writers and all involved so much. :mad:

Klaatu is supposed to be wooden and unemotional. So, when Keanu plays Klaatu Reaves, he's conveniently in character, because his character is supposed to be that way. The other actors play actual humans, though, so there is no excuse for why THEY are wooden and unemotional.

In the original, the alien, played by the comparatively lively Michael Rennie, was not supposed to be wooden. He was kind of like the Hans Blix of outer space, sent to inspect our planet to see how much of a threat we were and in the hope that we could be reasoned with to tone it down on the hawkishness before his space bosses nuked our asses preemptively.

Are you sure in the remake Klaatu was "supposed" to be wooden, or did they do that just to create an excuse for Keanu Reeves' lack of acting talent?

That those movies are stupid as well?
And, no, most movies don't have something as their premise (emotions have been completely removed from the human population) and then completely ignore it (soldiers for the emotionless army demonstrating fear).

People keep saying this, I see - so I'll just throw this out:

"Prozium" (the drug in Equilibrium) doesn't wipe out emotion completely. If you've listened to the director this is for two reasons - one being that the drug was never IMAGINED as killing emotion completely (hence the need to destroy any materials that could provoke responses, and the insistence on a rigourous controlled society to avoid extremes), and the other being that total lack of emotion wouldn't work well on screen.

So - the idea behind the drug was that it lowers the peaks, and raises the troughs - it doesn't kill emotion completely.

The other factor worth mentioning - like any other established and corrupt regime, most of the rules are treated as optional for those IN POWER. Several of the characters are outed as 'off the dose', and there's a suggestion that lots of people IN the establishment might be privately enjoying the fruits they deny the masses.

If you didn't get those factors... I think this is a case where you actually did kind of miss the point of the movie.

Well, I think if they had started the movie as the piece of shit it turned out to be at the end, I'd have been fine as it would have been at least consistent. But instead it's like they gave me a candy bar with a delicious candy coat but after that sweet first layer you get utter cat piss. I honestly don't think I've ever seen a movie that's made me want to delimb its writers and all involved so much. :mad:

I got the distinct impression from the movie that they must have changed it at the last minute. It seemed like they were going to somewhat follow the original storyline. For example, the zombies design a trap for Will Smith. It seems like they're learning and developing social organization, which is consistent with the novella's plot. But then right at the end, there's a sudden explosion and the world is saved. I suspect that the intelligent, thought-provoking twist didn't play well with test audiences, so they changed it and rendered the preceding 90 minutes utterly nonsensical.

People keep saying this, I see - so I'll just throw this out:

"Prozium" (the drug in Equilibrium) doesn't wipe out emotion completely. If you've listened to the director this is for two reasons - one being that the drug was never IMAGINED as killing emotion completely (hence the need to destroy any materials that could provoke responses, and the insistence on a rigourous controlled society to avoid extremes), and the other being that total lack of emotion wouldn't work well on screen.

So - the idea behind the drug was that it lowers the peaks, and raises the troughs - it doesn't kill emotion completely.

The other factor worth mentioning - like any other established and corrupt regime, most of the rules are treated as optional for those IN POWER. Several of the characters are outed as 'off the dose', and there's a suggestion that lots of people IN the establishment might be privately enjoying the fruits they deny the masses.

If you didn't get those factors... I think this is a case where you actually did kind of miss the point of the movie.
Sounds kind of like the quote I see floating around here in someone's sig: "If it's only funny if you know Welsh, then it's not funny."

We shouldn't have to "listen to the director" for his excuses as to why he had to fudge the story. The story should hold together on its own, no matter how it had to be tweaked for a visual medium.

In the original, the alien, played by the comparatively lively Michael Rennie, was not supposed to be wooden. He was kind of like the Hans Blix of outer space, sent to inspect our planet to see how much of a threat we were and in the hope that we could be reasoned with to tone it down on the hawkishness before his space bosses nuked our asses preemptively.

Are you sure in the remake Klaatu was "supposed" to be wooden, or did they do that just to create an excuse for Keanu Reeves' lack of acting talent?

I believe the remake was written with Reeves envisioned as the lead, so you may be on to something. But the character was intentionally rewritten to be more distant and unemotional on purpose to create a disconnect between him and regular humans; to make him seem more "alien." The character was also rewritten to be much less concerned with human survival or with showing humans the error of our ways. He was conceived as more of a mere messenger, here to deliver the message that humans need to shape up, without any emotion invested in whether humans heed the message or not.

Sounds kind of like the quote I see floating around here in someone's sig: "If it's only funny if you know Welsh, then it's not funny."

We shouldn't have to "listen to the director" for his excuses as to why he had to fudge the story. The story should hold together on its own, no matter how it had to be tweaked for a visual medium.

You don't have to listen to the director. I just mentioned that the director explains WHY he made the choices he did.


The film hangs together if you don't assume that Prozium is 100% effective at totally removing all emotional responses.

The fact that they control 'emotional' stimuli immediately suggests that emotional response can be caused by certain factors, and, thus, such factors are controlled.

The crime is 'sense offence' but owning stimulus is punished as well (the frame on the mirror, for example).

Even the hero himself already tapped some level of feeling before he stopped the dose. He refers to it as being able to put himself in someone else's mind - he's talking about empathy, and about feeling.

It's quite clear throughout the movie that people are feeling. Some more than others. Some on the dose, and some off the dose. There's no inconsistency, except if you construct it.

Sounds kind of like the quote I see floating around here in someone's sig: "If it's only funny if you know Welsh, then it's not funny."

We shouldn't have to "listen to the director" for his excuses as to why he had to fudge the story. The story should hold together on its own, no matter how it had to be tweaked for a visual medium.

But it was mentioned in the actual movie; near the beginning. I don't remember the actual line, but it was there.

You don't have to listen to the director. I just mentioned that the director explains WHY he made the choices he did.

<snip>

But it was mentioned in the actual movie; near the beginning. I don't remember the actual line, but it was there.
I'm not going to keep arguing about that particular movie. If you say you're satisfied with it, fine. I wasn't trying to attack that movie specifically, but more supporting the statement that continuity failure is a very bad thing in movie making.

I'm not going to keep arguing about that particular movie. If you say you're satisfied with it, fine. I wasn't trying to attack that movie specifically, but more supporting the statement that continuity failure is a very bad thing in movie making.

But you were 'supporting the statement', with a movie that is popularly conceived as having a continuity error... but doesn't.

Which is a bad support for that argument - because it suggests that other continuity failures aren't actually failures - they are problems 'this side' of the screen.

I'm not arguing with you that continuity errors are bad, in general.

I'm not going to keep arguing about that particular movie. If you say you're satisfied with it, fine. I wasn't trying to attack that movie specifically, but more supporting the statement that continuity failure is a very bad thing in movie making.

too bad star trek doesn't believe that. :(

I'm not going to keep arguing about that particular movie. If you say you're satisfied with it, fine. I wasn't trying to attack that movie specifically, but more supporting the statement that continuity failure is a very bad thing in movie making.

Don't worry, I'm not questioning your point or anything (as it's a pretty good one), I just wanted to say that they did mention that tidbit about Prozium in the movie.

Besides, why are we arguing about Equilibrium, anyway? The plot's just an excuse for awesome gunfights.

The only film I can recall being particularly abysmal of late was "Hancock". Which was truly awful.

Don't worry, I'm not questioning your point or anything (as it's a pretty good one), I just wanted to say that they did mention that tidbit about Prozium in the movie.

Besides, why are we arguing about Equilibrium, anyway? The plot's just an excuse for awesome gunfights.

See, I see it the other way. While the gunfights are quite yummy, it is the deconstruction of the authoritarian model, and the examination of compliance in tyranny - and, of course, the 'value' of emotional response - that 'makes' the film for me.

The only film I can recall being particularly abysmal of late was "Hancock". Which was truly awful.

A curiously strong response. There was overuse of special effects, perhaps - and some of those (especially near the start) were less than perfect, and you might not have liked the particular storyline - but I don't see how it was 'awful'.

Unless you dislike framed shots, or steady-cam work?

But you were 'supporting the statement', with a movie that is popularly conceived as having a continuity error... but doesn't.

Which is a bad support for that argument - because it suggests that other continuity failures aren't actually failures - they are problems 'this side' of the screen.

I'm not arguing with you that continuity errors are bad, in general.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it -- you love that movie. Fiddlebottoms disagrees with you, and as to that particular movie, I don't care either way. I'll just say that, in my personal opinion, your assessment of Christian Bale as "godlike" in it says non-good things about your taste level, which inclines me to think it's not as good a movie as you think it is.

But hey, everyone is entitled to love their own version of Cheez-Whiz.

too bad star trek doesn't believe that. :(
Yes, that is too bad.

Don't worry, I'm not questioning your point or anything (as it's a pretty good one), I just wanted to say that they did mention that tidbit about Prozium in the movie.

Besides, why are we arguing about Equilibrium, anyway? The plot's just an excuse for awesome gunfights.
Because, apparently, GnI loves it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it -- you love that movie. Fiddlebottoms disagrees with you, and as to that particular movie, I don't care either way. I'll just say that, in my personal opinion, your assessment of Christian Bale as "godlike" in it says non-good things about your taste level, which inclines me to think it's not as good a movie as you think it is.


Yeah. Or you could ignore every point I've made so far, and pretend this is about opinions, and that it was me that raised the spectre of the not-a-continuity-error.

Oh, wait.

I don't rant often but heres a small one...

I just got back a couple of hours ago from seeing the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still. It is by far the worst sci-fi classic remake to date (well at least out of the blockbuster films). All big budget effects going to waste over shitty dialogue and horribly wooden acting. Keanu Reeves was the best actor in the movie! (I never thought I would say that in my life).I want my money and the 2 hours of my life back. In fact out of all the films I have seen recently I want my money back (Twilight, Day The Earth Stood Still, Australia [my wife dragged me to that 3 hour garbage], Prince Caspian...just to name a few).

I have also looked at a preview of some of next summers films and they look disappointing (land of the lost, The A-Team, Transformers 2, Fast and Furious 4). What the hell has happened to hollywood? Is it a shitty year of films because of the writers strike? If you guys know something I dont please tell me I am all ears.

And if any of you experienced some shitty movies lately share them with me so I don't feel alone in this.

Pretty much the same here. I haven't seen The Day the Earth Stood Still yet, but I have seen few really good movies this year or last that I can recall. The best this year is easily The Dark Knight, with Get Smart coming in second and The X-Files a distant third.

But hey, its a remake. Odds are it won't be as good as the original, at least not to the fans.;)

A curiously strong response. There was overuse of special effects, perhaps - and some of those (especially near the start) were less than perfect, and you might not have liked the particular storyline - but I don't see how it was 'awful'.

Unless you dislike framed shots, or steady-cam work?

It was the nauseatingly emotionally incontinent ending. Sensationalist drivel; the film was advertised, massively, as a comic exposition of a feckless misanthropic hero, which was what I expected, and would have rather enjoyed. I anticipated brainless mysogyny and misanthropy, not a faux profound apocalyptic narrative in which a myriad pantheistic traditions were hammered into a convenient form and then imposed in the narrative for no good reason, and the entire film turned into a sententious, convention ridden
heroic tripe.

Awful film.

Wow, people really argue intensively over some inane crap here, don't they. Equilibrium, misunderstood masterpiece or B-movie crap? It's post-tastic fun forum fans!

To the OP, thanks for the tip, I was considering watching it, as I'm desperate for a sci-fi fix. However, I'm not that desperate.:rolleyes:

Pretty much the same here. I haven't seen The Day the Earth Stood Still yet, but I have seen few really good movies this year or last that I can recall. The best is easily The Dark Knight, with Get Smart coming in second and The X-Files a distant third.

But hey, its a remake. Odds are it won't be as good as the original, at least not to the fans.;)

I'm trying to think of a remake that doesn't fall down against the original.

I'm getting two that I might argue don't - "Solaris" and "The Ring"... and that's about it.

Most just seem to be pretty horrible, and some more horrible than others - like the horrendous western remake of "Kairo" ("The Pulse")

Wow, people really argue intensively over some inane crap here, don't they.

But that's what the Internet is for! That and porn. And Christmas shopping. (On a related note, I was all set to disconnect the internet in my house as unnecessary until I realized that I didn't have to go to the mall this year. Ironically, it was Christmas that saved the internet.)

Equilibrium, misunderstood masterpiece or B-movie crap? It's post-tastic fun forum fans!

I liked it. I thought it was better than The Matrix anyways. Is it as good as Rio Bravo or The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly? Not really, but then again, what is?

I'm trying to think of a remake that doesn't fall down against the original.

I'm getting two that I might argue don't - "Solaris" and "The Ring"... and that's about it.

Most just seem to be pretty horrible, and some more horrible than others - like the horrendous western remake of "Kairo" ("The Pulse")

Probably Lord of the Rings. I've heard the old animated version sucked badly.

It was the nauseatingly emotionally incontinent ending. Sensationalist drivel; the film was advertised, massively, as a comic exposition of a feckless misanthropic hero, which was what I expected, and would have rather enjoyed. I anticipated brainless mysogyny and misanthropy, not a faux profound apocalyptic narrative in which a myriad pantheistic traditions were hammered into a convenient form and then imposed in the narrative for no good reason, and the entire film turned into a sententious, convention ridden
heroic tripe.

Awful film.

Looks like a copy-and-paste from rottentomatoes or something.

The advertising basically sold a movie where the 'hero' was less than heroic. And - that's delivered. For the most part, Hancock is... well, an asshole.

Now, maybe you wanted that to be a formless, blameless, inexplicable asshole-ness? Maybe? That's what disappointed me about the Hannibal movies, so I could understand - Hannibal was first portrayed as a monster, someone who took inexplicable pleasure from harm - and they gradually washed that all away. The "to understand all is to forgive all" paradigm left Hannibal a misunderstood bunny with odd dietary preferences.

But Hancock never promised that.

So, what you got was a tale of redemption - of sorts, a rite of passage movie where the anti-hero becomes the hero by overcoming his tragic flaws. Not only is it not unexpected - it's pretty much classic.

Hancock reinvents the hero paradigm, by once again getting to the root of the heroic act - overcoming your shortcomings to excel.

I think you attached way too much significance to the mythology stuff (if that was your own words). You've taken ONE sentence (where the character says something like 'gods, angels, now, all of a sudden, it's superheroes') and managed to contrive a whole artifice out of it: "...faux profound apocalyptic narrative in which a myriad pantheistic traditions were hammered into a convenient form ..."

This appears to be another case of someone 'hating' a film for something that wasn't in it.

Probably Lord of the Rings. I've heard the old animated version sucked badly.

The old animated version was okay for what it was. It could never really hope to do the books justice.

I tend to think of Peter Jackson's "Lord of The Rings" as being a stab at the books, rather than a remake of the old films, though - but you could have a case.

The old animated version was okay for what it was. It could never really hope to do the books justice.

I tend to think of Peter Jackson's "Lord of The Rings" as being a stab at the books, rather than a remake of the old films, though - but you could have a case.

Note I've never really watched the animated films. I'm just going on heresay that they sucked ass.:)

I'm trying to think of a remake that doesn't fall down against the original.

I'm getting two that I might argue don't - "Solaris" and "The Ring"... and that's about it.

Most just seem to be pretty horrible, and some more horrible than others - like the horrendous western remake of "Kairo" ("The Pulse")

The Thing (1981 I think) was a good film (though it was more a remake using short story, rather than using the film).

Invasion of the bodysnatchers - 70s version was vastly superior to the 50s imo. No idea about the most recent one, apparently James Bond was in it. Same with "The Thing".

EDIT: Damn - beat me to it!

Looks like a copy-and-paste from rottentomatoes or something.

The advertising basically sold a movie where the 'hero' was less than heroic. And - that's delivered. For the most part, Hancock is... well, an asshole.

Now, maybe you wanted that to be a formless, blameless, inexplicable asshole-ness? Maybe? That's what disappointed me about the Hannibal movies, so I could understand - Hannibal was first portrayed as a monster, someone who took inexplicable pleasure from harm - and they gradually washed that all away. The "to understand all is to forgive all" paradigm left Hannibal a misunderstood bunny with odd dietary preferences.

But Hancock never promised that.

So, what you got was a tale of redemption - of sorts, a rite of passage movie where the anti-hero becomes the hero by overcoming his tragic flaws. Not only is it not unexpected - it's pretty much classic.

Hancock reinvents the hero paradigm, by once again getting to the root of the heroic act - overcoming your shortcomings to excel.

I think you attached way too much significance to the mythology stuff (if that was your own words). You've taken ONE sentence (where the character says something like 'gods, angels, now, all of a sudden, it's superheroes') and managed to contrive a whole artifice out of it: "...faux profound apocalyptic narrative in which a myriad pantheistic traditions were hammered into a convenient form ..."

This appears to be another case of someone 'hating' a film for something that wasn't in it.

It was sententious tripe, and thank you, my sentence was rather more original than the film they described.

Invasion of the bodysnatchers - 70s version was vastly superior to the 50s imo. No idea about the most recent one, apparently James Bond was in it. Same with "The Thing".

EDIT: Damn - beat me to it!

I found the new Invasion of the Bodysnatcher remake to be a decent zombie thriller (not that I've seen a lot of zombie films), but probably not much more.

The Thing (1981 I think) was a good film (though it was more a remake using short story, rather than using the film).

Ah, "The Thing". Good call.

I didn't much like the 'new' one, but the old one WAS pretty damn terrible, so I agree.

I think you attached way too much significance to the mythology stuff (if that was your own words). You've taken ONE sentence (where the character says something like 'gods, angels, now, all of a sudden, it's superheroes') and managed to contrive a whole artifice out of it: "...faux profound apocalyptic narrative in which a myriad pantheistic traditions were hammered into a convenient form ..."
The backstory for the superheroes is that they were the ancient gods who had died out over time, to the point where only Hancock and his girlfriend were left alive. Then Hancock got wanged on the head and lost his memory, etc, etc, etc.

The backstory for the superheroes is that they were the ancient gods who had died out over time, to the point where only Hancock and his girlfriend were left alive. Then Hancock got wanged on the head and lost his memory, etc, etc, etc.

No it isn't.

The backstory is that they are powerful immortals. At some points they have been CALLED 'gods, angels... and now, superheroes'.

But, the important part of the backstory is that Hancock woke up immortal and unwanted. Hancock is an asshole because he's fulfilling expectations, and because he hates himself for who he must have been (by his reckoning).

No it isn't.

The backstory is that they are powerful immortals. At some points they have been CALLED 'gods, angels... and now, superheroes'.
Hancock was also the "insurance policy of the gods," and I'm pretty sure there were other references to his status as an ex-deity.

It was the nauseatingly emotionally incontinent ending. Sensationalist drivel; the film was advertised, massively, as a comic exposition of a feckless misanthropic hero, which was what I expected, and would have rather enjoyed. I anticipated brainless mysogyny and misanthropy, not a faux profound apocalyptic narrative in which a myriad pantheistic traditions were hammered into a convenient form and then imposed in the narrative for no good reason, and the entire film turned into a sententious, convention ridden
heroic tripe.

Awful film.

It amuses me endlessly that people can get such a grand expectation of a movie out of a two minute trailer, then somehow maintain shock when the movie doesn't live up to the two minute trailer. If you were somehow able to glean, from the advertisement for Hancock, that it was going to revolutionize the heroic epic, then that is your shortcoming, not the movie's. Perhaps if you didn't approach the film with such absurdly unattainable standards, you wouldn't be so completely disappointed.

Yeah. Or you could ignore every point I've made so far, and pretend this is about opinions, and that it was me that raised the spectre of the not-a-continuity-error.

Oh, wait.
Yeah, I could do that. In fact, I think I will, just to piss you off.

Yeah, I could do that. In fact, I think I will, just to piss you off.

Quite a streak of contrariness you have there!:tongue:

Quite a streak of contrariness you have there!:tongue:
GnI brings it out in me (well, he's one of the people who do), because he's no fun anymore.

Yeah. Or you could ignore every point I've made so far, and pretend this is about opinions, and that it was me that raised the spectre of the not-a-continuity-error.

Oh, wait.
It is a continuity error. Your attempts to excuse it by saying "everybody does it"-aside, Equilibrium is internally inconsistent and the plot is asinine.
You like Christian Bale, that's fine. I like Jason Statham, but I'm not about to pretend that the plot of Transporter 3 made a damned ounce of sense.

GnI brings it out in me (well, he's one of the people who do), because he's no fun anymore.

You only think I'm no fun when I disagree with you. :p

You only think I'm no fun when I disagree with you. :p
It's true, you are a big bore when you waste your time foolishly disagreeing with me over the most trivial little things that you can't possibly be right about. *stamps foot* :tongue:

It is a continuity error.


No, it's not.

It could only be a continuity error, if the continuity involved it being a situation where there was an absolute removal of emotion. That wasn't the case, and the internal evidence suggests quite the contrary.

It's an 'assumption error'.

In other words - your assumption doesn't amtch the continuity of the film, but that's hardly a fault in the film.


Your attempts to excuse it by saying "everybody does it"-aside,


I didn't say that.


Equilibrium is internally inconsistent and the plot is asinine.


Equilibrium is internally consistent.

Your opinion about the plot is just that. An opinion. I'm not claiming it's the greatest script ever, but it's not terrible. The whole 'without emotion... breath is just a clock, ticking' section is rather nice, actually.


You like Christian Bale, that's fine.


I do, actually - but that's not relevent.


I like Jason Statham, but I'm not about to pretend that the plot of Transporter 3 made a damned ounce of sense.

I also quite like Jason Statham. Tht doesn't mean I like all his movies, or that any movie with him in MUST be good.

(Johnny Depp would be a better example for me, since I've been a Johnny Depp fan for forever. But even Johnny Depp doesn't make "Secret Window" a great movie).

It's true, you are a big bore when you waste your time foolishly disagreeing with me over the most trivial little things that you can't possibly be right about. *stamps foot* :tongue:

The irony was, I wasn't really disagreeing with you on your point. I agree that bad continuity can kill a movie.

If you keep pouting, you'll turn into a pout. :)

I'm trying to think of a remake that doesn't fall down against the original.

I'm getting two that I might argue don't - "Solaris" and "The Ring"... and that's about it.

Most just seem to be pretty horrible, and some more horrible than others - like the horrendous western remake of "Kairo" ("The Pulse")

House on Haunted Hill, Godzilla (not the Raymond Burr one... tho that could be thought of as a remake),

No it isn't.

The backstory is that they are powerful immortals. At some points they have been CALLED 'gods, angels... and now, superheroes'.

But, the important part of the backstory is that Hancock woke up immortal and unwanted. Hancock is an asshole because he's fulfilling expectations, and because he hates himself for who he must have been (by his reckoning).
I thought it was also about choice and sacrifice? didn't he try to do the right thing when he had no powers and ended up getting whacked on the head and losing his memory? Remember, Mary stated that being a hero was what he was meant to be... to the point of being a hero was more important to him that she was.

The irony was, I wasn't really disagreeing with you on your point. I agree that bad continuity can kill a movie.

If you keep pouting, you'll turn into a pout. :)
That's an old wives' tale. Faces don't really stick.

EDIT: And it's not ironic. You're no fun when you agree with me too. *pout*

That's an old wives' tale. Faces don't really stick.

EDIT: And it's not ironic. You're no fun when you agree with me too. *pout*

The irony was, I wasn't really disagreeing with you on your point. I agree that bad continuity can kill a movie.

If you keep pouting, you'll turn into a pout. :)

You two need marriage counseling.:eek2:

I thought it was also about choice and sacrifice? didn't he try to do the right thing when he had no powers and ended up getting whacked on the head and losing his memory? Remember, Mary stated that being a hero was what he was meant to be... to the point of being a hero was more important to him that she was.

Choice, yes - Mary makes a point of the fact that you always have choices - not everything can be determined by 'fate'.

Sacrifice... yes, as you said, He tries to save the day even without powers. Indeed, he's still doing that in the finale.

But, I'm not sure about the 'being a hero was more important to him that she was'. From what I could tell, it was the other way around - each time he had to make those kind of 'sacrifice' choices, it was because he'd chosen her, and she'd abandoned him because it always ended up the same way... he chooses her, but he ends up having to be the hero anyway, because they 'come at him, through her'.

She said he was made to be a hero, though - 'the insurance policy of the Gods', I think she said. He's a flawed hero, like that... driven to be the hero, even though he has his tragic flaws, and even though it keeps costing him what he wants most.

That's an old wives' tale. Faces don't really stick.

EDIT: And it's not ironic. You're no fun when you agree with me too. *pout*

Well, it made me laugh, so someone's doing something right.

If faces don't really stick, why does Bill O'Reilly look like that?

You two need marriage counseling.:eek2:

If there's some hastily assembled drywall behind you, and a second-hand couch and two ferns, I'm out of here.

Stop trying to turn us into extras in your porn movie!

Well, it made me laugh, so someone's doing something right.

If faces don't really stick, why does Bill O'Reilly look like that?
OK, that's a point.

If there's some hastily assembled drywall behind you, and a second-hand couch and two ferns, I'm out of here.

Stop trying to turn us into extras in your porn movie!
Seriously, eww.

No, it's not.
Yes. It is.
It could only be a continuity error, if the continuity involved it being a situation where there was an absolute removal of emotion. That wasn't the case, and the internal evidence suggests quite the contrary.

It's an 'assumption error'.

In other words - your assumption doesn't amtch the continuity of the film, but that's hardly a fault in the film.
It isn't an assumption when they fucking say it in the movie: "The Grammaton Cleric whose sole task it is to seek out and eradicate the true source of man's inhumanity to man: His ability to feel."
Not to "suppress," not to "lower the peaks and raise the troughs," but to "eradicate." Eradicate, meaning "to destroy utterly," "to root out entirely."
Also, as you mention later, they say "without emotion breath is just..." not "with minimal emotion" or "with nearly no emotion."
I didn't say that.
Ok, so it seems I misread and that was Intangelon's argument.
I do, actually - but that's not relevent.
Yes, it is. You're determined to defend the movie's inconsistencies and terrible plot because you liked Bale's performance.

Yes. It is.


Ah, a crushing argument.


It isn't an assumption when they fucking say it in the movie: "The Grammaton Cleric whose sole task it is to seek out and eradicate the true source of man's inhumanity to man: His ability to feel."
Not to "suppress," not to "lower the peaks and raise the troughs," but to "eradicate." Eradicate, meaning "to destroy utterly," "to root out entirely."
Also, as you mention later, they say "without emotion breath is just..." not "with minimal emotion" or "with nearly no emotion."


Whose sole task is to seek out and eradicate...

Which means - it still exists, and hasn't been eradicated.

Your attention to the movie was superficial, it seems - which is okay. You don't have to pay attention. But you based your judgement, apparently, on that superficial image.

As I say, the flaw is in the assumption, not the continuity.


Yes, it is. You're determined to defend the movie's inconsistencies and terrible plot because you liked Bale's performance.

Not at all. I'm defending the consistency, because the inconsistency doesn't exist. I also happened to think Bale was rather magnificent in it, but that's not why I think the movie gelled.

If there's some hastily assembled drywall behind you, and a second-hand couch and two ferns, I'm out of here.

Stop trying to turn us into extras in your porn movie!

Just act natural, it'll all be fine! And the couch has a plastic cover, so just go for it.

I'm not sure I could marke a porn movie based on "Two argumentative internet forum addicts disagree about the relative merit of the plot elements of Equilibrium" sell.

That's even more unbelievable than the plumber being a nymphomaniac busty blonde with a french maid outfit underneath her overalls and a penchant for hot dog licking.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/sex012.gif

Choice, yes - Mary makes a point of the fact that you always have choices - not everything can be determined by 'fate'.

Sacrifice... yes, as you said, He tries to save the day even without powers. Indeed, he's still doing that in the finale.

But, I'm not sure about the 'being a hero was more important to him that she was'. From what I could tell, it was the other way around - each time he had to make those kind of 'sacrifice' choices, it was because he'd chosen her, and she'd abandoned him because it always ended up the same way... he chooses her, but he ends up having to be the hero anyway, because they 'come at him, through her'.

She said he was made to be a hero, though - 'the insurance policy of the Gods', I think she said. He's a flawed hero, like that... driven to be the hero, even though he has his tragic flaws, and even though it keeps costing him what he wants most.

Hmm... gotta rewatch that... I always thought he leaves her to be the hero. which was why she was pissed at him (she did seem shocked about his amnesia when he failed to show up for their movie date.) and why she (after those times of trying to 'not care for him') ends up getting shot trying to protecting him for a change.

Gotta hunt for that DVD now... :tongue:

Just act natural, it'll all be fine! And the couch has a plastic cover, so just go for it.

I'm not sure I could marke a porn movie based on "Two argumentative internet forum addicts disagree about the relative merit of the plot elements of Equilibrium" sell.

That's even more unbelievable than the plumber being a nymphomaniac busty blonde with a french maid outfit underneath her overalls and a penchant for hot dog licking.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/sex012.gif

hey, the make-up sex should sell it. especially if you write them as two angst ridden, rival movie critics. that should open some doors for Theatre sex as well.

hey, the make-up sex should sell it. especially if you write them as two angst ridden, rival movie critics. that should open some doors for Theatre sex as well.

I could write in a special "two thumbs up" scene :D

I could write in a special "two thumbs up" scene :D

"Thumbs"?

Hmm... gotta rewatch that... I always thought he leaves her to be the hero. which was why she was pissed at him (she did seem shocked about his amnesia when he failed to show up for their movie date.) and why she (after those times of trying to 'not care for him') ends up getting shot trying to protecting him for a change.

Gotta hunt for that DVD now... :tongue:

If you listen, when he's in the hospital bed, she talks about them walking AFTER they saw the movie. They are holding hands, and suddenly, someone tries to mug them. He defends her, all un-super-human, and ends up with brains on the pavement - 'so much blood' she says.

He shows up for the date. And she knew about the amnesia, because she says she actually followed him to the hospital (they wouldn't let her ride in the ambulance... possible anachronism error? What sort of ambulance would they have had in the late 20's?) and he didn't recognise her. She left because she thought he wouldn't miss what he didn't remember - and she was trying to get to a place where they didn't keep almost costing each other their lives.

I think she's 'pissed off' at him, because she assumed he'd remembered, maybe long ago. Which is why she chills out when she realises he really DOESN'T have any idea who she is. She's also putting up a front to ttry to drive him away. Remember the 'you've got a bruise - you should go now' interlude? She realises he's losing his power faster than ever this time. It's easy to miss that the first time through.

Also - she protects him, even though she knows they're both mortal. But then, he does the same for her - and - at that point, it's a crap shoot. When he jumps out of the window to save her... he probably realises saving her might kill him.

Just act natural, it'll all be fine! And the couch has a plastic cover, so just go for it.

I'm not sure I could marke a porn movie based on "Two argumentative internet forum addicts disagree about the relative merit of the plot elements of Equilibrium" sell.

That's even more unbelievable than the plumber being a nymphomaniac busty blonde with a french maid outfit underneath her overalls and a penchant for hot dog licking.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/sex012.gif

As in she likes to lick dogs or...

You know what? Never mind.

My brain is squicked on so many levels right now.

If you listen, when he's in the hospital bed, she talks about them walking AFTER they saw the movie. They are holding hands, and suddenly, someone tries to mug them. He defends her, all un-super-human, and ends up with brains on the pavement - 'so much blood' she says.

He shows up for the date. And she knew about the amnesia, because she says she actually followed him to the hospital (they wouldn't let her ride in the ambulance... possible anachronism error? What sort of ambulance would they have had in the late 20's?) and he didn't recognise her. She left because she thought he wouldn't miss what he didn't remember - and she was trying to get to a place where they didn't keep almost costing each other their lives.

I think she's 'pissed off' at him, because she assumed he'd remembered, maybe long ago. Which is why she chills out when she realises he really DOESN'T have any idea who she is. She's also putting up a front to ttry to drive him away. Remember the 'you've got a bruise - you should go now' interlude? She realises he's losing his power faster than ever this time. It's easy to miss that the first time through.

Also - she protects him, even though she knows they're both mortal. But then, he does the same for her - and - at that point, it's a crap shoot. When he jumps out of the window to save her... he probably realises saving her might kill him.

Ah. well, will re-watch and see.

but that also makes sense. oh and probably this type of ambulance (http://www.kasoft.net/1910-1920.html).

Ah. well, will re-watch and see.


Good idea. It's better on repeat viewing anyway. You'll notice more of the details setting up the back story from her side. Also - first time through, I didn't notice all the really nice direction.

The scene where Hancock is talking about waking up John Hancock is just gorgeous, I think - shot over shoulders, but intimately, blocking two-thirds of the shot to frame it, to create that close atmosphere.

There were a lot of really nice shots and scenes in that film.

(Also, another fave: the scene where Hancock is shot after the 'gunfight' with the candy bar).


but that also makes sense. oh and probably this type of ambulance (http://www.kasoft.net/1910-1920.html).

So - maybe it's less that she wasn't allowed, and more that you couldn't fit a spare passenger. But, anyway, probably not an anachronism goof.

Ah, a crushing argument.
Nah, the argument was below. That's a thesis statement, so you know exactly what I'm gonna say from the start.
For this post, my thesis shall be: "Yo Momma."
Whose sole task is to seek out and eradicate...

Which means - it still exists, and hasn't been eradicated.
Yeah, because some people are still living out in the wastes, not taking their state-mandated drugs and laying about on bean bags surrounded by anthologies of poems like 19th century opium addicts (the ridiculousness of that opening scene was another strike against the movie).
Your attention to the movie was superficial, it seems - which is okay. You don't have to pay attention. But you based your judgement, apparently, on that superficial image.

As I say, the flaw is in the assumption, not the continuity.
As I've quite clearly demonstrated, they explicitly state at numerous times that there is no emotion in the Evil Empire. That people taking Prozium and going about their daily chores as they're supposed to shouldn't experience anything outside of rational, deliberate decision making.
What the director says outside the movie is irrelevant.

Yeah, because some people are still living out in the wastes, not taking their state-mandated drugs and laying about on bean bags surrounded by anthologies of poems like 19th century opium addicts (the ridiculousness of that opening scene was another strike against the movie).


I agree, but for almost the opposite reason.

The 'renegades' living outside the reach of the city, choosing to opt out of the mindcontrol, and making a deliberate point of rebelling by living a kind of enforced 'hedonist' existence isn't the problem.

The idea that they have all these great works of art - yet they hide them under the carpet... that was my problem. If you're that into the sense experience, it makes no sense - when you're already miles from prying eyes - to hide your material.


As I've quite clearly demonstrated, they explicitly state at numerous times that there is no emotion in the Evil Empire.


Yep, it's explicitly stated. Mainly by the powers-that-be.

In the same speech in which Bale admits he can sense how others feel, he also says he felt nothing. The characters deny what feeling they DO have. The government claims that there is no feeling.

Both things are obviously lies of convenience.

Or - do you believe the thief in the movies when he tells the cops 'you got the wrong guy'...?


That people taking Prozium and going about their daily chores as they're supposed to shouldn't experience anything outside of rational, deliberate decision making.


Exactly. They shouldn't.

...hence banning and destroying the Emotional Content material.

You don't have to ban material that no one wants to read.


What the director says outside the movie is irrelevant.

Which is why I haven't mentioned it IN context. I mentioned it OUT OF context to explain WHY the decision was made to allow feeling to be justified - not to justify the feeling that is in the movie.

I don't know about "worst", but it wasn't very good. The kid was annoying as hell, and the ending was horribly anti-climactic.

I expected something average, and average is about what I got.

Save your money...go rent the original.

I have already seen the original. Its been years though so I am due for another rental.

Dammit, I came here to post this.

Pulse is the worst freaking movie.

Pulse...is that the one with Kristen Bell?


I agree, you need to see them. Just be warned - the plot of the second film wanders jumps around a bit.

EDIT: Ahhh, Uwe Boll, is there anything you can make that doesn't look like fresh, steaming, pig manure?

Uwe Boll is filming a Contra movie. No kidding.

Nah, I agree with you, actually. So you're not the only one, just in a tiny minority. Actually, I'll say it wasn't a "bad" movie, it was just way, way, way over-hyped.

On the other hand, and I'm surprised no one's mentioned it, There Will Be Blood was fantastic.


Way overrated indeed. And I have yet to see There will be blood, although I mean to in the near future.


I do want to see Twilight, though, but only because apparently the last line in the movie is, "I want to tell you a secret...I'm made of crystal." If this is true, this is such a stupid fucking line, especially a line that is important dialog, that I must see. I think I might die laughing, though. =\

The vampires fucking glitter in the sun instead of turn to ash! It is the lamest thing you have ever seen.

The Thing (1982 ) was a good film (though it was more a remake using short story, rather than using the film).

Fixed.

Did you know it bombed in theatres because executives decided to open the film up against E.T.?

I thought this was interesting...



Animated 'Delgo' Has Worst Wide Release Opening Ever


by Jonathan Crow    December 15, 2008 Don't feel too left out if you missed seeing the animated adventure movie "Delgo" this past weekend. No one did. In fact, the movie broke a record for having the worst opening ever for a film in wide release. "Delgo" earned a measly $511,920 this weekend on 2,160 screens, not even breaking the top ten. That's an average of $237 per screen for the three days. If you figure there were five screenings a day, and assume ticket prices are about $8, that comes out to two people in the theater per showing. By comparison, the Golden Globe-nominated drama "Doubt" earned roughly the same amount of money, but it was only in 15 theaters.
This is all too bad because the story of the making of "Delgo" has the makings of a great Hollywood underdog story. 36-year-old entrepreneur Marc Adler decided he wanted to direct and produce a $40 million computer animated kids' flick completely independent of Tinseltown behemoths like Disney and Dreamworks.

Nothing original sells, so nothing original is created. It's the same with music and literature.
I don't think that's true; originality can do very well. But being original requires a lot more work, and doesn't sell that much better than recycled stuff, so studios often just don't bother.

I thought this was interesting...

I've seen newspaper ads for this movie; I thought it was much more popular than this. That is interesting.

I don't think that's true; originality can do very well. But being original requires a lot more work, and doesn't sell that much better than recycled stuff, so studios often just don't bother.

Speaking of recycling, I just learned that they are Planning to make 2-3 more terminator films starring Christian Bale and Terminator: Salvation isnt anywhere near being in the theatres yet.

I've seen newspaper ads for this movie; I thought it was much more popular than this. That is interesting.

Yeah, since when does a cartoon not make money in the theatres around christmas time? Whether its shitty or not, kids will flock to it.

Yeah, since when does a cartoon not make money in the theatres around christmas time? Whether its shitty or not, kids will flock to it.

It's needs ad time on TV or no one knows it even exists.

It's needs ad time on TV or no one knows it even exists.

That's what's sad about how it is today. If its not on TV it might as well not exist.

I still look in the papers for movie showtimes and read about what is new coming out. I rarely catch the ads on tv (since i don't watch much television anymore) and the only ads i catch are for the giant blockbusters (hellboy, spiderman, dark knight ) etc.

Speaking of recycling, I just learned that they are Planning to make 2-3 more terminator films starring Christian Bale and Terminator: Salvation isnt anywhere near being in the theatres yet.

At least John Connor will have a consistent appearance for a few years. I think I've seen at least five different actors play him and they only look superficially similar.

I thought this was interesting...

It didn't even show near here.

No advertising plus no coverage equals a kick in the nuts, unless you've got some serious word-of-mouth.

The vampires fucking glitter in the sun instead of turn to ash! It is the lamest thing you have ever seen.

Why?

Vampire stories have several thousands of years of history, and yet almost everything that gets published or screened is based on ideas popularised in the last century or so.

There are worse things than vampires that don't poof into dust.

It didn't even show near here.

No advertising plus no coverage equals a kick in the nuts, unless you've got some serious word-of-mouth.

It was a 40 million dollar movie, you'd figure they would have some money left over to advertise. Goes to show I guess...

Why?

Vampire stories have several thousands of years of history, and yet almost everything that gets published or screened is based on ideas popularised in the last century or so.

There are worse things than vampires that don't poof into dust.

The whole movie was bad, that was just a point I was making.

The whole movie was bad, that was just a point I was making.

I've not seen the movie, but if the 'kind of bad' it is, is that the vampires don't just puff into dust, it's not that harsh a criticism.

One of the reasons I liked "30 Days of Night" so much, is that it used a (now) atypical approach to the vampire mythos. I could stand more.

(Similarly, one of the reasons I liked the new Helboy movie so much was that someone finally put 'faerie folk' in a movie that spoke to why such beings were feared for most of history... as also "Pan's Labyrinth").

I've not seen the movie, but if the 'kind of bad' it is, is that the vampires don't just puff into dust, it's not that harsh a criticism.


Trust me vampires not puffing into dust is not the reason I did not enjoy the movie. I just didn't think it was a good vampire film.


One of the reasons I liked "30 Days of Night" so much, is that it used a (now) atypical approach to the vampire mythos. I could stand more.


30 Days of Night is one of my favorite vampire films of late, and not just because for the first time I could take Josh Hartnett seriously as an actor.
(everyone did an exceptional job in the film especially the main vampire.)


(Similarly, one of the reasons I liked the new Helboy movie so much was that someone finally put 'faerie folk' in a movie that spoke to why such beings were feared for most of history... as also "Pan's Labyrinth").

Yes, its about time they put the "tinkerbell" faerie tales to rest. Speaking of that I have read that they are possibly making films out of the old grim fairy tales. If it happens I hope its good.

I'm trying to think of a remake that doesn't fall down against the original.

I'm getting two that I might argue don't - "Solaris" and "The Ring"... and that's about it.

Most just seem to be pretty horrible, and some more horrible than others - like the horrendous western remake of "Kairo" ("The Pulse")
The Dirty Dozen springs to mind.


Oh thank god. People said I was stupid or 'didn't get it' - no, it's just not a very good film. None of the characters are likeable. The main character gets iced off-screen. This is Not Good Cinematography.
I disagree with you there. It's great cinematography because it was so unexpected. They built it up to be a typical action movie, with psycho hitman, smart cool protagonist and world-weary cop who appears to know everything. You're expecting a massive shoot-out at the end, with very likely the old cop playing a pivotal role, the nasty hitman getting his come-uppance and the protagonist and his girl living happily ever after (or some such variation).
Instead the protagonist is killed off-screen, the cop does nothing (but give in to his fears at the end) and the Hitman - who's spent his entire life telling/threatening people about fate (think back to the scene in the gas station with the coin) - is in a totally random car accident. We don't even know if he did actually kill the guy's wife.

Everything you were expecting did not happen. That's GREAT Cinematography.

Pulse...is that the one with Kristen Bell?

Yes, and it blows ass.

Yes, and it blows ass.

That was a terrible movie. I didn't know is was another J-Horror remake. Explains why it sucked to much, I don't even want to give those films the time of day. The Ring was ok, The Grudge was ok, but I am not going to even try to watch Jessica Alba's the eye or the Grudge 2 (the ring 2 was my final straw with the remakes).

Fixed.

Did you know it bombed in theatres because executives decided to open the film up against E.T.?

hate E.T, all ways have and i don't know why

*snip*
...she says she actually followed him to the hospital (they wouldn't let her ride in the ambulance... possible anachronism error? What sort of ambulance would they have had in the late 20's?) and he didn't recognise her.
*snip*

I know this has already been cleared up, but had you remembered Hemingway's service as an ambulance corpsman in WWI...

hate E.T, all ways have and i don't know why

Trite? Cloying? Spielbergy?

I thought this was interesting...

i had to google the movie to find what it was

hate E.T, all ways have and i don't know why


It's a movie that is so full of itself that it'll make you sick, but for some reason continues to draw new fans. I liked the movie until Spielbergs bastardization Special Edition that came out some years ago where they added new scenes, and extra garbage like the star wars special edition trash that came out.

i had to google the movie to find what it was

LOL. I never heard of it until i went to the movies to see the day the earth stood still and I saw the poster for the movie in the lobby.

Trite? Cloying? Spielbergy?
that and most likely boring for me from the time i first saw it

that and most likely boring for me from the time i first saw it

the movie is good if your a kid, but once you reach a reasonable age you realize that its not that great of a film.

hate E.T, all ways have and i don't know why

I hardly even remember that movie.

and extra garbage like the star wars special edition trash that came out.

I was pissed when I saw the latest version of Return of the Jedi and saw that the shoved Hayden Christensen in at the end. He dragged down Episodes II and III, and now they stuff him in VI? Thank you, George Lucas.

the movie is good if your a kid, but once you reach a reasonable age you realize that its not that great of a film.
Really? It's basically a kid's movie, but that doesn't detract from its quality. I just watched it recently and was surprised how the emotion of a scene is created not just by the actors and dialogue (which can get pretty schmaltzy) but the setting and atmosphere. Nothing spectacular, but a bunch of little things I didn't pay attention to when I was five.

I was pissed when I saw the latest version of Return of the Jedi and saw that the shoved Hayden Christensen in at the end. He dragged down Episodes II and III, and now they stuff him in VI? Thank you, George Lucas.

What now? Anakin as an old man was always in the closing scene of Jedi -- why and/or where does young Vader/Anakin show up in that film?

***********NO SPOILERS PLEASE************

I havent watched the movie....


***********NO SPOILERS PLEASE************



Just wondering one thing. Is Keanu Reeves an alien that actually looks like that? I mean come on "human" aliens?? Cant they even afford some make up?

LOL. I never heard of it until i went to the movies to see the day the earth stood still and I saw the poster for the movie in the lobby.
don't have a clue if it is showing here
the movie is good if your a kid, but once you reach a reasonable age you realize that its not that great of a film.

never like it back then too

***********NO SPOILERS PLEASE************

I havent watched the movie....


***********NO SPOILERS PLEASE************



Just wondering one thing. Is Keanu Reeves an alien that actually looks like that? I mean come on "human" aliens?? Cant they even afford some make up?
It turns out to be a metaphorical alien.

***********NO SPOILERS PLEASE************

I havent watched the movie....


***********NO SPOILERS PLEASE************



Just wondering one thing. Is Keanu Reeves an alien that actually looks like that? I mean come on "human" aliens?? Cant they even afford some make up?

in the commerical he says "...my body is human"

take a guess.

I was pissed when I saw the latest version of Return of the Jedi and saw that the shoved Hayden Christensen in at the end. He dragged down Episodes II and III, and now they stuff him in VI? Thank you, George Lucas.

I don't remember them using Hayden Christensen in ROTJ. But i could never get past the CGI music sequence in the beginning....

in the commerical he says "...my body is human"

take a guess.

What does that mean? Is it like, oh we are aliens, we are so advanced so I'm in like human body suit thingie or what?

I mean if aliens are actually humans, thats almost as stupid as the wooden doors in Signs...

What does that mean? Is it like, oh we are aliens, we are so advanced so I'm in like human body suit thingie or what?

I mean if aliens are actually humans, thats almost as stupid as the wooden doors in Signs...

The aliens possess his body.

The aliens possess his body.

Oh ok, thats not too stupid then, I may watch the movie, thx....

What now? Anakin as an old man was always in the closing scene of Jedi -- why and/or where does young Vader/Anakin show up in that film?

I don't remember them using Hayden Christensen in ROTJ. But i could never get past the CGI music sequence in the beginning....

There was a Star Wars marathon on some TV channel a while back, maybe a couple of months or so. Hayden Christensen was standing next to Obi-Wan and Yoda, glowing blue and everything. I remember it distinctly because it was so goddamn stupid.

Oh ok, thats not too stupid then, I may watch the movie, thx....

wait for it to come on DVD. or just watch the original.

What does that mean? Is it like, oh we are aliens, we are so advanced so I'm in like human body suit thingie or what?

I mean if aliens are actually humans, thats almost as stupid as the wooden doors in Signs...

I assume that he is an alien intelligence occupying a human body, or something similar. If he is sending a message to earth, then it's natural that he appear in the form that makes it easiest to communicate with humans. Yes, the original was made in the 1950s, when makeup technology was less sophisticated. Back then you had to have things like "acting" and "writing."

There was a Star Wars marathon on some TV channel a while back, maybe a couple of months or so. Hayden Christensen was standing next to Obi-Wan and Yoda, glowing blue and everything. I remember it distinctly because it was so goddamn stupid.

That's terrible, but thats what money and fame will do to someone, make them goddamn stupid.

I assume that he is an alien intelligence occupying a human body, or something similar. If he is sending a message to earth, then it's natural that he appear in the form that makes it easiest to communicate with humans. Yes, the original was made in the 1950s, when makeup technology was less sophisticated. Back then you had to have things like "acting" and "writing."

30s-70s were the glory years of film. I mean there were a few great films from the 80s, but great films were few and far between after the 70s.

There was a Star Wars marathon on some TV channel a while back, maybe a couple of months or so. Hayden Christensen was standing next to Obi-Wan and Yoda, glowing blue and everything. I remember it distinctly because it was so goddamn stupid.

I'm gonna need some kind of proof, or at least corroboration. Can anyone else here confirm this? Maybe it's on YouTube or something. I just have hard time believing that they'd swap out the old, just-gave-up-life-for-son Anakin for the whiny-ass new model.

I'm gonna need some kind of proof, or at least corroboration. Can anyone else here confirm this? Maybe it's on YouTube or something. I just have hard time believing that they'd swap out the old, just-gave-up-life-for-son Anakin for the whiny-ass new model.

Return of the Jedi: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_of_the_Jedi)
The original and Special Edition versions of Return of the Jedi featured British theatre actor Sebastian Shaw playing both the dying Anakin Skywalker and his ghost. In the DVD release, Shaw's portrayal of Anakin's ghost is replaced by Hayden Christensen, who portrayed Anakin in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.

Why would anyone do something like that? Why? WHY?

I'm gonna need some kind of proof, or at least corroboration. Can anyone else here confirm this? Maybe it's on YouTube or something. I just have hard time believing that they'd swap out the old, just-gave-up-life-for-son Anakin for the whiny-ass new model.

i'll join you in wanting poof

I'm gonna need some kind of proof, or at least corroboration. Can anyone else here confirm this? Maybe it's on YouTube or something. I just have hard time believing that they'd swap out the old, just-gave-up-life-for-son Anakin for the whiny-ass new model.

:eek:

It's true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHX3mAbyrs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHX3mAbyrs)

skip to 2:45 in!!!!!

this is a sad day to be a star wars fan.

I'm gonna need some kind of proof, or at least corroboration. Can anyone else here confirm this? Maybe it's on YouTube or something. I just have hard time believing that they'd swap out the old, just-gave-up-life-for-son Anakin for the whiny-ass new model.

Another bastion of more innocent times falls to the despair of reality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1LulT30Qkc

The resolution sucks, but you can make him out rather well.

Edit: Soundly beaten. Mine's shorter, though.

that SOB

that SOB

that is just wrong....