Just saw The Croods. Good stuff, although I'm pretty sure a geologist of biologist would wince. Hard.
Just watched The Manchurian Candidate (Sinatra) with my son. Awesome.
dv wrote:Just saw The Croods. Good stuff, although I'm pretty sure a geologist of biologist would wince. Hard.
Worse than ...
Iron Man 3
The Lorax
It was pretty much what I expected. I never cared much for how they flesh out the Seuss stories in feature length movies--but animation is MUCH preferred over the horrible live action ones that have been made (Cat in the Hat, Grinch).
There were some fun moments, but it seemed to follow those very strict templates of Hollywood movies shooting for broad family appeal.
I think the way the book tells the story is more effective, but would make for a much shorter movie.
My kids really liked it though.
It was pretty much what I expected. I never cared much for how they flesh out the Seuss stories in feature length movies--but animation is MUCH preferred over the horrible live action ones that have been made (Cat in the Hat, Grinch).
There were some fun moments, but it seemed to follow those very strict templates of Hollywood movies shooting for broad family appeal.
I think the way the book tells the story is more effective, but would make for a much shorter movie.
My kids really liked it though.
Séamas wrote:-but animation is MUCH preferred over the horrible live action ones that have been made (Cat in the Hat, Grinch)
The 5000 Fingers of Dr T
Early 1950's live action Seuss. Pretty trippy.
"Gimme a snort of that pickle juice!"
Colonel Panic wrote:Séamas wrote:-but animation is MUCH preferred over the horrible live action ones that have been made (Cat in the Hat, Grinch)
The 5000 Fingers of Dr T
Early 1950's live action Seuss. Pretty trippy.
"Gimme a snort of that pickle juice!"
Caught a little of that one on TV a few years back. Had no idea what I was watching.
Brave. As a Disney/Pixar production I figured it would be well done, technically and it was. Quite enjoyable.
Star Trek - ITD
Soooo much fanwank! I really enjoyed it. Not sure how I feel about it fitting into Star Trek as we know it, but it's miles better than ENT or Nemisis, so I'm ok with it. It certainly is an interesting take on the parallel timeline.
Soooo much fanwank! I really enjoyed it. Not sure how I feel about it fitting into Star Trek as we know it, but it's miles better than ENT or Nemisis, so I'm ok with it. It certainly is an interesting take on the parallel timeline.
I was so bored that I only watched 1/2 of the previous Star Trek movie.
Just like The Avengers.
Just like The Avengers.
O man you missed Scotty.
I started watching Identity Thief. I'll finish it eventually.
ukimalefu
want, but shouldn't, may anyway
matt wrote:I was so bored that I only watched 1/2 of the previous Star Trek movie.
Just like The Avengers.
Star Trek Into Darkness
My first 3D movie since Captain EO! I had been purposely avoiding them, but I actually liked it (the 3D) because, it added depth to the image, rather than try to jump out of the screen, like Jaws 3D did.
As for the movie as a whole, I have to completely agree with this review:
My first 3D movie since Captain EO! I had been purposely avoiding them, but I actually liked it (the 3D) because, it added depth to the image, rather than try to jump out of the screen, like Jaws 3D did.
As for the movie as a whole, I have to completely agree with this review:
Quote:It’s hard to get past the feeling that Star Trek Into Darkness is a film that’s good enough because of the efforts of all the excellent people involved, yet it still falls short of the greatness of J.J. Abrams’ first outing because of a weak screenplay. Star Trek fans will see it anyway, and why not? For disposable summertime cinema, it’s certainly enjoyable, but you come away with the sense could have been so much more than that. File under “Missed Opportunities,” and look forward to the next one.
New Star Trek movie. Would someone please explain to me why they couldn't just beam that bomb into the volcano, and how did they get the Enterprise into that ocean without the natives seeing it? Other than those couple of things, and Uhura being a clingy uncouth individual ("I'll see you in 90 seconds," as she kisses the faceshield on Spock's space suit. UGH!) I liked it.
NEEDS MORE McCOY!!!!
Pithecanthropus wrote:New Star Trek movie. Would someone please explain to me why they couldn't just beam that bomb into the volcano, and how did they get the Enterprise into that ocean without the natives seeing it? Other than those couple of things, and Uhura being a clingy uncouth individual ("I'll see you in 90 seconds," as she kisses the faceshield on Spock's space suit. UGH!) I liked it.
1. There was too much interference ...
2. drop into the ocean at night beyond the observable horizon, and submarine to the beach
Actually, I thought that part was pretty cool
Just watched Battleship. I really don't know why I did that.
If I was a 17 year old with a brain smaller than a squirrel's testicle I'd probably want to join the navy now though.
I'm not though, so I'm confused as to why I finished watching it.
If I was a 17 year old with a brain smaller than a squirrel's testicle I'd probably want to join the navy now though.
I'm not though, so I'm confused as to why I finished watching it.
jkahless wrote:Just watched Battleship. I really don't know why I did that.
If I was a 17 year old with a brain smaller than a squirrel's testicle I'd probably want to join the navy now though.
I'm not though, so I'm confused as to why I finished watching it.
Were you drunk? That's a valid excuse for a lot more than watching a bad movie.
I wish I was.
DukeofNuke wrote:Star Trek Into Darkness
My first 3D movie since Captain EO! I had been purposely avoiding them, but I actually liked it (the 3D) because, it added depth to the image, rather than try to jump out of the screen, like Jaws 3D did.
As for the movie as a whole, I have to completely agree with this review:Quote:It’s hard to get past the feeling that Star Trek Into Darkness is a film that’s good enough because of the efforts of all the excellent people involved, yet it still falls short of the greatness of J.J. Abrams’ first outing because of a weak screenplay. Star Trek fans will see it anyway, and why not? For disposable summertime cinema, it’s certainly enjoyable, but you come away with the sense could have been so much more than that. File under “Missed Opportunities,” and look forward to the next one.
3d sucks, i can't figure out why it's everywhere nowadays
totally makes it impossible to lose yourself in the action, it all looks like it's taking place on a diorama
TOS wrote:
3d sucks, i can't figure out why it's everywhere nowadays
totally makes it impossible to lose yourself in the action, it all looks like it's taking place on a diorama
I agree, it looks more like a pop-up book than 3D.
Another problem is it gets out of whack when the focus switches from background to foreground.
Listen, I'd like to have a Holosuite, too; but until then, I have no problem with the "diorama" perspective.
What else would it look like ?
At least they're not thrusting spear points into the audience, or jumping cars over their heads and other obviously gimmicky human waste (well, not this movie anyway).
What else would it look like ?
At least they're not thrusting spear points into the audience, or jumping cars over their heads and other obviously gimmicky human waste (well, not this movie anyway).
Hugo
I saw it last summer--but at an outdoor park on a substandard screen.
Seeing it at home allowed me to better enjoy the details.
The movie is hit and miss--mostly hit. The special effects are all seamless and do what special effects do best: help tell the story and give you an world to enjoy.
The child actors are excellent--just about all the cast is great--with exception to Sasha Baron Cohen. There is a good number of people who rank at the very top of comic actors--and while he does do a reasonably good job, I can't help but see him really lacking--especially when compared to people who he is sometimes compared to (Sellers, Chaplin, etc). It's the perfect role for a comic actor and he falls flat.
The part where it misses is where it goes into the quasi-lectures about Georges Méliès. it sort of looks too wooden-like a documentary or a dissertation--when compared to the rest of the movie which exists in a quasi magic world.
I do love how trains, movies, modernism, clocks, illusionists' magic and automatons are shown as incredibly interrelated. The little glimpses of historical characters from the time/place are seen (Dali, Joyce, Rheinhardt)
I saw it last summer--but at an outdoor park on a substandard screen.
Seeing it at home allowed me to better enjoy the details.
The movie is hit and miss--mostly hit. The special effects are all seamless and do what special effects do best: help tell the story and give you an world to enjoy.
The child actors are excellent--just about all the cast is great--with exception to Sasha Baron Cohen. There is a good number of people who rank at the very top of comic actors--and while he does do a reasonably good job, I can't help but see him really lacking--especially when compared to people who he is sometimes compared to (Sellers, Chaplin, etc). It's the perfect role for a comic actor and he falls flat.
The part where it misses is where it goes into the quasi-lectures about Georges Méliès. it sort of looks too wooden-like a documentary or a dissertation--when compared to the rest of the movie which exists in a quasi magic world.
I do love how trains, movies, modernism, clocks, illusionists' magic and automatons are shown as incredibly interrelated. The little glimpses of historical characters from the time/place are seen (Dali, Joyce, Rheinhardt)
DukeofNuke wrote:Listen, I'd like to have a Holosuite, too; but until then, I have no problem with the "diorama" perspective.
What else would it look like ?
Like live theatre with the actors REALLY close to you (and you can't smell them)?
j_tso wrote:DukeofNuke wrote:Listen, I'd like to have a Holosuite, too; but until then, I have no problem with the "diorama" perspective.
What else would it look like ?
Like live theatre with the actors REALLY close to you (and you can't smell them)?
That's the problem with live theater.
Between milk based paint and costumes that are too delicate to wash between runs of a show... being close enough to enjoy it is unpleasant.
The nausea probably helps the actors stay thin.
Wreck It Ralph
It was OK, but not much more than OK. To me it is treading on really well worn ground in animated films. We had the world of toys, the world of Monsters, the world of cars, the world of superheroes, and now the world of video games. They all seem to be introduced in a same kind of manner.
The overall story for this one is kind of a decent take off of Huckleberry Finn's weighing of good and bad. I suppose the animation was nice enough, but I'm not very into video games, so all the minute in-jokes are lost on me.
Rear Window
This is my second time watching this. I figure the mini heatwave we were experiencing made it appropriate. The story for this is cool, but I just can't get over how miscast Jimmy Stewart is in it. I just don't see any reason for Grace Kelly's character to have any feeling for him. He's totally square--and the only way I can actually see them together is if he is super cool. I mean he's got a cool apartment (1950s Greenwich Village!) and a super cool job (adventuring photographer), but Stweart just has no connection to either of these things. He comes off as a much-too-old curmudgeon for a gorgeous high society upper east side fashionista to have any connection. Steward also comes off creepy in the love scenes.
I think an actor with a little more of a hip/cool aura would have made the characters chemistry more believable.
And even though the set is really well made, it totally looks like a sound stage. It'd be awesome to have shot this on location, though it would have been a logistical nightmare.
It's funny that in movies from this era, all the characters have to announce who they are and what they do within 30 seconds of being on screen.
The people in the neighborhood also come off as cartoonish--and it always seems that they were standing still when the scene begins and only start moving when Alfred yells "action!"
It was OK, but not much more than OK. To me it is treading on really well worn ground in animated films. We had the world of toys, the world of Monsters, the world of cars, the world of superheroes, and now the world of video games. They all seem to be introduced in a same kind of manner.
The overall story for this one is kind of a decent take off of Huckleberry Finn's weighing of good and bad. I suppose the animation was nice enough, but I'm not very into video games, so all the minute in-jokes are lost on me.
Rear Window
This is my second time watching this. I figure the mini heatwave we were experiencing made it appropriate. The story for this is cool, but I just can't get over how miscast Jimmy Stewart is in it. I just don't see any reason for Grace Kelly's character to have any feeling for him. He's totally square--and the only way I can actually see them together is if he is super cool. I mean he's got a cool apartment (1950s Greenwich Village!) and a super cool job (adventuring photographer), but Stweart just has no connection to either of these things. He comes off as a much-too-old curmudgeon for a gorgeous high society upper east side fashionista to have any connection. Steward also comes off creepy in the love scenes.
I think an actor with a little more of a hip/cool aura would have made the characters chemistry more believable.
And even though the set is really well made, it totally looks like a sound stage. It'd be awesome to have shot this on location, though it would have been a logistical nightmare.
It's funny that in movies from this era, all the characters have to announce who they are and what they do within 30 seconds of being on screen.
The people in the neighborhood also come off as cartoonish--and it always seems that they were standing still when the scene begins and only start moving when Alfred yells "action!"
I felt the same way about Stewart in Vertigo.
Stewart was the consummate 'everyman' of the 50s and 60s, and the hot chicks were puttin' out to Hitch
The Quick and the Dead.
Over the top western cheese but Sharon Stone, Russel Crowe, Gene Hackman and DeCaprio are always good value.
Over the top western cheese but Sharon Stone, Russel Crowe, Gene Hackman and DeCaprio are always good value.
Ribtor wrote:The Quick and the Dead.
Over the top western cheese but Sharon Stone, Russel Crowe, Gene Hackman and DeCaprio are always good value.
My fiancé loves that movie.
She also loves Out Cold.
Sharon was SO hawt in that. (Quick)
Vanishing Point. Just finished a few seconds ago. WTF?
jkahless wrote:Vanishing Point. Just finished a few seconds ago. WTF?
omg classic
love that film
oh and last night i watched platoon for the first time in at least 20 years, it still holds up pretty well -- a great flick
Is it just me or does practically every film from the 70s have gratuitous boobage? Not that I mind!
The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
As good, if not better than the 1931 Frankenstein. The sense of doom really prevails through the whole thing--The doctor and his mentor seem so driven, but at the same time know what they are doing is terribly terribly wrong. The trick photography of Dr Pretorius' homunculi is pretty impressive.
Midnight Cowboy (1969)
A pretty daring picture, delivers pretty frank depictions of the seedy world of hustlers and con-men and homeless loser life in the days of NYC's decline. The camera work is excellent as is the renderings of flashbacks, dream sequence, drug sequence and fantasy. The two main characters have extremely poor moral compasses, but for some reason remain likable.
I had only seen part of this movie once before--long ago during a period where my wife and I had moved to our parents' homes after college --we needed some "alone time" and got a room at a very shabby seedy motel. HBO was showing that movie. Fairly appropriate.
As good, if not better than the 1931 Frankenstein. The sense of doom really prevails through the whole thing--The doctor and his mentor seem so driven, but at the same time know what they are doing is terribly terribly wrong. The trick photography of Dr Pretorius' homunculi is pretty impressive.
Midnight Cowboy (1969)
A pretty daring picture, delivers pretty frank depictions of the seedy world of hustlers and con-men and homeless loser life in the days of NYC's decline. The camera work is excellent as is the renderings of flashbacks, dream sequence, drug sequence and fantasy. The two main characters have extremely poor moral compasses, but for some reason remain likable.
I had only seen part of this movie once before--long ago during a period where my wife and I had moved to our parents' homes after college --we needed some "alone time" and got a room at a very shabby seedy motel. HBO was showing that movie. Fairly appropriate.