What was the last movie you saw?

Music and video: analog or digital
User avatar
justine
Posts: 16895
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:35 pm
Title: Elitist Beer Lover
Location: Magrathea
Contact:

Post by justine »

I don't know if i can watch The Human Centipede, although, i am so curious to see it. LOL!

I watched Finding Nemo this morning. :D
"The older i get, the less i care about what people think of me. therefore the older i get, the more i enjoy life."

"Life is so constructed, that the event does not, cannot, will not, match the expectation."
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 26563
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

justine wrote: I don't know if i can watch The Human Centipede, although, i am so curious to see it. LOL!

I watched Finding Nemo this morning. :D


I'm pretty sure I can't. Mental image filters don't work nearly as well when you are actually seeing images...

Finding Nemo, on the other hand, was great. I loved that movie.
User avatar
Metacell
Posts: 11658
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:58 am
Title: Chocolate Brahma
Location: Lidsville
Contact:

Post by Metacell »

I'd rather watch all the Faces of Death series followed by Saw I-XII before I'd watch the Human Centipede. Hell, I'd even watch Titanic.
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 26563
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

Metacell wrote: I'd rather watch all the Faces of Death series followed by Saw I-XII before I'd watch the Human Centipede. Hell, I'd even watch Titanic.


Wow, it can't be that bad, can it? :eek:
User avatar
arkayn
Posts: 6792
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:47 pm
Title: Aaarrrggghhhh
Location: Gulf Coast
Contact:

Post by arkayn »

Metacell wrote: I'd rather watch all the Faces of Death series followed by Saw I-XII before I'd watch the Human Centipede. Hell, I'd even watch Titanic.


I think I can agree with this sentiment!!
DEyncourt
Posts: 19246
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Post by DEyncourt »

I finally watched Star Trek Into Darkness and Iron Man 3. Fine as general entertainment, but....

Both movies are examples of the adage that in Hollywood with success you aren't allowed to do better, you only can do MORE.

I think that Iron Man 3 suffers from being a bit...um, formulaic. The plot is something of a mishmash with plot points coming out of nowhere. The attack on Tony Stark's mansion on the cliffs over Malibu is a visual highlight but it left me with a lot of questions like: where did the attacking helicopters come from? It might have been explained with a short scene at an airport where some officials ask why the helos were being so loaded, only to be explained that they are for a movie shoot ("Pretty neat, huh?" "Awfully realistic"). Then after the attack: where do the crews aboad those helos go? That they were all destroyed during the attack doesn't explain what was supposed to happen next--most people don't to into such expecting a suicide mission.

Which leads me to another question: what are the motivations of the group behind the Mandarin? It is insufficient to explain that a developer got slighted by Tony Stark back on New Year's Eve, 1999: that might explain him alone, but what are the motivations behind the mountain of personnel backing him? There are hundreds if not thousands of people who involved with the Mandarin, but why? In this way Iron Man 2 was similar but the climax of that movie was due to that lone developer highjacking the machinery created using his work by a large corporation in competition with Stark Industries. It seems to me that the only motivation for most of the evil people in Iron Man 3 is only that they ARE evil people.

+++++

STID as science fiction has a lot of problems. There are many things which don't much if any sense.

Leaving aside the differing needs for a spaceship vs. a submersible, submerging the Enterprise for the opening sequence might be explained if you view the Federation's Prime Directive as paramount (no pun intended): anyone who has seen the International Space Station pass overhead after sunset (or before sunrise, if you are so inclined) can now realize that a mostly white starship with about 9 times the cross-section of the ISS would be glaringly obvious from the ground, and any primitive society would be much more sky-observant than a more technological one since they would be very dependent upon weather and the cycle of the seasons. Well, if they had bothered to explain this...(perhaps such footage is on the editing room floor, metaphorically speaking).

There is still the problem of Kirk and McCoy swimming their way to an airlock in the engine section of the Enterprise. That is a long way to swim downward even for a trained swimmer (though I suppose that could be explained as part of Federation Academy training). They couldn't have used an airlock in the saucer section except as an excuse to display the Enterprise?

In the climatic fight between Spock and Khan, it is quickly explained that the Enterprise cannot get a transporter lock on them. Such has been an on-going problem ever since ST:TOS though it involves an extended explanation. While the Enterprise could "park" itself over a given location of planet by running its impulse engines, the relatively energy-free way to place a starship above a planet is, of course, to put it into orbit. Given that this particular scene takes place in San Francisco, we can use real numbers: to orbit around the Earth the Enterprise would be travelling almost 18,000 MPH or a bit less than 5 miles per second. The Earth itself is rotating, so we have to compensate for the rotational speed at San Francisco (about 810 MPH) which likely will be moving in a different vector from the Enterprise's orbit. Given these complications, for some reason the transporter wasn't able to lock on to people on a vehicle which, presumably, is travelling along a predictable path at MUCH lower speeds than either of the above numbers? And I am leaving aside the fact that the Enterprise at the moment of this fight scene was "using its thrusters"--really?--to avoid crashing into the Earth since this makes this particular situation even simpler than the typical transporter situation.

+++++

So, both movies are OK as eye candy but they left me feeling rather empty. I likely will see the next movies in both series but I do hope for a bit more story substance.
User avatar
Metacell
Posts: 11658
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:58 am
Title: Chocolate Brahma
Location: Lidsville
Contact:

Post by Metacell »

I assume the motivation for Mandarin's henchmen and hirelings is the same as for any James Bond villain's: money and power.
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
User avatar
DukeofNuke
Posts: 33732
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
Title: FREE RADICAL
Location: Scintillating!

Post by DukeofNuke »

DEyncourt wrote: I finally watched Star Trek Into Darkness and Iron Man 3. Fine as general entertainment, but....

Both movies are examples of the adage that in Hollywood with success you aren't allowed to do better, you only can do MORE.

I think that Iron Man 3 suffers from being a bit...um, formulaic. The plot is something of a mishmash with plot points coming out of nowhere. The attack on Tony Stark's mansion on the cliffs over Malibu is a visual highlight but it left me with a lot of questions like: where did the attacking helicopters come from? It might have been explained with a short scene at an airport where some officials ask why the helos were being so loaded, only to be explained that they are for a movie shoot ("Pretty neat, huh?" "Awfully realistic"). Then after the attack: where do the crews aboad those helos go? That they were all destroyed during the attack doesn't explain what was supposed to happen next--most people don't to into such expecting a suicide mission.

Which leads me to another question: what are the motivations of the group behind the Mandarin? It is insufficient to explain that a developer got slighted by Tony Stark back on New Year's Eve, 1999: that might explain him alone, but what are the motivations behind the mountain of personnel backing him? There are hundreds if not thousands of people who involved with the Mandarin, but why? In this way Iron Man 2 was similar but the climax of that movie was due to that lone developer highjacking the machinery created using his work by a large corporation in competition with Stark Industries. It seems to me that the only motivation for most of the evil people in Iron Man 3 is only that they ARE evil people.

+++++

STID as science fiction has a lot of problems. There are many things which don't much if any sense.

Leaving aside the differing needs for a spaceship vs. a submersible, submerging the Enterprise for the opening sequence might be explained if you view the Federation's Prime Directive as paramount (no pun intended): anyone who has seen the International Space Station pass overhead after sunset (or before sunrise, if you are so inclined) can now realize that a mostly white starship with about 9 times the cross-section of the ISS would be glaringly obvious from the ground, and any primitive society would be much more sky-observant than a more technological one since they would be very dependent upon weather and the cycle of the seasons. Well, if they had bothered to explain this...(perhaps such footage is on the editing room floor, metaphorically speaking).

There is still the problem of Kirk and McCoy swimming their way to an airlock in the engine section of the Enterprise. That is a long way to swim downward even for a trained swimmer (though I suppose that could be explained as part of Federation Academy training). They couldn't have used an airlock in the saucer section except as an excuse to display the Enterprise?

In the climatic fight between Spock and Khan, it is quickly explained that the Enterprise cannot get a transporter lock on them. Such has been an on-going problem ever since ST:TOS though it involves an extended explanation. While the Enterprise could "park" itself over a given location of planet by running its impulse engines, the relatively energy-free way to place a starship above a planet is, of course, to put it into orbit. Given that this particular scene takes place in San Francisco, we can use real numbers: to orbit around the Earth the Enterprise would be travelling almost 18,000 MPH or a bit less than 5 miles per second. The Earth itself is rotating, so we have to compensate for the rotational speed at San Francisco (about 810 MPH) which likely will be moving in a different vector from the Enterprise's orbit. Given these complications, for some reason the transporter wasn't able to lock on to people on a vehicle which, presumably, is travelling along a predictable path at MUCH lower speeds than either of the above numbers? And I am leaving aside the fact that the Enterprise at the moment of this fight scene was "using its thrusters"--really?--to avoid crashing into the Earth since this makes this particular situation even simpler than the typical transporter situation.

+++++

So, both movies are OK as eye candy but they left me feeling rather empty. I likely will see the next movies in both series but I do hope for a bit more story substance.


You think too much.

besides, the transporters couldn't get a lock on them because they were moving.
intellectual/hipster/nihilist

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
j_tso
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:46 am
Location: Austin, TX

Post by j_tso »

^what he said.

In every Star Trek show/movie the people have to be standing still for the transporter to get a lock.
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

Except when they are plummeting through the sky of Vulcan.
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.

Science is Truth for Life. In FORTRAN tongue the Answer.

...so I'm supposed to find the Shadow King from inside a daiquiri?
User avatar
j_tso
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:46 am
Location: Austin, TX

Post by j_tso »

Chekhov was manually compensating for falling. Spock and Khan were running all over changing directions constantly. :shrug:
User avatar
obvs
Posts: 28620
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

Warm Bodies.

It was an interesting idea. It seems original. I don't know of anything similar.

It was an okay movie. Not bad, not really wonderful.
DEyncourt
Posts: 19246
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Post by DEyncourt »

j_tso wrote: Chekhov was manually compensating for falling. Spock and Khan were running all over changing directions constantly. :shrug:

If the transporter has trouble tracking a person moving erratically at running speed then how can it compensate for a ship in orbit moving at 5 miles per second relative to the planet's axis?

Sorry, but the real problem with Star Trek transporters ever since TOS is that most of the time they do not work when called for by the plot, not for any logical physics reason.
DEyncourt
Posts: 19246
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Post by DEyncourt »

Metacell wrote: I assume the motivation for Mandarin's henchmen and hirelings is the same as for any James Bond villain's: money and power.

You can assume that if you like, but evidence for that motivation is completely lacking in Iron Man 3. Perhaps it got edited out because one of the studios which co-produced the movie is based in mainland China.
User avatar
Metacell
Posts: 11658
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:58 am
Title: Chocolate Brahma
Location: Lidsville
Contact:

Post by Metacell »

But that kind of evidence is usually lacking in any James Bond movie or most other action movies as well. Unless it's a character study in crime and corruption, cronies are just cronies wherever they may be. It's a safe assumption that they are general reprobates and that they're being paid more than Wal*Mart workers.

FWIW, with comic book movies, I'm not expecting realism.
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6643
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

DEyncourt wrote:Leaving aside the differing needs for a spaceship vs. a submersible, submerging the Enterprise for the opening sequence might be explained if you view the Federation's Prime Directive as paramount (no pun intended): anyone who has seen the International Space Station pass overhead after sunset (or before sunrise, if you are so inclined) can now realize that a mostly white starship with about 9 times the cross-section of the ISS would be glaringly obvious from the ground, and any primitive society would be much more sky-observant than a more technological one since they would be very dependent upon weather and the cycle of the seasons. Well, if they had bothered to explain this...(perhaps such footage is on the editing room floor, metaphorically speaking).


Sci Fi is full of examples of space ships going underwater. Must be part of the design spec. :p

There is still the problem of Kirk and McCoy swimming their way to an airlock in the engine section of the Enterprise. That is a long way to swim downward even for a trained swimmer (though I suppose that could be explained as part of Federation Academy training). They couldn't have used an airlock in the saucer section except as an excuse to display the Enterprise?


If you watch them as they swim, it's obvious that they're not swimming, but being propelled by some sort of mechanical aid, probably strapped to their ankles.

In the climatic fight between Spock and Khan, it is quickly explained that the Enterprise cannot get a transporter lock on them. Such has been an on-going problem ever since ST:TOS though it involves an extended explanation. While the Enterprise could "park" itself over a given location of planet by running its impulse engines, the relatively energy-free way to place a starship above a planet is, of course, to put it into orbit. Given that this particular scene takes place in San Francisco, we can use real numbers: to orbit around the Earth the Enterprise would be travelling almost 18,000 MPH or a bit less than 5 miles per second. The Earth itself is rotating, so we have to compensate for the rotational speed at San Francisco (about 810 MPH) which likely will be moving in a different vector from the Enterprise's orbit. Given these complications, for some reason the transporter wasn't able to lock on to people on a vehicle which, presumably, is travelling along a predictable path at MUCH lower speeds than either of the above numbers? And I am leaving aside the fact that the Enterprise at the moment of this fight scene was "using its thrusters"--really?--to avoid crashing into the Earth since this makes this particular situation even simpler than the typical transporter situation.


It's been a while, but I seem to recall that it wasn't that they couldn't get a lock, but it was that the transporters were damaged and could only beam out, not in.
User avatar
j_tso
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:46 am
Location: Austin, TX

Post by j_tso »

Rush

I liked it. Good drama and character development, and then there's old school F1 racing. There's a lot of timeline jumping in the first two thirds since it's a biopic.
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 47707
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: Screen toucher
Contact:

Post by ukimalefu »

j_tso wrote: Rush

I liked it. Good drama and character development, and then there's old school F1 racing. There's a lot of timeline jumping in the first two thirds since it's a biopic.


I saw "F1s greates rivals", made by the BBC, and I liked it a lot. Do I want to see this? not sure. Maybe I will.
DEyncourt
Posts: 19246
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Post by DEyncourt »

jkahless wrote: [snip]
It's been a while, but I seem to recall that it wasn't that they couldn't get a lock, but it was that the transporters were damaged and could only beam out, not in.

Nope. From the movie's script:
Sulu (in the captain's chair): Can you beam them up to the ship?

Chekov: Ah--they keep moving. I cannot get a lock on either of them!

[spoiler]Uhura: Can you beam someone down?[/spoiler]

Now, remember that Spock and Khan are fighting on top of a vehicle which was certainly moving faster relative to the ground than they could sprint. Surely THAT vehicle's movement should have been the bigger problem when trying to get a transporter lock on them [spoiler]except, of course, had that been the problem then Uhura couldn't have been beamed down to save Spock[/spoiler].

The writers could have done something like: Khan--knowing that transporters could remove him from wherever he may be--carries a device which prevents him from being transported when he turns it on (so this would involve inserting an scene earlier in the movie where such is demonstrated). So Chekov's line above could have been altered to something like: "Spock, yes; but not Khan--he has blocked the transporter!"
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 26563
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

Transporters were always the ugly Deus Ex Machina of Star Trek, and they would have done better to eliminate them. I can't begin to count the number of times the writers used "transporters" to beam their way out of massive plot holes.

The only reason they existed at all was that Roddenberry didn't want to waste time showing them going down to the planet in the shuttle.
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 47707
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: Screen toucher
Contact:

Post by ukimalefu »

radarman wrote: Transporters were always the ugly Deus Ex Machina of Star Trek, and they would have done better to eliminate them. I can't begin to count the number of times the writers used "transporters" to beam their way out of massive plot holes.

The only reason they existed at all was that Roddenberry didn't want to waste time showing them going down to the planet in the shuttle.


Not what I've heard. I believe it was because it was cheaper than building the shuttle models.
User avatar
Pithecanthropus
Posts: 6179
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:46 pm
Title: Roast Master
Location: St. Cloud, MN
Contact:

Post by Pithecanthropus »

radarman wrote: The only reason they existed at all was that Roddenberry didn't have the budget to show them going down to the planet in the shuttle.

FTFY.
set DeusEx.JCDentonMale bCheatsEnabled true
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

"Our teleporter was just Christmas tree lights!"
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.

Science is Truth for Life. In FORTRAN tongue the Answer.

...so I'm supposed to find the Shadow King from inside a daiquiri?
User avatar
DukeofNuke
Posts: 33732
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
Title: FREE RADICAL
Location: Scintillating!

Post by DukeofNuke »

radarman wrote: Transporters were always the ugly Deus Ex Machina of Star Trek, and they would have done better to eliminate them. I can't begin to count the number of times the writers used "transporters" to beam their way out of massive plot holes.

The only reason they existed at all was that Roddenberry didn't want to waste time showing them going down to the planet in the shuttle.


True. but there were even BIGGER massibve plot holes that were resolved by ...

You guessed it! Going back in time to fix the problem before it begins!
intellectual/hipster/nihilist

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
DEyncourt
Posts: 19246
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Post by DEyncourt »

ukimalefu wrote:
radarman wrote: Transporters were always the ugly Deus Ex Machina of Star Trek, and they would have done better to eliminate them. I can't begin to count the number of times the writers used "transporters" to beam their way out of massive plot holes.

The only reason they existed at all was that Roddenberry didn't want to waste time showing them going down to the planet in the shuttle.


Not what I've heard. I believe it was because it was cheaper than building the shuttle models.

You both are right. After all there were shuttles even in TOS, but it was cheaper in both money and screen time to film the transporter scenes (even with its primitive--though expensive for TV--special effects) than to show a sequence of the away team getting aboard a shuttle, settling in, launching the shuttle from the Enterprise (which alone probably would have cancelled the transporter special effects budget), the shuttle landing on the ground, then the away team leaving it. After the series had established that such a system existed then they didn't even have to show the away team standing on a transporter deck, just merely show them beaming into the scene or even just play the sound effect and have the locals react to these people appearing off-screen (a common ploy late in the seasons of TOS).
User avatar
Warin
Posts: 7052
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:34 pm

Post by Warin »

Gravity in IMAX 3D. Holy fiddlesticks, what a spectacular film. Loads of plot holes, but so amazingly beautiful and chaotic. This is probably one of the first films I would actually buy into the "you must see it on a big screen for full effect" argument. The wife was not nearly as enchanted as I was.
I'm sorry Dave...
User avatar
Metacell
Posts: 11658
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:58 am
Title: Chocolate Brahma
Location: Lidsville
Contact:

Post by Metacell »

DEyncourt wrote:
jkahless wrote: [snip]
It's been a while, but I seem to recall that it wasn't that they couldn't get a lock, but it was that the transporters were damaged and could only beam out, not in.

Nope. From the movie's script:
Sulu (in the captain's chair): Can you beam them up to the ship?

Chekov: Ah--they keep moving. I cannot get a lock on either of them!

[spoiler]Uhura: Can you beam someone down?[/spoiler]

Now, remember that Spock and Khan are fighting on top of a vehicle which was certainly moving faster relative to the ground than they could sprint. Surely THAT vehicle's movement should have been the bigger problem when trying to get a transporter lock on them [spoiler]except, of course, had that been the problem then Uhura couldn't have been beamed down to save Spock[/spoiler].

Not necessarily, all motion is relative. Everything in the universe is moving at an astronomical rate of speed relative to something. It's not their actual velocity which was the issue, but that their movement was unpredictable.

(Disclaimer: haven't seen the movie, don't plan to. The reboot is an abomination.)
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
DEyncourt
Posts: 19246
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Post by DEyncourt »

Metacell wrote:
DEyncourt wrote:
jkahless wrote: [snip]
It's been a while, but I seem to recall that it wasn't that they couldn't get a lock, but it was that the transporters were damaged and could only beam out, not in.

Nope. From the movie's script:
Sulu (in the captain's chair): Can you beam them up to the ship?

Chekov: Ah--they keep moving. I cannot get a lock on either of them!

[spoiler]Uhura: Can you beam someone down?[/spoiler]

Now, remember that Spock and Khan are fighting on top of a vehicle which was certainly moving faster relative to the ground than they could sprint. Surely THAT vehicle's movement should have been the bigger problem when trying to get a transporter lock on them [spoiler]except, of course, had that been the problem then Uhura couldn't have been beamed down to save Spock[/spoiler].

Not necessarily, all motion is relative. Everything in the universe is moving at an astronomical rate of speed relative to something. It's not their actual velocity which was the issue, but that their movement was unpredictable.

(Disclaimer: haven't seen the movie, don't plan to. The reboot is an abomination.)

The relative frame of reference was the point in my next-to-last paragraph of my first post on Star Trek Into Darkness. The problem with the failure for transporters to lock in every version of Star Trek is that compared to everything that is usually going on, a person moving himself unpredictably vanishes into insignificance. It is just a plot device that simply doesn't make any sense.
User avatar
Ribtor
Posts: 9527
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:45 pm

Post by Ribtor »

Friendly Persuasion, 1956.

Garbage. Gary Cooper just sort of grinned his way through this dreck. I'm not surprised if it seemed he couldn't take the script very seriously.
Pyke notte thy nostrellys
User avatar
justine
Posts: 16895
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:35 pm
Title: Elitist Beer Lover
Location: Magrathea
Contact:

Post by justine »

I watched the first third of Now You See Me. Can't wait to see the rest of it!
"The older i get, the less i care about what people think of me. therefore the older i get, the more i enjoy life."

"Life is so constructed, that the event does not, cannot, will not, match the expectation."
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 47707
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: Screen toucher
Contact:

Post by ukimalefu »

World War Z

I really liked it. But I'm still not a fan of "fast zombies".
User avatar
Pithecanthropus
Posts: 6179
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:46 pm
Title: Roast Master
Location: St. Cloud, MN
Contact:

Post by Pithecanthropus »

Dredd. A perfect piece o'crap movie for me to watch while my lovely lady was at work.
set DeusEx.JCDentonMale bCheatsEnabled true
User avatar
chikie
Posts: 10219
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:24 pm
Title: The same deviled egg

Post by chikie »

Pithecanthropus wrote: Dredd. A perfect piece o'crap movie for me to watch while my lovely lady was at work.

It amused me to think about how much better it was than the Judge Dredd movie that was made in the 90s with Stallone.
mmaverick wrote wrote: I'm just on a fiddlesticks train.
User avatar
dv
Posts: 30837
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:42 pm

Post by dv »

Yeah, I rather enjoyed Dredd 2012.
Image
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 40821
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

ditto!
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
Metacell
Posts: 11658
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:58 am
Title: Chocolate Brahma
Location: Lidsville
Contact:

Post by Metacell »

I think both Judge Dredd movies went too far in their respective directions, one campy, the other ultra-violent. If they could somehow be morphed together, they'd actually resemble the comic book. Or if they could have just done a time-warp and switched the leads.
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 47707
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: Screen toucher
Contact:

Post by ukimalefu »

-Pacific Rim

Most impressive CGI (haters gonna hate and say it still looks fake and it rips off Ultraman, or something)

Story is on par with any american action movie from recent years. Monsters, robots, explosions, boy fights the bully, nerds solves the problem, they kill the bad guys, boy gets the girl.

Sorry, did I spoil that for you? too bad. :p

But I do think it looks amazing.
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 47707
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: Screen toucher
Contact:

Post by ukimalefu »

-Silent Running

If you keep in mind that this is an early 70s movie, it's not bad. I just wish they had filmed the original script.

SPOILERS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Running

Still, I wonder how the last creepy little robot and his forest are doing now.
Last edited by ukimalefu on Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

I saw that one in the theatre with dad. Loved the Joan Baez title song. I have SR on dvd and IIRC, there's an extensive documentary about how they filmed it on an old ship and scenes showing the amputee actors who played the robots.

I think that the script that they filmed is very poignant.
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.

Science is Truth for Life. In FORTRAN tongue the Answer.

...so I'm supposed to find the Shadow King from inside a daiquiri?
User avatar
j_tso
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:46 am
Location: Austin, TX

Post by j_tso »

Incubus (1966)

William Shatner speaking in Esperanto in a battle with the devil.

Saw half of it Saturday night on TCM, it was groovy and freaky.

Trailer link
Post Reply