What was the last movie you saw?

Music and video: analog or digital
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

What's the big surprise? They ALWAYS have the atheist finding jeebus at the end. They don't think American audiences would tolerate it otherwise.
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
chikie
Posts: 10219
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:24 pm
Title: The same deviled egg

Post by chikie »

that's certainly not how Religulous ended :p
mmaverick wrote wrote: I'm just on a fiddlesticks train.
User avatar
bratboy
Posts: 7256
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:03 pm
Title: so sorry I schooled you

Post by bratboy »

FutureDreamz wrote: Slow.


No stick fiddling way.

I've watched that movie dozens of times. It's probably my favorite film.

Kids these days! No attention span.
User avatar
Marc
Posts: 1839
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:03 pm

Post by Marc »

no really I watched that movie at 1.5x speed and I still thought it was boring. I read the books and liked them, the movie was not meant for today.
My grama just died, on Cinco De Mayo..... the day of the dead
User avatar
bratboy
Posts: 7256
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:03 pm
Title: so sorry I schooled you

Post by bratboy »

Many people tend to find older films (even the great ones) "slow" or "boring." Which goes back to my point about attention span.
User avatar
Marc
Posts: 1839
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:03 pm

Post by Marc »

No; you're just grasping at straws to make your point. I enjoy many old movies. 2001 was just slow. I'm sure it's style choices were bold and original then, I just think it's boring.

Go find someone who think Blade Runner is lame, then you can make your point but you're not using me to make it.
My grama just died, on Cinco De Mayo..... the day of the dead
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

Blade Runner IS stick fiddling lame.
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
Geesie
Posts: 26077
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:18 am
Title: Couldn't hit it sideways
Location: Searching for my mainline

Post by Geesie »

bratboy wrote:
FutureDreamz wrote: Slow.


No stick fiddling way.

I've watched that movie dozens of times. It's probably my favorite film.

Kids these days! No attention span.


It is slow. It was meant to be slow. It was not meant to be an action/adventure film. It's a cerebral, philosophical science fiction film.
Image
User avatar
bratboy
Posts: 7256
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:03 pm
Title: so sorry I schooled you

Post by bratboy »

2001 has a 96% at Rotten Tomatoes--Blade Runner a 91%. I'm thinking I could probably find someone who doesn't like Blade Runner.

Here's a thread: blade runner is the most boring piece of human waste ever put to film
:)
User avatar
bratboy
Posts: 7256
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:03 pm
Title: so sorry I schooled you

Post by bratboy »

Geesie wrote:
It is slow. It was meant to be slow. It was not meant to be an action/adventure film. It's a cerebral, philosophical science fiction film.


Well yeah, of course "it was not meant to be an action/adventure film"!

I was objecting to the suggestion that it's boring. (Unless you're under the impression that FD was admiring the film's pace?)
User avatar
Geesie
Posts: 26077
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:18 am
Title: Couldn't hit it sideways
Location: Searching for my mainline

Post by Geesie »

Oh, it seemed that you were objecting to the assessment that it was 'slow'.
Image
User avatar
bratboy
Posts: 7256
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:03 pm
Title: so sorry I schooled you

Post by bratboy »

No, it's definitely a slow-paced film. I'd say most of Kubrick's films are.
User avatar
Conner
Posts: 8136
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:39 pm
Title: Of Gallifrey
Location: Fairport, NY

Post by Conner »

2001. Good lord, that was slow. I took me two tries to get through, I fell asleep during the first. I still thought it was pretty decent/good though.
Bad Wolf
User avatar
FutureDreamz
Banned User(s)
Banned User(s)
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:08 pm
Title: Matthew 5:5
Location: Fusang

Post by FutureDreamz »

Geesie wrote:
bratboy wrote:
FutureDreamz wrote: Slow.


No stick fiddling way.

I've watched that movie dozens of times. It's probably my favorite film.

Kids these days! No attention span.


It is slow. It was meant to be slow. It was not meant to be an action/adventure film. It's a cerebral, philosophical science fiction film.

Huh. I thought it was to emphasize the normality of the future.
DukeofNuke wrote:Age alone does not bring wisdom.
User avatar
Geesie
Posts: 26077
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:18 am
Title: Couldn't hit it sideways
Location: Searching for my mainline

Post by Geesie »

Did you just google that?
Image
User avatar
FutureDreamz
Banned User(s)
Banned User(s)
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:08 pm
Title: Matthew 5:5
Location: Fusang

Post by FutureDreamz »

Geesie wrote: Did you just google that?

No, I was thinking about it for the last while.
DukeofNuke wrote:Age alone does not bring wisdom.
User avatar
FutureDreamz
Banned User(s)
Banned User(s)
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:08 pm
Title: Matthew 5:5
Location: Fusang

Post by FutureDreamz »

Watched The Upside Of Anger. Stupid but funny.
DukeofNuke wrote:Age alone does not bring wisdom.
safari
Posts: 2026
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by safari »

Alexander Supertramp wrote: and I might add I'm a nic cage fan.

Yeah, so am I. I gave it a 7 or 8 because it was one of the better movies that I've seen this year. Black Hawk Down got a 10 in my book ( :cry: ). And it did have some really authentic special effects... [spoiler]plane crash fire victims with water splashing off the CGI aircraft maybe? Or the blood and gore and effects with the Subway crash?[/spoiler].
User avatar
SpacemanSpiff
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 am
Title: Resident Gimp
Location: Washington State

Post by SpacemanSpiff »

Serenity (again).

I've also got Firefly in the old Queue.
17" MBP 3.06 GHz 4 GB 500 GB Matte Screen

It's a dream.
User avatar
Alexander Supertramp
Posts: 7938
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:38 pm
Title: this was uncalled for.

Post by Alexander Supertramp »

safari wrote:
Alexander Supertramp wrote: and I might add I'm a nic cage fan.

Yeah, so am I. I gave it a 7 or 8 because it was one of the better movies that I've seen this year. Black Hawk Down got a 10 in my book ( :cry: ). And it did have some really authentic special effects... [spoiler]plane crash fire victims with water splashing off the CGI aircraft maybe? Or the blood and gore and effects with the Subway crash?[/spoiler].


I'll give you that the CGI was interesting and well done for the most part (the animals aside), and I guess the movie was reasonably tense most of the way through. But good lord did the acting fall apart (the scene on the pay phones with the yelling!) towards the end. And the twist seemed like a M. Knight throwaway idea, which is not a compliment.
The visuals don't hold up.
User avatar
bratboy
Posts: 7256
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:03 pm
Title: so sorry I schooled you

Post by bratboy »

Wall-E. I thought it was OK.
safari
Posts: 2026
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by safari »

Alexander Supertramp wrote:
safari wrote:
Alexander Supertramp wrote: and I might add I'm a nic cage fan.

Yeah, so am I. I gave it a 7 or 8 because it was one of the better movies that I've seen this year. Black Hawk Down got a 10 in my book ( :cry: ). And it did have some really authentic special effects... [spoiler]plane crash fire victims with water splashing off the CGI aircraft maybe? Or the blood and gore and effects with the Subway crash?[/spoiler].


I'll give you that the CGI was interesting and well done for the most part (the animals aside), and I guess the movie was reasonably tense most of the way through. But good lord did the acting fall apart (the scene on the pay phones with the yelling!) towards the end. And the twist seemed like a M. Knight throwaway idea, which is not a compliment.

Yeah, I do have to agree that it had more plot/genre changes than Hancock (another movie that had a lot more possibility than it showed; :( ). And for the record, creating composite animals are very hard to make realistic.
User avatar
SpacemanSpiff
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 am
Title: Resident Gimp
Location: Washington State

Post by SpacemanSpiff »

If by some freak of nature you are a freak of nature that has never see this movie then:

OMG There be spoilers afoot!


Okay a Serenity thought.

I think that the final dialogue between Mal and Zoe (before take off) has nothing to do with the ship:

[spoiler]Mal You think she'll hold together?
Zoe She's torn up plenty but she'll fly true.[/spoiler]

I could go on and talk about their relationship from Firefly vis-a-vis the Battle of Serenity but I don't think it is important.

[spoiler]Mal is clearly asking about (and is genuinely concerned about) Zoe's emotional state towards the loss of her husband.[/spoiler]



Best exchange in the movie (not really a spoiler) but pretty funny in my book:

Kaylee Goin' on a year now I ain't had nothin' twixt my nethers weren't run on batteries!
Malcolm Oh, God! I can't know that!
Jayne I could stand to hear a little more.

:lol:
17" MBP 3.06 GHz 4 GB 500 GB Matte Screen

It's a dream.
User avatar
Alexander Supertramp
Posts: 7938
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:38 pm
Title: this was uncalled for.

Post by Alexander Supertramp »

safari wrote:
Alexander Supertramp wrote:
safari wrote:
Alexander Supertramp wrote: and I might add I'm a nic cage fan.

Yeah, so am I. I gave it a 7 or 8 because it was one of the better movies that I've seen this year. Black Hawk Down got a 10 in my book ( :cry: ). And it did have some really authentic special effects... [spoiler]plane crash fire victims with water splashing off the CGI aircraft maybe? Or the blood and gore and effects with the Subway crash?[/spoiler].


I'll give you that the CGI was interesting and well done for the most part (the animals aside), and I guess the movie was reasonably tense most of the way through. But good lord did the acting fall apart (the scene on the pay phones with the yelling!) towards the end. And the twist seemed like a M. Knight throwaway idea, which is not a compliment.

Yeah, I do have to agree that it had more plot/genre changes than Hancock (another movie that had a lot more possibility than it showed; :( ). And for the record, creating composite animals are very hard to make realistic.


I bow to your obviously vast compositing knowledge.
The visuals don't hold up.
User avatar
Alexander Supertramp
Posts: 7938
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:38 pm
Title: this was uncalled for.

Post by Alexander Supertramp »

Seriously though, CGI animals can be done just fine, watch some of the later Harry Potter movies.

Really though, we're making a mountain out of a movie I can't believe got made.
The visuals don't hold up.
User avatar
SpacemanSpiff
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 am
Title: Resident Gimp
Location: Washington State

Post by SpacemanSpiff »

Alexander Supertramp wrote: Seriously though, CGI animals can be done just fine, watch some of the later Harry Potter movies.

Really though, we're making a mountain out of a movie I can't believe got made.


Or the cow that got ran over in Oh Brother Where Art Thou?
17" MBP 3.06 GHz 4 GB 500 GB Matte Screen

It's a dream.
safari
Posts: 2026
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by safari »

Alexander Supertramp wrote:I bow to your obviously vast compositing knowledge.

I don't claim to know very much about digital compositing. I just know that, from reading interviews in Wired and other tech/video magazines of directors/producers/digital artists, creating a lot of composite animals - especially when combined with other special effects - is challenging.
Alexander Supertramp wrote:Seriously though, CGI animals can be done just fine, watch some of the later Harry Potter movies.

Well, I haven't seen the latest HP movies, but somehow I don't think that they involved several hundred forest animals who were all on fire, rather agitated, and running (word choice?) through a flaming fire. But I do have to say that the fire was very well done!
Last edited by safari on Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FutureDreamz
Banned User(s)
Banned User(s)
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:08 pm
Title: Matthew 5:5
Location: Fusang

Post by FutureDreamz »

Sex and the City.
DukeofNuke wrote:Age alone does not bring wisdom.
User avatar
justine
Posts: 16717
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:35 pm
Title: Elitist Beer Lover
Location: Magrathea
Contact:

Post by justine »

I watched Beer For My Horses. It was stupidly funny.
"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
Alexander Supertramp
Posts: 7938
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:38 pm
Title: this was uncalled for.

Post by Alexander Supertramp »

safari wrote:
Alexander Supertramp wrote:I bow to your obviously vast compositing knowledge.

I don't claim to know very much about digital compositing. I just know that, from reading interviews in Wired and other tech/video magazines of directors/producers/digital artists, creating a lot of composite animals - especially when combined with other special effects - is challenging.
Alexander Supertramp wrote:Seriously though, CGI animals can be done just fine, watch some of the later Harry Potter movies.quote]
Well, I haven't seen the latest HP movies, but somehow I don't think that they involved several hundred forest animals who were all on fire, rather agitated, and running (word choice?) through a flaming fire. But I do have to say that the fire was very well done!


What's to argue here? The animals were poorly done, could have been, and can be, done better.
The visuals don't hold up.
User avatar
Shnicky-Poo
Posts: 29033
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:53 pm
Location: Hazard County Reeducation Camp #8847

Post by Shnicky-Poo »

Currenty watching "Pirates!" which is an obscure 1986 production by Roman Polanski, starring Walter Matthau. Fun little flick.
Gods are my co-pilots.
User avatar
Geesie
Posts: 26077
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:18 am
Title: Couldn't hit it sideways
Location: Searching for my mainline

Post by Geesie »

Shnicky-Poo wrote: Currenty watching "Pirates!" which is an obscure 1986 production by Roman Polanski, starring Walter Matthau. Fun little flick.


I like the video game version.
Image
User avatar
Shnicky-Poo
Posts: 29033
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:53 pm
Location: Hazard County Reeducation Camp #8847

Post by Shnicky-Poo »

By the way, on the subject of 2001 ... an old friend of my family had a small speaking role in that flick. He was one of the administrators of the moonbase (his big scene is when they're eating sandwiches in the shuttle).

He talked about attending the premiere, and no one understood it so he asked Kubrick what the hell it was all about. "You tell me," was his reply.

Though of course if you read the book it's all crystal clear.
Gods are my co-pilots.
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

It would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately portray the book on film.
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
Geesie
Posts: 26077
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:18 am
Title: Couldn't hit it sideways
Location: Searching for my mainline

Post by Geesie »

The book and film were made concurrently.
Image
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

Yes.
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
Shnicky-Poo
Posts: 29033
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:53 pm
Location: Hazard County Reeducation Camp #8847

Post by Shnicky-Poo »

That's right, they were. Kubrick kind of went to town on what's his name's journey inside the monolith. The aliens aged his body rapidly so he could transition into pure energy, but Kubrick was rather confusing about that ... we see him looking at older and older versions of himself, before turning into the "space baby," which is a metaphor for his pure energy form and the next stage in human evolution.

Though I think Clarke always said their intention was to make things unclear ...
Gods are my co-pilots.
User avatar
bratboy
Posts: 7256
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:03 pm
Title: so sorry I schooled you

Post by bratboy »

I had a chance to see a 70mm print of the film before. It was amazing.
User avatar
bratboy
Posts: 7256
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:03 pm
Title: so sorry I schooled you

Post by bratboy »

I had a chance to see a 70mm print of the film before. It was amazing.
User avatar
Shnicky-Poo
Posts: 29033
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:53 pm
Location: Hazard County Reeducation Camp #8847

Post by Shnicky-Poo »

The only way to really appreciate it.
Gods are my co-pilots.
Post Reply